The Upgrade Company

[amirm]

Guys, let's not get personal please.

Tommy, welcome to the forum. Opinions are sharply divided on this mod/company so probably best to not fan the flames .

Of course if there is any new data, let's see that.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Guys, let's not get personal please.

Tommy, welcome to the forum. Opinions are sharply divided on this mod/company so probably best to not fan the flames .

Of course if there is any new data, let's see that.

Perhaps your request should have gone on to pepar as well. Some of the comments I've seen should have been moderated.
I have no stake in this game, but I do know that both Nick and Rich (naturephoto1) have been very pleased with the work that Dave has done for them. I'm not saying that to justify the validity of TUC, but rather as two people who have decided to undertake some modifications they felt would improve their audio experience. Instead of kicking them in the nuts with snide remarks, perhaps refraining from posting would be be a little more gracious.

 

[Tommy Tucker]

Guys, let's not get personal please.

Tommy, welcome to the forum. Opinions are sharply divided on this mod/company so probably best to not fan the flames .

Of course if there is any new data, let's see that.

If there was a way to measure good sound every manufacturer would be doing it,All I can say is send anything you got around even the cheap stuff and see for yourself--Thanks

 

[amirm]

Perhaps your request should have gone on to pepar as well. Some of the comments I've seen should have been moderated.

The moderator comment in green was for all member comments that were personal.

I have no stake in this game, but I do know that both Nick and Rich (naturephoto1) have been very pleased with the work that Dave has done for them. I'm not saying that to justify the validity of TUC, but rather as two people who have decided to undertake some modifications they felt would improve their audio experience. Instead of kicking them in the nuts with snide remarks, perhaps refraining from posting would be be a little more gracious.

Yes. WBF Forum has high standards of cordial conduct. No one should forget that no matter how contentious the topic is.

 

[amirm]

If there was a way to measure good sound every manufacturer would be doing it,All I can say is send anything you got around even the cheap stuff and see for yourself--Thanks

It is not free to make the conversion, is it? If so, then I can't see for myself . If anyone wants to send me their gear I can measure and then send it back.

 

[welwynnick]

I still have my TUC Oppo 95.

What can you measure?

Nick

 

[Steve Williams]

I still have my TUC Oppo 95.

What can you measure?

Nick

Isn't one of the stipulations of TUC that the seals must remain intact or their warranty will be void and won't the seals have to be broken to measure with and without the upgrades

 

[amirm]

I still have my TUC Oppo 95.

What can you measure?

Nick

I can measure noise, frequency response, distortion, jitter, etc. Would have been good to have before and after but maybe we can compare it to other measurements.

 

[pepar]

Isn't one of the stipulations of TUC that the seals must remain intact or their warranty will be void and won't the seals have to be broken to measure with and without the upgrades

Well now, there's the rub, isn't it. The quest for double-blind testing seems to be continually thwarted by TUC and their customers. Rich, whom I respect, will never agree to another blind test. Going into the one we did, he believed that he (we?) could hear the difference. And every other TUC customer, I would wager, also believes firmly and fervently that their upgrades have improved the sound quality. Nevermind that they have no science-based data to support that. But then, that's not what "belief" is all about, is it?

"have been very pleased with the work that Dave has done for them. I'm not saying that to justify the validity of TUC, but rather as two people who have decided to undertake some modifications they felt would improve their audio experience." And so they say that is the case ... that they are pleased and that they do feel that the mods have improved their audio experience. I don't think that anyone is saying that they are lying. Clearly, they do believe that to be the case.

But let's not conflate beliefs with science. "In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole.

Jeff

 

[pepar]

I'm also very well aware of what you did in 2012, and I don't think it changes much - tells us more about ABX testing than it does about TUC products.

Nick

If it tells anyone more about ABX testing than the TUC product under test, then there is no test that that person would accept as valid if it did not show the clear superiority on the TUC product. Full stop.

 

[pepar]

If there was a way to measure good sound every manufacturer would be doing it,All I can say is send anything you got around even the cheap stuff and see for yourself--Thanks

Well, I agree with you there. Or maybe there is a way, and it is not favorable to them ... so they stick to their successful marketing/business model.

 

[pepar]

I can measure noise, frequency response, distortion, jitter, etc. Would have been good to have before and after but maybe we can compare it to other measurements.

Methinks that you are chasing an untamed ornithoid.

 

[welwynnick]

Isn't one of the stipulations of TUC that the seals must remain intact or their warranty will be void and won't the seals have to be broken to measure with and without the upgrades.

I broke the seals on mine a long time ago.

I can measure noise, frequency response, distortion, jitter, etc. Would have been good to have before and after but maybe we can compare it to other measurements.

I'm impressed if you might be able to measure jitter well enough to distinguish between different high-quality players. Setting aside the audible differences for a moment, an improvement there would help vindicate the mod approach. TUC seemed to be able improve digital audio rather well (though not as well as Cinemike, I subsequently found). I doubt that FR would show much difference, but noise measurements might be telling. TUC were criticised for many things, but one that really stuck was the lack of measurements, so this would be really interesting. Part of the reason I volunteered my 95 was that its a popular model, and a stock one is never far away....

Nick

PS. Your Hi-Rez audio ABX test results made my day, by the way.

 

[welwynnick]

If it tells anyone more about ABX testing than the TUC product under test, then there is no test that that person would accept as valid if it did not show the clear superiority on the TUC product. Full stop.

You said yourself that everyone could tell the difference between the stock and modded units with sighted comparisons. Are you saying that counts for nothing, and the negative ABX test result is the only one that counts? Notwithstanding Amir's recent result, its very difficult for untrained listeners to get a postive result from an ABX test with any audio equipment. Not impossible, just very difficult. I agree with the arguments over sighted listening, but I believe it should be enough to demonstrate differences or improvements using blind tests - and not necessarily ABX tests, which I think are another matter entirely. I would quite expect to fail an ABX test between a TUC and stock unit, but I don't count that as reason to send it back to David Schulte.

Nick

 

[pepar]

You said yourself that everyone could tell the difference between the stock and modded units with sighted comparisons. Are you saying that counts for nothing, and the negative ABX test result is the only one that counts? Notwithstanding Amir's recent result, its very difficult for untrained listeners to get a postive result from an ABX test with any audio equipment. Not impossible, just very difficult. I agree with the arguments over sighted listening, but I believe it should be enough to demonstrate differences or improvements using blind tests - and not necessarily ABX tests, which I think are another matter entirely. I would quite expect to fail an ABX test between a TUC and stock unit, but I don't count that as reason to send it back to David Schulte.

Nick

Yes, we all thought we could hear a slight difference, in the TUC unit's favor, when we knew which unit was playing. We did sighted "testing" at Rich's request ... not that any of us thought it was a bad idea, or that it would contaminate the results of the double blind test. I used the opportunity to try to pick out slight differences between the two.

But the true test is the double blind test. I think it is quite telling, especially after we "familiarized" ourselves with the "sonic characteristics" of each unit in the sighted test, that most of us failed to do as good as guessing. My results in the first run indicated that I could nearly consistently tell the difference, but the other run I was back with the pack. My theory is that my audio memory of the differences I heard when I knew which was which faded by the second run.

If you cannot hear a difference in an ABX test between the stock unit and one with expensive mods, what possible justification would there be to spend money on expensive modifications?

Jeff

 

[welwynnick]

I agree that the true test is the double blind test (though in truth I'm happy with a single blind test - I know all the arguments for DBT, but I've always been left completely in the dark with every single blind test I've done).

ABX testing isn't just DBT testing though, its something different and, for audio purposes, much more demanding. If you can show a preference with ABX testing, then you really have proved a difference beyond dispute (except if its Amir who's got the result he wanted). What ABX isn't too good at, is proving that there ISN'T a difference.

So I'm happy to get a positive result with SBT or DBT, and get a negative result with ABX.

Nick

 

[Tommy Tucker]

Isn't one of the stipulations of TUC that the seals must remain intact or their warranty will be void and won't the seals have to be broken to measure with and without the upgrades

Hi Steve-- The sticker they put on is affixed to the back of the unit.Mine have no seals.

 

[audioguy]

Im at CEDIA this week and heard a presentation by Harmon on blind testing of speakers, listening biases, etc. They do blind testing a lot and know (and can and have scientifically demonstrated) that sighted testing is massively flawed.

Yet we continue to have push back from those who think otherwise. If someone wants to spend money with TUC on "improving" a product with "upgrades" that have no science behind the upgrade, then they get to do that. But what a shame. The name P.T. Barnum comes to mind.

 

[pepar]

Im at CEDIA this week and heard a presentation by Harmon on blind testing of speakers, listening biases, etc. They do blind testing a lot and know (and can and have scientifically demonstrated) that sighted testing is massively flawed.

Yet we continue to have push back from those who think otherwise. If someone wants to spend money with TUC on "improving" a product with "upgrades" that have no science behind the upgrade, then they get to do that. But what a shame. The name P.T. Barnum comes to mind.

There is science behind the mod companies .... the science of psychology.

Jeff

 

[welwynnick]

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