Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Audiophile Grade" Ethernet Switches - The new generation
what a hassle like that.

I would say: buy an EtherRegen, draw the SQ conclusions in your own system and if it suits you as well as I do here, I am sure you will keep it.

If not, send him back within 30 days with a money back guarantee
Reply
@David A Once again to be quite clear, I am not trying to deny what people may or may not hear, nor their right to choose how to spend their money.  I am simply asking you to be fair-minded about how you apply what you consider to be scientific principles and the duty of proof.

Since UpTone are the ones making the claim that unicorns exist, the onus is on them to prove that, before they go on to prove that they know how to slay the unicorns which is what they are asserting (otherwise ER has no objective, technical purpose).  Failing those two proofs, the default assumption in line with good scientific principles must be that unicorns do not exist since no one has ever seen one, and (in this case) there is good reason to believe that they do not exist.
Roon (Mac Mini), Wilson Benesch Full Circle, Expert 1000 Pro CI, Kaiser Chiara
Warwickshire, UK
Reply
@David A Let me provide some examples of what I mean by a fair-minded position.  I can see a couple, which you may consider alternatives although they are not mutually exclusive:

1) UpTone's marketing material is "pseudoscience" (to use your term) and has nothing useful to say about the objective effect of the ER

2) ASR's test provides a data point indicating ER has no objective effect; in the absence of any other data points indicating that ER does have an objective effect, the default assumption should be that it doesn't (until/unless proven otherwise).
Roon (Mac Mini), Wilson Benesch Full Circle, Expert 1000 Pro CI, Kaiser Chiara
Warwickshire, UK
Reply
(06-Dec-2019, 14:00)thumb5 Wrote: @David A Let me provide some examples of what I mean by a fair-minded position.  I can see a couple, which you may consider alternatives although they are not mutually exclusive:

1) UpTone's marketing material is "pseudoscience" (to use your term) and has nothing useful to say about the objective effect of the ER

2) ASR's test provides a data point indicating ER has no objective effect; in the absence of any other data points indicating that ER does have an objective effect, the default assumption should be that it doesn't (until/unless proven otherwise).

I believe you are raising a fair point. The ball appears to be in the manufacture's court at the moment.

One additional note from my side, I did not voice my thoughts in this thread with the intent of bashing a specific product or company. As mentioned previously, I believe the lack of data points to support various manufactures' claims (in particular with switchs) is not limited to Uptone.
Kii Three Speakers | JL Audio Fathom Subwoofer  | KEF LS50 Speakers | Samsung 850 Soundbar
Innuos Statement | Trinnov Altitude 32 | PS Audio Stellar S300 Amp | T+A HA 200 Headphone Amplifier | Meze Empyrean Headphones
Sean Jacobs DC-3 Custom Build LPS | Roon Core DIY Server | SOtM sNH-10G Modded Switch | Oppo UDP-205 Blu-Ray/SACD Player
T+A G 2000 R Turntable | DS Audio E1 Optical Stylus | Gordian Lab 12 Power Conditioner | Artesania Audio Rack
Reply
(06-Dec-2019, 13:52)thumb5 Wrote: @David A Once again to be quite clear, I am not trying to deny what people may or may not hear, nor their right to choose how to spend their money.  I am simply asking you to be fair-minded about how you apply what you consider to be scientific principles and the duty of proof.

Since UpTone are the ones making the claim that unicorns exist, the onus is on them to prove that, before they go on to prove that they know how to slay the unicorns which is what they are asserting (otherwise ER has no objective, technical purpose).  Failing those two proofs, the default assumption in line with good scientific principles must be that unicorns do not exist since no one has ever seen one, and (in this case) there is good reason to believe that they do not exist.

You're right. Uptone are making a claim therefore the onus of proof is on them. So far they have provided no proof of their own but they have released the product and users are reporting their experiences. Those experiences are positive and that is evidence of something. Whether or not those listening reports can be verified in a replicable way has not been demonstrated but they can't simply be ignored or dismissed out of hand on principle. They do need to be acknowledged and tested.

(06-Dec-2019, 14:00)thumb5 Wrote: @David A Let me provide some examples of what I mean by a fair-minded position.  I can see a couple, which you may consider alternatives although they are not mutually exclusive:

1) UpTone's marketing material is "pseudoscience" (to use your term) and has nothing useful to say about the objective effect of the ER

2) ASR's test provides a data point indicating ER has no objective effect; in the absence of any other data points indicating that ER does have an objective effect, the default assumption should be that it doesn't (until/unless proven otherwise).
 
ASR's test shows that the performance of the ER is no different to a specific other ethernet switch in certain respects. It does not show that the ER is no different from all other ethernet switches in those respects (that would require comparisons to all other switches which is obviously an unrealistic test requirement) nor does it show that the ER is no different from the comparison switch in every respect that can be measured. It does not demonstrate that the tests which were conducted were the only tests required to show that there is no significant difference between the performance of the ER and the compared switch. It also did not include a listening test so it offers no evidence that the claims of the users who report hearing a difference are either true or false.

As for balance of proof, Uptone should provide proof of the veracity of their claims. I have never suggested otherwise. On the other hand ASR are making a different claim, a claim that the eR does not work and they should provide evidence of the veracity of that claim. The review fails to provide conclusive evidence that Uptone's claims for the eR making a performance improvement are false. What ASR can validly claim on the basis of their tests is that their tests provide no support for the truth of Uptone's claims, which is a very different thing to claiming that their tests show that Uptone's claims are false and the the ER does not work.

In order to show that the ER does something positive, Uptone need to provide a replicable listening test which shows that listeners do hear a difference and prefer the Uptone product. That is the only test which will show whether it works or not. What measurements showing a difference between the ER and other switches will show is where and how the ER makes a difference.

In order to show that the ER does not work as claimed then ASR needs to provide a replicable listening test showing that listeners either don't hear a difference (that would show that it does not produce an audible difference) or that listeners do hear a difference but prefer the control switch (that would show that the ER does not produce a beneficial improvement but actually makes things worse). What measurements failing to show a difference between the ER and other switches will show is that the ER does not make a difference on the parameters measured but those tests do not provide any information about anything which is not measured.

That's what I think is a fair minded position on the evidence to date. Uptone is making a specific claim that something works and produces a certain audible result and they should provide proof of the truth of their claims. ASR has a choice as to what kind of response they want to make. They can choose to conduct a limited set of tests which don't show a difference and report quite correctly that the tests they conducted provide no support for Uptone's claims, or they can choose to claim that the ER does not work in which case they need to provide proof that it doesn't and the tests they reported don't provide that level of proof. If they want to claim that it does not work and they can't provide proof that it does not work, proof to the same standards as they demand of Uptone, then people have as much reason to doubt ASR's claims as they do to doubt Uptone's. ASR are not in a position, on the basis of the tests they conducted, to make a claim that the ER does not work, all they can claim is that so far they have not been able to prove that it does work.

Can we put this to rest for now? I am not saying that the ER works or that it doesn't and can't work. I am not taking a side on that question. All I am saying is that at present no one is in a position to say that it can be proved that it does or does not work and that anyone who wants to make either of those claims should put up evidence of a kind that has yet to be produced. If you want to buy an ER before someone proves that it actually does or does not work you do so at your own risk. If you choose to buy you will spend money and get something that works or waste money and get something that doesn't work. If you choose not to buy you also do so at your own risk. You will either save money by not buying something that works or you will save money and miss out on owning something that would be beneficial to you. Whichever of the 2 choices you make, to buy or not to buy, at present you aren't going to be able to prove that you made the right choice and there are going to be people claiming that you made the wrong choice without being able to prove that.
Roon Nucleus+, Devilalet Expert 140 Pro CI, Focal Sopra 2, PS Audio P12, Keces P8 LPS, Uptone Audio EtherREGEN with optical fibre link to my router, Shunyata Alpha NR and Sigma NR power cables, Shunyata Sigma ethernet cables, Shunyata Alpha V2 speaker cables, Grand Prix Audio Monaco rack, RealTRAPS acoustic treatment.

Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Reply
(06-Dec-2019, 21:41)David A Wrote: You're right. Uptone are making a claim therefore the onus of proof is on them. So far they have provided no proof of their own but they have released the product and users are reporting their experiences. Those experiences are positive and that is evidence of something. Whether or not those listening reports can be verified in a replicable way has not been demonstrated but they can't simply be ignored or dismissed out of hand on principle. They do need to be acknowledged and tested.

If we're trying to find out whether the ER does something objectively "real", listening reports are not evidence unless they are carried out under controlled conditions and are repeatable to some pre-defined degree of statistical significance.  Otherwise they are insignificant (to that particular question) especially as most (all?) of them so far come from a group that is self-selected for a bias towards expecting a sonic improvement.

As you say...

(06-Dec-2019, 21:41)David A Wrote: In order to show that the ER does something positive, Uptone need to provide a replicable listening test which shows that listeners do hear a difference and prefer the Uptone product. That is the only test which will show whether it works or not. What measurements showing a difference between the ER and other switches will show is where and how the ER makes a difference.

Agreed, with the above provisos about the quality of the listening test.

(06-Dec-2019, 21:41)David A Wrote: Can we put this to rest for now?

Yes, of course.
Roon (Mac Mini), Wilson Benesch Full Circle, Expert 1000 Pro CI, Kaiser Chiara
Warwickshire, UK
Reply
(06-Dec-2019, 22:28)thumb5 Wrote: If we're trying to find out whether the ER does something objectively "real", listening reports are not evidence unless they are carried out under controlled conditions and are repeatable to some pre-defined degree of statistical significance.  Otherwise they are insignificant (to that particular question) especially as most (all?) of them so far come from a group that is self-selected for a bias towards expecting a sonic improvement.
Isn't audio about personal listening experience?  Having evidence based experiments under controlled conditions and making statistical significant claims on audio improvements of any audio product belongs to the realm of a university research thesis. Listening to music is an emotional experience which I enjoy; definitely not a scientific experiment.
Reply
(07-Dec-2019, 05:46)Snoopy8 Wrote:
(06-Dec-2019, 22:28)thumb5 Wrote: If we're trying to find out whether the ER does something objectively "real", listening reports are not evidence unless they are carried out under controlled conditions and are repeatable to some pre-defined degree of statistical significance.  Otherwise they are insignificant (to that particular question) especially as most (all?) of them so far come from a group that is self-selected for a bias towards expecting a sonic improvement.
Isn't audio about personal listening experience?  Having evidence based experiments under controlled conditions and making statistical significant claims on audio improvements of any audio product belongs to the realm of a university research thesis. Listening to music is an emotional experience which I enjoy; definitely not a scientific experiment.

+1 +1 +1 

Just listen to the ER. Tongue

All the people who are so positive (and that’s almost everyone) about the ER are not crazy!
Reply
Hypothetical Situation:

You want to test the acceleration of two cars. The first car looks and sounds really fast, has a massive marketing campaign behind it, promoted by professional race car drivers, etc. The second car looks and sounds like an older family car and is more or less unknown. Unknown to you, both cars accelerate from 0 to 60 at exactly the same time.

Which car will „feel“ faster?
Kii Three Speakers | JL Audio Fathom Subwoofer  | KEF LS50 Speakers | Samsung 850 Soundbar
Innuos Statement | Trinnov Altitude 32 | PS Audio Stellar S300 Amp | T+A HA 200 Headphone Amplifier | Meze Empyrean Headphones
Sean Jacobs DC-3 Custom Build LPS | Roon Core DIY Server | SOtM sNH-10G Modded Switch | Oppo UDP-205 Blu-Ray/SACD Player
T+A G 2000 R Turntable | DS Audio E1 Optical Stylus | Gordian Lab 12 Power Conditioner | Artesania Audio Rack
Reply
(07-Dec-2019, 05:46)Snoopy8 Wrote:
(06-Dec-2019, 22:28)thumb5 Wrote: If we're trying to find out whether the ER does something objectively "real", listening reports are not evidence unless they are carried out under controlled conditions and are repeatable to some pre-defined degree of statistical significance.  Otherwise they are insignificant (to that particular question) especially as most (all?) of them so far come from a group that is self-selected for a bias towards expecting a sonic improvement.
Isn't audio about personal listening experience?  Having evidence based experiments under controlled conditions and making statistical significant claims on audio improvements of any audio product belongs to the realm of a university research thesis. Listening to music is an emotional experience which I enjoy; definitely not a scientific experiment.

Yes, audio is about our personal listening experience but @thumb5 does have a point. In this case we're talking about whether or not we can trust what people say about whether or not they hear a difference and/or whether A sounds better than B. The listening tests that @thumb5 is concerned about actually start with people doing the sort of listening that you are talking about and then statistically analysing those comments. It isn't simply a "university research thesis" type of project, it's also the type of project that gets undertaken at times in the design of the gear we use when we listen to music and it has often proved beneficial to the enjoyment we get when listening to music so don't rush to write it off.

Having said that, @thumb5 is somewhat dismissive of the reports users make on the basis that they are reports from a self selected group of people with a "bias towards expecting a sonic improvement". There's nothing one can do at the moment about self selection when the only people who have had a real chance to hear the device have only been able to do so because they bought the one they're listening to and the company is still in the process of filling all of the orders received since they released the product. One can equally question whether there's selection bias involved in any group of individuals who participate in a listening test, especially if that test is conducted by someone who strongly believes or disbelieves in the product. I doubt we're ever going to see a listening test that he would be completely happy with, simply because that sort of test is extremely expensive to set up and conduct and it's hard to get access to the budget and facilities required for such a test unless there is a compelling reason to conduct the test. Self selection should raise a flag but it doesn't guarantee that the reports it proves are less reliable than other reports. 

As someone who once had to design and conduct a research project, admittedly a very basic and very small project, I can tell you that actually designing and conducting a test that will stand up to the standards required by professional scientific journals is not easy and most of the tests you see conducted by private individuals because of their own interest fall short of that standard, in part because of budget, in part because of shortcomings in facility, and in part because of failings in the design of the test procedure. It takes a lot more than passion and good intentions to design and conduct a professional quality test and then to correctly interpret the results and actually come up with a finding that is fully supported by the results. All too often there is a tendency to make claims based on inference which end up going beyond what the data actually supports. Even professional researchers with years of research experience get it wrong from time to time when they have access to the budget and facilities required as anyone who has read the peer reviewed professional journals and observed the traps that get identified when people start trying to replicate initial studies can confirm. Proving something to scientific standards is far from easy and it's never quick. It took decades to prove some of the predictions made by Einstein in his Theory of Relativity and there is a lot more scientific interest in proving things predicted by that theory than there is in proving whether or not the ER works as claimed. I would not recommend anyone hold their breath while waiting for truly compelling evidence, one way or the other, about the ER. All we can do is to take the reports we get, look at them critically, and make our own assessments on the plausibility of each report in the knowledge that all of the reports we currently have access to fall significantly short of the standard required for scientific proof that the ER does or doesn't do what is claimed.
Roon Nucleus+, Devilalet Expert 140 Pro CI, Focal Sopra 2, PS Audio P12, Keces P8 LPS, Uptone Audio EtherREGEN with optical fibre link to my router, Shunyata Alpha NR and Sigma NR power cables, Shunyata Sigma ethernet cables, Shunyata Alpha V2 speaker cables, Grand Prix Audio Monaco rack, RealTRAPS acoustic treatment.

Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)