How do I verify - or debunk - the claims of The Upgrade Company? - Page 43

Well, if "it is impossible to know what is being supplied for the cost", then this thread is pretty much done. Or is putting a value on "the impossible" now the new topic. So those who have indicated DS is a "charlatan" and that TUC is in business mainly to bilk unsuspecting customers out of untold thousands have done so even though it is an impossibility to know what is being supplied for the cost? Hmmm.... interesting.

Ohhh I see. So it's the "improvements in sound quality" that he's not providing that's spawning all this moral outrage? And who pray tell is the arbiter of the great "improvements in sound quality" standard? You? That's fine. You've made your determination. But now that YOU have decided that YOUR unit was not provided with the "improvements in sound quality", then all of the satisfied customers of TUC are........ what? Subject to being deposed in the coming legal action that you are contemplating against TUC? And as you enter these satisfied customers homes you are going to tell them..... what? That because YOUR unit lacked the "improvements in sound quality" that THEY, the satisfied customers are either too stupid to know when their mind has been controlled and that they've been duped by this charlatan, or that THEY just don't know what "improvements in sound quality" are but YOU of course do?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Par4....

Is there any possibility at all that you could post in a polite and civil manner?

Jeff,

I'm not sure we can make the leap that, "...because the modded unit could not be picked from from between it and the stock unit IN OUR TEST", leads to the conclusion "he is not providing the improvements in sound quality that he says he does."

I think the *only* conclusion that can be drawn from this test is that, in the limited sample size of the test, and in a test that included a "controversial" switching mechanism, you were not able to discern a difference between the modded and stock units. Extrapolating beyond that to a broad generalization is inappropriate and not confirmed by the results. More testing is needed to discern if a larger sample size could delineate a difference, and whether elimination of the switch could influence the results.

Craig

Craig, please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the only 'controversial' aspect of the switch the fact that the owner of the modded unit in the test postulated that it invalidated the results? Is not a switch generally used in tests of this sort?

Keith,

I would say Par4 is trying to push those in this thread to stoop to his level. Then possibly the thread will get closed. I would say just ignore him and he will go away.

Bill

The mere fact that DS and others have "questioned" it, makes it controversial. The test didn't address this issue in any way, to either prove or disprove that the switch had an impact. AFAIK, no listening was done *without* the switch. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn on whether the switch had an impact. I'm not saying it did; I'm saying it can't be concluded that it didn't... based on this test.

Craig

Wise words, Bill.

Finally, a voice of reason has emerged from the technical wilderness with a cogent statement. Excellent post, Craig.

My feeling is that whatever method is used, it will always be objected to as somehow invalidating the result. If a cable swap is done instead, then it will be the delay that causes the invalidation. It isn't difficult to test whether a switch is having any impact at all on the signal passing through it. I'd have thought the switch manufacturer might even have done such a test. If the signal going into the switch is the same as the signal coming out, then the switch is not having an impact. There seems to be no need to test with and without the switch in circuit.

Keith, I respect your "feeling" about the switch. In fact, I agree with it. Nonetheless, it's presence in the circuit has been questioned as a possibility for why the two DUT's were unidentifiable. Unless it is *proven* that it had zero impact on the results, any conclusions based on this test need to be limited to the results of the test. Broader generalizations are inappropriate. You are certainly welcome to draw whatever conclusions you like. However, stating those conclusions as facts is not supported by these data.

Craig

What if I could supply a QSC ABX Comparator? No guarantees, but I know folks who own them.

Or would that, too, result in similar objection from you-know-who?

I still cannot believe there are still people sticking up for TUC in this topic at this stage.
If by sticking on some silver tape and glueing some caps on the tops of some chips (as shown in the pics of the modded units) which is all something 99% of us on this forum can do at home DIY for about £5 and it 100% improves the audio quality of all audio on any equipment it is done to then why o why is there not 10000 you tube videos showing the mods and how to do it because if it really does work EVERY ONE would just do it by default. Just like in the modding PC world there are mods that you Just have to do things, things every one does to get the best out of your equipment. (I.e Lapping and stuff)

If there was documented evidence on this stuff TUC go one about people would do it, there is not any evidence anywhere that shows that what TUC does really works other than people that have spent the $$$$ and those people are never going to admit that they got ripped off its just not human nature to admit that you got scammed good and proper.

When I found the pics of the mods TUC does I was amazed how bad it was.


Its because of this that it is 100% never going to be proven that any mods done by TUC do or don’t work.

Some one will all ways say something that will render the test null and void. Power, cables , signal time of the day, how long its been in use since new/mods were installed, switches, peoples ears, the music, the room, some one must of damaged a tie rap that’s holding the tinfoil on one of the cables and is damaging the audio signal in that 1mm gap were the tie rap should be because of RFI radiation, you were using nuclear power you need to use electric from a renewable energy source to get the full benefits out of the mods. So one was sat to close to the equipment and coursing interference.
And so on and so forth.


I am not picking on you craig its just the one's i happened to quote

I am NOT sticking up for TUC. I'm just saying that THIS TEST is not a conclusive test, at least not in any broad, general sense. That's ALL I'm saying.

Craig

I agree. I just don't think it would lead anywhere to remove the switch and conduct a test using swapped cables, for the reason I gave. Simply verifying that the switch neither added nor took away from the signal it was handling should be enough to satisfy all parties. I can all but guarantee that a cable swap will produce further objections as to the test's validity.

I don't think Rich Nelridge is interested in any further testing. The substitution of a different switch probably won't sway him.

Craig

I do tend to agree with you on this. We have already had people in this thread saying that you need to "tune your ears" into the mods, or that you need to spend some time listening before you can hear the results - apparently they become evident only after x hours of listening. The switch is just another of their red herrings: do it without a switch (a cable swap) and it will be "the swap took too long to make the comparison fair or valid". Craig is right in the context of what he says, but not in the conclusions he draws IMO.

It would be one more data point. THIS TEST is one data point. Listening without the switch would be another. Larger sample sizes would be beneficial. Getting multiple "believers" to participate in blind tests would be another data point. Once all that is done, then maybe some more broad, generaliztions can be made.

Until then, conclusions based on THIS test should be limited to the results of this test... that conclusion being that the DUT's could not be reliably and consistently identified using this system, on this day, by these 3 listeners.


Put the two tests together, (switch AND cable swap), and now you have more data. It would be harder to argue that the switch was the issue, if removal of the switch provides the same result.

Craig

Which speaks volumes, in itself.

What conclusion is that... that broader generalizations cannot be made based on this test alone? If that is the conclusion to which you refer, I stand by it.

Craig

Never let science get in the way of your largely faith based value system???

AJ

So my question would be that of the OP all those pages ago.
How do you verify - or debunk - the claims of The Upgrade Company?
Have we even been able to work out if that is even possible?
And if not why not?

sifting through the rhetoric, there are a variety of specific tests against the claims made on the website that could be done. DS claims to do, but does not provide any evidence as such.

Things such as reducing EMI/RFI interference. That's easy enough to see in the output signal. Introduce a known source, test it and see the results. Install shielding an perform the identical test. (Actually, you'd have to have a baseline of an unmodded unit without the known source.)

Same with the wiring and additional parts. Test before and after with a known source and prove that such sources affect the output and then prove that the modifications prevent that effect.

I believe he makes specific claims about reducing THD and such. Should be simple to prove. Of course, his own testing results would be questionable, but at least it would be a start.

Can you say with absolute certainty that the switch was totally benign in this test? Like you, I *think* it was, but the possibility still exists that it was a real impediment to hearing a difference. If the honest answer to the question is that you can't be *absolutely certain* that the switch was benign, then you shouldn't make broad generalizations that go beyond the data you've generated.

The fact that you and Keith and others, "feel" or "believe" or "think" it shouldn't matter is not "proof" that it doesn't. Your experience with the blind test should tell you that you can't make definitive statements based on what you think or believe to be true.

Look, I'm not saying that I "think" the switch was the reason you couldn't hear a difference. I'm just saying it doesn't hold up to the scientific method, and therefore broad generalizations should be avoided.

Craig