"Audiophile Grade" Ethernet Switches - The new generation

[David A]

I’ve not read all of this thread (dipped in and out because I’m a sceptic) so apologies if this link has already been previously posted. Completely objective but interesting reading.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum...iew.10232/

The link has been posted before and discussed before. The review is interesting but hardly objective.

For my comments on a number of the issues with the review, refer to post #409 in this thread. The problem with all tests is they tell you something about what they measure and they tell you nothing about what isn't measured. A comparison with a single "control" switch tells us nothing about how the EtherREGEN compares to switches generally. The "control" switch in unnamed and we are given no data to show that it is representative of switches in general. If switches make a difference, then the "control" may be really good, better than most other switches, in which case that would also mean that the EtherREGEN is also really good. Then again if the "control" is worse than most other switches then the EtherREGEN will also be worse than most other switches. Since we know nothing about the control, we know nothing about the EtherREGEN other than it measured the same as the "control" on the tests conducted and we can draw no conclusions about whether or not either switch is better, worse, or similar than any one of the numerous other switches available. You can't say that the EtherREGEN can't make a difference without knowing anything about the many switches that weren't tested, or anything about the "control" switch other than it measured identically on certain tests.

We have no idea whether the tests conducted were the correct tests to show any differences because Uptone Audio haven't provided any test data to show that it is better than other switches.

As for the listening test in the review, it was a sighted test conducted under circumstances which were problematic in my view. Note that if you conduct your own listening test and believe you hear a difference the reviewer states as follows"

"You hear otherwise? Well, I tested it and there is no audible difference either. I suggest you repeat my test. If you do hear a difference, have someone switch cables behind your back. You can do this quickly, or wait days or weeks to switch. Just don't look and keep a log of 10 trials. If you can tell better than 8 out of 10 times that there is an audible difference with EtherRegen, then you have conquered the impossible!"

So the reviewer believes he can be certain there is no difference on the basis of a sighted listening test in which he reports a swap from "control" to EtherREGEN and then from EtherREGEN to "control". If you don't hear the same as he does, he wants you to do 10 trials on a blind test basis, not the 2 trials he did on a sighted basis, and he says you will then come to the same conclusion as he did. That implies that he thinks he can be absolutely certain on the basis of a very simple sighted test but he wants anyone who doesn't hear what he reports when they do the same as he did to do a much more stringent test which he believes he has no need to do himself because he can get it right first time. Now that is hardly objective. One of the reasons why test procedures are outlined in detail in scientific papers is so that others can perform exactly the same test procedure to verify the original results. If you can't verify the original results using identical procedures then something is going wrong, either the original results were mistaken or the test procedure isn't a good procedure. There are many other reports of sighted tests where listeners have reported hearing a difference. Either there is a difference which the reviewer did not hear, or sighted tests are not a good test procedure in this case and if they aren't a good test procedure for other people then they can't be a good test procedure for the reviewer either.

In summary, the test results reported in the review are interesting but they fail to establish what is claimed for them.

The onus of proof does fall on the claimant so it's up to Uptone Audio to demonstrate that their product does what they claim but if someone wants to produce evidence that purports to show that it doesn't do what is claimed then there is an onus on them to actually produce evidence which really does hold up to analysis and this review does not do that. At best it shows that the EtherREGEN performs identically to another switch on some tests. That does not establish that it does not produce measurable improvements in areas which weren't tested. The listening test proves nothing, especially given the suggestions provided for anyone who hears a difference. If a listener is not allowed to say there's an audible difference on the basis of a couple of sighted comparisons then the reviewer can't be allowed to say there is no audible difference on the basis of a couple of sighted comparisons. The test procedures need to be identical for all listeners or the results are equally worthless no matter what they indicate.