The Upgrade Company Threatened Audioholics with Legal Action

[Seth=L]

Just read a few related posts over at AVS. When even Stereophile calls BS, it must be huge steaming pile!

Chances are they are sending these threatning letters to everybody that mentioned their company in the hopes that at least one of them will wimp out. It's possible the company is in the red and is doing anything to get a few extra dollars before they completely dissapear.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Chances are they are sending these threatning letters to everybody that mentioned their company in the hopes that at least one of them will wimp out. It's possible the company is in the red and is doing anything to get a few extra dollars before they completely dissapear.

That's my guess, as well.

 

[jamie2112]

Chances are they are sending these threatning letters to everybody that mentioned their company in the hopes that at least one of them will wimp out. It's possible the company is in the red and is doing anything to get a few extra dollars before they completely dissapear.

Good luck with that....he may have seen what the Moster Mini Golf thread did to a certain company that likes to bully others....Gene I thank you for posting the letter and I am sure these ripoff artists will go away after your response. But if not can we please start a thread???? PLEASE I hate these kind of people who get called out and can't back ANY of their claims.......

 

[highfigh]

I thought all you had to do was enter a "BUMP" in the thread

P.T. Barnum was right

It really was a cold sore?

 

[highfigh]

OK, if they can back up the claims, why not allow their player to be tested objectively and with double-blind tests in a controlled environment? If it makes that much difference, it would have to be measurable and audible to almost anyone with a critical ear. Also, if they actually have a money-back guarantee, it should be no problem for ANYONE to buy one and return it if they don't agree that a $1500 upgrade doesn't equate to a $15K improvement.

The way human hearing becomes accustomed to differences in sound quality over time, I'm surprised any high-end companies are still in business. Yes, bad sound can be discerned if it's bad enough- I found this when I connected my DVD player the first time and used a set of cheap cables that had been connected to my VCR. The sound was absolutely disappointing and I seriously considered returning the player because I thought it had a problem. I switched to the cables I had used for my CD player and it sounded great. I'm not an advocate of the "If the cables cost that much more, the difference should be drastic" but the difference was there. I bought a new receiver and it sounds really good without Audyssey- good enough that I didn't notice anything negative to make me want to remove it. Audyssey did smooth out the response and I would occasionally bypass Audyssey, to listen for the differences. I reconnected my integrated amp and have only listened through that for the last week- I am, once again, accustomed to the sound with no Audyssey or other method of EQ and I'm also using the DACs in all of the sources, unlike when the Denon was in use.

I hear differences but they're not so drastic that I would consider saying that it was a 10:1 improvement. If it was that much better, I would need a cigarette, if you know what I mean.

 

[Seth=L]

OK, if they can back up the claims, why not allow their player to be tested objectively and with double-blind tests in a controlled environment? If it makes that much difference, it would have to be measurable and audible to almost anyone with a critical ear. Also, if they actually have a money-back guarantee, it should be no problem for ANYONE to buy one and return it if they don't agree that a $1500 upgrade doesn't equate to a $15K improvement.

The way human hearing becomes accustomed to differences in sound quality over time, I'm surprised any high-end companies are still in business. Yes, bad sound can be discerned if it's bad enough- I found this when I connected my DVD player the first time and used a set of cheap cables that had been connected to my VCR. The sound was absolutely disappointing and I seriously considered returning the player because I thought it had a problem. I switched to the cables I had used for my CD player and it sounded great. I'm not an advocate of the "If the cables cost that much more, the difference should be drastic" but the difference was there. I bought a new receiver and it sounds really good without Audyssey- good enough that I didn't notice anything negative to make me want to remove it. Audyssey did smooth out the response and I would occasionally bypass Audyssey, to listen for the differences. I reconnected my integrated amp and have only listened through that for the last week- I am, once again, accustomed to the sound with no Audyssey or other method of EQ and I'm also using the DACs in all of the sources, unlike when the Denon was in use.

I hear differences but they're not so drastic that I would consider saying that it was a 10:1 improvement. If it was that much better, I would need a cigarette, if you know what I mean.

The cables must have been faulty or there was interference due to lack of proper sheilding.

 

[highfigh]

The cables must have been faulty or there was interference due to lack of proper sheilding.

They were the cheap, molded kind, used for stereo audio and composite video. This would have been fine because my integrated amp is stereo and only has composite video inputs. I'm pretty sure the wire is made of small chunks of copper, dirt and other stuff, mashed together for a long enough time that it kind of becomes wire. No cuts, no scuffs, nothing abnormal. Just pure crap. I had used them for jobs where it wasn't critical and now, I won't use them at all- I returned what I had and bought something better. It wasn't interference, either- just bad sound. I had to wash my ears after that.

 

[gene]

Here is the response of the attorney with his permission to post it:

Gene, I regret that you inferred my letter to be threatening. It was certainly not intended to be perceived in this manner. I do not believe that it was threatening either in tone, nuance or expressed word. I simply and briefly wrote to communicate David's concern that certain third party posts on your site concerning David were false and defamatory. I then referred to the fact that your site is moderator observed and edited (which of course would enable you to remove offending posts), and concluded by writing "we respectfully request that you immediately cause all references to Schulte and/or the Upgrade Company to be removed from your user-generated forums on your Website. I look forward to your prompt attention to this matter and reply." There was no threat made (or which should be implied) of legal action. I was respectful, and I did contact you in a "peaceful manner" as you reference. I am not looking for a fight here, and there really is no need for you to suggest otherwise. I believe that my client did take the "high road" as you reference. You indicate that my client should have contacted you directly, and I won't disagree with you. Unfortunately (or fortunately) he is very busy with his business; that is why he asked me to assist him. As to sending the letter to your house, I had no idea that the address was your house - I was not even sure I had the correct address. I found the address through various searches of public corporation records (specifically, the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations, which identified a Principal Address in Land O Lakes and a Mailing Address in New Port Richey); these records do not discern whether the addresses are residential or commercial. If I had had an office phone number for you, I would have called you.

I can certainly understand your negative reaction at having received a letter from an attorney, and perhaps this in itself is viewed as "threatening". I kindly ask that you look beyond my title and focus on my words which were and are both respectful and non-threatening. Please understand that my role here is to communicate and work out a mutually satisfactory solution to my client's concerns. I hope that we can move in that direction. My contact information is provided below. I invite you to call me so that we can discuss this matter free from the emotion of letter writing and back and forth emails. As to addressing our concerns on your forum; I appreciate that you are certainly free to publish my letter to you, your email to me, and this response. Although I see no particular reason for taking this matter in that direction, I certainly understand and appreciate that you have the right and the power to choose otherwise.

Sincerely, Nathan

My response in the next post....

 

[gene]

Nathan;

In case you aren’t aware of what Audioholics does, let me briefly explain our business model. We scientifically review product and validate manufacturers claims and publish the results on the editorial part of the site. Most of my staff are degreed engineers with expertise both in hardware and software. We work directly with test equipment companies on developing accurate test procedures using the most advanced test equipment in the industry. We also encourage healthy discussions of all A/V related topics including our reviews and content via our public forum. Audiophiles love their hobby and thus love to share their experiences with other members while also helping each other out to determine the best equipment/services for their particular needs. As for our forums being moderated. The moderation is done by unpaid volunteers of the site whose sole purpose is to diffuse flame wars and bickering, NOT to police the legitimacy of claims made by every poster 24/7.


Regarding the tone of your letter not being threatening:
Sorry but I am not buying that your client is too busy to contact me personally especially since he apparently wasn’t too busy to solicit your services. A phone call or email takes minutes at most. You comment regarding my site as a content provider for forum posters opinions falling under the legal ramifications of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 USC230 is threatening enough.

In case you didn’t notice there is a huge thread over at AVS Forum discussing the legitimacy of your clients services.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1198719

After seeing pics of your clients modifications on AVS Forum (see attached pic), I see no unsubstantiated claims made on my forums about questing the legitimacy of those mods. Until

David J Schulte can disclose the mods he performs on these products and show measurable and analytic proof of their benefits, with pictures of the products before and after the modifications are completed I will not remove a single post on the Audioholics website regarding Mr. Schulte’s company.

I am however a reasonable person and always allow manufacturers to present their side of any story where consumers are involved.

If you or Mr. Schulte would like to offer rebuttal to the claims in the following thread:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61665&highlight=upgrade+company

I’d be happy to allow this discourse. You/he are welcome to post before/after mods to show what the customer is getting, as well as a Bill of Materials of parts. If the picture in question isn’t legitimately his work, then feel free to note that in the thread.

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.


Best Regards;

Gene DellaSala
President, Audioholics.com

 

[jamie2112]

Thank you Gene.I await his/their response.You are NOT going to bully someone with a lawyer and Gene is well aware of that. I love this site and how it is run.I would love to see PROOF and a Facebook page dedicated to seeing his proof..oh yeah gotta go make a page..

 

[adk highlander]

I think they saw how much publicity the Lexicon fiasco received through this site and are trying to play off that. Someone once said:

"There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary"

 

[majorloser]

This yahoo is trying to say us moderators aren't doing our jobs!

I then referred to the fact that your site is moderator observed and edited (which of course would enable you to remove offending posts)...

I have half the mind to show him what an "offending post" really looks like.

grumble, grumble, grumble....

 

[MinusTheBear]

Its of my opinion they want to bully there way into trying to get bad publicity off the first page of a google search of the company. Its shameful how companies try to bully consumers and manipulate media outlets these days and try to control information and censor opinions on a companies products. Isn't this America???

 

[Jack Hammer]

Gene - Now that you have his consent, perhaps you would publish his initial letter. I, for one, would like to see what he considers a brief and simple communication of David Schulte's concerns.

Oh, and for the record, when it comes to things you are unhappy with having a lawyer contact someone on your behalf instead of contacting them yourself automatically implies the threat of possible litigation.

 

[gene]

I just heard from another website that they asked them to remove all occurrences of the words "Upgrade" and "Company" from their site which is an impossible task since those are generic words and would destabilize any threads featuring those words. Needless to say it went nowhere.

I also checked with an attorney who told me Section 230 that was referred to in the legal letter to us is actually setup to protect website owners of public forums from presumably liable posts that forum members make. Since the Audioholics forums aren't moderated for every post and are simply addressed on a case by case basis when someone flags a post, they aren't "moderated" in the sense they are attempting to claim they are.

In any event, my offer still stands to validate their claims through review/analysis but I am not backing down by removing those terms which would be harmful to this website.

 

[gene]

Legal Letter On Behalf of the Upgrade Company

Attached is the legal letter I received on behalf of David Schulte from the Upgrade Company.

 

[tonygeno]

Nothing threatening about that?

What a jerk.

 

[Matt34]

Last I heard this "company" is a one man shop working out of his house.

 

[Jack Hammer]

Attached is the legal letter I received on behalf of David Schulte from the Upgrade Company.

"you may fairly be considered a content provider without immunity under section..."

Seriously, how is Nathan going to pretend like that sentence isn't a form of a scare tactic? That sentence singlehandedly changes the tone from being that of a simple courtesy request to a notice of implied potential for liability on your behalf.

 

[bandphan]

​

Seriously, how is Nathan going to pretend like that sentence isn't a form of a scare tactic? That sentence singlehandedly changes the tone from being that of a simple courtesy request to a notice of implied potential for liability on your behalf.

The funny thing is it says may not shall, which means little to nothing.