The Upgrade Company

welwynnick said:

Oh, I think there's plenty of science to what TUC does, and its not down to showmanship or marketing. In many ways they go about it all wrong - making enemies on every internet forum, threatening legal action, refusing to send loan units to reviewers, etc. Think how effective they would be if they got their act together. The money back guarantee is a strong tool, but people aren't just reluctant to take any risk, they're reluctant to do anything at all. When I first got my kit, I tried to persuade other enthusiasts to hear it for themselves, even taking it round to their houses for free loans. But in all bar one case, they never even opened the boxes. And these were real enthusiasts with dedicated theatres. But its not my business, and after shouting myself hoarse on AVF and AVS, I gave up and kept to myself.

I was curious about the principles though, and far from keeping secrets, TUC now concentrate on advertising their EMI protection measures in their website. I've heard many instances of where a new product had been developed to perform well, only to see the SQ take a dive when its fitted inside a metal box, or when the lid is added. This made me think that players and processors in particular have a big EMC problem, which shouldn't be too surprising, with so many different technologies mixed together into one box.

I have two near identical integrated amps which sound the same as far as I can tell. One was a 100V Jap import that I converted to 240V using custom transformers and other parts. I took the opportunity to uprate them, hoping that would improve the sound quality into difficult speaker loads. Nomatter how hard I listened, I couldn't hear any improvement. Listener bias definitely wasn't working. I also tried some anti-microphony measures - panel damping, that sort of thing. Maybe a tiny improvement, but nothing worth the effort.

Now, I used to be an EMC R&D engineer in a previous existence, so I tried tackeling some of the presumed EMC problems. In one amp, I stuck some small ferrite tiles on each of the major IC's on each PCB (and there were a lot of them). Again, that made little difference. Then I tried to treat the amp chassis like an EMC anechoic chamber, and covered the heatsink and the inside of the box in RF absorbent materials. These suppressed over 99% of internal reflections from the steel box over a wide range of frequencies.

That made a World of difference; everything was better. Of course, I knew that everyone would say that I had imagined this improvement, having only performed sighted comparisons (even though I had honestly reported several null results). Therefore I got a few other people to listen to them blind. Not only did they express the same preference as me, but they also reported the same qualitative differences. I remember my daughter saying that the difference between them was like HD TV compared with SD, though not quite so pronounced.

Long story short, I therefore think TUC's approach in tackling internal EMC problems is a very effective one.

Nick

Click to expand...

Ultimately, it has been the "secrecy" of what was done and the overall contentious impression by TUC that has elicited such strong condemnation in the community. If there is solid science that supports the work, then that should be sufficient. Most of us will not have anything to do with a company that has such a "dark cloud" surrounding it.

Lee

welwynnick said:

Oh, I think there's plenty of science to what TUC does, and its not down to showmanship or marketing. In many ways they go about it all wrong - making enemies on every internet forum, threatening legal action, refusing to send loan units to reviewers, etc. Think how effective they would be if they got their act together. The money back guarantee is a strong tool, but people aren't just reluctant to take any risk, they're reluctant to do anything at all. When I first got my kit, I tried to persuade other enthusiasts to hear it for themselves, even taking it round to their houses for free loans. But in all bar one case, they never even opened the boxes. And these were real enthusiasts with dedicated theatres. But its not my business, and after shouting myself hoarse on AVF and AVS, I gave up and kept to myself.

I was curious about the principles though, and far from keeping secrets, TUC now concentrate on advertising their EMI protection measures in their website. I've heard many instances of where a new product had been developed to perform well, only to see the SQ take a dive when its fitted inside a metal box, or when the lid is added. This made me think that players and processors in particular have a big EMC problem, which shouldn't be too surprising, with so many different technologies mixed together into one box. I have two near identical integrated amps which sound the same as far as I can tell. One was a 100V Jap import that I converted to 240V using custom transformers and other parts. I took the opportunity to uprate them, hoping that would improve the sound quality into difficult speaker loads. Nomatter how hard I listened, I couldn't hear any improvement. Listener bias definitely wasn't working. I also tried some anti-microphony measures - panel damping, that sort of thing. Maybe a tiny improvement, but nothing worth the effort.

Now, I used to be an EMC R&D engineer in a previous existence, so I tried tackeling some of the presumed EMC problems. In one amp, I stuck some small ferrite tiles on each of the major IC's on each PCB (and there were a lot of them). Again, that made little difference. Then I tried to treat the amp chassis like an EMC anechoic chamber, and covered the heatsink and the inside of the box in RF absorbent materials. These suppressed over 99% of internal reflections from the steel box over a wide range of frequencies. That made a World of difference; everything was better. Of course, I knew that everyone would say that I had imagined this improvement, having only performed sighted comparisons (even though I had honestly reported several null results). Therefore I got a few other people to listen to them blind. Not only did they express the same preference as me, but they also reported the same qualitative differences. I remember my daughter saying that the difference between them was like HD TV compared with SD, though not quite so pronounced.

Long story short, I therefore think TUC's approach in tackling internal EMC problems is a very effective one.

Nick

Click to expand...

Hi Nick--Now were getting to the heart of the matter and I would like to give some of my observations. I have a modded Marantz PM11S2.At first didn't notice much difference. Then I played it for 7 hrs. straight. Next day it sounded much better and seems to be getting better every day. Then I noticed something else the unit played much louder and didn't even hardly get warm. This to me was amazing. I became aware of David's thinking when I had a problem with my projector shutting off whenever the dryer cycled. The local installers had me put in a separate power line and a battery backup to no avail.Thats where David came in and suggested a duplex Z and some ferrites.At first no change but after 3 weeks low and behold no more shut offs.I got a modded Marantz 7007 from him and all I can say is wow.Some of the best sound I ever heard.Have Concert Grands and the high end sounded muted but no more.

RBFC said:

Ultimately, it has been the "secrecy" of what was done and the overall contentious impression by TUC that has elicited such strong condemnation in the community. If there is solid science that supports the work, then that should be sufficient. Most of us will not have anything to do with a company that has such a "dark cloud" surrounding it.

Lee

Click to expand...

I think that should be the subject of discussion. Fact that TUC has no double blind test to offer (or its users) is something they share with tons of other manufacturers of high-end products. So we should not single them out. The focus should then be on what is different about them. If I buy a $1,000 cable, it doesn't come with a warning saying don't cut the wire and look at what is inside it which I assume is the situation with TUC.

I try to avoid point-by-point replies, from both others and myself. I believe that whatever issue at hand is close to being beat to death when forum posts go point-by-point. Nonetheless ....

welwynnick said:

Oh, I think there's plenty of science to what TUC does, and its not down to showmanship or marketing.

Click to expand...

Step back for a moment and consider the education of the TUC owner, and his past experience at circuit design and his testing/measuring abilities. How would he be able to better units some of which are already high-end and the product of companies with PhD's, decades of experience and R&D facilities that are state of the art. Where is TUC's "science?"

In many ways they go about it all wrong - making enemies on every internet forum, threatening legal action, refusing to send loan units to reviewers, etc. Think how effective they would be if they got their act together.

Click to expand...

Have any idea why TUC would avoid sending out review units?

The money back guarantee is a strong tool, but people aren't just reluctant to take any risk, they're reluctant to do anything at all.

Click to expand...

My theory here is that if an individual is of the mind that expensive mods to mid-level, mass produced units will improve it to equal multi-$k esoteric units, then the will hear a difference and would never admit they didn't by sending it back. That said, we do not and never will know how many people use the money back guarantee.

When I first got my kit, I tried to persuade other enthusiasts to hear it for themselves, even taking it round to their houses for free loans. But in all bar one case, they never even opened the boxes. And these were real enthusiasts with dedicated theatres. But its not my business, and after shouting myself hoarse on AVF and AVS, I gave up and kept to myself.

Click to expand...

Those enthusiasts were not "of the mind that expensive mods to mid-level, mass produced units will improve it to equal multi-$k esoteric units" and to the contrary considered such things to be too good to be true ... with all of the context that accompanies that status.

I was curious about the principles though, and far from keeping secrets, TUC now concentrate on advertising their EMI protection measures in their website. I've heard many instances of where a new product had been developed to perform well, only to see the SQ take a dive when its fitted inside a metal box, or when the lid is added.

Click to expand...

Can you cite one example?

This made me think that players and processors in particular have a big EMC problem, which shouldn't be too surprising, with so many different technologies mixed together into one box. I have two near identical integrated amps which sound the same as far as I can tell. One was a 100V Jap import that I converted to 240V using custom transformers and other parts. I took the opportunity to uprate them, hoping that would improve the sound quality into difficult speaker loads. Nomatter how hard I listened, I couldn't hear any improvement. Listener bias definitely wasn't working. I also tried some anti-microphony measures - panel damping, that sort of thing. Maybe a tiny improvement, but nothing worth the effort.

Now, I used to be an EMC R&D engineer in a previous existence, so I tried tackeling some of the presumed EMC problems. In one amp, I stuck some small ferrite tiles on each of the major IC's on each PCB (and there were a lot of them). Again, that made little difference. Then I tried to treat the amp chassis like an EMC anechoic chamber, and covered the heatsink and the inside of the box in RF absorbent materials. These suppressed over 99% of internal reflections from the steel box over a wide range of frequencies. That made a World of difference; everything was better. Of course, I knew that everyone would say that I had imagined this improvement, having only performed sighted comparisons (even though I had honestly reported several null results). Therefore I got a few other people to listen to them blind. Not only did they express the same preference as me, but they also reported the same qualitative differences. I remember my daughter saying that the difference between them was like HD TV compared with SD, though not quite so pronounced.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how one unknown amp of unknown design (or condition at the time) could be improved, be tested by you in a sighted test, then be tested by a few other people under unknown conditions and could then be considered evidence that TUC is audibly improving stock units. In any case, my one double blind test of a stock vs modded unit produced no such results as your test. The owner couldn't even pick it out. I doubt that your daughter could either.

Long story short, I therefore think TUC's approach in tackling internal EMC problems is a very effective one.

Click to expand...

Take a well known or at least plausible issue (EMI/RF interference) that may or may not afflict units on the market, apply materials that are known to block EMI/RF and then let those who are "of the mind that expensive mods to mid-level, mass produced units will improve it to equal multi-$k esoteric units" flock to the door. If a few dollars worth of shielding could make the difference claimed by TUC, then why wouldn't the manufacturer add it?

I doubt that we will ever have any of Dave's work to test against an unmodded unit. If we did, and it failed, we would (yet again) have the believers pointing out how the bloody test was at fault. It is a no win scenario; TUC and his customers have no scientific evidence to support their position and those of us who consider it totally bogus will never be allowed to develop evidence that proves it ... or disproves it for that matter. I think I am probably done for this round ...

Jeff

pepar said:

I try to avoid point-by-point replies, from both others and myself. I believe that whatever issue at hand is close to being beat to death when forum posts go point-by-point. Nonetheless ....

Click to expand...

Me too. I need to go put my car back together, but I will just reply to one point:

Can you cite one example?

Click to expand...

Tweak Audio think the Oppo 95 sounds better with the lid off:

http://www.tweakaudio.com/EVS-2/Oppo_95_mods.html

Dust cover: We can sell you a dust cover that will allow lots of heat ventilation and allow the unit to both run cooler and the noisey fan comes on less often. Some people would not care if they run the unit with the cover off but others have children and also might not like how the naked unit looks in their setup. This dust cover degrades the sound slightly (less than the standard cover) but can be quickly removed. When you want to remove it for serious listening you just lift it off. It is just sitting on the machine but is very stable. You could leave it on for casual and home theater use and lift it off quickly for super serious listening sessions. Our standard dust cover is a piece of 5/8 inch thick oak Melamine shelving. It weighs 3.75lbs. It has a 3/16" dowel glued underneath that fits perfectly in the slot behind the front panel and also 3 small feet in the back that allow it to rest on the back panel. This dust cover allows heat to flow in and out the sides and back keeping the unit cool. We can optionally paint the sides of the bottom chassis black for a
better look.

Click to expand...

BTW, I have been subjected to a blind, level-matched test between stock and TUC modified gear. That's one reason why I kept going back.

^^^

I shoulda asked for 2 or 3 examples. Doh!

Jeff

edit: Oh, wait, they're a modder. Maybe we should get Dave here for a second opinion?

amirm said:

I think that should be the subject of discussion. Fact that TUC has no double blind test to offer (or its users) is something they share with tons of other manufacturers of high-end products. So we should not single them out. The focus should then be on what is different about them. If I buy a $1,000 cable, it doesn't come with a warning saying don't cut the wire and look at what is inside it which I assume is the situation with TUC.

Click to expand...

Hi Amir--I have 6 units from Tuc and none have a wire seal or anything else that would stop you from looking inside--Regards Tom

Tommy Tucker said:

Hi Amir--I have 6 units from Tuc and none have a wire seal or anything else that would stop you from looking inside--Regards Tom

Click to expand...

Hi Tommy. Thanks for the correction. I thought there were some admonishments regarding losing warranty or some such thing if you looked inside. Is there?

amirm said:

Hi Tommy. Thanks for the correction. I thought there were some admonishments regarding losing warranty or some such thing if you looked inside. Is there?

Click to expand...

I was once offered a unit for review on the condition that I promise not to open it up. Since I could not make that promise nor would I lie, the review was cancelled.

I think this particular puppy has been beaten to a bloody death...arrrgh!

^^^^

That strikes me as a red herring straw man ruse, Kal. Attach a condition with the foreknowledge that a reputable reviewer would decline. It allows the offerer to claim credit for the offer while glossing over the stipulation.

Beyond that, seeing/knowing what's inside won't change the sound quality.

es347 said:

I think this particular puppy has been beaten to a bloody death...arrrgh!

Click to expand...

No animals have ever been hurt as a result of WBF discussions, much less a puppy.

pepar said:

^^^^

That strikes me as a red herring straw man ruse, Kal. Attach a condition with the foreknowledge that a reputable reviewer would decline. It allows the offerer to claim credit for the offer while glossing over the stipulation.

Beyond that, seeing/knowing what's inside won't change the sound quality.

Click to expand...

Seems a bit harsh, implying Kal is not reputable? I bet the policy comes from Stereophile, not the reviewer.

amirm said:

No animals have ever been hurt as a result of WBF discussions, much less a puppy.

Click to expand...

That could change at any given moment!

Kal Rubinson said:

I was once offered a unit for review on the condition that I promise not to open it up. Since I could not make that promise nor would I lie, the review was cancelled.

Click to expand...

Kal, I have a question...

Would it be acceptable if a manufacturer provided a unit with the provision that you could open it, but not show it to the public at large? Let's assume there was some magic component or circuit inside that could be easily copied by a competitor. Assume that circuit is one that is somehow not easily described, so visuals are required to copy it.

*I make a turntable that has an external controller, and I am proud of it...so much so that the top is held on by a single thumb screw. Still, I can understand why some might be protective about their designs. I don't go around showing the world inside my turntable, for example. I would gladly show it to a reviewer, however.

DonH50 said:

Seems a bit harsh, implying Kal is not reputable? I bet the policy comes from Stereophile, not the reviewer.

Click to expand...

I didn't take it that way. Of course, one can subjectively assess a "black box" and it is not always necessary to open up a review sample. However, since we are talking about an internal modification, it would seem reasonable to see what the purchaser is getting for his money. All that said, we do not accept any preconditions on what we do except to return the product in good condition.

Kal Rubinson said:

I didn't take it that way. Of course, one can subjectively assess a "black box" and it is not always necessary to open up a review sample. However, since we are talking about an internal modification, it would seem reasonable to see what the purchaser is getting for his money. All that said, we do not accept any preconditions on what we do except to return the product in good condition.

Click to expand...

lol

It had to be at least a wee bit tempting!

Jeff

Mosin said:

Kal, I have a question...

Would it be acceptable if a manufacturer provided a unit with the provision that you could open it, but not show it to the public at large? Let's assume there was some magic component or circuit inside that could be easily copied by a competitor. Assume that circuit is one that is somehow not easily described, so visuals are required to copy it.

Click to expand...

I understand. I didn't say that we had to publish a picture but we do insist on being able to examine and, if we think it would be important for the prospective buyer, describe what we see. As for it being a precondition, I would have to consult JA before agreeing to it.

There are various issues with TUC, which I understand, but the secrecy seems to have bugged lots of people.

I really don't get that. Other modmen are keen to list all their mods in exhaustive detail, which is fine (if you think that YOU can judge which mods are worthwhile and which are not)

However, TUC want to protect their IP. I work for a company that protects its IP tenaciously; its to protect our business, and it works. It's a different way of doing things, but it should be OK too.

What does it matter what's in the box?

I think its the end result that matters.

Nick

amirm said:

Hi Tommy. Thanks for the correction. I thought there were some admonishments regarding losing warranty or some such thing if you looked inside. Is there?

Click to expand...

Hi Amir---Not that I'm aware of.In fact I had seen what they were doing.But some of the stuff they do has a patent.

RUR said:

To quote my own post from AVS:

What value testimonials?




http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html

Click to expand...

This is a very late reply to a post in a long closed thread. But having just read it, I feel that it needs a response anyway. People still read old forum threads. My writing this is for them... so they can read contrasting thoughts (dare I say, the voice of reason?) on the matter.

You wrote:
''If such testimonials are scientifically worthless, why are they so popular and why are they so convincing? There are several reasons. Testimonials are often vivid and detailed, making them appear credible. They are often made by enthusiastic people who seem trustworthy and honest, and who lack any reason to deceive us. They are often made by people with some semblance of authority, such as those who hold a Ph.D. in psychology or physics. To some extent, testimonials are believable because people want to believe them. Often, one anticipates with hope some new treatment or instruction. One’s testimonial is given soon after the experience while one’s mood is still elevated from the desire for a positive outcome. The experience and the testimonial it elicits are given more significance than they deserve.''

Are you seriously proposing that testimonials by people who are experts in their field (''Ph.D in psychology or physics'') have no value?
Are you suggesting that a testimonial written by Paul Reale who was the head of the music department at UCLA and the University's orchestra director,...who had intimate knowledge of all the instruments in an orchestra because he not only taught those instruments to students but he also composed for the orchestra... who had a perfect ear (which means perfect tonal memory, like Mozart) to the extent that he could listen to a recording and tell which make of piano was being played... who was able to compare his TUC upgraded EMM Labs SACD/CD to the exact same component NOT upgraded because his wife had one (therefore he was able to do the comparison in his own home in his own setup (and remember, he had a perfect ear)....
are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that what this man had to say... a man whose knowledge of music and instruments was far far greater than the vast majority of us so called ''audiophiles''... is of NO VALUE??!!??!??

Tell me, if a musician listened to your system and said, "Wow! your system perfectly reproduces the sound of real live instruments'' would you refuse to believe him because, after all, that is only him verbally expressing a testimonial about the quality of your system... and since it is a testimonial it has no value???
And, are you aware of the fact that EVERY review which reports on the sound quality of any component or speaker system... or the quality of anything the world, actually... is in fact a testimonial?

And, by what special knowledge do you lay claim to the right to decide the psychology of both those reading testimonials (''...they want to believe them... anticipates with hope some new treatment or instruction'') and the people writing them (''...given soon after the experience when one's mood while one's mood is still elevated from the desire for a positive outcome'' )????

If you were speaking of your own psychological motives then that would be one thing. But you are speaking for ALL of us who write testimonials and ALL of us who believe them. How do you know what others peoples motives are? Have you asked them?

I am afraid that the only thing that has no real value is your assessment of the value... or should I say the lack of value... of testimonials.

But then, what do I know? I'm a psychologist so my opinion doesn't really have any value, right?

The purpose of our systems, is inherent in the words ''high fidelity.''
Highly faithful to what? Well, the sound of real music.

I would love it if someone like Paul Reale were to help me voice my system.
And anyone with an ounce of wisdom would want him to do it for them as well.