His test is not testing what the EtherREGEN is suppose to address. So it is a worthless video.
Good to know the video is meaningless, thanks.
Out of curiosity I did peruse the AS objective thread on the EtherRegen. It seems UpTone has no interest in providing any actual proof with the only defense being John Swenson is an expert, and look at all the great reviews.
Those on the “where’s the proof“ side are incapable of providing any data to disprove the EtherRegen’s effectiveness.
Both sides call each other idiots, it devolves into a massive dust cloud, and UpTone keeps selling units.
If nothing else, it’s a clever way to sell stuff. Organized religion uses a similar marketing model 
In my wee opinion, it’s not ethical for a company to make a claim, allude to providing proof, but not follow through with delivering that evidence and sell north of $1M in boxes. With the only retort being “we are smart” and “look at all the great reviews”. That part is bogus.
1 Like
Out of curiosity, is there any authentic data to support Sonore’s claims about the Rendus? I know ASR pans the MicroRendu. But has Sonore themselves provided evidence to prove it does provide true isolation?
Which claims?
The claims I have seen revolve around how low noise the rendus are compared to more general purpose computers. My ultraRendu sounds a lot better talking to my DAC than any general purpose computer has…
That’s what I’m wondering. If there’s scientific proof that the Rendus actually reduce or eliminate noise from a computer. Or is it’s like ASR says, they do nothing?
UpTone apparently is unabashed about saying the EtherRegen is based upon an unproven hypothesis in which there is no supporting data, $640, thanks, y’all come back now.
Wondering if Sonore is in a similar boat?
I’m less interested in listening impressions for these types of gizmos.
Well, Ethernet eliminates a lot of noise. The ultraRendu, for example, is a low noise device because it has only had the hardware it needs to perform its function and it is built with low noise in mind.
1 Like
Yes, but does Sonore have supporting data? Like test the noise going from a Mac to a DAC, with and without the Rendu? And then compare the results?
Ask them.
I know the device works as advertised based on my own listening test which is what matters to me.
You say this…
And then this (about your UltraRendu)…
Seems contradictory. Couldn’t owners of the EtherRegen take this same position with regard to basing their opinion on something other than “posted data” that you criticize Uptone for not providing?
It seems contradictory but it isn’t. I am a computer engineer and know a lot about computer noise. The ultraRendu is an obvious design and I understand what it accomplishes. I don’t understand clock phase noise and how it might make it over an Ethernet connection using TCP. I don’t need proof that ultraRendu is quieter. But I want proof that the EtherREGEN actually does something.
Sure, but at the end of the day, we add these “boxes” to produce a positive impact on sound quality. Therefore, if it is OK to formulate a conclusion that one box does its job using your ears and only your ears, that same metric should apply to any additive box, whether one understands the technology or not. After all, the majority of audiophiles are likely not computer engineers yet they are able to competently evaluate and judge the components in their system based on their aural senses.
I understand you do not own the EtherRegen and are seeking validation through measured data before ever considering a purchase. But there are many people who do own the EtherRegen and have judged it with their ears, similarly to how you judged the UltraRendu with your ears. I just find it prejudicial that you would label the EtherRegen “snake oil” with no experience listening to it.
I don’t understand the ultraRendu from a technical perspective. If I took your stance, I would label it “snake oil” because it is not backed by scientific data. Yet, you have no better understanding of how it measures than I do, but you don’t consider it to be snake oil because your ears have validated its performance. The EtherRegen should be afforded the same opportunity to prove itself, like the UltraRendu you own, without a presumptuous “snake oil” condemnation.
2 Likes
While I enjoy and respect @speed-racer, I do agree that his stance is contradictory. For devices like these, specifically noise reducing devices, I can’t understand why anyone would not require scientific proof. It’s well proven how tricky the brain can be, psychoacoustics, etc. For most of our audio gear, it’s difficult to concretely tie how something measures to whether or not it’s doing what it claims to do. These little noise reducing devices are one of the few things that could be proven by measurements. But most don’t seem to care.
The more pressing question is why Sonore and Uptone, seemingly intentionally, do not post scientific data to back up their claims? For me, that is the most incriminating evidence of all. What are they hiding?
Curiosity led me to see if Stereophile had tested these devices. John Atkinson did test the Uptone Regen and said it made no detectable difference in their measurements. Uptone’s reply was typical, that thousands of owners can’t be wrong and that the type of noise they are reducing can’t be measured, even by Uptone, because the measuring equipment needed is too expensive.
Sound familiar? Good Lord. They apparently have not measured any Sonore gear.
Uptone is fixing a problem that they themselves cannot detect actually exist, or that they’ve fixed that same unprovable problem.
Because I understand what causes noise in a computer and I understand the design concept of the ultraRendu, I know it is significantly quieter than a general purpose computer. When used with a quality linear power supply, the limited circuitry of the purpose-built device is going to pass along significantly less noise because it can’t pass on noise it isn’t making.
Would it be good if Sonore published some data showing how much quieter their devices are than typical computers? Of course. But, I personally don’t need to see that data. Maybe you do because you don’t understand that a little box with a small subset of the hardware of a general purpose computer powered by a quality linear power supply literally has to be much quieter electrically than a general purpose computer with a bunch of superfluous hardware and a noisy switching power supply. I haven’t even mentioned the custom OS running just the processes it needs to run. That is a huge difference as well. It is self-evident to me but I have been involved in the design and testing of computer hardware and software for much of my adult life.
Also, I have listened to multiple devices plugged into the USB port of various DACs. The small limited circuitry purpose-built devices always sound better. This isn’t with simple A/B testing either. This is with longer term testing over the course of weeks. I need time to tell if I really like a change in my setup. Sometimes changes that sound “better” initially really aren’t.
In the final analysis, I don’t really care if you think my stance is contradictory. It’s not contradictory to me because I understand the engineering behind the ultraRendu and a general purpose computer. In other words, I understand the science and it does not need to be proved to me again. I don’t understand the type of noise (clock phase noise) the EtherREGEN is alleged to block. I am not even sure it is real. So yes, I want to see data backing up the claims. Has anyone but John Swenson seen this clock phase noise measured? Assuming it exists, has anyone, including John Swenson, seen something on a scope that shows the EtherREGEN blocks it?
I am not going to join the pissing match but part of what helps the ER do its job is the protected port is a slower speed port (10 or 100) and that helps noise as far as I know. I believe it is also isolated but would have to read the literature again to be sure. I have one ahead of my streamer and think it is beneficial to the system. And we all know if you think its better then it is better.
My mikrotik router lets me set the port speed. i have experimented with 1gb and 100mb and I have not heard any kind of difference coming out of the Vivaldi stack.
To eliminate noise from a computer, you can stop using it as your server/streamer. I have read that computers are a source of noise, how much noise is a matter of opinion and equipment. Investing in an alternative is difficult, as evidence by this topic’s length of over 3,200 relies.
When it comes to listening impressions before changing streaming feeds, one really needs to specify their goals and expectations. I prefer the qualities of naturalness, and ease of listening over soundstage, etc. Yes, both would be better. Most people on this topic seem to prefer resolution as their top required characteristic. My solution is to take advantage of “no question asked refunds” and test equipment. However, the solutions get very expensive. It is a difficult task.
The ultimate cost comparison is that one could buy a lot of CDs, vinyls and tapes if streaming systems were totally eliminated. If this not your choice, then you need to make the ‘journey’ and determine what works for you in your system.
Good listening,
Chas
1 Like
Like many tweaks and add ons, there is a “kernel of truth” to the claims and reasoning behind them, what is more rarely discussed is whether that changed/improved property (noise, jitter, whatever) actually is relevant to the task in hand and makes any audible or measurable difference. Improving timing in a TCP stream is a case in point. Buffering ought to negate any effect, that’s the whole point of a connectio-oriented packet protocol. But it can be argued that any device having to do extra work to request retransmit, or even wait a few extra cycles for the packet to turn up, might add more noise (digital hash). It’s just that no one seems to want to measure that effect and see if it has any impact.
That is where the subjectivity comes in, since although everything should be measurable, we as humans cannot measure everything.
What troubles me more is that there doesn’t seem to be much effort in the background to try and improve our measurement abilities, at least not that we ever hear about, possibly because there are vested interest in the status quo of measurement ability, since those gaps allow these add ons to sell unchallenged.
Or something like that, I’ve not been awake long 
2 Likes
I don’t have a dog (or EtherRegen) in this hunt, but have a perspective on the general topic courtesy of Galen Gareis and Iconoclast cables (which I do own). For those who haven’t followed that thread, Galen designs the cables by relying on rigorous science and measurement. However, it turns out that different conductors sound different when used in the identical design configuration. Galen acknowledges that the sonic differences exist (which I and others have confirmed through home trials) but that he knows of no known measurement techniques that would correlate with the difference in sonics.
There are “unknown unknowns” lurking out there.
2 Likes
That goes along with “you can’t know what you don’t know” and similar. Just because it can’t currently be measured by any instrument except ears and brains doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. 
1 Like