The Upgrade Company

[RUR]

Hi Ken,

I really do not want to go through this agony again. But, Nick, Dave (not Dave Schulte), I and several others did offer the opportunity for members of AVS and others to come to our homes to audition some products. No one took us up on our offers or thought it worth while.

Rich

Nor did I, Rich, hence my original "sent you a PM" post rather than air the dirty laundry. But when Mr. S., himself, shows up, I will respond with all of the info provided in the AVS and other fora threads.

You know very well why folks were unable or unwilling to take you up on that offer. OTOH, why doesn't TUC put this whole thing to rest by simply accepting Gene's offer to conduct third party measurements?

I would even extend you/him the offer of independently reviewing and measuring the benefits of his modifications particularly for the Oppo BDP-83 or BDP-83SE players since I am well versed in those product designs and have over $100k worth of test gear and the engineering know how to determine any measurable performance increases resulting from Mr. Schulte’s modifications.

I look forward to resolving this in a mutually beneficial way that excludes tying up the court systems wasting time and dollars on something that can so easily be resolved with PROOF.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=709924&postcount=29

That would have resolved this contentious issue once and for all.

 

[naturephoto1]

Hi Ken,

Though I know David, I am certainly not in a position to speak for him regarding either supplying before and after measurements or for having a 3rd party conduct measurements.

But, again, if people are/were in my area, I would offer them the opportunity to audition and listen to my set-up, which without question now has performance that has improved dramatically with my new speakers, cabling, and Acoustic Room Treatments since the AVS thread.

Rich

 

[Bruce B]

Again, standard MO. Fortunately, we have photos of some of his handiwork. At no point in that thread did Mr. S deny that these photos were of his mods, nor did he respond to my direct question in the link. He did, in fact, praise the virtues of the blue goop shown in the photos as improving audio quality by reducing vibration..

Thank-you for such an enlightening read!

 

[RUR]

Thank-you for such an enlightening read!

Bruce, I could go on and on and on. Believe me.

 

[amirm]

Caesar this was just covered today, see p_reale's post above. p_reale is a repeat client of ours and a UCLA professor and composer of music.

He might be that. But you and he should know that our antenna is up regarding his posting here. Why? Because a quick search shows essentially the same post on another forum and never returning again.

If he feels so strongly about this upgrade, then we welcome him to come back to explain more and post pictures of it the equipment (don't need to open it although that would be nice).

As to your product, I have an open mind since I have no history with your company. But if you want to participate in this forum, its nature by definition is discussing products and services such as yours. If you are not willing to discuss the same, then you are at the wrong party .

 

[The Upgrade Company LLC]

Jay we think you are being a bit ridiculous. Pictures equal sound quality? Audiophiles do not listen with their eyes.

Both Wilson Audio and FM Acoustics of Switzerland go much further then we do, they pot/bury their circuitry in plastic to prevent prying eyes. So do other manufacturers. We are not unique in trying to maintain our trade secrets and prevent tinkering & unauthorized modifications upon the upgraded and warranteed unit.

Audiophiles and music lovers care about the sound, our 5 year warranty, and our rock solid 100% Buy Back Guarantee try out.

Until you have directly heard the A-B comparisons we've put on such as the RMAF Show, please be more polite and open minded.

The Upgrade Company has already won this argument. Our upgrades have been proven year after year, time and time again. Reviewers like our work.
We stay very busy andhave even continued to grow in this economy.

The fact that you have failed to call out the cheap "For Profit" tactics of manufacturers speaks about your underlying motivation and loyalties.

Reviewers, professors of music, composers of music, recording engineers, high end audio manufacturers many of whom wish to remain private clients of The Upgrade Company, like our upgrades very much.

Science has not yet produced a measurement set or standardization with which to prove, disprove, quantify or even decribe what musicians & reviwers regard as the very best "State of the Art" sound quality.

That's why it is referred to as an "Art".

Stock High end brands often measure no better then most mid-fi models achieve, and many measure worse in terms of jitter, signal to noise, flat frequency reponse, power output, THD+IMD, etc. It's there in print for many models, look up the specs and compare.

Let me make it more simple for you to understand: If reviewers simply proclaimed "X" model is "The Best" and the lab technicians took measurements and posted the specs, then all anyone would have to do to duplicate "The Best" was make their model measure just like "X" and they'd sound alike. As we all know that is not what is generally achieved.

If the best measurments directly equated to State of the Art sound, there would be no need for reviewers. Just make it measure the same and it'll sound exactly the same,but is that correct? That is not what has ocurred over the last 40+ years of high end audio.

Modification firms generally do not post lab measurement results, yet consumers hear and fully appreciate the expensive parts, wiring, shielding and dampening. How do you measure State of the Art sound quality?
Success is accomplished by ear, by listening. The human brain/ear can detect sound quality variations past the limit of the measurement equipment.
Why can't anyone easily duplicate a Stradivarius? How do you measure why one Stradivarius sounds better then another? There isn't a measurement.

Many ultra expensive manufacturer's do not post detailed specifications. Wilson Audio's trade secret crossover designs for example.

Since you've targeted my company for our lack of full disclosure and wanting to keep our trade secrets, why don't you target other manufacturers who by U.S. Law are also entitled to keep their handiwork a trade secret? Perhaps Wilson Audio for not giving details about their crossover designs, drivers used, wire used, dampening material inside the cabinets etc. Or go bug EMM LABS for their secret algorythm and schematic to make standard CD's sound like SACD's as they claim.

 

[amirm]

Some of you need learn that there has been no measurement set or standard established to prove or even consistemtly quantify what veterans regard as the best sound quality. High end brands often measure no better then most mid-fi models achieve, and many measure worse in terms of jitter, signal to noise, flat frequency reponse, power output, THD+IMD, etc. It's there in print for many models, look up the specs and compare.

Fortunately, there are good standards for video. Your web site says, "Video looks washed out, no depth of field, and grainy in comparison....The Upgrade Company specializes in improving audio and video components by upgrading to the finest electronic parts, wiring and shielding available."

Can you expand on what I can expect as far as improvements in above? Or are you saying you upgrade the components and whatever may come, will come?

 

[Bruce B]

Go bug Wilson Audio for not giving details about their crossover designs. Go bug them for not posting detailed frequency reponse plots for each pair of speakers, including THD+IMD, and impedance over frequency plots.

We can find frequency response/impedence plots for Wilson speakers.

Sophia

Sasha

Maxx3

 

[RBFC]

Let's please keep this discussion civil. Dave, although I can understand your interest in defending your products, if you read your post above you will see several personal insults. Attack the content of the post, not the poster. Individuals are entitled to their opinions. You will notice that there were no personal insults directed at you.

Thank you,

Lee

 

[mimesis]

We may not be able to measure a person's ear/brain interface directly although using functional magnetic resonance imaging we might see activation in various areas of the cortex based on aural reception of certain stimuli. It would be fascinating if areas such as the amygdala show increased activity (this is the center of emotional response) to...tubes!

Of course, more realistically, we can measure a person's response stability to the same set of stimuli over time. This is standard practice in the use of inferential statistics in social science. For instance, exposed to the same stimuli at some set interval, does the respondent offer the same response or does he vary? Perhaps the person changes - even if the stimulus is constant over the various experimental phases (this is the value of a longitudinal study).

In such a study we might discover that actually the person's preferences change over time, which causes him (or her) to prefer one type of gear (correlated to some sonic signature) over another. Of course, we do need to control for prior knowledge, expert knowledge, agenda setting, priming, confirmation bias etc.

As far as testimonials for any purchase - a buyer's initial state may well be to like his new acquisition; in the absence of the opportunity to compare the same product in its before and after states, the mind has vast terrain over which to create imagined benefits, which, if one accepts the constructionist viewpoint, is fine. But the actual context, is larger than the parochial, non-reflective view espoused by the person who must live with the singular path he has chosen.

Separately, in peer settings, it is also possible that a person assumes a discursive presence in which he attempts to convince or persuade others (subconsciously or deliberately) of the rectitude of his positions if for nothing else than to gain social acceptance. Thus we find many vociferous adherents of whatever, niche (or mainstream) product, practice or norm who attempt to influence others in the public sphere. As Amir noted in another forum quite eloquently, it is within this forum of engagement that individuals can alloy their arguments, claims and evidence and pursue a dialogic intersubjectivity in hopes of rational deliberation in which the truth will out (to paraphrase Bahktin).

Those who are not willing to allow their arguments (and these may manifest in physical form as someone's tangible work, as in a modification, or perhaps as a creation - such as a DIY amp) to be subject to evaluation seek followers of consumption rather than those interested in productive discussion.

And one last point - on a visceral level one can well have a reaction to what one sees; to refer to such a response and post it online in an objective manner says nothing about the purported benefits (or not) of the work whose image evoked the reaction. If I were in the market for a modification, out of sheer curiosity I would be interested in what the mod looks like, if only to evaluate the aesthetics and determine the precision and handicraft of the modification.

 

[The Upgrade Company LLC]

Are the various claims put forth here correct? Will someone clearly indicate each of the measurements and results that are needed to achieve "State of the Art" absolute best quality for:

A) Stereo speakers in the home
B) CD/SACD transport
C) Digital-to-analog convertor
D) Solid state and tubed stereo preamplifier
E) Solid state and tubed stereo power amplifier
F) ISF calibrated display. Once they ISF calibrate the same, why do they look vastly different?

2) Explain to readers why very high and low cost models measure within a small margin from one another yet sound very different? Why is one model priced high and another low when they measure only a fraction differently?

3) Does there exist an exponentially large increase in the actual measured performance relative to the huge retail price difference between entry level and cost is no object models as some of you have alluded?

4) Since you've alluded that Wilson Audio provides full disclosure, which is not true, post a public link to the crossover design and photographs of the completed insides (wire, dampening materials, crossover components, driver backs with oem manufacturer's sticker still in place) of the Wilson Watt Puppy 8's and the Wilson Alexandria speakers.

5) Email I received tonight from Professor Paul Reale:

In a message dated 2/28/2011 12:06:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, p_reale@_____.com writes:

Dear Dave,

The problem is the field of "high end audio" is basically full of baloney. The people with the good ears (professional classical musicians) are too poor to afford the kind of stuff we play with, and they don't really listen to recorded music. Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding. The sad thing is that the big hi-fi manufacturers have a stranglehold on the hi-fi press. Little companies like yours or Sound Lab (or even Jack Bybee) never get reviewed, while William Z of ARC etc. get all the kudos. This kind of nonsense is _____

All of you guys- Modaferi, Modwright, The Upgrade Company, et al are doing the same thing. Remember Tucker and his advanced automobile?

__________________________________________________

Consumers go into debt all the time listening to HiFi magazine hype over extremely high cost gear only to be let down when they get it home. The improvements are nearly always much less then expected and marginal at best. It's also why HiFi manufacturer's lack the nationwide Better Business Bureau rating or JD Power rating for high end audio manufacturers. I think it is fair to say that some electronic manufacturers would be flooded with consumer complaints.

This is where a skilled and experienced modifier/upgrader can help consumers. We pick up where the corporate "bean counters" left off.

 

[mimesis]

The fact that large manufacturers have a stranglehold on the press, which is contentious to say the least, presupposes that individuals are malleable to what they read and unable to make independent decisions based on personal, lived experience. This is a bold claim insofar as it assumes that people are not possessed of agency but rather simply receivers of programming. Now, if you argue that the proliferation of certain forms of measurements has become a convention by which to evaluate, ex ante, the virtues of some given gear, and that the convergence in the measurements is such that statistically speaking, the gear measures the same (and you need to do this as a study if you wish to generalize) yet sounds different then perhaps I would agree. However, in the high end, it does seem that the majority of new generation reviews do not measure the gear they evaluate. The European magazines do, as does S-phile and some on the S-Stage network. One could also approach such measurements with a certain threshold discriminator as a way of indicating problems with the design- such as amplifier instability etc but then say that as long as the measurements are within reason, the gear will be worth finding the time to audition in person.

As for your friend's supposition, it simply reveals the typical fundamental attribution problem where people who are expert, tend to valorize their own expertise (as some fundamental attribute) while downplaying (or denigrating) the attributes of others. As normal humans are possessed of auditory capabilities, speak and listen to sounds to navigate life, I would aver that they are sufficiently equipped to make judgments for themselves. Have I never hard someone sing or play an instrument? Of course I have. Has this musician ever engineered a product or recorded sound, mixed, produced and then delivered it? The supply chain from source to package is complex and the economics are such that utopian ideals are just that - but it should not keep someone from striving to produce improved sound. I'd rather, however, leave the bemoaning aside. This attitude can be applied to any endeavor in life; to wit, why do we spend so much on college athletics, entertainment etc and so little on advances in science, healthcare etc?

As for reviews, I've read multiple reviews of Bybee gear over the years, as well as Sound Labs and also fora threads on the TUC products. Given that the Internet has a near zero barrier to entry, one should not bray against established magazines (who in their own way face the problem of physical delivery and falling readerships) when one can freely drum up business by sending out review samples to the various blogs in the various languages (I'm thinking that Japanese, Chinese and Russian are three huge markets that most American-based perspective forget).

As for the baloney part; it is true that there is a lot wrong in high end audio, particularly when high end is considered by price first (and often alone).

Finally, it is possible that an individual is blessed with some insight/talent/experience to make meaningful differences to a stock piece of gear. For those contemplating the hire of such a service provider, one would wonder what general methods are employed. Is there a systematic approach to analyzing the effects of certain changes in a controlled fashion (that is, does the provider have a rigorous, QC in industrial design to validate his changes such that, epistemologically, he is comfortable stating that what he knows he knows is true and not spurious?) This is the kind of question I would ask and it is unrelated to the actual intellectual property of the parts and modifications involved.

If I were to take my porsche in, would I want someone who wings it and trust his reputation alone (and his line that it is art and not engineering he is pursuing) or would I want someone who has a manner of on inquiry that is critically reflexive and thus SELF-substantiating?

 

[The Upgrade Company LLC]

Several excellent points which have been addressed on our website. Please start with the FAQ tab at the top on the header bar:

www.upgradecompany.com

We enjoy helping audiophiles and videophiles achieve higher performance then they have been able to obtain elsewhere, and we've been very successfull at doing so.

The Upgrade Company is debt-free and well funded. It's safe to say we'll be busy satisfying our clients for many more years to come.

 

[The Upgrade Company LLC]

tomelex (I like your motto "Audio is what you hear, not what you see.") & Bruce B, Amir, RUR, we're all awaiting each of your detailed and enlightening answers to post #32 above.

 

[audioguy]

WOW!!

If I hadn't already read the many, many, many negative comments on this company (yes, TUC, go do a Google search on complaints on TUC instead of calling me a liar) prior to deciding not to contact them, after reading his posts here, I would certainly never do business with them.

While I can certainly understand a company wanting to defend their reputation, his approach here is certainly not one that will endear his company to future prospects.

WOW!

 

[RBFC]

Re: musicians

While the vast majority of musicians have great ears, many of them have little experience listening to performances through audio systems. Therefore, they may be no more qualified to enter judgement as to the quality of playback under examination than anyone else. Since most of their experience is based upon hearing the music from a perspective that is never captured on a recording, most recordings will therefore sound quite different than the presentation to which they are accustomed. This is not to demean their abilities, but merely to point out that we must have direct experience with things for which we wish to offer commentary.

Mr. Schulte,

As I stated while wearing my green "moderator" hat, I can understand your interest in defending your products. However, I find your method of presentation quite argumentative and bordering on rude. I'm glad that you feel that your company will be successful and solvent for many years. Your tone here certainly does not support that goal.

High-end audio is filled with problems, as are many other business sectors. Perhaps you should consider playing to the strengths of the audio public, rather than taking the "why should I provide "X" when Wilson doesn't?" approach.... I understand that you've had to address these issues on other forums, etc. It may well benefit you to approach each concern with humility and kindness, rather than the demeanor that is on display here.

I posted this as my personal opinion, as I didn't want these comments to be taken as the position of the entire forum.

Lee

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

From the posts I have seen here ... I am certain I would not use the services of TUC... I wish TUC well and would think that kinder replies would go a long way in swaying potential customers in their way ... What I have seen here would not sway many...

 

[preale]

In my post I indicated that I had two EMM digital front ends: stock and mod. There was no comparison in the improvement in sound of the TUC mod. That is why I sent my preamp to David for an upgrade. Don't think that I did not have my doubts about sending $24000 worth of digital hardware to someone who would tinker with the works.

 

[Gregadd]

A 14 day guarantee for an non auditioned product is no big deal. 30 days ala Moscode(33&1/3) and Sanders might be more appropriate.For the most part trade secrets are protected only by the holder. Frequently they are protected in law suit discovery, IME most companies jut purchase the competitors product and study it. I see nothing wrong with a potential purchaser asking to be convinced that his money is being well spent. To the contrary I would suspect that secrets so closely guarded are usually done so because once revealed they are easily duplicated.

Having said that I wholeheartedly agree "the proof is in the pudding."

I find the BBB to be a toothless Tiger. I have no experience with TUC. Those who accused them of wrong should be prepared to put forth specific examples. If false, that would be fodder for legal action.

 

[naturephoto1]

I just want to just make a comment. Like or dislike David or his his approach to his responses or even the appearance of some of the internal work, people should at least give the benefit of the doubt that the claims may or do in fact work. Many of us found that they do, and it is worth your efforts to at least have the chance to audition equipment that has been upgraded by The Upgrade Company. Just my $.02.

Again, for anyone that did not see this earlier, this is a link to a recent Positive Feedback review:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue53/marantz.htm

Rich