The Upgrade Company
- Thread starter audioguy
- Start date
I have every confidence that this thread will show WBF isn't just another AVS off-shoot, where people make up their minds before they participate, and reject opportunities to find out something that doesn't accord with their long-held understanding and belief.
In particular, I hope that people won't expect more rigorous "proof" of someone'e assertion about sound quality than they would happily accept through traditional media.
For example, we've all seen reviews of say, the Denon AVP-A1, where each reviewer to a man has declared its functional and sonic brilliance. Although the reviews are subjective, sighted, and usually without any measurement, and rumours abound of advertising influence, I don't remember any owners complaining. So its all good, yes?
Now we have a couple of people who suggest that a cheaper modified Onkyo processor sounds really good. There are no pro reviews, no specs, no tests, just a few testimonials. More evidence is demanded, but not forthcoming, so the unit is dismissed for reasons that are overlooked with stock equipment. What are we to think - the Denon is better than the Onkyo?
Is that the right decision making process?
Nick
In particular, I hope that people won't expect more rigorous "proof" of someone'e assertion about sound quality than they would happily accept through traditional media.
For example, we've all seen reviews of say, the Denon AVP-A1, where each reviewer to a man has declared its functional and sonic brilliance. Although the reviews are subjective, sighted, and usually without any measurement, and rumours abound of advertising influence, I don't remember any owners complaining. So its all good, yes?
Now we have a couple of people who suggest that a cheaper modified Onkyo processor sounds really good. There are no pro reviews, no specs, no tests, just a few testimonials. More evidence is demanded, but not forthcoming, so the unit is dismissed for reasons that are overlooked with stock equipment. What are we to think - the Denon is better than the Onkyo?
Is that the right decision making process?
Nick
Here is a review of the Denon AVP preamp/processor:
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/processors/denon-avp-a1hdci
If we could see something this complete that discussed one of TUC's products, that would be a step in the right direction IMO.
Lee
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/processors/denon-avp-a1hdci
If we could see something this complete that discussed one of TUC's products, that would be a step in the right direction IMO.
Lee
Could I suggest that audio and video improvements are discussed in separate threads? There are lots of ways to assess video replay objectively, and there's not so much need to depend on subjective testimonials.
Although audio signals can be measured, I think many people here would be willing to agree that measurements don't tell us everything we want to know. I find myself split on the debate - willing to accept that upgrades improve analogue audio, digital audio and analogue video, but sceptical that upgrades can improve digital video.
I hope we don't find ourselves "voting" for the whole package.
Nick
Although audio signals can be measured, I think many people here would be willing to agree that measurements don't tell us everything we want to know. I find myself split on the debate - willing to accept that upgrades improve analogue audio, digital audio and analogue video, but sceptical that upgrades can improve digital video.
I hope we don't find ourselves "voting" for the whole package.
Nick
That's all very well, but there's nothing there to tell you that it doesn't actually sound very good.
Nobody else here REALLY LISTENED to the A1HD?
Is that the sort of assessment that we should be relying on?
Nick
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Whether it was there or not, wouldn't tell us whether it sounds good, or not.
My point is that many of our familiar products are promoted by undiscriminating reviews that don't tell us what we really want to know. Not a single review of the Denon has told us that our money is better spent elsewhere; no-one is brave enough.
So that sort of conventional product assessment may not help when we want to know if TUC products sound better or not. Measurements may not help either; I don't know. Perhaps the noise floor is a bit lower.
My view is that you either need to work out who is reliable, or do it the hard way and find out everything for yourself (which is largely what I've done).
Nick
My point is that many of our familiar products are promoted by undiscriminating reviews that don't tell us what we really want to know. Not a single review of the Denon has told us that our money is better spent elsewhere; no-one is brave enough.
So that sort of conventional product assessment may not help when we want to know if TUC products sound better or not. Measurements may not help either; I don't know. Perhaps the noise floor is a bit lower.
My view is that you either need to work out who is reliable, or do it the hard way and find out everything for yourself (which is largely what I've done).
Nick
So you didn't see the whole page of listening test impressions in that review?
The point is really that we haven't seen any thorough testing of the TUC units. Perhaps when either the company or an owner submit them for more "objective" analysis, many skeptical feelings will be addressed.
Lee
Lee,
Though not specifically addressing this again see this link:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue53/marantz.htm
As to owners submitting pieces for a more objective view I do not have a problem with that. However I am reluctant in that I would not want the unit opened up and have photos posted of the work because it is proprietary. I do not want to get into a debate as to I am the owner and I could do with the item as I see fit and share what is done internally, much less to have a 3rd party do this. Initially when I brought up the upgrade on AVS Kal was interested in having a listen, but as things progressed he lost interest because he wanted to see what was done to the unit and to post as I recall his findings of the work done inside and to also post on-line photos. I had offered to bring the unit for him to listen from my home in Pennsylvania to either his location in NYC or Connecticut at my expense.
Rich
Rich,
I'm not challenging the fact that Francisco wrote his impressions. It's just that many folks would be satisfied with a complete review: objective measurements AND subjective listening impressions. Since the mechanism of TUC's business model prevents easy availability for objective measurement, I hope you can understand the concerns of the populace at large. I, and others here, have no reason to disbelieve what the subjective reviews (including yours) are stating. There is a "cause and effect" phenomenon at work here and it seems impossible to resolve under current conditions.
Lee
I'm not challenging the fact that Francisco wrote his impressions. It's just that many folks would be satisfied with a complete review: objective measurements AND subjective listening impressions. Since the mechanism of TUC's business model prevents easy availability for objective measurement, I hope you can understand the concerns of the populace at large. I, and others here, have no reason to disbelieve what the subjective reviews (including yours) are stating. There is a "cause and effect" phenomenon at work here and it seems impossible to resolve under current conditions.
Lee
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Co-Owner, Administrator
what I still would like one of you who have modded a DVD player is how you can say the video is improved via HDMI when Amir has proved that this just cannot be the case
Is it a fair question as well to ask what it costs to mod a unit and is the 5 year full buyback applicable to only the cost of the mods done by TUC or does it also apply to the MSRP of the unit. Has anyone ever exercised that option with Mr S.
I have seen posted here today that David S suggested his "Signature" mod for a prepro. Can someone explain to me what the difference is between his standard mod and a "signature" mod and how could one even tell the difference between the two if you don't know what was done
Is it a fair question as well to ask what it costs to mod a unit and is the 5 year full buyback applicable to only the cost of the mods done by TUC or does it also apply to the MSRP of the unit. Has anyone ever exercised that option with Mr S.
I have seen posted here today that David S suggested his "Signature" mod for a prepro. Can someone explain to me what the difference is between his standard mod and a "signature" mod and how could one even tell the difference between the two if you don't know what was done
Hi Steve,
I can only speculate that the video looks better for my upgraded Oppo 83SE NuForce Edition Blu-ray player or my upgraded Denon 3800 BDCI Blu-ray player. I have never used the video portion for either my previous upgraded Denon 5910 or my present upgraded Denon 5910CI. Additionally, I do not run my Blu-ray player in my main system directly into my Plasma TV, but rather it runs through the upgraded Onkyo 885 Pre/Pro first. I will say that at this point, that I suspect that the images are sharper than they were before upgrade, but there is no question regarding the audio aspects.
As to the cost of the upgrades to the players, it is dependent upon what is being upgraded, but usually it is around $1000. With something like an Esoteric or an EMM Labs it is more and possibly $1500 or even more to do an upgrade on the machines.
As to the 5 year warranty, that is relatively new. I thought that it applied to repairs and failures. I do not know how long the buy back offer is in effect, but I have not checked the latest listing on TUC website regarding this.
As to the upgrades themselves, most of the work is done as a Signature upgrade though there are some units and someone may request less work to be done to a unit. An example of less than a Signature upgrade was to the Lehman Audio Decade Phono Preamp that I had at one time. David did not think that we needed to perform additional work. Additionally, David may offer additional work to some pieces of equipment beyond the Signature edition. This can include additional work and parts including the installation of Bybees and High End fuses (7 of these are in my upgraded Onkyo 885). Usually these are only discussed and suggested if David has found that these can add to the performance of that piece of equipment that is being upgraded at present; this is only recommended if David has found that these additional parts can add to the performance of that particular model.
As to some of the additional installation of Bybees, I know that these were added to my upgraded Aragon Palladium 1K monoblock amps, my upgraded Oppo 83SE NuForce Edition Blu-ray player and my upgraded Lavry DA10 DAC. My first upgraded Denon 5910 player also had them, but I am not sure if my present even better performing Denon 5910CI has them. I would have to confirm this with David for this one piece.
Rich
Last edited:
That's exactly what I did do - the listening test impressions were all very positive.
What I'm arguing is that we haven't seen any proper independent assessement of the Denon and the like, never mind the TUC units.
Nick
Sure we have. AVC-A1HD may be found in Hi Fi News August 2008 with a full suite of measurements linked at Miller Audio's site. Onkyo 886 March 2009 and, of course, many other pieces of gear with independent measurements made by one of the most respected companies in the business.
No TUC products, though...
Couple of points ...
First, I can see what David is addressing, from the information that has been forthcoming so far about the style of his mods, and they are certainly procedures which will have definite effects on the sound. Whether they are easily measurable with conventional techniques is a whole different can of worms. Likewise, the chap playing around with the aluminium foil, etc, is working on modifying the sound by dealing in a different way with the same phenomena. To be blunt, this is tweaking at exactly the same level of rationality and provability as the playing around with endless combinations and permutations of interconnect and speaker cabling, which people throw staggering quantities of money at. Nearly everyone in the game accepts the usefulness and validity of these activities, but these changes are operating in precisely the same arena of behavioural manipulation as David's and the other chap's. The problem with this whole area is that it is very difficult to pin down what is really being affected by these procedures, but it is still very clear that the final, resultant sound IS altered.
Secondly, the HDMI behaviour could be affected by the mods. People still tend to think that if components are in separate boxes then they are totally independent, which of course they are not. Each component can affect another component through the interface cable, because the signals whether they are called digital or not are still analogue in nature from the point of view of the electronics that have to deal with them; also via the power cables if the level of interference passed back down and then up another cord changes, and finally through RF interference, over the air waves. These things are all possible parts of the equation influencing the quality of the video.
Frank
First, I can see what David is addressing, from the information that has been forthcoming so far about the style of his mods, and they are certainly procedures which will have definite effects on the sound. Whether they are easily measurable with conventional techniques is a whole different can of worms. Likewise, the chap playing around with the aluminium foil, etc, is working on modifying the sound by dealing in a different way with the same phenomena. To be blunt, this is tweaking at exactly the same level of rationality and provability as the playing around with endless combinations and permutations of interconnect and speaker cabling, which people throw staggering quantities of money at. Nearly everyone in the game accepts the usefulness and validity of these activities, but these changes are operating in precisely the same arena of behavioural manipulation as David's and the other chap's. The problem with this whole area is that it is very difficult to pin down what is really being affected by these procedures, but it is still very clear that the final, resultant sound IS altered.
Secondly, the HDMI behaviour could be affected by the mods. People still tend to think that if components are in separate boxes then they are totally independent, which of course they are not. Each component can affect another component through the interface cable, because the signals whether they are called digital or not are still analogue in nature from the point of view of the electronics that have to deal with them; also via the power cables if the level of interference passed back down and then up another cord changes, and finally through RF interference, over the air waves. These things are all possible parts of the equation influencing the quality of the video.
Frank
Yup, I signed-up to Miller Audio Research years ago, and have been trying to digest it ever since. I was the person who compiled the jitter list, taken from those tests, which circulated round the forums for a while. Paul Miller is one of the few reviewers I pay attention to, as he actively tries to find what measurements actually correlate with sound quality, and he doesn’t seem too afraid of making critical comments.
However even he, like Gene, seems to have fallen down the Denon trap. Although he was somewhat critical of the 2500BT in that review, he joined the crowd by heaping praise on the AVP-A1, which is my real beef, and one that I haven’t explained very well. I describe these as not being proper assessments because they’re not discriminating.
When was the last time you saw a review of a pre-pro that wasn’t complimentary, certainly not an expensive one? They’re usually tested in isolation, without a competing product to compare against. They’re also difficult and time-consuming to set-up properly so that you can make fair comparisons. They all work differently, and the reviewer spends hours trying to get a peep out of it, does lots of tweeking and eventually gets some sort of sound that he’s happy with, and writes it to prove he’s done some work. .
I believe that even paid reviewers are falling down the trap of thinking that because something is expensive and measures well (and pays for lots of advertising) that it must sound good as well. Emperor’s clothes syndrome – but people tend to be comfortable writing and reading what everyone wants to hear. I think everyone fell down that particular trap when the AVC-A1 came out (including me).
In the cold light of day that was never very good, and with the AVP-A1HD, history seems to be repeating itself. That doesn’t sound very good either, certainly not good enough to justify its price, but how would you know that without listening to it? And if you could get a modified prepro that sounded better, how would you know that it sounded better? The existing review resources aren’t discriminating enough to tell us what’s wrong with stock products.
Nick
The question germane to this thread is "How does TUC know that its modified product sounds better?". We have Miller Audio's stock measurements, but none for any TUC-modified unit with which to compare. We have no response from TUC to any of the substantive questions put to them in this thread. What we get, instead, are deeply-flawed user testimonials and a lot of hot air from TUC. Neither is especially persuasive.
Nick, this thread is about TUC and the validity of their claims. If you look around, there are plenty of other, general threads critiquing the value of various gear, reviews/reviewers, cost vs. performance, etc. etc.
I think that is a fair criticism
. I for myself have been surprised to have so many new friends on this thread asking for objective tests and such . We don't want to be hypocritical this way. As noted though, since claim has been made that measurements do improve, then it is fair game to at least ask for that, regardless of how much one subscribes to that school. Why? I think because the credibility of the company and its owner is somewhat in doubt so having something that cannot be refuted goes a long way in that regard. Put another way, the demand for objective proof here is not about audio or video performance but rather, reference checks on the company itself.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |