I, for one, certainly get that the right sort of tweaking can take equipment way up the chart. I in fact would go further and say that the gear can be taken beyond anything that's available off the shelf, if all the crucial mods are done.
Frank
The Upgrade Company
- Thread starter audioguy
- Start date
Frank
I have found that when using multiple components that have been upgraded that the affect can be cumulative, much like using multiple components made be the same maker (as when using several ARC products).
Rich
Last edited:
I agree, but think its a mixed blessing in some respects. I was going to mention some downsides of TUC products, and my experience with the Onkyo is that the mods help to stop jitter getting any worse, but don't fix poor sources. The better products like Arcam and Meridian were better at getting poor sources to sound good. With digital audio feeding the TUC Onkyo, I felt that it was transparent to the quality of the source, in the sense that it was vulnerable to the source. Feeding it with a good source, like my TUC Denon 3800, was a substantial improvement, even over hdmi. This left a big impression on me. Using a high quality source isn't unreasonable, but my cheapskate hopes of just having an upgraded processor were dashed.
The other point I intended to make is that TUC upgrades seem to be more effective with some equipment than others. I'm not inclined to buy a TUC video processor or power amp for various reasons (partly geographic). TUC are a big fan of Onkyo, Oppo & NuForce, and I think those players & processors are a safe bet for anyone - anything with mixed signals and a less complex architecture.
Nick
The other point I intended to make is that TUC upgrades seem to be more effective with some equipment than others. I'm not inclined to buy a TUC video processor or power amp for various reasons (partly geographic). TUC are a big fan of Onkyo, Oppo & NuForce, and I think those players & processors are a safe bet for anyone - anything with mixed signals and a less complex architecture.
Nick
Last edited:
The Upgrade Company LLC
New Member
Our HDMI shielding technology was not put into production upgrades until our attorneys had legalities in place. Aforementioned upgrades were performed prior to this.
Naturally, shipping damage and any warranty concerns require the upgraded unit to be returned to The Upgrade Company in order to provide our 5 years parts and labor warranty. This includes international clients.
Naturally, shipping damage and any warranty concerns require the upgraded unit to be returned to The Upgrade Company in order to provide our 5 years parts and labor warranty. This includes international clients.
I have been browsing with much int- and disinterest through this thread, and honestly think, i need a change: Could anybody tell me something about VSEI and their mods?
thanks, Egidius
thanks, Egidius
I would venture a guess that if I told ANYBODY to give me $1000-1500, but don't ask me what I'm going to do, don't look at it, don't photograph it or you are revealing my trade secrets and I will sue your a** off, probably most people would tell me to get bent. It is against the law for a auto repair shop to "repair" your car without telling you exactly what they are doing, and not only that but return the parts they replaced at customer request. Does anybody know why??? Because it is to prevent fraud!!! It was so common with auto repair shops that states finally had to enact laws protecting consumers against this. This is exactly what Dave is doing now, but clearly there aren't enough people getting ripped off in the audio community to force the enactment of similar protections. Stick with a reputable company that actually is willing to tell you what they are doing. Like pretty much ANY OTHER MODIFICATION COMPANY IN AMERICA!!!! I can't say that TUC mods don't work, I only know what my dad taught me. "If is smells like s***, looks like s*** and feels like s***, it's probably s*** dumbass!!"
After waiting Almost 600days .....tommorrow will finally be a soundoff with the TUC Marantz DV9600 against a stock Marantz UD9004 and a stock Mcintosh MVP871.All amps will be Krell (KSA 250/300s) and a Krell HTS 7.1 pre/pro with Cardas Golden Reference .5m/1.5m XLRs and RCA's.
We will see what this thing is really made off TUC.
We will see what this thing is really made off TUC.
Looking forwards to hearing about that MCL, at last.
Hopefully I'll be able to compare my new TUC Oppo 95 with my Denon A1UD tomorrow.
BR, Nick
Hopefully I'll be able to compare my new TUC Oppo 95 with my Denon A1UD tomorrow.
BR, Nick
Steve Williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Nice but any way to test TUC Marantz DV9600 vs stock Marantz DV9600. That to my mind is the better sound off
well lets face facts...both stock players(871/9004) were in the MRSP of $6000 and TUC goes on & on & on & on about how his $1000 tinker will out perform $10,000 players or as TUC says"a $40,000 Esoteric setup".So we will see if this MRSP of $2000 DV9600 will touch these $6000 giants..
As far as stock goes,if it cant touch these 2,how can it touch a Krell SACD or anything else in the $6000 area.
As far as stock goes,if it cant touch these 2,how can it touch a Krell SACD or anything else in the $6000 area.
Steve Williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Unless you sign a confidentially agreement a customer has no obligation to keep anything secret. You bought it and it belongs to you. You do anything you want with it. That's why we have patents. TUC has yet to show me any legal basis for thier "trade secret argument" Please have your lawyer email me.
I am sure it is unethical to threaten people with false legal principles.
I am sure it is unethical to threaten people with false legal principles.
The Upgrade Company LLC
New Member
Let's keep it honest guys. Several false statements above. We do have patent protection in place as well as more then 2 decade's worth of trade secret protection established as well.
Anyone can go on these chat forums and make up all sorts of claims and comparisons. Even though at present there are no laws to prevent the telling of lies in a chat forum, there are however laws protecting against slander and defamation, which includes online posting and publishing.
copy-n-pasted from Wikepedia:
A trade secret is a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a business can obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers. In some jurisdictions, such secrets are referred to as "confidential information" or "classified information".
Protection of trade secrets can, in principle, extend indefinitely and therefore may provide an advantage over patent protection, which lasts only for a specific period of time. Coca-Cola, for example, has no patent for its formula and has been very effective in protecting it for many more years than the twenty years of protection that a patent would have provided. In fact, Coca-Cola refused to reveal its trade secret under at least two judges' orders.[6] The disadvantage is that there is no protection once information protected as trade secret is uncovered by others through reverse engineering, for example, whereas patent has a guaranteed time of protection in exchange for disclosing the information to the public.
Although trade secrets law evolved under state common law, prior to 1974, the question of whether patent law preempted state trade secrets law had been unanswered. In 1974, the United States Supreme Court issued the landmark decision, Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 40 L.Ed.2d 315 (1974), which resolved that question, and cleared the way for the states free to freely develop their own trade secret laws.
The "quality of confidence" highlights that trade secrets are a legal concept. With sufficient effort or through illegal acts (such as break and enter), competitors can usually obtain trade secrets. However, so long as the owner of the trade secret can prove that reasonable efforts have been made to keep the information confidential, the information remains a trade secret and generally remains legally protected. Conversely, trade secret owners who cannot evidence reasonable efforts at protecting confidential information, risk losing the trade secret, even if the information is obtained by competitors illegally. It is for this reason that trade secret owners shred documents and do not simply recycle them.[citation needed]
A successful plaintiff is entitled to various forms of judicial relief, including:
an injunction
an account of profits or an award of damages
a declaration
Anyone can go on these chat forums and make up all sorts of claims and comparisons. Even though at present there are no laws to prevent the telling of lies in a chat forum, there are however laws protecting against slander and defamation, which includes online posting and publishing.
copy-n-pasted from Wikepedia:
A trade secret is a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a business can obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers. In some jurisdictions, such secrets are referred to as "confidential information" or "classified information".
Protection of trade secrets can, in principle, extend indefinitely and therefore may provide an advantage over patent protection, which lasts only for a specific period of time. Coca-Cola, for example, has no patent for its formula and has been very effective in protecting it for many more years than the twenty years of protection that a patent would have provided. In fact, Coca-Cola refused to reveal its trade secret under at least two judges' orders.[6] The disadvantage is that there is no protection once information protected as trade secret is uncovered by others through reverse engineering, for example, whereas patent has a guaranteed time of protection in exchange for disclosing the information to the public.
Although trade secrets law evolved under state common law, prior to 1974, the question of whether patent law preempted state trade secrets law had been unanswered. In 1974, the United States Supreme Court issued the landmark decision, Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 40 L.Ed.2d 315 (1974), which resolved that question, and cleared the way for the states free to freely develop their own trade secret laws.
The "quality of confidence" highlights that trade secrets are a legal concept. With sufficient effort or through illegal acts (such as break and enter), competitors can usually obtain trade secrets. However, so long as the owner of the trade secret can prove that reasonable efforts have been made to keep the information confidential, the information remains a trade secret and generally remains legally protected. Conversely, trade secret owners who cannot evidence reasonable efforts at protecting confidential information, risk losing the trade secret, even if the information is obtained by competitors illegally. It is for this reason that trade secret owners shred documents and do not simply recycle them.[citation needed]
A successful plaintiff is entitled to various forms of judicial relief, including:
an injunction
an account of profits or an award of damages
a declaration
Points from various personal involvement over the years:
1. You must make known to the receiver of trade secrets that the information is considered confidential/proprietary. If you reveal (disclose) confidential information without such declaration, you have little recourse. Forgetting to mention material in a correspondence or presentation is confidential can be a painful lesson.
2. Note this: "The disadvantage is that there is no protection once information protected as trade secret is uncovered by others through reverse engineering, for example, whereas patent has a guaranteed time of protection in exchange for disclosing the information to the public." A company I have followed sued and won judgment against a company that reverse-engineered a product that had "reasonable precautions" to prevent such, but only won against the one company, and the trade secret was now public. A second company was sued and won because the information was then public. Law is sometimes a bit of a mystery, much like Life, women, teens, and horses.
3. Patents are public, though protected (at least in theory), while trade secrets keep your best ideas, well, secret!
These are general points; I have no idea if TUC owners have signed an agreement to protect trade secrets but imagine so. Sometimes things like that are on the back of a sales slip (seen it done, again no idea if TUC does such).
1. You must make known to the receiver of trade secrets that the information is considered confidential/proprietary. If you reveal (disclose) confidential information without such declaration, you have little recourse. Forgetting to mention material in a correspondence or presentation is confidential can be a painful lesson.
2. Note this: "The disadvantage is that there is no protection once information protected as trade secret is uncovered by others through reverse engineering, for example, whereas patent has a guaranteed time of protection in exchange for disclosing the information to the public." A company I have followed sued and won judgment against a company that reverse-engineered a product that had "reasonable precautions" to prevent such, but only won against the one company, and the trade secret was now public. A second company was sued and won because the information was then public. Law is sometimes a bit of a mystery, much like Life, women, teens, and horses.
3. Patents are public, though protected (at least in theory), while trade secrets keep your best ideas, well, secret!
These are general points; I have no idea if TUC owners have signed an agreement to protect trade secrets but imagine so. Sometimes things like that are on the back of a sales slip (seen it done, again no idea if TUC does such).
I don't think this is quite such a big issue any more.
One of the biggest problems that sceptics have had with TUC products and services is the non-disclosure of the modifications and upgrades themselves. We're all used to seeing modmen describe in great detail the work they perform to upgrade equipment, and what parts they use. In effect they're saying that they guarantee they will fit xyz clocks, capacitors, regulators, damping, beebye atomisers or whatever. As customers, we don't have a lot of information about whether these are the right mods to perform - whether they give us the best bang for the buck, or even whether they improve anything at all.
But when we get the modified equipment home, we can at least verify that the mods have been installed, and the modman can stand by the work he has done. Since there is often no chance of a blind before & after comparison, the suggestible customer is usually happy that he has gained performance. Though in many years of reading about these things, I've not seen very much convincing evidence about the real benefit. However, there's no doubting that the modman has done what he said he would do (even if the desciptions of the mods do start to sound the same from model to model, irrespective of what really needs upgrading).
Then David Schulte came along and said "I won't tell you what I'm upgrading, but instead I'll guarantee that it sounds better". Its a different way of doing business to what everyone is used to, and many people insist on knowing what the mods are. Moreover, rumours surfaced that many of the mods were foil and ferrite screens and filters, and Schulte himself even proudly claimed that he DID NOT upgrade the clocks - often the first thing a modman turns to.
However, years go by, and drips of information came out about what the mods actually are. Have a read of the TUC website, and Schulte himself is progressively elaborating more and more than he used to about what he does. Dig around a while, and there's quite a bit of information about what you get for your money. There's a lot of emphasis on what you might call providing the right environment for each component to work to the best of its potential, rather than upgrading the components and keeping the same environment.
Since AV gear (riddled with high-speed digital video) tends to perform worse than stereo gear, and even disconnecting an HDMI cable, or switching off the front panel display, seems to improve things, I thought I'd give this approach the benefit of the doubt. Modern gear uses DACs, ADCs, clocks, processors and op-amps that all have superb specs and performance when tested in glorious isolation by their manufacturers. Put them in a player or receiver with a thousand other hard-working parts running at 32-bits, 148.5 MHz or whatever, and the environment isn't so good. The end result is audio performance that's worse than stereo gear with 16 / 44.1 hardware.
Is the answer to further improve the high-performance parts that are already there? I think in answer to that, you have to decide whether you want a box plastered with all the lastest acronyms, or whether you want something that is guaranteed to sound good.
Nick
One of the biggest problems that sceptics have had with TUC products and services is the non-disclosure of the modifications and upgrades themselves. We're all used to seeing modmen describe in great detail the work they perform to upgrade equipment, and what parts they use. In effect they're saying that they guarantee they will fit xyz clocks, capacitors, regulators, damping, beebye atomisers or whatever. As customers, we don't have a lot of information about whether these are the right mods to perform - whether they give us the best bang for the buck, or even whether they improve anything at all.
But when we get the modified equipment home, we can at least verify that the mods have been installed, and the modman can stand by the work he has done. Since there is often no chance of a blind before & after comparison, the suggestible customer is usually happy that he has gained performance. Though in many years of reading about these things, I've not seen very much convincing evidence about the real benefit. However, there's no doubting that the modman has done what he said he would do (even if the desciptions of the mods do start to sound the same from model to model, irrespective of what really needs upgrading).
Then David Schulte came along and said "I won't tell you what I'm upgrading, but instead I'll guarantee that it sounds better". Its a different way of doing business to what everyone is used to, and many people insist on knowing what the mods are. Moreover, rumours surfaced that many of the mods were foil and ferrite screens and filters, and Schulte himself even proudly claimed that he DID NOT upgrade the clocks - often the first thing a modman turns to.
However, years go by, and drips of information came out about what the mods actually are. Have a read of the TUC website, and Schulte himself is progressively elaborating more and more than he used to about what he does. Dig around a while, and there's quite a bit of information about what you get for your money. There's a lot of emphasis on what you might call providing the right environment for each component to work to the best of its potential, rather than upgrading the components and keeping the same environment.
Since AV gear (riddled with high-speed digital video) tends to perform worse than stereo gear, and even disconnecting an HDMI cable, or switching off the front panel display, seems to improve things, I thought I'd give this approach the benefit of the doubt. Modern gear uses DACs, ADCs, clocks, processors and op-amps that all have superb specs and performance when tested in glorious isolation by their manufacturers. Put them in a player or receiver with a thousand other hard-working parts running at 32-bits, 148.5 MHz or whatever, and the environment isn't so good. The end result is audio performance that's worse than stereo gear with 16 / 44.1 hardware.
Is the answer to further improve the high-performance parts that are already there? I think in answer to that, you have to decide whether you want a box plastered with all the lastest acronyms, or whether you want something that is guaranteed to sound good.
Nick
...Bachelors Degree , Business, Psych, Soc, Science....tinkering with expensive audio equipment is one thing...but designing a 456 MW shoebox....just how much blue goop and tin foil does that puppy consume?
FYI, I looked up the BBB claim. http://www.bbb.org/western-michigan...upgrade-company-in-harbor-springs-mi-38125293
As you see there, he has had one complaint in the last 12 months which was resolved. So the A+ rating does not mean spotless. People usually resort to such complaints when they are out of options with the company. The force of bad reporting on BBB records often gets companies to reconsider and make good. With any business, such complaints can occur and sometimes when the customer is taking an unfair position. So I don't mean this to indicate anything other than what BBB record indicates.
The BBB policy of giving "A+" to a company in light of complaints seems wrong to me. Why not reserve the "+" sign for really perfect record? No wonder their ratings are not taken seriously with many customers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo8kfV9kONw
Similar threads
- Sticky
Members online
- Pokey77
- rob
- JeremyMTB
- flowcharts
- cdka
- nattonrice
- Young Skywalker
- Audio_Karma
- Cutlr7
- Nsxturbo
- Husk
- Maxb
- Holli82
- Ron Resnick
- pdxaudio
- Mayer2020
- hopkins
- moby2004
- Blake
- Three quid
- Another Johnson
- Klonk
- jazzdude99
- nk-oh
- Jeffy
- gfroman
- Chpray
- tdx44
- fast.freight
- JiminGa
- donsachs
- the sound of Tao
- emoonie
- jadis
- Downtheline
- audiom3
- DonH50
- Sibarita
- brad225
- davidavdavid
- theclipper
- vinyl_mike
- Zarir
- Republicoftexas69
- HeavyD
- WADAX
- Treehaus Audiolab
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |