[bart]

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Hi Georges,

Well, because they claim their approach is "scientific", when from the perspective of someone who spent 40 years as a professional scientist, they are anything but scientific. Why? Here are a just a few reasons:

1) Before the EtherREGEN even launched, or could be listened to, and/or tested by anyone they were trashing it by unequivocally stating it could not possibly improve sound quality, indicating that they were biased and un-objective. A real scientist does not bias themselves before conducting an experiment; they make conclusions from facts and data AND, and this is important part, put into the correct context by the appropriate statistical analysis of the data. A scientist designs a proper experiment to be as free from any sources of bias as possible.

2) They do virtually no, and I mean no, statistical analysis: they don't state or provide what the appropriate statistical analysis method would be for the evaluation (would be it a proportions test, a two-tailed T-test or ANOVA? who knows, 'cause they don't say). Furthermore, regarding the a "statistical foundation" (if you could call it that) for their test methodology's, they don't state, with statistical rigor what "differences" they are trying to detect are practically significant, let alone not stating from their "analysis" what is statistically significant. Ever see a p-value or R^2 and R^2 Adj. from a regression analysis from them. No? Funny, I never have either.

2) They have never conducted a statistically valid Measurements System Analysis (MSA) for their test methodology. They don't conduct the correct foundational analysis to determine 1) their smallest effective measurement increment, 2) the % Contribution that their measurement system contributes to the overall Study variance, that is, the sums of squares of the MS system divided by the sums of squares of the Study to report an F-statistic (all data sets contain noise, some contain signals), nor do they report the Operator*Part interaction, or nor the Within Operator*Operator repeatibility statistics nor the between Operator*Operator reproducibility statistics. Bottom-line: My guess is they wouldn't know an MSA if it smacked them upside the head.

3) They conduct their "analysis" with a sample set of an N=1 on one unit. No scientist in their right mind makes a "scientific conclusion" based on sample set of 1, run 1 time. This is not science.

4) One of the key differentiators of the EtherREGEN is the fact that it does not pass high-impedance AC leakage currents onto the ground plane of the analog square wave voltages that actually comprise a "digital signals' (no 1s and 0s are transmitted). They don't test for the degree of high-impedance AC leakage currents because they don't have the bespoke test equipment that is reqired to do so, nor would they know how to actually build the equipment if they wanted to test for high-impedance leakage currents.

5) They provide no statistical foundation and correlation (R^2 and R^2 Adj.) for the impact of high-impedance leakage currents on clock phase noise. In fact, they don't measure clock phase noise at all.

I could go on, but those are just 5 reasons for starters.

Cheers.

Stephen, if I understood everything, I would probably agree with all of your statements, except for the number of reasons.