Science Thread: Review of Audioquest Jitterbug and Uptone Regen USB Conditioners

Jinjuku

New Member
Apr 18, 2011
321
0
0
i suppose we differ on the definition of "treated well."

Nothing wrong with being interested in a blind test. You don't need Alex to approve or participapate. It could be argued that a tes involving a mixed neophytes chosen at random and trained listeners a al Harmon, might be best.The blind testcvhallenge of an individual is what I object to. I think no valid conclusions can be drawnn frpm his fialure to participate.

My perspective here is that the most vocal posts have been born out of frustration related to the fact that no promised measurements have been produced. Also some consternation about Alex stipulating the testing environment and a straight up acceptance and then the proverbial crickets.

How does it work in court when opposing counsel makes an argument with no evidence other than hear-say?
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,426
1
38
Metro DC
I don' think the courtroom anaolgy works here. Scientifc evidecence is on a par with anecdotal evidence in court.

Edit:In some cases sciebtific evidence is not admissible.
 
Apr 3, 2010
16,022
0
0
Seattle, WA
I don' think the courtroom anaolgy works here. Scientifc evidecence is on a par with anecdotal evidence in court.

Edit:In some cases sciebtific evidence is not admissible.
So I could sell some vaseline and tell people it grows hair if your rob it on your head, and I can't get sued and lose based on scientific data that says it doesn't work?

I am in need of some extra income for music buying so your kind advice would be much appreciated :).
 
Apr 3, 2010
16,022
0
0
Seattle, WA
So what you saying Greg? That I can sell vaseline to grow hair across state borders and if challenged by the postmaster general/FTC and state AGs that it is fraudulent, point to above study and say my opinion is all that counts?
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,426
1
38
Metro DC
Now what I am sying is this. Unlike science the law does not favor scientific evidence. A jury(or judge sitting as fact finder) is free to disregard it. So a jury could find that the police officers scientific evidenccce from his radar or laser based speed detector did not rebut the citizens claim that he was not exceeding the speed limit
Therefore a jusry could ignore or disregard Amirs meausrements in favor Alexs anecdotal evidence. eonsequently no comparison can be made between what happens in a courtroom and a laborotory.

Poor Jimmy, havung admitted that his penis is to small certainly can't admit that his desparate attempt was in vain. Note he never really makes any claim that the the product will work for you.
 

Jinjuku

New Member
Apr 18, 2011
321
0
0
What I would like to know is what happens when you have 2000 witnesses that swore they saw someone do something but refuse to either go through the mug shot book or look at a line up of people and insist you just have to take their word for it in light of scientific evidence that the person they thought they saw and the person actually caught on camera are two different individuals.

I think there is testimony and then there is evidence. I would like to know of a court case with a calibrated/properly functioning radar that targeted the correct vehicle not winning out over just the testimony of the defendant.
 
Last edited:

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,426
1
38
Metro DC
What I would like to know is what happens when you have 2000 witnesses that swore they saw someone do something but refuse to either go through the mug shot book or look at a line up of people and insist you just have to take their word for it.
The government is not required to conduct an identification procedure. Unfortunately most peope who are wrongfully convicted are done so based on a faulty identification. Thank god fo rDNA.

I think there is testimony and then there is evidence. I would like to know of a court case with a calibrated/properly functioning radar[detector] that targeted the correct vehicle not winning out over just the testimony of the defendant.
Happens all the time.IMO that is why legislatures took awy the right to trial by jury in speeding cases.

Okay law schol is closed until January.
 
Last edited:

Jinjuku

New Member
Apr 18, 2011
321
0
0
The government is not required to conduct an identification procedure. Unfortunately most peope who are wrongfully convicted are done so based on a faulty identification. Thank god fo rDNA.

Happens all the time.IMO that is why legislatures took awy the right to trial by jury in speedung cases.

Okay law schol is closed until January.
Thanks for answering my curiosity. The only thing I know is speaking to police without representation is never in your best interest.
 

BlueFox

Member Sponsor
Nov 8, 2013
1,075
0
36
Silicon Valley
LOL. This thread has crossed a singularity, and is in its own black hole. :).
 
Last edited:

RayDunzl

New Member
Jun 26, 2014
290
0
0
Tampa
LOL. This thread has crossed a singularly and is in its own black hole. :).
I thought, no, it's still expanding, maybe it's Dark Energy, driving the posts farther and farther apart.
 
Mar 12, 2012
167
0
16
Richmond, BC
I mentioned this on another forum...

I had the Chord Hugo TT DAC for about a month and found it hard, harsh, shrill, flat, and just not the wonder the other reviews claim. As Lee suggested, it may not be my cup of tea for sound signature.

So today, I tried plugging in my Uptone Regen Amber and Curious Cable Regen LINK (I had it since Christmas but was advised the Hugo TT should not use these). Well, I figured "why not" so I connected them. Measurable difference/snake oil or not, it made an audible difference. Playing the same material, I can definitely hear more weight/meat/fullness in the instruments. The highs were less fizzy and hard. Ride cymbals had a nice metallic tinge but it decayed nicely. This is just playing on my PC/NAS setup using low-endish Focal Alpha 65 speakers.

I'm liking this setup a lot and can understand the hubbub now. And the PC recognized the DAC without issues (I've read the Intona may have issues with device dropping off). It sucks that I had to add these doohickeys to augment what is supposed to be a decent and not-that-inexpensive DAC.

My CAD$0.02.

-H
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,469
0
0
I mentioned this on another forum...

I had the Chord Hugo TT DAC for about a month and found it hard, harsh, shrill, flat, and just not the wonder the other reviews claim. As Lee suggested, it may not be my cup of tea for sound signature.

So today, I tried plugging in my Uptone Regen Amber and Curious Cable Regen LINK (I had it since Christmas but was advised the Hugo TT should not use these). Well, I figured "why not" so I connected them. Measurable difference/snake oil or not, it made an audible difference. Playing the same material, I can definitely hear more weight/meat/fullness in the instruments. The highs were less fizzy and hard. Ride cymbals had a nice metallic tinge but it decayed nicely. This is just playing on my PC/NAS setup using low-endish Focal Alpha 65 speakers.

I'm liking this setup a lot and can understand the hubbub now. And the PC recognized the DAC without issues (I've read the Intona may have issues with device dropping off). It sucks that I had to add these doohickeys to augment what is supposed to be a decent and not-that-inexpensive DAC.

My CAD$0.02.

-H
To keep the thread going..

Did you try your DAC with the cable you had before?
 
Mar 12, 2012
167
0
16
Richmond, BC
To keep the thread going..

Did you try your DAC with the cable you had before?

Unless I'm not understanding your question, I was comparing the same DAC with the cable before (not to my liking) to adding the Uptone/Curious combo in. I'm still using the same Schiit Audio PYST USB cable from the PC to the Uptone Regen. I'm not really wanting to spend $500 on another USB cable yet.


-H
 

Members online