What do we know about Underwood mods for universal players?

[krabapple]

Very true. Besides even if these mods do nothing and it is all just placebo effects if the user feels as if something is gained, even if it is non-existent outside of their imagination well they still got something in the form of peace of mind.

Funnily enough, the FDA, Better Business Bureau, and consumer watchdog groups don't find that argument compelling.

 

[krabapple]

There is one tiny fly-in-the-ointment in this line of thinking, though, mtry. In the world that is experienced by the human brain, perception = reality. If then perception = fallible = reality is acceptable logic, we're in agreement. But in the end, it doesn't tell us much. Does it?

Yes, it tells us to practice caution when forming conclusions from perceptions.
Application of this principle led to the invention of the scientific method.

Here's an analogy. Religion is so pervasive in the world to almost be universal. Logic plays no part in faith.

Wrong. Plenty of faiths use logic, some explicitly in defense of the faith (one rather famous practitioner was St. Thomas Aquinas). It's the premises that are questionable. (The logic may be poor, as well.)

To billions of individuals on the planet, their particular perception of reality is faith based. Physics charts will no more move a true believer than audio graphs will move an experiential listener.

Unless the true believe takes physics charts as yet more evidence of God's plan.

I guess that's the penalty we pay for being human...not knowing ultimate reality. And you know what? That's not a gimp old man talking. That's the position of modern physicists who subcribe to the enigmas of quantum physics.

Wow. Do we really need to know the answers to the enigmas of quantum physics, to know if something is audible? If so, it's astonishing that we've figured out ANYTHING so far.

I understand that I'm making an obscure point and taking this discussion a bit far afield. But it is a way of stating that you cannot convince anyone who has their own perception of reality .... of yours.

So, how do you distinguish someone who;s barking mad, from someone who just has 'their own perception of reality'?

 

[vman71]

That's not a valid analogy. There is no question that we were nowhere near the possible limits of resolution of video, in the 480p days. But for audio, just what are you improving?

I'm not going to waste my time responding to this question because you obviously are not an open-minded person and clearly unwilling to understand/comprehend that hearing is believing (trust your own ears).

Sorry, but that;s simply inadequate...certainly science and engineering don't accept "I just know" as sufficient evidence of effect.

Again, I trust my own ears enough to offer a full, no questions asked, money back guarantee on my work and what I say it will sonically improve.

Crossover mods may well have a significant audible effect. Whether its a good one, is another story. Before and after measurements would really be useful. And AFAIK it's usually not a good idea to go changing crossovers on already-vetted speaker designs.

You have no idea what I do to speaker xovers. All the proof I need is that I'm happy with the mods that I do and that my customers are happy with the results of my work.

So? That's $250 that could have been put to more technically justifiable use.
Like room treatment.

Knock yourself out with room treatments then.

 

[MDS]

I'm not going to waste my time responding to this question because you obviously are not an open-minded person and clearly unwilling to understand/comprehend that hearing is believing (trust your own ears).

So, Mr. Vman71 can we conclude that you are the one offering these 'mods'?

I'd just like to ask if you are so certain of your mods why don't you build a player from scratch that is the best of the best? Could it be because the gullible fall for the notion of a 'mod' that will drastically improve the performance of a stock player and will pay a high price for it? Or is that you don't really have the technical acumen to build something from scratch?

Hearing is believing or seeing is believing is bogus. To use Mtrycrafts favorite example, puttting a steel pipe in a bucket of water causes your eyes to believe that the water bent the pipe. Did it really bend the pipe? Of course not - the eyes and ears are easily fooled and that is how high priced 'mods' are sold - to the gullible.

 

[Tomorrow]

So, how do you distinguish someone who;s barking mad, from someone who just has 'their own perception of reality'?

In at least one case, name withheld to protect the not-so-innocent, they are one and the same argumentative person.

 

[Tomorrow]

Yes, it tells us to practice caution when forming conclusions from perceptions.
Application of this principle led to the invention of the scientific method.
Wrong. Plenty of faiths use logic, some explicitly in defense of the faith (one rather famous practitioner was St. Thomas Aquinas). It's the premises that are questionable. (The logic may be poor, as well.) Unless the true believe takes physics charts as yet more evidence of God's plan.
Wow. Do we really need to know the answers to the enigmas of quantum physics, to know if something is audible? If so, it's astonishing that we've figured out ANYTHING so far.
So, how do you distinguish someone who;s barking mad, from someone who just has 'their own perception of reality'?

You would do well to investigate the philosophy of science with regards to the issue of 'consensual reality'. We do not experience 'reality' directly. We are each affected uniquely by our varying senses, but are able to agree (most of us, anyway) on things like "the sky is blue". You need to understand why this is true.

I also recommend you educate yourself on research issues related to perceptual science and the influence of the individually 'unique' receptors in each of our five senses.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I'm not going to waste my time responding to this question because you obviously are not an open-minded person and clearly unwilling to understand/comprehend that hearing is believing (trust your own ears).

And, Dr. Toole demonstrated that believing is hearing too, hearing what is not there to hear.

And, to hear, you really don't need to see which component is playing, do you?
By the way, why is it 'believing' is brought up so much? Can't this be demonstrated to we know instead believe it to maybe true?

Again, I trust my own ears enough to offer a full, no questions asked, money back guarantee on my work and what I say it will sonically improve.

That is easy to do as human nature shows that few are returned no matter what. And, human nature also shows that humans are gullible.
And, your trusting is irrelevant to the issue of audibility of what you offer.

Knock yourself out with room treatments then.

Interesting. I guess professional acousticians don't know what they are missing then?

 

[mtrycrafts]

... To use Mtrycrafts favorite example, puttting a steel pipe in a bucket of water causes your eyes to believe that the water bent the pipe. Did it really bend the pipe? Of course not - the eyes and ears are easily fooled and that is how high priced 'mods' are sold - to the gullible.

No, don't tell me, I cannot trust what I see now??? LOL

 

[mtrycrafts]

And I'm sure that you have bought many things based on perception (yours as well as others), opinions (yours as well as others), recommendations from others, and reviews (that were not from a professional source).

All of these are subjective, which make them fallible, but you've still bought things based on these subjective and fallible things.

I try to be careful for what I make claims for though. And, whose input I follow and to what extent. And how much things matters.
But, I try not to reinvent the wheel too often.

 

[mtrycrafts]

There is one tiny fly-in-the-ointment in this line of thinking, though, mtry. In the world that is experienced by the human brain, perception = reality. If then perception = fallible = reality is acceptable logic, we're in agreement. But in the end, it doesn't tell us much. Does it?

Here's an analogy. Religion is so pervasive in the world to almost be universal. Logic plays no part in faith. To billions of individuals on the planet, their particular perception of reality is faith based. Physics charts will no more move a true believer than audio graphs will move an experiential listener.

I guess that's the penalty we pay for being human...not knowing ultimate reality. And you know what? That's not a gimp old man talking. That's the position of modern physicists who subcribe to the enigmas of quantum physics.

I understand that I'm making an obscure point and taking this discussion a bit far afield. But it is a way of stating that you cannot convince anyone who has their own perception of reality .... of yours.

There is no universal reality? Perhaps in mathematics? In Logic?
Isn't quantum physics concerned at the quantum levels even though they could explain the macro world? But then physics can explain the macro as well, no?

Cannot we test reality? That blue color can be compared to others and differentiated or not?

Perception can be reality indeed but it can also be a false reality, no? And, cannot we test perception?

By the way, these tangents are important to learning.

 

[Tomorrow]

There is no universal reality? Perhaps in mathematics? In Logic?
Isn't quantum physics concerned at the quantum levels even though they could explain the macro world? But then physics can explain the macro as well, no?

Cannot we test reality? That blue color can be compared to others and differentiated or not?

Perception can be reality indeed but it can also be a false reality, no? And, cannot we test perception?

By the way, these tangents are important to learning.

I find 'reality' to be a mighty interesting topic, lol. Must come from my formative days at the University of California, Berkeley in the early '60's!

Reality in mathematics? Not (ahem) 'really'. Math is nothing more than identities (equalities)...A = B. Logic is the same beast in different clothing. These are 'concepts'. Concepts are invented by our brains.

We can test, compare, map, differentiate, predict and otherwise scientifically measure what's 'out there', sure. We just can't experience reality directly. I give you the example of blue sky, again. What you see as blue sky is not and cannot be the same thing I see. Your eyeballs, optical nerves, and cerebral electro-chemical manipulations are quite physically and essentially different and unique from everyone else. What your system tells you is a blue sky is not doing what mine does. Hearing and the rest of the senses have this same limitation. However, we can both measure the blue sky within its EM wavelength to exactly the same results. That's all we can say that science does for our reality sniffing. It standardizes what's out there in a way that codifies our consensual reality. In my mind, this is the real gift and substance of science.

We can test perception and make statements about such things as preferences, reliability, predictability. That's a wonderful contribution by science to our lives (and to marketeers ). But there is no one who has a handle on reality or can experience it. That's the reason there is no perfect loudspeaker, and in fact why speaker preference is so personal and subjective. We can test hearing. We can test speaker performance. We can then test perception of the listener to the speaker. That will tell you what?...preference, opinion, reliability of repeating selections, etc. The scientific measurements we make of perception are still not reality. They're...uh...measurements.

Concerning your last question...it really is irrelevant in the philosophy of science. Since you can't directly experience reality, all experiences of reality by definition are 'false'. Then again...we don't have any idea what the hell reality is. (Maybe someone out there guessed right, lol.)

If I were to have given Krabapple the definitive answer to his last question, it would be that since we all have our own perception of reality, the bonkers person is the one who doesn't share this 'consensual reality' with most of the rest of us.

 

[Tomorrow]

Mtry....sorry, I forgot to respond to your question about quantum physics. I don't pretend to be an expert in Quantum Mechanics, but in answer, let me paraphrase the primer on QM reality. The quality or answer one gets from investigating the quantum world is that "it depends on what you're looking for". Early QM experiments and discoveries involved the wave/particle dual nature of the physical universe. If you're looking for waves, then our physical universe pretty much operates as wave motion. If you're looking at particles, particle physics describes reality. Which is the 'real' reality?

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle also showed that reality is basically uncertain and is probability driven. These are but a couple of commonly referred to QM principles amongst many awe-evoking significant features of QM mathematics and its significance to our understanding of 'reality'.

I hope this isn't too far afield, but most of QM sounds like technobabble nonsense. So pardon my weak effort at simplification. The mathematics is almost indecipherable by even the best of mathematicians, so I won't (or can't) get technical, here. It turns out that the universe is made up of some pretty weird and slippery stuff. Bell's Theorem, and John Bell's ingenious mathematical proof from which it hails, tells us that any conceivable (model of) reality must include an instantaneous, "non-local" connection. This would be a "super-luminal" information exchange of impossible proportions within our reality.

What, you ask does that mean for our discussion? It demonstrates that we cannot know reality because it is a non-local phenomenon (from a quantum point of view), even if it wasn't based upon random probabilities that are measured in standard deviations and not the absolutes that we all rather take for granted.

QM, which is the standard of physics today, has been proven time and time again to be an accurate predictor of findings. It's so weird as to have driven Einstein nuts trying to disprove its findings.

 

[vman71]

So, Mr. Vman71 can we conclude that you are the one offering these 'mods'?

Very perceptive.

I'd just like to ask if you are so certain of your mods why don't you build a player from scratch that is the best of the best? Could it be because the gullible fall for the notion of a 'mod' that will drastically improve the performance of a stock player and will pay a high price for it? Or is that you don't really have the technical acumen to build something from scratch?

I have no interest in building a "best of the best" player. Simply put, I do simple mods on decent equipment and make it better.

 

[vman71]

And, to hear, you really don't need to see which component is playing, do you?
By the way, why is it 'believing' is brought up so much? Can't this be demonstrated to we know instead believe it to maybe true?

Is there a point you're trying to make?

That is easy to do as human nature shows that few are returned no matter what. And, human nature also shows that humans are gullible.
And, your trusting is irrelevant to the issue of audibility of what you offer.

I'm not asking you to trust my ears, as I'm not trying to sell you anything.

Interesting. I guess professional acousticians don't know what they are missing then?

Clearly, you're ignorance continues to show. I never said that acoustic treatments don't work. Read what I said.

 

[avaserfi]

I have no interest in building a "best of the best" player. Simply put, I do simple mods on decent equipment and make it better.

As pointed out very clearly by this thread, it is highly unlikely you actually make these "decent" players better. Maybe you do to your ears, but without testing the equipment with a properly controlled unbiased experiment you won't be convincing anyone here. I think its called snake oil around here you were probably looking for audiophileswithtoomuchmoney.com

 

[vman71]

As pointed out very clearly by this thread, it is highly unlikely you actually make these "decent" players better. Maybe you do to your ears, but without testing the equipment with a properly controlled unbiased experiment you won't be convincing anyone here. I think its called snake oil around here you were probably looking for audiophileswithtoomuchmoney.com

Did you just fall off your John Deer tractor?

I'm not trying to convince you that modding "your" audio gear is the way to go. I have said that in my experience from modding my own audio gear, primairly speaker xovers, I have heard sonic improvements. I have also had positive comments come back after modding other people's speaker xovers.

I'm certainly a person with enough honesty and integrity to call a "spade a spade." If the modding I do, had no positive results, no results at all, or negative results, I would have expressed that. I was sharing my personal experiences and some of the feedback from my customers, that simple modding has improved the sonic performance. If you're experience is different, that's fine too.

 

[avaserfi]

Very clever because everyone who lives in Iowa is a farmer.

The reason you aren't trying to convince anyone here to mod their system is because it is a waste of time. The majority of the users here know what a tweak is and realize they are a waste of money, even if that jar of rocks is pretty or that person you talk to on the phone has a cheery disposition.

You won't be convincing anyone here without actual proof your hearsay is not enough end of story. If people didn't "hear" sonic differences between their tweaks or pointlessly expensive cablesthese wouldn't exist and be sold.

 

[vman71]

The reason you aren't trying to convince anyone here to mod their system is because it is a waste of time. The majority of the users here know what a tweak is and realize they are a waste of money, even if that jar of rocks is pretty or that person you talk to on the phone has a cheery disposition.

You won't be convincing anyone here without actual proof your hearsay is not enough end of story. If people didn't "hear" sonic differences between their tweaks or pointlessly expensive cablesthese wouldn't exist and be sold.

Well, don't you have ALL the answers to everything and feel confident to speak on behalf of everyone on this website. Who appointed you GOD?

 

[avaserfi]

Well, don't you have ALL the answers to everything and feel confident to speak on behalf of everyone on this website. Who appointed you GOD?

Sorry I shouldn't have said the majority of people here I should have said the majority of educated consumers know what snake oil is when they see it...

If you hadn't gotten the hint member who have been here far longer than I with much more technical knowledge have put highly convincing arguments for why these mods are not worth while you just refuse to believe them because "hearing is believing" when in fact that has even been proven false here in this very thread.

edit: As I feel I have stated my point and you have resorted to name calling/insulting I am done unless you post something that is actually constructive.

 

[Tomorrow]

I guess I should get into the mainstream of this thread.

I decided to source-switch, back and forth, my office music setup from an old, cheap Sears cdp to my Paradox modded JVC XL-Z1050 cdp. There was noticeable difference in tonality, with the mod playing more (for lack of a better expression) analog sounding. It seemed a richer sound. However, the improvement, if you want to call it that (I would) was subtle and not, IMHO worth a lot of money if you're a casual listener.

Speakers are ACI LX's and integrated amp is by Emotiva. CD's played, various rock, pop, jazz, blues.