UpTone Audio EtherREGEN Switch Review

[pozz]

...gorilla marketing...

guerilla

 

[pozz]

For those upset with the marketing of Uptone, I’ll bet you my bank account that the folks at Matrix would tell you their top range DAC sounds better than their budget range despite both measuring below the audibility range for distortion, etc.

Haven't seen anything like that on their website or their posts here.
E.g., https://www.matrix-digi.com/en/products/318.html

 

[Iving]

I took a look. There are some issues with the measurements that I won't get into as their conclusion was correct.

On blind test, unfortunately there is no conclusion you can draw from any of it. Imagine if you said you could predict which way a coin toss will go. You predict head, I flip the coin and get head. Do I conclude that you can predict the coin flip? Of course not. You had 50% chance of being right by guessing. The standard in statistical analysis is to rule out 95% probability of chance. That would require 10 flips and you predicting 8 of them correctly. You could still be guessing but at least we have high confidence that likely are not.

Here, the test is more complicated. A number of switches were tested with a number of different test tracks. Somehow we need to verify if preference for certain switch rises up above level of chance per above. We could also do the same with respect to what music was played (these are the "variables" in statistics parlance). This type of analysis is called Anova or analysis of variances invented by Fisher. Every blind test published formally has this type of analysis. Without it, the results cannot be trusted any more than we can trust the first two coin flip guesses from you.

We also need to find testers who were clearly randomly guessing and as such, diluting the value of the rest of the tests. It may turn out that most of them in which case, there would be nothing left to rely on! This is called a "t-test"

I can perform such an analysis but we need the data. They seem to be in the graphs but I don't have the time to sit there and type them in. If someone wants to do that, we can perform the analysis. Here is what the analysis looks like (from a paper on a lossy codec):
View attachment 41511

We strive to keep P-level less than 0.05.

Just to give an idea of the robustness required for such tests:

Without checking exhaustively, if you *had* to map Analysis of Variance to this:

DV = SQ [or favourability] score - "continuous" for purpose of MANOVA

Within Subjects on Switch and Music track IVs - plus any number of (individual differences) Covariates.

We are looking for a (statistically sig.) Main Effect here for Switch [Or not - /joke Science is like the spiritual life - You tend to find what you're looking for - sooner or later]

Specific point #1 - If there are any sig. Interactions the (constituent) Main Effects cannot be interpreted in isolation.

Specific point #2 - Any sig. Interactions involving >3 vars. would be next to impossible to interpret (by no matter whom or how clever).

Specific point #3 - This data set will lack statistical power (severely) and, so, is academic anyway wrt post hoc tests (if that's what you meant by t tests although t tests usually means something else).

Specific point #4 - I don't have SPSS and I'm not volunteering to crunch the data that are there.

Specific point #5 - Like lawyers statisticians may disagree (about how to legitimately process a given data set).

Specific point #6 - There any many methodological considerations that could be scrutinised.

Specific point #7 - This test didn't include the ER.

General point - The realm of objective vs. subjective (and relationship of any hypothetical test to ER experience) is fraught with interpretation hazards of all kinds and we need each other in the collegiate sense if we wish to gain real understanding - too much emphasis on individuals no matter whom is unhelpful.

I could do more but this is on the back of a fag packet. I'm not arguing - I'm going to bed. I'll have a look tomorrow, and if I've fouled up significantly (at p<0.05) I'll admit it.

 

[Darkweb]

Not really , your ' point ' has been addressed but you have chosen to just repeat it over and over rather than expand on your argument.

You had the nugget of a good position, maybe I will play devils advocate next time ha ha

You get a c-

Tip , have a read of the forum there's some honest introspection from certain quarters that would enhance your argument if you were to use it.

It's been addressed by you, you're right. You are willing to to use a few DB of noise floor gain at -120db as a shield for a hypocritical point of view.

You get an A+ for that.

 

[Killingbeans]

What's the difference between what Matrix Audio and Uptone Audio are really doing?

That's a seriously good question.

I think the the distinction lies at having roots in reality. Uptone products are aimed at people who believe without questioning. And while the Matrix DAC can be appealing to those with no desire for critical thinking, it also caters to people who knows better, but simply love specification masturbation. Both are unnecessary. Two different definitions of fetishism.

People, wanting the Matrix DAC, can have a desire for it despite being aware of its unnecessity, whereas the Uptone target group genuinely and unconditionally believe in the necessity of the products, despite of it not existing.

Snake oil is defined by pure superstition. Overkill DACs also poke at other irrationalities in human nature.

To boil it down, it's: "I'm not an idiot!" vs. "I know I'm an idiot, but I want it anyway..."

My two cents. Sorry for crude generalizations and whatnot.

 

[Killingbeans]

Naahhhh .... that's not going to happen. Their "beef" is with UpTone

My "beef" is with all BS products regardless of the brand

 

[bidn]

Amir's tests are such a "blessing" and "revelation", "separating the wheat from the chaff", compared to all the subjective praises for expensive devices (which praises are sometimes even bought by money or by offering expensive devices, e.g. as is the case with some "professional" reviewers).
Generally thinking of the measurements and of the companies whose devices are tested:
- some have excellent or great measurement, matching their claims
- many are fine or OK,
- some are not so good but cost very little
- and then there are those few "high-end", "summit-fi" companies where the measurements of one or more products are catastrophic, epic failures compared to their claims and the very high prices they ask for these devices from their customers. For me these are the ones which should be avoided at all cost and so be marked out. Re. "audiophile" companies, not including A/V receivers, what do we have now? I can list the following: Audio GD, Schiit, TotalDAC, PS Audio and now Uptone. Please let me know whether I forgot some?

 

[PierreV]

Specific point #1 - If there are any sig. Interactions the Main Effects cannot be interpreted in isolation.
Specific point #2 - Any sig. interactions involving >3 vars. would be next to impossible to interpret (by no matter whom or how clever).
Specific point #3 - This data set will lack statistical power (severely) and, so, is academic anyway wrt post hoc tests (if that's what you meant by t tests although t tests usually means something else).

Very good points, among others, which is why I take the science in "audio science" with a grain of salt in some cases. All the stuff that is mathematics, physics or electronic engineering, I treat with the utmost respect. A lot of the other things, especially in terms of perception and preferences are mostly "psychological research", with the well-known reproducibility issues it entails. And, since the field is a niche field, most data severely lacks power anyway, if not methodologically, because the protocol was very poor, because of the low sample size. There are a few exceptions though, probably Harman's research into FR preferences, because they seem to have been replicated quite a few times. Still, they only tell us "most people seem to prefer".

But anyway, I am not sure the sets of "most people" and "audiophiles" have a large intersection given that the latter sometimes seems to be a subset of "nutcases" (and in that subset, I include myself, especially after spending 3 hours yesterday fixing a 31 years old cassette deck )

 

[Killingbeans]

Amir's tests are such a "blessing" and "revelation", "separating the wheat from the chaff", compared to all the subjective praises for expensive devices (which praises are sometimes even bought by money or by offering expensive devices, e.g. as is the case with some "professional" reviewers).

I'm cautious about idolization and absolutes, but what ASR unmistakingly does is bringing some much needed perspective to the table. And for that I'm really grateful

 

[Wes]

I just read the threads on this thing over a Audiophool Style, and I have to say the head of that place is totally biased for Uptone.

 

[Thomas savage]

I just read the threads on this thing over a Audiophool Style, and I have to say the head of that place is totally biased for Uptone.

He's in the forum business, customer meet retailer , retailer meet customer. Everyone feel seen and apart of something bigger whilst being entertained.

He does a good job imo.

Fortunately we don't have any of those pressures or expectations that come with commercialisation.

If we ever do I will probably retire, as for Somebody like me the position would be untenable.

 

[Jinjuku]

I don't want, intend, or mean to get bent out of shape, and I like CA/AS and I like Chris but goddamn he's attempting to make points and he can't even be bothered to do the cursory research about what I and others are speaking about:

 

[mansr]

I just read the threads on this thing over a Audiophool Style, and I have to say the head of that place is totally biased for Uptone.

They are probably his best advertiser. Still, the grovelling is rather over the top on this one.

 

[amirm]

Specific point #4 - I don't have SPSS and I'm not volunteering to crunch the data that are there.

What? I read everything up to this point and figured I give you the assignment and then you tell us this? There is not a lot of data here so we could do some analysis in Excel.

 

[RayDunzl]

You’re making my point for me. That razor thin line of audibility is pretty shaky ground to exalt one company and send the other to the proverbial guillotine.

If you look at more of @amirm's reviews and associated recommendations, you may find devices which do not meet the exalted "audibly transparent" criterion, but have been accorded "recommended" status, nonetheless.

Personally, I think the reader should judge whether some device should be recommended or not, based on his own criteria. But, "recommendations" seem to have been requested by some people that have problems figuring out what to buy, so, they're there, to a limited degree.

And there's a stupid post about the Shoutometer, to which anyone can refer, when pondering what some insane number of negative decibels might relate to. I may add a Mt Everest'o'meter to relate decibels to linear measures. For example, -140dB is 0.035 inches as seen from the top of Everest at 29,029 feet.

I have some gear that measures very well, and other pieces that don't. I don't consider the good ones to be snake oil, nor the lesser ones to be guillotine fodder.

It doesn't bother me. They play well enough together.

 

[amirm]

I don't want, intend, or mean to get bent out of shape, and I like CA/AS and I like Chris but goddamn he's attempting to make points and he can't even be bothered to do the cursory research about what I and others are speaking about:

You made me look at that now closed thread and saw this from Chris:

Putting aside that he agrees 100% with a totally nonsensical post, what does he mean I won't review a current Berkeley product? I tested the one I had access to already: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...rement-and-review-of-berkeley-alpha-dac.2355/

And gave it a negative recommendation:

If he wants to organize me getting a new one, I am happy to test it. Even though I know Berkeley folks (we acquired the company they created before -- Pacific Microsonics/HDCD at Microsoft), they are not easy to get anything free out of for testing. Chris seems to have more of an "in" with them so if he wants to use his influence to get me a unit, that would be great.

Until then, he is really, really out of line. He has made this accusation multiple times without merit. Just because he thinks he may be biased on financial influence, he can't put that same impression on me.

 

[Jinjuku]

With some saying your testing is flawed I don't see the merit based alternatives.

 

[FrantzM]

Just to give an idea of the robustness required for such tests:

Without checking exhaustively, if you *had* to map Analysis of Variance to this:

One DV = SQ [or favourability] score - "continuous" for purpose of [M]ANOVA

IV #1 (Between Ss) = Switch (with s levels where s = # switches) [We are looking for a (statistically sig.) Main Effect here - Or not - /joke Science is like the spiritual life - You tend to find what you're looking for - sooner or later]

IV #2 (Between Ss) = Music (with m levels where m = # different Music tracks played)

IV #3 (Within Ss) = Rater (with r levels where r = # Raters) [presumably every S rated every Switch and every Music track]

So this is a s x m x r [at least] "mixed" or "split plot" Design since there is a blend of Between and Within Ss vars..

Specific point #1 - If there are any sig. Interactions the (constituent) Main Effects cannot be interpreted in isolation.

Specific point #2 - Any sig. Interactions involving >3 vars. would be next to impossible to interpret (by no matter whom or how clever).

Specific point #3 - This data set will lack statistical power (severely) and, so, is academic anyway wrt post hoc tests (if that's what you meant by t tests although t tests usually means something else).

Specific point #4 - I don't have SPSS and I'm not volunteering to crunch the data that are there.

Specific point #5 - Like lawyers statisticians may disagree (about how to legitimately process a given data set).

Specific point #6 - There any many methodological considerations that could be scrutinised.

Specific point #7 - This test didn't include the ER.

General point - The realm of objective vs. subjective (and relationship of any hypothetical test to ER experience) is fraught with interpretation hazards of all kinds and we need each other in the collegiate sense if we wish to gain real understanding - too much emphasis on individuals no matter whom is unhelpful.

I could do more but this is on the back of a fag packet. I'm not arguing - I'm going to bed. I'll have a look tomorrow, and if I've fouled up significantly (at p<0.05) I'll admit it.

 

[Wes]

Was there a computer between ER and DAC on the test you did, Amir?

 

[amirm]

Was there a computer between ER and DAC on the test you did, Amir?

There was NOT with Matrix i as that has streaming built-in. So I used the EtherRegen direct to it. And then used my PC streaming content to it (and hence all the bits went through ER). So to be abundantly clear, ER fed the Matrix i DAC directly.

Someone asked for a crappy DAC that would be more sensitive to noise and the only option I have there is the Modi 2 which is NOT a streamer. So for that, I connected the Modi 2 to the PC and fed the PC using ER.