The Upgrade Company

[craig john]

Well said.

Hi Jeff,

I joined up here after you sent me the link to this thread. Thanks! I've read through the entire thread. Quite interesting.

To the mods... I hope you will not close this thread. Several members, including myself, are planning some blind listening tests to compare some stock units to some TUC modified units. We are working on the protocol for the testing now. We plan to post the protocol to the forums, (here and on AVS), for comments and suggestions.

 

[andy_c]

Be sure to snap some pics of the inside of the modified units .

 

[Ron Party]

Hi Jeff,

I joined up here after you sent me the link to this thread. Thanks! I've read through the entire thread. Quite interesting.

To the mods... I hope you will not close this thread. Several members, including myself, are planning some blind listening tests to compare some stock units to some TUC modified units. We are working on the protocol for the testing now. We plan to post the protocol to the forums, (here and on AVS), for comments and suggestions.

Welcome to the Forum! Look forward to your further posts on the subject matter.

 

[audioguy]

Hi Jeff,

I joined up here after you sent me the link to this thread. Thanks! I've read through the entire thread. Quite interesting.

To the mods... I hope you will not close this thread. Several members, including myself, are planning some blind listening tests to compare some stock units to some TUC modified units. We are working on the protocol for the testing now. We plan to post the protocol to the forums, (here and on AVS), for comments and suggestions.

Fancy meeting you hear. Welcome !! You will be a great addition to WBF.

I had a chance to meet Craig some months ago when he was in Atlanta attending some kind of conference of cardiovascular perfusionists (of which he is one). By the way, the WBF spellchecker did not like the spelling of "perfusionist".

We were able to spend a few hours together at my home listening to all kinds of fun stuff and discussing audio and home theater in general. In fact, I have sent a number of WBF forum members a demo CD that Craig brought to my home.

I have great confidence that the protocol Craig (and associates) will come up with will be as good as possible under the testing circumstances. I will be MOST interested in the results. Blind testing is an interesting event to participate in.

And I predict that if the test group does not find either (a) any difference between the modded and un-modded units [my bet] or (b) that the TUC mods are not as good as the un-modded unit, Mr. Shulte will claim that the test procedures were flawed, no matter what procedure is followed !!

Just sayin'

 

[craig john]

Fancy meeting you hear. Welcome !! You will be a great addition to WBF.

I had a chance to meet Craig some months ago when he was in Atlanta attending some kind of conference of cardiovascular perfusionists (of which he is one). By the way, the WBF spellchecker did not like the spelling of "perfusionist".

We were able to spend a few hours together at my home listening to all kinds of fun stuff and discussing audio and home theater in general. In fact, I have sent a number of WBF forum members a demo CD that Craig brought to my home.

I have great confidence that the protocol Craig (and associates) will come up with will be as good as possible under the testing circumstances. I will be MOST interested in the results. Blind testing is an interesting event to participate in.

And I predict that if the test group does not find either (a) any difference between the modded and un-modded units [my bet] or (b) that the TUC mods are not as good as the un-modded unit, Mr. Shulte will claim that the test procedures were flawed, no matter what procedure is followed !!

Just sayin'

Hi Chuck!

Yeah, that was a great, fun day we spent in your theater. And it's quite a great theater you have! I was so inspired by it that I made some significant upgrades to my own theater based on what I saw and heard in yours!

I'm hoping the testing we're planning will be a useful datapoint for people to consider regarding these mod's. To ensure this we are trying to be scientifically rigorous in our protocols. I have sent you the preliminary version via e-mail and I appreciate your comments. I'm not so naive as to think our testing will be the final word, or even a definitive test. Still we want our tests to be as unbiased as possible. Hopefully, you and other knowledgeable and experienced members of the forum(s) can help us design a valid and useful test.

Craig

 

[Gregadd]

We would welcome any substantive arguments from TUC. So far all we have recieved are thinly veiled threats about revelation of trade secrets,BBB ratings, and straw polls from supporters and customers.

Despite repeated requests, we have received not one substantive claim from TUC. Indeed any comparisons or evaluations should be considered OT and be the subject of another thread. TUC should put up or shut up.

 

[JackD201]

Ooops. Gary beat me too it!

 

[DonH50]

Got it, thanks guys. A couple of "I'm too lazy to read 40+ pages" questions:

1. Has anybody measured the output of a coated device to see what changes have occurred? E.g. with a spectrum/THD analyzer, network analyzer, DSO, etc.

2. Has anybody tried some high-temp adhesive to see if it provides the same benefit (perceived or measured)?

Note these are about the dampening material, not TUC, so I know I'm a little off-topic but given the last page or two of rhetoric I don't feel too badly about that.

Curious - Don

 

[RogerD]

I haven't tried to measure the use of AVM on devices, but we coated blank CDR's with it. It reduced block read errors consistently from 7 to 10 down to 5 to 9.

Here's how a AVM is being applied:

View attachment 2066

New technologies,applied in new ways.

That is the fundamental reason for upgrading. So many base viable and profitable businesses on upgrading existing equipment and devices beacuse it can improve performance over the original.

 

[pepar]

Fancy meeting you hear. Welcome !! You will be a great addition to WBF.

I had a chance to meet Craig some months ago when he was in Atlanta attending some kind of conference of cardiovascular perfusionists (of which he is one). By the way, the WBF spellchecker did not like the spelling of "perfusionist".

We were able to spend a few hours together at my home listening to all kinds of fun stuff and discussing audio and home theater in general. In fact, I have sent a number of WBF forum members a demo CD that Craig brought to my home.

I have great confidence that the protocol Craig (and associates) will come up with will be as good as possible under the testing circumstances. I will be MOST interested in the results. Blind testing is an interesting event to participate in.

And I predict that if the test group does not find either (a) any difference between the modded and un-modded units [my bet] or (b) that the TUC mods are not as good as the un-modded unit, Mr. Shulte will claim that the test procedures were flawed, no matter what procedure is followed !!

Just sayin'

I don't expect that any believers will suddenly become atheists if no or very little differences are heard for the reasons that you mention. On the other hand, us atheists might have an epiphany if there are differences anywhere near what TUC claims. I *want* Shulte's claims to be true for selfish reasons; I *would* spend $1500 on modding a $1500 (street) pre/pro to make it sound like a $7k-$8k unit. I would become a TUC (or Modwright, etc) customer in a heartbeat.

Jeff

 

[pepar]

We would welcome any substantive arguments from TUC. So far all we have recieved are thinly veiled threats about revelation of trade secrets,BBB ratings, and straw polls from supporters and customers.

Despite repeated requests, we have received not one substantive claim from TUC. Indeed any comparisons or evaluations should be considered OT and be the subject of another thread. TUC should put up or shut up.

That a "right-click" on his website brings up a copyright warning is telling. With the copyright notice at the bottom of the page, the Java popup is redundant and provides no further protection to Mr Shulte. IMO, it is only there to prevent people from copying and pasting his claims into a forum thread to hold them up to scrutiny. Fortunately, there is another way to get to the underlying HTML and we always have the "fair use" clause.

This, for example, contains several misstatements (that I have boldened):

"The Onkyo Pro PR SC-5508 THX Ultra2 Plus certified preamp processor is factory engineered with truly balanced output stages for every channel, 32 bit digital architecture, and one truly balanced analog input. We've even dropped the $12,000 upgraded McIntosh MX-150 because it could not equal the upgraded Onkyo Pro 5508. The Integra DHC-80.2 prepro is similar internally, however Integra is a consumer line, not a pro line. The Integra 80.2 sounds inferior to the Onkyo Pro 5508."

mod/admiin, if you feel that i have over-stepped, please delete my post.

 

[audioguy]

*want* Shulte's claims to be true for selfish reasons; I *would* spend $1500 on modding a $1500 (street) pre/pro to make it sound like a $7k-$8k unit. I would become a TUC (or Modwright, etc) customer in a heartbeat.

Jeff

As would I which is what prompted the original post !!

That said, his communication style in this thread, some comments on his website, and some rather bodacious claims he has made have increased my cynicism index by a rather large amount. But the tests that you and Craig and others are devising should, as they say, separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[steve williams]

Can we stay on topic please as this thread is now going in a totally different direction than the OP

 

[RBFC]

Everybody, why don't we take the CD error discussion here:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...s-and-the-Audible-Threshold&p=59398#post59398

Lee

 

[RBFC]

I've split off as many relevant posts from this thread and placed them in the new thread linked in the post above. Thanks for the good discussion!

Lee

 

[pepar]

Picking up here after a long dry spell, but we did a listening test. Here is the disclosure on how and the results. I'm sure that there will be comments on "ya shoulda done this, or that" but we did the set we could under the circumstances.

We used a Zektor MAS7.1 3X1 7.1 Channel AV Switch w/3X1 HDMI Switcher (on loan from Kal Rubinson) to select the single-ended 5.1 outputs of one DUT (Device Under Test) or the other. There was also am HDMI splitter feeding an input on each DUT with the output of an Oppo BDP-83. Channels were balanced using the internal test signals and a Radio Shack SLM and the speaker level trims. Next a test CD was used to check SPL at -5dB, -10dB and -20dB to check volume control tracking; they tracked exactly the same.

The LCR speakers were Legacy Audio Signature SE's, the surrounds Legacy Audio Phantom HD and the amp an EAD PowerMaster 5300.

When I arrived the two members there were just coming up from the basement (where the system is located) and the owner of the modded unit immediately said that they were hearing differences and they were along the lines of finer detail. Right at that moment, the thought went through my mind that I should stick my fingers in my ears and chant la-la-la-la, but I didn't. They both went on to explain further that the differences were subtle. Dennis observed that the differences were nowhere near the differences we had heard the evening before when we set up my 5508 with his 885. We grabbed some sandwiches and then went down to the setup.

Dennis, Craig and I had picked some recordings the evening before that we thought would be good test material. We reviewed those selections in a sighted test. Some were rejected because we could not hear any differences. We only used material with which we could hear differences in the sighted test. We ended up with six stereo recordings and five multichannel ones. Comfortable listening levels were agreed upon and written down. Also, the tracks and the timestamps were written. The passages tended to be anywhere from 50-some seconds to just over a minute.

Then on to the blind A/B/X test. Kal had "pre-programmed" the sequences for us, so all the person running the test needed to do was put in the correct disc, set the master volumes, select the DUT to use and hit play. At the end of the passage, hit pause, SWITCH TO THE UNUSED INPUT and then to whatever DUT was up next and hit chapter reverse .. which started the song from the top. Next, pause the song, do the input thing, select the DUT designated as "X" and begin the song.

I took the test first, Dennis next ran the test for the modded unit's owner and then I ran it for Dennis. We took a break before moving to the 5.1 portion. I went first and then had to leave. While on my way home, Craig called to say he would not be able to make it. And neither of the other two members who expressed interest were able to make it either, so they finished the test with no additional ears.

Before I divulge my results and the overall results, I will comment on the sighted listening. In every instance of recordings that we had heard a difference, we had all thought the modded unit had ever so slightly more detail ... as if a thin veil had been lifted. This listening involved instantaneously switching mid-note from one DUT to the other and bakc again. So I went into the blind test with a lot of confidence that I would both get "X" and select the modded DUT as my preference. There was an optional column for that choice; the real test was to identify "X" after being told here's A, here's B now which one is this?

On the stereo test, my results were 5/6 (83%) correctly identified as "X" and - ta da! - 5/6 (83%) I preferred the STOCK unit. On the 5.1, I missed them all bit preferred the stock unit 3/5 (60%). Over the two tests, I preferred the stock unit 8/11 (73%). I am flummoxed as I choose the one I thought to have the better inner detail, something the sighted portion had me thinking modded.

Overall - any of the others that want to step up and post their individual results that is up to them - the group preferred the modded unit 17 out of 33 times - 51.51% of the time. As a group overall, we correctly identified X only 42% of the time (14/33). All of us did better on the stereo test than the MCH test.

I do have one conclusion based on this test and that is the The Upgrade Company fails miserably in meeting the lofty claims on their website. And their going on and on about "For Profit Built" competitors is a huge helping of barnyard dung ... as if they aren't in it for profit. Sheesh.

At this point, I don't trust sighted tests where, I think, you will hear what you think you should hear. As for their money back guarantee, I would consider that like the old Jedi mind trick. After I HEARD A DIFFERENCE AND PREFERRED THE MODDED UNIT DURING THE SIGHTED TEST, I have no trouble believing that customers who buy from them already want to believe so they will hear an improvement. The 100% satisfaction guarantee? As I said, having plunked down the money because they believed what they read - or heard from a "testimonial", they do hear an improvement ... just like me.

Jeff

 

[steve williams]

Picking up here after a long dry spell, but we did a listening test. Here is the disclosure on how and the results. I'm sure that there will be comments on "ya shoulda done this, or that" but we did the set we could under the circumstances.

We used a Zektor MAS7.1 3X1 7.1 Channel AV Switch w/3X1 HDMI Switcher (on loan from Kal Rubinson) to select the single-ended 5.1 outputs of one DUT (Device Under Test) or the other. There was also am HDMI splitter feeding an input on each DUT with the output of an Oppo BDP-83. Channels were balanced using the internal test signals and a Radio Shack SLM and the speaker level trims. Next a test CD was used to check SPL at -5dB, -10dB and -20dB to check volume control tracking; they tracked exactly the same.

The LCR speakers were Legacy Audio Signature SE's, the surrounds Legacy Audio Phantom HD and the amp an EAD PowerMaster 5300.

When I arrived the two members there were just coming up from the basement (where the system is located) and the owner of the modded unit immediately said that they were hearing differences and they were along the lines of finer detail. Right at that moment, the thought went through my mind that I should stick my fingers in my ears and chant la-la-la-la, but I didn't. They both went on to explain further that the differences were subtle. Dennis observed that the differences were nowhere near the differences we had heard the evening before when we set up my 5508 with his 885. We grabbed some sandwiches and then went down to the setup.

Dennis, Craig and I had picked some recordings the evening before that we thought would be good test material. We reviewed those selections in a sighted test. Some were rejected because we could not hear any differences. We only used material with which we could hear differences in the sighted test. We ended up with six stereo recordings and five multichannel ones. Comfortable listening levels were agreed upon and written down. Also, the tracks and the timestamps were written. The passages tended to be anywhere from 50-some seconds to just over a minute.

Then on to the blind A/B/X test. Kal had "pre-programmed" the sequences for us, so all the person running the test needed to do was put in the correct disc, set the master volumes, select the DUT to use and hit play. At the end of the passage, hit pause, SWITCH TO THE UNUSED INPUT and then to whatever DUT was up next and hit chapter reverse .. which started the song from the top. Next, pause the song, do the input thing, select the DUT designated as "X" and begin the song.

I took the test first, Dennis next ran the test for the modded unit's owner and then I ran it for Dennis. We took a break before moving to the 5.1 portion. I went first and then had to leave. While on my way home, Craig called to say he would not be able to make it. And neither of the other two members who expressed interest were able to make it either, so they finished the test with no additional ears.

Before I divulge my results and the overall results, I will comment on the sighted listening. In every instance of recordings that we had heard a difference, we had all thought the modded unit had ever so slightly more detail ... as if a thin veil had been lifted. This listening involved instantaneously switching mid-note from one DUT to the other and bakc again. So I went into the blind test with a lot of confidence that I would both get "X" and select the modded DUT as my preference. There was an optional column for that choice; the real test was to identify "X" after being told here's A, here's B now which one is this?

On the stereo test, my results were 5/6 (83%) correctly identified as "X" and - ta da! - 5/6 (83%) I preferred the STOCK unit. On the 5.1, I missed them all bit preferred the stock unit 3/5 (60%). Over the two tests, I preferred the stock unit 8/11 (73%). I am flummoxed as I choose the one I thought to have the better inner detail, something the sighted portion had me thinking modded.

Overall - any of the others that want to step up and post their individual results that is up to them - the group preferred the modded unit 17 out of 33 times - 51.51% of the time. As a group overall, we correctly identified X only 42% of the time (14/33). All of us did better on the stereo test than the MCH test.

I do have one conclusion based on this test and that is the The Upgrade Company fails miserably in meeting the lofty claims on their website. And their going on and on about "For Profit Built" competitors is a huge helping of barnyard dung ... as if they aren't in it for profit. Sheesh.

At this point, I don't trust sighted tests where, I think, you will hear what you think you should hear. As for their money back guarantee, I would consider that like the old Jedi mind trick. After I HEARD A DIFFERENCE AND PREFERRED THE MODDED UNIT DURING THE SIGHTED TEST, I have no trouble believing that customers who buy from them already want to believe so they will hear an improvement. The 100% satisfaction guarantee? As I said, having plunked down the money because they believed what they read - or heard from a "testimonial", they do hear an improvement ... just like me.

Jeff

Thanks for sharing Jeff

Interesting conclusion with high degree of accuracy

 

[Gregadd]

A predictable result. Proving the futility of ABX testing.

Thanks for trying.

 

[pepar]

A predictable result. Proving the futility of ABX testing.

The futility of A/B/X testing? I don't consider it futile at all. Perhaps I missed your meaning?

 

[Gregadd]

The futility of A/B/X testing? I don't consider it futile at all. Perhaps I missed your meaning?

See,
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3732-Is-ABX-finally-Obsolete