Anyone heard/use one of these?

[Infiniteloop]

Don't waste your time Andy, you and I both know we're pi**ing against the wind. I'm going back to my idea of selling de-magnetized directional copper interconnect cables for £100 for half a meter, see if I can find some blithering idiot - sorry, valued customers - who'll buy into that.

IMO. Pi**ing against the wind, is why so many of the people with an interesting hifi history have left the forum, or no longer post their experiences.

Quite.

 

[Infiniteloop]

"At the risk of being inflamatory, my best guess is that expectation bias is the most likely reason for your perceived 'improvements'. "

Which is exactly what I said at the beginning that I would be accused of.

The thing is, without hearing the Regen in place in a system, you have no way of knowing if it makes a difference. You can only guess that it won't.

In other words, you too have an expectation bias.

The difference is, I have heard it and you haven't. And having heard it I can pinpoint where the differences are.

True, I haven't heard it. But I have designed digital audio systems for a living, and I know a thing or two about electronics.

You have chosen a decent DAC/Amp that neither uses the USB timing information nor the USB power supply - the two things that your USB box is supposed to improve. Given this, the balance of probability that the box is improving an unspecified 'something else' vs the probability that it is expectation bias on your part comes down heavily in favour of expectation bias.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

As a Digital Audio System designer, isn't your interest piqued just a little? Surely we cannot know everything there is to know about Digital? In theory maybe, but in practice? - Not even a scientist would agree to that.

Do most Audio companies develop products by measurements alone, or is the fine tuning always done by listening before the product gets launched?

You mention measurements. I couldn't find a single measurement on the USB box. RMS or peak jitter? nothing. Spectral distribution of jitter? nothing. USB supply rail ripple? nothing. USB supply rail switching noise? nothing. So, not unreasonably, I begin to wonder about the device's performance.

As for listening, the listening tests I have participated in have been carefully controlled, in acoustically treated rooms. Repeated substitution of components, performed without the listeners being aware of the substitution. Statistical analysis of results. My guess is that your testing regime was less rigorous.

I don't want to seem argumentative, but you have a damn good Amp/DAC that the designer's have taken some care to make immune to the vagaries of USB links. You have attached a very questionable USB box, with no published spec, that even if it does what it says, won't impact your setup in any way.

I remain surprised that you can't see the illogical nature of your viewpoint.

So you do agree that listening tests are important?

Not that any of that matters, because there is quite clearly, an audible difference for the better, and that's all I'm interested in.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Surely we cannot know everything there is to know about Digital? In theory maybe, but in practice? - Not even a scientist would agree to that.

We can because we invented it. We didn't discover it. We invented it, and everything about it. The bit rates, the sample rate, the Nyquist-Shannon theorem which dictates what bit rates and smple rates are audibly transparent. The transmission and receiving protocols, the methods by which it is stored on various types of media, and the methods by which it is read. Theorems probably as long as my arm describe everything there is to know about it in the most minute detail, because it is entirely of human invention.

And I guess we invented all these associated and measurable problems with Digital too did we?:

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1087655&seqNum=2

 

[MajorFubar]

Don't waste your time Andy, you and I both know we're pi**ing against the wind. I'm going back to my idea of selling de-magnetized directional copper interconnect cables for £100 for half a meter, see if I can find some blithering idiot - sorry, valued customers - who'll buy into that.

IMO. Pi**ing against the wind, is why so many of the people with an interesting hifi history have left the forum, or no longer post their experiences.

Depends on your point of view on why people leave. Maybe some people leave because of ridiculous threads like this where common sense (my argument) and technical knowledge (Andy's argument) are relegated to the point of being just an opinion. Or to put it another way, do we want this forum to be a source of knowledge to help people differentiate foo from fact, or is it a place where any old ******** is ok and if you dare question the sanity of something that's frankly ludicrous you get boo'd off the stage?

 

[MajorFubar]

And I guess we invented all these associated and measurable problems with Digital too did we?:

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1087655&seqNum=2

I'm going for a big 'yes' on that one. Frankly jitter has been done to death on this forum and has been blamed for everything from the rising crime rate to male infertility, and in all that time, no one's ever proved (given the robustness of modern digital systems with asynchronous DACs and a load of other stuff I don't fully understand but I rely on people like AndyJM to know, because it's their trade), that its effects are at all audible.

 

[CnoEvil]

It certainly depends on your POV.

Having technical knowledge doesn't give one the right to be arrogant, patronising or belittling; nor does it automatically make one the arbiter of "the truth".

As we are both two "old campaigners", I'm not going to fall out with you as to what constitutes foo, or which threads are ridiculous.

People should be encouraged to try, experiment and so experience for themselves. They should then feel comfortable enough to come on here and discuss their findings without being ridiculed, or made feel like gullible idiots. Mutual respect goes a long way and arguments can be made politely.

This is such a subjective based experience, that rigidly defining it in totally objective terms/blind tests/measurements, misses a lot of what it's actually about...the personal enjoyment of music. That's not saying measurements and a basic understanding isn't important....it's just not the be all and end all.

 

[davedotco]

So you do agree that listening tests are important?

Not that any of that matters, because there is quite clearly, an audible difference for the better, and that's all I'm interested in.

Absolutely, listening tests carried out in a controlled manner can be extremely valuable, however, there is nothing in any of the posts that suggests that there was any control in this instance whatsoever. This is always the case with any sighted, subjective test.

The capacity for audiophiles to believe in the infalibility of their hearing is huge, I know because I used to believe exactly that. I could hear everything, changing the smallest thing brought about clear changes to the sound I was hearing, night and day differences that were obvious and repeatable.

Then I was invited to take part in a sequence of blind tests carried out by a Hi-fi magazine. The tests were not particularly rigorous in terms of the number of samples and the fact that we had some idea what we were listening to, but they were matched for volume and (more or less) double blind.

Under those conditions the 'night and day' differences that were so obvious in sighted tests simply disappeared, it became (in one instance) impossible to reliably hear any difference in dacs (priced from £1500 to less than £200) and all amplifiers really did begin to sound the same.

In the end the magazine put aside blind testing of electronics as counterproductive and used it only for loudspeakers, where differences could be reliably heard.

 

[Vladimir]

*biggrin*

 

[CnoEvil]

*biggrin*

It's the best type.

 

[MajorFubar]

People should be encouraged to try, experiment and so experience for themselves. They should then feel comfortable enough to come on here and discuss their findings without being ridiculed, or made feel like gullible idiots. Mutual respect goes a long way and arguments can be made politely.

I agree to a point...but at what stage do you say "actually you've been completely mis-lead because what you claim has happened, cannot happen, and you are in fact, wrong"? Sometimes people *are* just simply wrong and it's not just opinion. And there's no easy way of saying it. I know I'm repeating what I said in a previous post, but the continuing problem with HiFi is that it continues to be so full of sharlatans who peddle their dubious trade on the assumption that the average punter has just enough knowledge about a subject to buy into their clever sales pitch but not enough knowledge to know that it's all smoke and mirrors.

I know of no other hobby or discipline that's quite so affected, and for decades, it's made us a mockery in the eyes of many; the ubiquitous "audiofool" who spends more money on bloody wires than on his car, hangs paper-clips from his curtains and slips postit notes under his HiFi components so they're sitting on an odd number of feet.

I always try to tolerate the view of others if there can at all be any basis for their discoveries and claims, and I've learned a few things in the process. But sometimes the emperor really is just stood there naked, is it wrong to tell him? And how do you go about saying in the nicest way? Happy to take advice.

 

[Infiniteloop]

And I guess we invented all these associated and measurable problems with Digital too did we?:

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1087655&seqNum=2

I'm going for a big 'yes' on that one. Frankly jitter has been done to death on this forum and has been blamed for everything from the rising crime rate to male infertility, and in all that time, no one's ever proved (given the robustness of modern digital systems with asynchronous DACs and a load of other stuff I don't fully understand but I rely on people like AndyJM to know, because it's their trade), that its effects are at all audible.

If your general argument that all listening is flawed and only measurements matter, why don't you put together a system that is made up from the cheapest possible components that give as flat a response as you consider won't make a difference, buy it in bulk from the cheapest factory in China that can ensure a minimum quality standard and rebrand it all as products of:

The 'MajorFubarYesTheEmperorIsWearingClothesAndICanProveItHiEndHiFi' Company?

You'd only need to source one example of each device, because they all sound the same anyway.

You'd be doing us all a massive favour by saving us from ourselves and you'd become incredibly wealthy by selling tens of thousands of systems to a grateful audience who would no longer need to trust their ears, or the shady recommendations of all those Snake Oil salesmen out there in HiFi shops. You could back up your claims of the performance of your system with real facts and graphs. - REAL Proof that it doesn't, indeed cannot, get better than this! - I'm sure everyone would be impressed and happy and you'd probably get a Knighthood for services rendered. I'll even design the cases for you. (for a small royalty)!

Is this not an excellent idea bordering on brilliance?

 

[Infiniteloop]

"At the risk of being inflamatory, my best guess is that expectation bias is the most likely reason for your perceived 'improvements'. "

Which is exactly what I said at the beginning that I would be accused of.

The thing is, without hearing the Regen in place in a system, you have no way of knowing if it makes a difference. You can only guess that it won't.

In other words, you too have an expectation bias.

The difference is, I have heard it and you haven't. And having heard it I can pinpoint where the differences are.

True, I haven't heard it. But I have designed digital audio systems for a living, and I know a thing or two about electronics.

You have chosen a decent DAC/Amp that neither uses the USB timing information nor the USB power supply - the two things that your USB box is supposed to improve. Given this, the balance of probability that the box is improving an unspecified 'something else' vs the probability that it is expectation bias on your part comes down heavily in favour of expectation bias.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

As a Digital Audio System designer, isn't your interest piqued just a little? Surely we cannot know everything there is to know about Digital? In theory maybe, but in practice? - Not even a scientist would agree to that.

Do most Audio companies develop products by measurements alone, or is the fine tuning always done by listening before the product gets launched?

You mention measurements. I couldn't find a single measurement on the USB box. RMS or peak jitter? nothing. Spectral distribution of jitter? nothing. USB supply rail ripple? nothing. USB supply rail switching noise? nothing. So, not unreasonably, I begin to wonder about the device's performance.

As for listening, the listening tests I have participated in have been carefully controlled, in acoustically treated rooms. Repeated substitution of components, performed without the listeners being aware of the substitution. Statistical analysis of results. My guess is that your testing regime was less rigorous.

I don't want to seem argumentative, but you have a damn good Amp/DAC that the designer's have taken some care to make immune to the vagaries of USB links. You have attached a very questionable USB box, with no published spec, that even if it does what it says, won't impact your setup in any way.

I remain surprised that you can't see the illogical nature of your viewpoint.

So what exactly were you listening for?

Surely a 'flat as possible' response is all that's required and that can be measured automatically by machines, can't it?

And you think my viewpoint is illogical.......?

 

[CnoEvil]

I respect that.

The problem I have, is who draws the line and where do you draw it. With something as contentious as this can be, where not even those with a technical background agree, I will make up my own mind.

Where Hifi is concerned, I distrust black and white statements like, all DACs sound the same; cables always (or never) make a difference.

May I refer you to your own words of a few years ago, especially posts 35 and 42:

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/atlas-hyper-20-conundrum-what-would-you-do?page=2

BTW. I appreciated your support on that occasion, where I was naive enough to get embroiled in cable threads.

 

[andyjm]

With something as contentious as this can be, where not even those with a technical background agree, I will make up my own mind.

Where Hifi is concerned, I distrust black and white statements like, all DACs sound the same; cables always (or never) make a difference.

Cno, who with a technical background is disagreeing about the likely effect the 'USB box' is going to have on Infinite's Devialet?

Equally, who with a technical background is saying cables never make a difference?

I am afraid it is easy to defend ones viewpoint by creating imaginary arguments to rail against.

 

[MajorFubar]

I respect that.....

May I refer you to your own words of a few years ago, especially posts 35 and 42:

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/atlas-hyper-20-conundrum-what-would-...

BTW. I appreciated your support on that occasion, where I was naive enough to get embroiled in cable threads.

Thanks and yes I think I remember that one...wasn't it someone claiming all (analogue) cables sounded the same? Which clearly is nonsense, given the huge potential differences such as current handling, resistance and capacitance.

If your general argument that all listening is flawed and only measurements matter, why don't you put together a system that is made up from the cheapest possible components that give as flat a response as you consider won't make a difference, buy it in bulk from the cheapest factory in China that can ensure a minimum quality standard and rebrand it all as products of:

The 'MajorFubarYesTheEmperorIsWearingClothesAndICanProveItHiEndHiFi' Company?

You'd only need to source one example of each device, because they all sound the same anyway.

Trouble is that's not my argument, and the fact you think it is, shows how abysmally I must have put my point across. Once the signal is no longer digital there's a whole multitude of variables that impact the sound, which is why there are so many variances between amps and speakers, and even in the analogue sections of DACs. It's only the digital bit that's fairly set in stone with man-made rigid protocols that we invented. I trust the inventors to have got it right with no further bodgery required, especially as Andy says, on an expensive DAC like yours, whose sound you claim is improved by shoving it into a shady powered USB hub with dubious credentials.

 

[Covenanter]

I respect that.....

May I refer you to your own words of a few years ago, especially posts 35 and 42:

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/atlas-hyper-20-conundrum-what-would-...

BTW. I appreciated your support on that occasion, where I was naive enough to get embroiled in cable threads.

Thanks and yes I think I remember that one...wasn't it someone claiming all (analogue) cables sounded the same? Which clearly is nonsense, given the huge potential differences such as current handling, resistance and capacitance.

If your general argument that all listening is flawed and only measurements matter, why don't you put together a system that is made up from the cheapest possible components that give as flat a response as you consider won't make a difference, buy it in bulk from the cheapest factory in China that can ensure a minimum quality standard and rebrand it all as products of:

The 'MajorFubarYesTheEmperorIsWearingClothesAndICanProveItHiEndHiFi' Company?

You'd only need to source one example of each device, because they all sound the same anyway.

Trouble is that's not my argument, and the fact you think it is, shows how abysmally I must have put my point across. Once the signal is no longer digital there's a whole multitude of variables that impact the sound, which is why there are so many variances between amps and speakers, and even in the analogue sections of DACs. It's only the digital bit that's fairly set in stone with man-made rigid protocols that we invented. I trust the inventors to have got it right with no further bodgery required, especially as Andy says, on an expensive DAC like yours, whose sound you claim is improved by shoving it into a shady powered USB hub with dubious credentials.

It's a losing battle my friend. The "I can hear it so it must be real" brigade cannot be persuaded otherwise. My only concern is for the gullible who might follow them.

Me I'm off to get a drink from that lake over there. What do you mean it's not a lake it's a mirage? Of course it's a lake I can see it.

Chris

PS I hope you don't mind me saying "my friend". I would hate to be seen as condescending or patronising.

 

[Vladimir]

I paid $175 for it so it must be real.

 

[Infiniteloop]

I respect that.....

May I refer you to your own words of a few years ago, especially posts 35 and 42:

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/atlas-hyper-20-conundrum-what-would-...

BTW. I appreciated your support on that occasion, where I was naive enough to get embroiled in cable threads.

Thanks and yes I think I remember that one...wasn't it someone claiming all (analogue) cables sounded the same? Which clearly is nonsense, given the huge potential differences such as current handling, resistance and capacitance.

If your general argument that all listening is flawed and only measurements matter, why don't you put together a system that is made up from the cheapest possible components that give as flat a response as you consider won't make a difference, buy it in bulk from the cheapest factory in China that can ensure a minimum quality standard and rebrand it all as products of:

The 'MajorFubarYesTheEmperorIsWearingClothesAndICanProveItHiEndHiFi' Company?

You'd only need to source one example of each device, because they all sound the same anyway.

Trouble is that's not my argument, and the fact you think it is, shows how abysmally I must have put my point across. Once the signal is no longer digital there's a whole multitude of variables that impact the sound, which is why there are so many variances between amps and speakers, and even in the analogue sections of DACs. It's only the digital bit that's fairly set in stone with man-made rigid protocols that we invented. I trust the inventors to have got it right with no further bodgery required, especially as Andy says, on an expensive DAC like yours, whose sound you claim is improved by shoving it into a shady powered USB hub with dubious credentials.

It's a losing battle my friend. The "I can hear it so it must be real" brigade cannot be persuaded otherwise. My only concern is for the gullible who might follow them.

Me I'm off to get a drink from that lake over there. What do you mean it's not a lake it's a mirage? Of course it's a lake I can see it.

Chris

PS I hope you don't mind me saying "my friend". I would hate to be seen as condescending or patronising.

You say 'Gullible', I'd say 'Open minded'.

 

[andyjm]

You say 'Gullible', I'd say 'Open minded'.

Hmmn. You don't seem to be sufficiently open minded to consider the very real possibility that the addition of the USB box has made absolutely no difference to the sound from your amp, and that any change you have heard is due to expectation bias.

 

[Covenanter]

You say 'Gullible', I'd say 'Open minded'.

Hmmn. You don't seem to be sufficiently open minded to consider the very real possibility that the addition of the USB box has made absolutely no difference to the sound from your amp, and that any change you have heard is due to expectation bias.

You beat me to it!

Chris

 

[CnoEvil]

It's a losing battle my friend.  The "I can hear it so it must be real" brigade cannot be persuaded otherwise.  My only concern is for the gullible who might follow them.

As far as I'm concerned it's a, "I can hear it, so it might be real brigade", so it's worth trying for yourself. I don't want anybody to take my word for anything - I give my experience and suggest that they experiment for themselves.

 

[CnoEvil]

Cno, who with a technical background is disagreeing about the likely effect the 'USB box' is going to have on Infinite's Devialet?

Equally, who with a technical background is saying cables never make a difference?

I am afraid it is easy to defend ones viewpoint by creating imaginary arguments to rail against. 

Sorry, I worded that in a confusing way. By "this", I was referring to all those arguments relating to anything contentious eg. Mains products, isolation products etc.

I believe there are those on here with a technical background, who say that all well constructed cables sound identical. I'm not going to start naming names, as that just causes more friction.

The thing is, I'm not here to do anything other than pass on my experiences, where they may be relevant. People should be allowed to hear both sides of the debate and then form their own conclusions. At no point have I ever said that I'm right.

 

[MajorFubar]

PS I hope you don't mind me saying "my friend". I would hate to be seen as condescending or patronising.

Lol yeah no worries mate ;-)

 

[Vladimir]

If I use the REGEN between my PC and photo camera while transfering photos to my drive, will the REGEN make the photos better, more vivid, true in color due to lack of digital noise? Will it also work for my printer and scanner?

 

[Covenanter]

If I use the REGEN between my PC and photo camera while transfering photos to my drive, will the REGEN make the photos better, more vivid, true in color due to lack of digital noise? Will it also work for my printer and scanner?

If you connect it between your pc and your printer it will improve the grammar of anything you write.

Chris