The Upgrade Company

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
tomelex (I like your motto "Audio is what you hear, not what you see.") & Bruce B, Amir, RUR, we're all awaiting each of your detailed and enlightening answers to post #32 above.
I am jumping on a plane so no time to engage you on that topic just this minute. I am curious though why you are not answering the simple question I put to you: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2845-The-Upgrade-Company&p=40843&viewfull=1#post40843

So once more, what video improvements can I expect and can or can they not be measured?
 

preale

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2011
14
0
76
81
Southern California
www.minotaurz.com
profess;ional musicains and expertise

The fact that large manufacturers have a stranglehold on the press, which is contentious to say the least, presupposes that individuals are malleable to what they read and unable to make independent decisions based on personal, lived experience. This is a bold claim insofar as it assumes that people are not possessed of agency but rather simply receivers of programming. Now, if you argue that the proliferation of certain forms of measurements has become a convention by which to evaluate, ex ante, the virtues of some given gear, and that the convergence in the measurements is such that statistically speaking, the gear measures the same (and you need to do this as a study if you wish to generalize) yet sounds different then perhaps I would agree. However, in the high end, it does seem that the majority of new generation reviews do not measure the gear they evaluate. The European magazines do, as does S-phile and some on the S-Stage network. One could also approach such measurements with a certain threshold discriminator as a way of indicating problems with the design- such as amplifier instability etc but then say that as long as the measurements are within reason, the gear will be worth finding the time to audition in person.

As for your friend's supposition, it simply reveals the typical fundamental attribution problem where people who are expert, tend to valorize their own expertise (as some fundamental attribute) while downplaying (or denigrating) the attributes of others. As normal humans are possessed of auditory capabilities, speak and listen to sounds to navigate life, I would aver that they are sufficiently equipped to make judgments for themselves. Have I never hard someone sing or play an instrument? Of course I have. Has this musician ever engineered a product or recorded sound, mixed, produced and then delivered it? The supply chain from source to package is complex and the economics are such that utopian ideals are just that - but it should not keep someone from striving to produce improved sound. I'd rather, however, leave the bemoaning aside. This attitude can be applied to any endeavor in life; to wit, why do we spend so much on college athletics, entertainment etc and so little on advances in science, healthcare etc?

As for reviews, I've read multiple reviews of Bybee gear over the years, as well as Sound Labs and also fora threads on the TUC products. Given that the Internet has a near zero barrier to entry, one should not bray against established magazines (who in their own way face the problem of physical delivery and falling readerships) when one can freely drum up business by sending out review samples to the various blogs in the various languages (I'm thinking that Japanese, Chinese and Russian are three huge markets that most American-based perspective forget).

As for the baloney part; it is true that there is a lot wrong in high end audio, particularly when high end is considered by price first (and often alone).

Finally, it is possible that an individual is blessed with some insight/talent/experience to make meaningful differences to a stock piece of gear. For those contemplating the hire of such a service provider, one would wonder what general methods are employed. Is there a systematic approach to analyzing the effects of certain changes in a controlled fashion (that is, does the provider have a rigorous, QC in industrial design to validate his changes such that, epistemologically, he is comfortable stating that what he knows he knows is true and not spurious?) This is the kind of question I would ask and it is unrelated to the actual intellectual property of the parts and modifications involved.

If I were to take my porsche in, would I want someone who wings it and trust his reputation alone (and his line that it is art and not engineering he is pursuing) or would I want someone who has a manner of on inquiry that is critically reflexive and thus SELF-substantiating?

Since my quote is being tossed around, I must reply. In the world of classical music it is common for the musician to record, edit, and produce his or her own CD: I have produced at least six. I would not trust critical decisions about these CD's to anyone but other professional musicians, just like a patient trusting the judgment of a real medical doctor, as opposed to a friend. Music is one of those areas where everybody has an axe to grind. Sorry, the pros have spent years developing their ears, just like the MD's who spent years developing their diagnostic skills. Yes, I think that my judgment as a pro carries heavier weight than the average listener. In producing a CD or streaming audio I have one goal only: to replicate the actual performance as close as possible.
 
Last edited:

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
well I am a little late to this party as I have been island hopping in the South Caribbean for the past 10 days and am finding this thread

Without any finger pointing or name calling I would like to ask David what his background is.

I have no problem with proprietary secrets but David, come on man, I see no issues with a before and after testing to determine the differences in the products you turn out from the stock versions
 

RUR

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
647
3
0
SoCal
...Science has not yet produced a measurement set or standardization with which to prove, disprove, quantify or even decribe what musicians & reviwers regard as the very best "State of the Art" sound quality.

That's why it is referred to as an "Art".....
Given the above, and after reading the portion of your FAQ below:
The shielding is the most important upgrade: it produces by far and away the largest measurable improvement.

On a typical single box SACD or Universal player upgrade for example, typically 50 to 300 parts are installed depending on the number of circuit boards and their complexity. The electronic parts we upgrade to State of the Art include but are not limited to new capacitors, new voltage regulators, new diodes, new op-amps, new transistors, and new resistors, etc. We install all-new AC power delivery wiring comprised of highly advanced high-purity tightly wound silver/copper/Teflon and only available by advanced military contractors, not obtainable by consumers, advanced trade secret shielding, chassis dampening. Some models include a pair of new $150 top of the line WBT NextGen silver RCA jacks on the 2-channel analog RCA outputs. We typiclaly (sic) install a new Furutech or Oyaide IEC grounded detachable power cord inlet. A portion of our upgrades are always Trade-Secret and Proprietary due to their highly unique application and nature. Our unique approaches using advanced parts and techniques provide much higher results then (sic) standard upgrade or modification techniques.
http://www.upgradecompany.com/upgrade-company-faq

I'm curious as to how you select which parts require upgrade and which particular replacement part should be used e.g. how do you know that you can improve the audible qualities of the end product by replacing a particular transistor used in the unmodified product and how do you select the replacement part from within a veritable galaxy of possible replacements? As another example, how did you choose this product for use in your upgrades and verify that it produced an improvement?

Secondly, one of the basic premises of your business is that CE's compromise audio quality by using "cheap" parts because they are "for profit" (your oft-used term) companies. I have to believe that TUC must also conduct business in a "for profit" manner, or it would not long remain in business. Indeed, you've posted on another forum that "Today, after 29 years of upgrading and learning, full time, we're getting rich". How do you reconcile these seemingly conflicting statements?
 
Last edited:
Your questions have already been answered on our website.

People on my side of the fence don't think my tone has been rude at all. On the contrary,many here are being extremely rude and confrontational. Vendetta like.

tomelex, Bruce B, Amir, RUR, we're all awaiting each of your detailed and enlightening answers to post #32 above.

Amir, the video improvements that result from higher cost parts, the installation of shielding and dampening are numerous. Noise levels both percieved and measured, black gradations and black levels improve, color saturation, depth of field, etc. Clients are very surprised as I'm sure you'd be.
 

preale

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2011
14
0
76
81
Southern California
www.minotaurz.com
Since I have been drawn into this, I wanted to open things up a bit. Something many people are not aware of is the tremendous amount of noise and interference we live with every day. RF, EMI, etc. is everywhere. An old refrigerator could screw up video that is unshielded, etc. I was reminded of my old days, when I was in the hard sciences, doing research in a university laboratory. We had a very precise measurement apparatus that measured electrostatic deflection that would occasionally give erratic results. It took weeks to figure out what was happening: right next door there was a men's restroom; and, when a stall was used, the motion of the metal door compromised the results. All the doors of those crappers had to be changed to wood in order to solve the problem.
I think what TUC, Bybee, Modwright, et al. are basically trying to do is clear the electronic air. Some of their solutions may be as simple as the crapper door change or as sophisticated as the complex engineeering that goes into cables by Kimber, Cardas, or AudiioQuest.
 
Last edited:

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Your questions have already been answered on our website.

People on my side of the fence don't think my tone has been rude at all. On the contrary,many here are being extremely rude and confrontational. Vendetta like.

tomelex, Bruce B, Amir, RUR, we're all awaiting each of your detailed and enlightening answers to post #32 above.

Amir, the video improvements that result from higher cost parts, the installation of shielding and dampening are numerous. Noise levels both percieved and measured, black gradations and black levels improve, color saturation, depth of field, etc. Clients are very surprised as I'm sure you'd be.

Hi David

I am still awaiting your response to post #44
 

audioguy

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,794
73
1,635
Near Atlanta, GA but not too near!
People on my side of the fence don't think my tone has been rude at all. .

OK here we go again. Internet claims like "Many many, many, many, many, many have not been so pleased." is a blatant lie.

Don't know how you were raised but calling someone a liar when they are stating demonstrable facts, certainly falls into my definition of rude.

Go do a Google search on your company on "complaints on The Upgrade Company". If that is too complicated, go search AVS Forum.
 

RUR

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
647
3
0
SoCal
Your questions have already been answered on our website..
Unfortunately, I can't find answers to the specific questions I posed in post #45. Can you point me to detailed answers on your website? If you cannot, can you please provide answers, here?

tomelex, Bruce B, Amir, RUR, we're all awaiting each of your detailed and enlightening answers to post #32 above.
This thread started as an inquiry into the claimed benefit of TUC upgrades. Members are, quite properly, asking for evidence in support of such claims. As such, the burden of proof lies with you, and I would hope that you would respond to their questions with specific answers.

As regards post #32, whether or not other audio products provide similar/less/more benefit/value is a peripheral subject, is discussed within other specific threads and should not, IMO, be used to obfuscate specific and thread-topical questions regarding TUC.
 

RBFC

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
5,158
46
1,225
Albuquerque, NM
www.fightingconcepts.com
Don't know how you were raised but calling someone a liar when they are stating demonstrable facts, certainly falls into my definition of rude.

Go do a Google search on your company on "complaints on The Upgrade Company". If that is too complicated, go search AVS Forum.

It appears that the original poster who requested information and opinions about the Upgrade Company has made up his mind. Testimonials have been provided in support of the TUC, and documented evidence of dissatisfaction has also been provided. I believe that any manufacturer would defend his products and/or services as would be expected.

We've had discussions about expectation bias, sighted bias, and placebo effects here. If there is no solid scientific evidence (such as noise floor measurements, etc.) provided by TUC, then one is faced with the decision of whether to go on testimonial evidence (which may be confounded by the bias effects cited earlier). As someone who has seen both sides of this story, I tend to wonder about ethics.

Faced with a request for safety information when you are purchasing a car, would you feel more comfortable with an automaker who said:

1. Well, Ford and Chevrolet don't supply air bag deployment figures or side impact graphs, so why should we?

2. We will provide whatever data the customer asks for, if obtaining that data is reasonably possible, and do our best to create an informed buying demographic for our products.


While this is not a "perfect' analogy, the two "camps" of marketing and disclosure depicted are comprising most of the controversy here. Of course, Mr. Schulte's background and electronics experience are also issues that should be disclosed.

As long as TUC is profitable at the level that its CEO deems acceptable, I don't believe we will see any change in marketing strategy or amount of disclosure.

It would go a long way for a manufacturer to approach potential clients with a friendly demeanor, rather than being accusatory.

Lee
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,471
11,368
4,410
some years ago a friend of mine contacted me to inquire if i would mind if he visited with a digital player modified by David Schulte and compare it to my EMM Labs digital in my system. as is my way, i said fine. then it turned out that David would accompany my friend in the visit. my friend said David was quite confident that the modded player would be superior.

they came and the modded player was not competive with my player on that day in my system. David said that there was some sort of problem which affected performance on the modded player. David acted reasonably during the visit.

a few days later David posted something miss-quoting what i had said about his modded player. understand that to me all this audio stuff is fun. i don't ever seek conflict. but i had to contact David and make it clear to never represent anything i said ever again; which he agreed to do.

since then i give David and his products a wide path when i encounter them.

does David know enough to properly change mature products for the better?

i would not allow him to touch anything i own. i am not surprised by David's reaction to this thread.

i had previous experience with other modded products (not modded by David) where i liked my stock units better. i'm a big believer in 'stock' as the degree of trouble shooting done when a design is created will never be matched by a modder.
 

Jay_S

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
309
5
16
San Francisco - East Bay
Jay we think you are being a bit ridiculous. Pictures equal sound quality? Audiophiles do not listen with their eyes.


It looks like you are directing this comment to me.

Let’s stick to the facts please. I did not state that pictures equal sound quality. One of the members said that he would be interested in seeing pictures, and you made a specific assertion: “Can't afford the upgrade or do you just want to steal details? Asking for photo's and details for free is the same as attempted theft.”

The original request was reasonable. You can politely decline if you want to protect your IP, but why insult the person and comment on their ability to afford the upgrade? You don’t have any information about that person's financial situation. Further, you then accused the member of attempted theft. What did they attempt to steal? What if someone looks at one of your projects? Is that stealing? I don’t think so. It is normal to be curious about a proposed purchase. An A-B comparison is great but most people also have some interest in the nuts and bolts of what they might be paying for. In any event, simply asking such a question is not tantamount to a criminal act.

Additionally, your statements are inconsistent. On the one hand, your position seems to be that pictures are not useful in assessing sound quality. On the other, you state that simply asking for such pictures is the same as attempted theft. This implies that the pictures would provide some useful information. Either the pictures are useful or they are not. You can’t have it both ways.


Until you have directly heard the A-B comparisons we've put on such as the RMAF Show, please be more polite and open minded.

That’s reasonable but irrelevant. I haven't said anything about the efficacy of your services.


The fact that you have failed to call out the cheap "For Profit" tactics of manufacturers speaks about your underlying motivation and loyalties.

I didn’t discuss this topic. Are you addressing this to anyone in particular?
 

Ethan Winer

Banned
Jul 8, 2010
1,231
3
0
75
New Milford, CT
As Ethan would say... I'd love to see before/after specs.

Right, that's what really matters. I'm not looking to steal or copy someone else's intellectual property, but some sort of evidence is always welcome. Photos or how exactly the upgrade is performed seems less important. Note that I never heard of TUC before this thread, so I have no opinion or axe to grind. In fact, I've often wondered the same thing about upgrade companies in the pro audio business too. What are the specific technical improvements?

--Ethan
 

preale

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2011
14
0
76
81
Southern California
www.minotaurz.com
MIke, you don't indicate if your player were an EMM SE, which had proprietary chips specially made for Meitner. I really doubt that ANY plyer, modded or not, would compete with the latest generation Meitner stuff. In my case the two setups were identical, and I had owned them for an equal amount of time. I don't think that a modded EMM CDSD (pre SE with red/blue label) or a CDSA could compete with the SE versions of the CDSD/DAC6e (stock Meitner in SE). When you get to high end stuff like EMM, "stock" does not mean much, since the manufacturers themselves constantly evolve the product, unlike companies like SONY, which just dumps the old and make new. I had this experience with my Bryston 14B SST amp: the company redesigned the output choke, and it was difficult to tell when. I sent my amp to Bryston for the upgrade, and the "new" amp sounded considerably better. I am relating this, because Bryston did not contact the owners and did not post this info on their website.
 

Ethan Winer

Banned
Jul 8, 2010
1,231
3
0
75
New Milford, CT
An old refrigerator could screw up video that is unshielded, etc.

Sure, but such interference is easily observed and measured. Same for all other claims of products that improve "dirty" power we see so often. When a product claims to lower audible or visible noise by improving the power source, what I want to see is a 'scope photo at the output of the audio or video device. A 'scope photo showing the change on the power line itself is meaningless because all gear - even cheap gear - has at least some filtering built-in.

--Ethan
 

preale

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2011
14
0
76
81
Southern California
www.minotaurz.com
I am in this a lot deeper than I ever wanted to be, So, this is my last post on this topic. Measurement can be tricky: imagine ALL tube gear would be tossed, because they don't measure up to SS gear. On the other hand, the voltage swings are greater in tube gear, allowing for levels of subtlety. I think that the worst problem when dealing with high end audio starts with the listening room itself. standing waves, suck out, etc. can do more damage than lamp cord used for speaker wire. Before I even started to install audio gear, I constructed a listening room from scratch, using a pink noise generator and microphone. I wound up with floor space that had wood, tile, and rug; and I had wall treatments that ranged from two types of plaster and wood, as well as three types of ceiling heights. Why did I go to all this trouble? I knew that the space would be used to critically audition master recordings that I had produced commercially, as well as a test bed for beta testing stuff from Wadia. By the way, the room is 75 feet long with the speaker near no walls. Next, I installed dedicated 20 amp lines that were filtered by the kind of equipment used to power electron microscopes, and even at that I used a lot of local shielding. As I was setting up what was a series of systems, I used direct-to-disk LP's (not made by me to keep objectivity) as a sound source (used best SOTA analogue front end and proprietary phono stage). NOW I was ready to set up the rest of the system. All of this was in the late 1970's. When CD's hit the scene (I was concertizing in Asia in 1982 and brought back the first SONY CD player). Horrible!!! It was back to the drawing board until about a couple of years ago. I don't consider myself to be an audiophile, because my focus is on replicating in recordings most of the live concert experience. With my background in the hard sciences, I am capable to modding electronics on my own and have gotten spectacular results by exchanging out poorer components for good ones (using Clarity caps, Vishay and Ohmite resistors, etc.) I am not David Schulte, nor am I affiliated with his company; however, I have given him a chance to mod a few pieces of my equipment. IN each case, after a long break in period, I got substantially better results. In some cases the synergy between the modded component and the interconnects was not good, and I had to do a little fiddling. My advice to the members of this group: start with a "good" room. Buy basically well built stuff (maybe US, Canada, or Switzerland). If you like it, keep it for decades an don't change a thing. Aftermarket modding is not for the faint of heart and really constitutes the "hobbyist" portion of the field. Even as a pro, using audio as a tool in my musical profession, I see the Tweaking as a fun adjunct, not some kind of dour orthodoxy.
 
Last edited:

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
IN each case, after a long break in period, I got substantially better results.

better results based on what???

as someone earlier stated it is such validations that are carried out on sites such as this with no scientific evidence that causes these quagmires and gives people such heart burn.

I must admit that I have been guilty of such things as well but you have to admit that all you are telling us is that it sounds better after the mod. FWIW, I owned the Meitner CDSD SE and DAC6e and it was absolutely wonderful and as MikeL stated I would never have considered doing a mod to it.

I just don't know how you can make such a bold statement with nothing to corroborate your findings.

As to your room suggestions all of us would certainly agree
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,471
11,368
4,410
MIke, you don't indicate if your player were an EMM SE, which had proprietary chips specially made for Meitner. I really doubt that ANY plyer, modded or not, would compete with the latest generation Meitner stuff. In my case the two setups were identical, and I had owned them for an equal amount of time. I don't think that a modded EMM CDSD (pre SE with red/blue label) or a CDSA could compete with the SE versions of the CDSD/DAC6e (stock Meitner in SE). When you get to high end stuff like EMM, "stock" does not mean much, since the manufacturers themselves constantly evolve the product, unlike companies like SONY, which just dumps the old and make new. I had this experience with my Bryston 14B SST amp: the company redesigned the output choke, and it was difficult to tell when. I sent my amp to Bryston for the upgrade, and the "new" amp sounded considerably better. I am relating this, because Bryston did not contact the owners and did not post this info on their website.

the player that David modified was a Remiyo CDT-777 (as i recall), and i recall that my gear was the EMM Labs SE combo dac 6/transport at that time. i agree that (at that time) the EMM labs SE gear was the best digital on the market. i knew that but evidently David did not.

i did not expect that David's modded Remiyo would be competitive. my issue was David's 'head in the sand' belief that the Remiyo would be better....and then his miss quote of my comments made that day and posted by him erroneously without my permission. it was his conduct and lack of 'professional' objectivity that caused me to sour on his approach.

if you are going to be super confident about your product's performance then you need be aware of SOTA performance to be able to 'walk your talk'. he was not able to do that.

to be clear; EMM Labs SE performance from back then (4+ years ago) is no longer SOTA for digital IMHO.
 
Last edited:

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing