The Upgrade Company
- Thread starter audioguy
- Start date
Hey Gavin, you're a Power Engineer. When someone says his got 456 megawatts and it's enough to power a car or house doesn't it conjure images of deploying a nuke on a fruit fly?
Hey TUC, that shoebox is the equivalent of a fair sized coal plant and more than half a modern nuclear power plant. What electric car do you have and how many ovens, fridges and bulbs have you got in your house?
I have been dealing with David for years at this point. Much of the work that he is emphasizing for improvements in performance is doing and working in many areas that Roger is discussing in his tweaks thread for reducing RFI and EMI. He also works in specific areas of the circuitry and as Nick has pointed out, David does not and does not believe in changing, modifying, replacing clocks, etc. He has found that this kind of change and/or addition tends to damage the overall performance of players.
Rich
Hey Gavin, you're a Power Engineer. When someone says his got 456 megawatts and it's enough to power a car or house doesn't it conjure images of deploying a nuke on a fruit fly?
Hey TUC, that shoebox is the equivalent of a fair sized coal plant and more than half a modern nuclear power plant. What electric car do you have and how many ovens, fridges and bulbs have you got in your house?
If the megaton shoebox thingy works out for our friendly inventor, TUC will be but a distant speck in the rearview mirror...which may end this controversy once and for all. I just hope we all get a heads up on any IPO that may be coming. I'm all in baby...you with me Jack?
Well after a long night of music with a great selection of players ranging from (MRSP)$6000 to $300,I will say only this about the TUC DV9600...It has a combined value of $2000(MRSP for the 9600) + $1000(TUC cost)=$3000 total and that is about were this playere sits....with any player that has a $3000 MRSP.We played everything from(redbook)Bob Marley,The Who,April Wine,Frank Zappa to Micheal Jackson,AC/DC,Rush and then in SACD we played Dire Straits,The Police,Ray Charles and several Telarc discs(Jazz) and in the end the result never changed.I cannot say whether all the players had the TUC time alloted 10,000hr breakin period but they all had time on them...and maybe after 10,000 hours on it,it may sound like a $3050 player,but for now all I can say is that it sounds like the money you invest into it.One thing for sure is when someone says that it is at the $10,000 level,you may want to figure it was a $9000 player that was upgraded.
I do not wish to get into an argument with you regarding performance and performance improvement. But, many of us have experienced improvements immediately, but improvement in performance usually reaches its optimum in approximately 600 to 1000 hours of burn in on the new parts. The improvement is not subtle, but there can be some erratic changes in sound during the burn in period (particularity in the first several hundred or so hours).
Rich
Well with the cost of fuel,shipping,parts and repairs....these modders may want to rethink a few things!!!Because if I have to play between 600 and 1000 discs just to hear a difference for a review and wear out my drive,then that is also a strike against this upgrade.
Hi I often wonder about the patience of my fellow audiophiles .. 1000 hours for break in? Let me repeat it :1000 Hours ? 1000 hours!!? How can we be sure that it isn't just a case of us really wanting to hear differences that maybe, just maybe aren't there? .. because after 1000 hours we can't have any reliable recollection of how it sounded before; auditory memory being soooo unreliable ...
However if it works for a given person enjoy it ... even if that takes 1000 hours to do so ..
With such persistence and ductility it is not wonder that there will be abuses .. We, audiophiles, are almost inviting them with such display of monastic patience
However if it works for a given person enjoy it ... even if that takes 1000 hours to do so ..
With such persistence and ductility it is not wonder that there will be abuses .. We, audiophiles, are almost inviting them with such display of monastic patience
Hi Frantz,
But, even with many makers indicating that their products will perform at their best after 200 to 300 or more hours of burn-in it is much the same problem and issue. Be that as it may, when comparing the upgraded machines with stock of either the same unit or more expensive units, it is usually performed after at least several hundred hours of burn-in on the machines to get a true picture. By the way, for burn-in as mentioned, we frequently use burn-in CDs and leave the machine on repeat and check the performance every so often and then listen for a session.
Rich
Rich
In another life I was an orthodox audiophile.. I believed in burn-in and cables etc .. I had several "burn-in" and still have my trusty XLO burn-in CD .. IT still takes close to 50 days if the "burn-in" time is 1000 hours closr to two months of constantly having my drive spinning or if not constantly .. more than two months ... I wonder how can we reliably establish that it is really a change or an impression of a change ...
back in college I remember how I always thought that my car ran better after a tune up ...especially if performed during a good week-end ... It could be very similar ...
I am by no means saying that a person cannot modify a component to bring it to higher level of performance .. It is just that I would like a more reliable metric than listening to it after 1000 hours .... when I will have likely forgotten how it sounded before .. unless I have an unmodified version to which I could compare the modded to .. blind preferably, to try to remove most of my biases toward justifying the (usually non-trivial) expense
In another life I was an orthodox audiophile.. I believed in burn-in and cables etc .. I had several "burn-in" and still have my trusty XLO burn-in CD .. IT still takes close to 50 days if the "burn-in" time is 1000 hours closr to two months of constantly having my drive spinning or if not constantly .. more than two months ... I wonder how can we reliably establish that it is really a change or an impression of a change ...
back in college I remember how I always thought that my car ran better after a tune up ...especially if performed during a good week-end ... It could be very similar ...
I am by no means saying that a person cannot modify a component to bring it to higher level of performance .. It is just that I would like a more reliable metric than listening to it after 1000 hours .... when I will have likely forgotten how it sounded before .. unless I have an unmodified version to which I could compare the modded to .. blind preferably, to try to remove most of my biases toward justifying the (usually non-trivial) expense
Spot on, Frantz. Also, and conveniently for the seller, any return privileges are typically long gone.
Ken and Frantz,
As I have mentioned previously, you can get some idea as to what the machine will ultimately sound like well prior to reaching the ultimate performance. Using burn-in CDs are certainly an aid in this. And, as I have mentioned even many high end makers also indicate that their products will reach their optimum performance in hundreds of hours. With a burn-in CD for on the order of 50 hours you should get a good idea of the sound, but performance will continue to improve (with the highs and the bass frequently the last areas to fully mature), that is what I am suggesting. If you wanted to run a burn-in CD non stop for a week that would be 168 hours which should be the equivalent to substantially more than 168 hours of listening to music.
Rich
As I have mentioned previously, you can get some idea as to what the machine will ultimately sound like well prior to reaching the ultimate performance. Using burn-in CDs are certainly an aid in this. And, as I have mentioned even many high end makers also indicate that their products will reach their optimum performance in hundreds of hours. With a burn-in CD for on the order of 50 hours you should get a good idea of the sound, but performance will continue to improve (with the highs and the bass frequently the last areas to fully mature), that is what I am suggesting. If you wanted to run a burn-in CD non stop for a week that would be 168 hours which should be the equivalent to substantially more than 168 hours of listening to music.
Rich
Experience has shown that certain speakers can have an extended break in period, in my case as much as 400 hours. I have found that electronics don't seem to take nearly as long...I'm talking SS amps not tubes.
I'm on the side on those saying that stabilisation times should be be the order of a couple of days at the most; in my first experiments it typically took about 3 days to get optimum sound, and this was purely achieved by leaving gear switched on, not also playing music. In my current fiddling with the HT beast I switch it off every night, and it has to give me top notch sound within a couple of hours of hard driving, after major changes, for me to say that something done was worth it. Anything stretching into weeks is ridiculous, and in any case the ultimate level of sound quality possible from audio gear is so high anyway, that if a system at that level is working only at 90% of its ultimate capability within an hour or so that will be well and truly good enough to satisfy 99% of people ...
Frank
Frank
There is a difference between using a trade secret for profit and having a customer reveal what was done. Again customers have no obligation to protect patents or "trade secrets". If a customer buys a Coca-Cola and is able to discover the formula he has no obligation to keep it secret. Companies routinely seek "protective orders" for trade secrets during the discovery phase of litigation. Courts frequently grant these orders.
MY apology to TUC, but I thought they were threatening customers not competitors.
MY apology to TUC, but I thought they were threatening customers not competitors.
Consistent with thier previous arguments TUC omitted some very salient facts.
They authority they cite involves a company founded by two ex-employess who formed a company useing trade secretes which were the subject of of confidentially/non-dissclosure agreements.
"The law protects the holder of a trade secret against disclosure or use when the knowledge is gained, not by the owner's volition, but by some improper means, which may include theft, wiretapping, or even aerial reconnaissance; however, a trade secret does not offer protection against discovery by fair and honest means, such as by independent invention, accidental disclosure, or by so-called reverse engineering, that is by starting with a known product and working backward to divine the process which aided in its development or manufacture."
If you persist in your argument I will do more research.
They authority they cite involves a company founded by two ex-employess who formed a company useing trade secretes which were the subject of of confidentially/non-dissclosure agreements.
"The law protects the holder of a trade secret against disclosure or use when the knowledge is gained, not by the owner's volition, but by some improper means, which may include theft, wiretapping, or even aerial reconnaissance; however, a trade secret does not offer protection against discovery by fair and honest means, such as by independent invention, accidental disclosure, or by so-called reverse engineering, that is by starting with a known product and working backward to divine the process which aided in its development or manufacture."
If you persist in your argument I will do more research.
Similar threads
