thanks
post #211 for those interested in more than the name calling and off-in-all-directions rhetoric we've been seeing.
quite a different story than Mark told. Or Louis. If Tom is to be believed it paints this whole episode in a very different light. However ill-advised the appellation assignment, there does seems to be an element of bodginess chez Mr. Maher.
It does seem clear that TEAD hasn't got the best legal advice in the internet age.
Now let's hear from the customer. Mr. Brown is it? One of the Reservoir Dogs??
no one is wearing a white hat.
post #211 for those interested in more than the name calling and off-in-all-directions rhetoric we've been seeing.
quite a different story than Mark told. Or Louis. If Tom is to be believed it paints this whole episode in a very different light. However ill-advised the appellation assignment, there does seems to be an element of bodginess chez Mr. Maher.
It does seem clear that TEAD hasn't got the best legal advice in the internet age.
Now let's hear from the customer. Mr. Brown is it? One of the Reservoir Dogs??
no one is wearing a white hat.
That raises many questions......"IF" that is genuinely from Tom Evans...
He states:- "It was him ( 'bodge it Mark') that posted the unit to us but as I said he fails to mention he posted an expensive amplifier with the local post office and wrapped it in a couple of sheets bubble wrap and placed it in a card box. On arrival here we noticed a rattle from the card box and after opening it we could see the units acrylic box was broken into several parts and 4 of the metal corner parts had deep dents. To make matters worse we could clearly see that the unit had been previously opened by Mark, this also voids the manufacturers warranty. Even so we offered to rebuild the unit into a new box and provide a new set of painted metalwork and also repair the fault correctly."
First question:- Why would Mark send it to TE for repair, for TE to then send it back to Mark, for Mark to then fix it??
He states that the repair will fail as the IC will also be damaged as the owner of the unit pulled the inputs whilst the unit was powered up (they advise against it) which is why that cap failed. He also states the ICs are graded in a test rig before being placed in the PCB & that they would have replaced the whole IC to ensure reliability.
He goes on to state:-"We remove the ident of our IC’s to stop the units being cloned and to protect our work. The design is a unique ‘recipe' learned from 40 years of working in audio,"
TE's Solicitors in the UK Civil Courts will have fun with claims for Defamation against Mark (amongst other claims as I've previously commented on)......"IF" the above is true......However, with this being the internet & nobody except Mark & TE knowing the facts of what happened its probably best to step back & leave it to their solicitors...
__________________________________
Full Quote from Pinkfish:-
Seems someone has contacted Tom Evans for his take on the situation (copied from Maverick Forum):
Thank you kindly for your email. I am happy to provide you with the details from our perspective.
As you well know there are always 2 sides to every story.
If you watched the video you will have heard his opening line, “the unit was damaged in the post” but he fails to mention the truth.
It was him ( 'bodge it Mark') that posted the unit to us but as I said he fails to mention he posted an expensive amplifier with the local post office and wrapped it in a couple of sheets bubble wrap and placed it in a card box.
On arrival here we noticed a rattle from the card box and after opening it we could see the units acrylic box was broken into several parts and 4 of the metal corner parts had deep dents.
To make matters worse we could clearly see that the unit had been previously opened by Mark, this also voids the manufacturers warranty.
Even so we offered to rebuild the unit into a new box and provide a new set of painted metalwork and also repair the fault correctly.
When we ship the units out they are sent with either Fedex, DHL, or UPS and are double boxed, the outer boxes are either made from plywood or tough Pelican cases.
If you take a look at all the carriers terms and conditions you will note they will not cover any insurance costs on anything valuable that has not been double boxed correctly.
We have sent out nearly 80 units worldwide without ANY damage, there are units that have been sent as far away as N.Z, the far east and the USA.
The repair he did is only temporary as the IC will also be damaged, the AVX TAP series professional grade Tantalum capacitor that failed would have also damaged the IC it’s connected to internally.
The capacitor failed because the customer that owns the unit pulled the inputs whilst the unit was powered up, something we strongly advise all our customer against doing !
The IC’s are graded in a test rig before being placed into the pcb, we would have replaced the whole pcb with a new one to be certain of future reliability.
We remove the ident of our IC’s to stop the units being cloned and to protect our work.
The design is a unique ‘recipe' learned from 40 years of working in audio, the retail price is related to it’s performance, however we don't sell them at the retail asking price.
They are sold directly to shops and distributors worldwide, we are paid 40% of the retail figure.
Unlike 'bodge it Mark’ we don't work from a shed in a back garden and have overheads / wages and rent to pay so the price we charge has to cover the costs.
As for his repair of the unit, it will fail again in the near future because of the internal damage to the IC and the glued casework he did will have more scars than Frankenstein’s bride, a truly unsightly bodge- up !
You can fully understand this now from my position, he leaves me no choice other than to protect my business and reputation by taking legal action against him.
Other YouTuber’s should take note and think carefully before they post as they are not immune from legal action !
Kind regards.
Tom.
________________________________________________________________
Best advice possible!
Although this thread should have been closed earlier it seems that this is a good point at which to do so.
The cynic in me thinks it might have been a set up.
I don't think Tom Evans had any recourse but to send it back from whence it came... for repair... or not... he was obligated.
Read my comment above where I quote the PF forum & the supposed email from TE...
TE says:- we offered to rebuild the unit into a new box and provide a new set of painted metalwork and also repair the fault correctly. - The repair he did is only temporary as the IC will also be damaged, the AVX TAP series professional grade Tantalum capacitor that failed would have also damaged the IC it’s connected to internally. - As for his repair of the unit, it will fail again in the near future because of the internal damage to the IC and the glued casework he did will have more scars than Frankenstein’s bride, a truly unsightly bodge- up !
TE is the manufacture of the unit. As such, if any third party repair that is not done as the manufacturer would do it, the manufacturer has every legal right to call it a "Bodge". Plus this email was supposedly "private" & not a video uploaded onto Youtube for the world to see, so context & audience is key in a legal court debate!
Like I say way too much contradictory info.....best stand back & let their solicitors fight it out....
From the above, several interesting excerpts from Tom Evans:
"The repair he did is only temporary as the IC will also be damaged, the AVX TAP series professional grade Tantalum capacitor that failed would have also damaged the IC it’s connected to internally.".... The IC’s are graded in a test rig before being placed into the pcb, we would have replaced the whole pcb with a new one to be certain of future reliability.
This is absolute nonsense... Tom Evans doesn't have a clue about solid state devices... and what IC... the closest one. And what would he expect to see changed in the "IC grading process of this semi-failed device that would have changed as a result of an external capacitor failure that had occurred? Increased noise? What is the form of the damage to this solid state device that would then cause it to fail prematurely? Completely bogus ....
The capacitor failed because the customer that owns the unit pulled the inputs whilst the unit was powered up, something we strongly advise all our customer against doing !
This gets even more interesting. So customers having children or pets that haven't been properly informed of Evans "advisement" are completely responsible for what... a £2,000 to £6,000 repair estimate in absence of any hourly rate disclosure? Perhaps with the added cost of entirely "new boards" because a capacitor reduced the alleged life expectancy of other solid state devices on the board? And how many boards... all of them?
Who creates £25,000 devices that fail from inadvertent disconnections, and then hold the customer entirely responsible for damage to their internals. These precautions are normally made to protect damage to things beyond them, like amplifiers and speakers, not itself.
And then theres this "The design is a unique ‘recipe' learned from 40 years of working in audio, the retail price is related to it’s performance, however we don't sell them at the retail asking price." This declares his prices are entirely fictional. This begs the question: What is the point of generating fictional pricing?
Forgot to add... mine is in "kind regards" of Tom Evans incase he intends to sue...
Last edited:
I concur with those observations. I’m not sure what to make of the supposed comment by Tom Evans, it started out sounding reasonable, then finished sounding petulant. Also, it seems nothing like what one can observe of Mark’s methodical nature to send such a cosmetically damaged, and left partially disassembled unit to Tom Evans co., but we can’t know for certain. Tom Evans’ referring to the removal of part identifiers as part of his effort to keep things secret bears no weight on what Mark did, because, not knowing those identifiers he couldn’t, so didn’t, reveal them. Also, as has mentioned upthread, NONE of the Mastergroove’s circuits appears unique. Even the line-amplifier configuration, which is the only one that could be called unusual, is taken from a 1987 Analog Devices App. Note.
Last edited:
@Ken Newton
I didn't feel Tom was petulant at all.
Given that there was a whole bunch of uninformed -- and misinformed -- commentary on Mark's post, I think it understandable if he responded, in part, to those -- not just what we see in the video -- and put his foot down a bit.
one complicating issue is warranty. If the unit was under warranty that changes everything. Mark's motivational calculation is suspect then.
I wonder if he gave the owner a quote? (how does he get paid? how long did he spend on this repair?? how many new customers did he attract to his own courses??)
Santa is a jolly old elf. But not everyone who puts on a happy face and whistles while he works is a saint.
I didn't feel Tom was petulant at all.
Given that there was a whole bunch of uninformed -- and misinformed -- commentary on Mark's post, I think it understandable if he responded, in part, to those -- not just what we see in the video -- and put his foot down a bit.
one complicating issue is warranty. If the unit was under warranty that changes everything. Mark's motivational calculation is suspect then.
I wonder if he gave the owner a quote? (how does he get paid? how long did he spend on this repair?? how many new customers did he attract to his own courses??)
Santa is a jolly old elf. But not everyone who puts on a happy face and whistles while he works is a saint.
Last edited:
Evans was clearly angered... as evidenced by his 'bodge it Mark’ allegation, the number of exclamation points used and of the inclusion threatening all YouTubers with legal action if they dared make commentary that was deemed offensive to him or his product. Apparently it seems Evans isn't satisfied with the numbers of his followers coming to his defence.. and there have been many... seemingly whereupon freedom of speech isn't something he is really committed to if one comment impacts negatively to himself or his product. This does suggest being unreasonably angry and upset in a childish way, hence petulant may be appropriate as being so defined ( to be clear... there is nothing wrong with children).
Though lets get back to his supposed statement "As for his repair of the unit, it will fail again in the near future because of the internal damage to the IC" ...
It is highly improbable (as likely impossible), for Evans to provide any evidence to support such a claim. How does he get from failure of an IC (again which one, how, or how many in the vicinity) to fail in the "near" future? To that extent he can be alleged of engaging in fear mongering... where fear mongering is the action of intentionally trying to make people afraid of having his units repaired by someone other than himself. Is this how he has justified other repair charges in the past... replacing entire boards for his past customers perhaps? The suggestion seems clearly that "if you have it repaired it can't be trusted to last for any length of time before "we" need to to do it again "properly"
Since we seem to have legal experts here (my brother was a criminal lawyer)... fraud is "knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment". The question becomes if Evans is knowingly making false claims of "failures" to gaining financial advantage in order to fix products himself?
Though lets get back to his supposed statement "As for his repair of the unit, it will fail again in the near future because of the internal damage to the IC" ...
It is highly improbable (as likely impossible), for Evans to provide any evidence to support such a claim. How does he get from failure of an IC (again which one, how, or how many in the vicinity) to fail in the "near" future? To that extent he can be alleged of engaging in fear mongering... where fear mongering is the action of intentionally trying to make people afraid of having his units repaired by someone other than himself. Is this how he has justified other repair charges in the past... replacing entire boards for his past customers perhaps? The suggestion seems clearly that "if you have it repaired it can't be trusted to last for any length of time before "we" need to to do it again "properly"
Since we seem to have legal experts here (my brother was a criminal lawyer)... fraud is "knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment". The question becomes if Evans is knowingly making false claims of "failures" to gaining financial advantage in order to fix products himself?
Last edited:
Tom Evans is likely the person with the most experience with the performance of his products especially over time.
One could also design the circuit so it doesn't blow up when the user plugs/unplugs a cable. Ya know... Just a thought.
Sadly that's true. The distributors I've spoken with generally want 40-60 % of MSRP for their services.
Tom
Even if the equipment is turned off before cables are messed with, I can easily see a scenario where someone pulls the mains cord and start ripping out the cables. It might take a while for the power supply to discharge, so even though the power is off there's still potential for damage. Of course, some manufacturers might then add, "turn off and wait a minimum of 90 seconds" to the manual, but that doesn't do anything to address the fundamental issue.
It looks like someone else has now reposted the video. We'll see how long it stays up this time.
Tom
It looks like someone else has now reposted the video. We'll see how long it stays up this time.
Tom
- Status
- Not open for further replies.