TE designs his stuff his way, & advises on actions accordingly......
....Its the same with anything.....don't use it as per the manufactures recommendations, your problem.......get it repaired by a third party & not as per the manufacturers recommendations/specification, thats your problem....nothing to do with what you may or may not consider they should have designed their piece of gear, unless it can be proven to be totally dangerous & the safety standards lot get involved.
We can argue all day as to whether £25k for that item is "value for money"......I personally think the tall plastic stand-offs & wire thinness leave a lot to be desired..& I'd expect a lot more solidity in a build for £25k...but high-end hi-fi is notorious for eye-watering amounts of money, for not much sonic gain..(law of diminishing returns).
However, the whole debacle legally (in the UK Civil Courts as both parties are UK based) can involve issues around revealing "the secret sauce" due to reverse engineering & placing detailed printed drawings in a video for the whole world to see, trademarks, copyrights, defamation, (also libel)....but as there is conflicting "evidence" of who said what & sent it to whom first its best to step back & leave it up to their solicitors...
This isn't about his knowing the performance of his products over time, or otherwise. The issue relates solely to the suggestion by Evans that a solid semiconductor device (an IC) can be "partially" damaged as thereupon limiting its life, seemingly in short order by his claims. There is no predictability of the life expectancy of a semiconductor device that is still working as unrelated to the circuit it is connected, nor necessarily connected. This claim is false... whether Evans understands this or not is unclear. If he does it can become an issue of fraud.
@Hierfi
You state:- "This isn't about his knowing the performance of his products over time, or otherwise. The issue relates solely to the suggestion by Evans that a solid semiconductor device (an IC) can be "partially" damaged as thereupon limiting its life, seemingly in short order by his claims. There is no predictability of the life expectancy of a semiconductor device that is still working as unrelated to the circuit it is connected, nor necessarily connected. This claim is false... whether Evans understands this or not is unclear. If he does it can become an issue of fraud."
Just searching the web comes up with articles on semiconductor damage by means other than ESD.....like surge damage, DC overvoltage failure.
Link to an article here:-
https://www.way-on.com/en_technical/show-25975.html
So TE is being "over-cautious" by recommending the replacement of other parts which could be affected by the original fault....So what, can you prove that those other parts that may be affected will last longer than a week?...what happens if those parts fail? Then you have to send it back to be repaired again when the whole lot could have been sorted in one go!.....I do car repairs & many a time I've replaced other parts which might look "ok" but I know they could have been adversely affected by the main faulty part.....I've also "whilst" I'm there & have that section stripped back, replaced old but ok parts, as to otherwise fit a new one only when the old one fails would involve a big strip down yet again!..
Again in a court, if a manufacturer recommends replacing other items, the court will side with that, as its what the manufacturer recommends, as they are best placed to speak on their product. Unless there has been a proven dangerous failure in the design & the safety lot get involved.
You state:- "This isn't about his knowing the performance of his products over time, or otherwise. The issue relates solely to the suggestion by Evans that a solid semiconductor device (an IC) can be "partially" damaged as thereupon limiting its life, seemingly in short order by his claims. There is no predictability of the life expectancy of a semiconductor device that is still working as unrelated to the circuit it is connected, nor necessarily connected. This claim is false... whether Evans understands this or not is unclear. If he does it can become an issue of fraud."
Just searching the web comes up with articles on semiconductor damage by means other than ESD.....like surge damage, DC overvoltage failure.
Link to an article here:-
https://www.way-on.com/en_technical/show-25975.html
So TE is being "over-cautious" by recommending the replacement of other parts which could be affected by the original fault....So what, can you prove that those other parts that may be affected will last longer than a week?...what happens if those parts fail? Then you have to send it back to be repaired again when the whole lot could have been sorted in one go!.....I do car repairs & many a time I've replaced other parts which might look "ok" but I know they could have been adversely affected by the main faulty part.....I've also "whilst" I'm there & have that section stripped back, replaced old but ok parts, as to otherwise fit a new one only when the old one fails would involve a big strip down yet again!..
Again in a court, if a manufacturer recommends replacing other items, the court will side with that, as its what the manufacturer recommends, as they are best placed to speak on their product. Unless there has been a proven dangerous failure in the design & the safety lot get involved.
This dialog emotes an "us against them" "buyer beware" attitude that seems highly uncommon for prestigious manufacturers in high end audio. High end providers that sell all manner of prestigious goods treat their customers with absolute respect if not family, not the kind of aliens to be taken advantage that you seem to suggest them worthy after they buy their products. Their products do the talking.
To be fair pulling an input plug with a phonostage powered up isn't a smart idea. I certainly wouldn't do it on my own phono and always power down when swapping loading plugs.
Tom offered an as new repair, at a price, this was rejected by the owner. If he hadn't sent the $hitogram challenge to MIM, I'm sure the tone of the video would have been quite different. Or maybe not if MIM had his nose put out because his packaging had caused the case damage and internal breakages.
As they say, two sides to every story.
Tom offered an as new repair, at a price, this was rejected by the owner. If he hadn't sent the $hitogram challenge to MIM, I'm sure the tone of the video would have been quite different. Or maybe not if MIM had his nose put out because his packaging had caused the case damage and internal breakages.
As they say, two sides to every story.
Please open your eyes....it has been a "us against them" "buyer beware" attitude" as you say....for quite awhile, & thats everywhere.....
The owners manual for my 10yr old German car has warnings every page to not do this, this could cause cancer, electrocution, danger......& if you want to replace certain light bulbs you have to go to the dealers.......& BTW that car sold for about the same amount as the £25k TE item...
Semiconductor damage is the result of electrons. There is nothing there that would suggest to Evans the existence of partial IC damage caused by electrons with continuing function being short lived thereafter. So if Evans was being "over-cautious" he wouldn't sell his products.
There's a difference between protectionist legal department inclusions for mass market consumption of goods, and the attitudes of many that are the force behind high end products of all kinds. The ones I have met, or heard about, are highly respectful of their customers.
@Hierfi .....you state:-"Semiconductor damage is the result of electrons. There is nothing there that would suggest to Evans the existence of partial IC damage caused by electrons with continuing function being short lived thereafter. So if Evans was being "over-cautious" he wouldn't sell his products.".
In a UK Court of law what you "think" is irrelevant. TE is the manufacturer & what he recommends as a course of action in a repair will be taken first. Unless there has been a dangerous failure & the safety lot get involved...But I've said that numerous times already...
& again we are only seeing what MIM shows in his video, & third hand what TE has supposedly said in an email in response to MIM video...
In a UK Court of law what you "think" is irrelevant. TE is the manufacturer & what he recommends as a course of action in a repair will be taken first. Unless there has been a dangerous failure & the safety lot get involved...But I've said that numerous times already...
& again we are only seeing what MIM shows in his video, & third hand what TE has supposedly said in an email in response to MIM video...
It is true that it is supposed what Evans said, hence what I say is qualified accordingly. As said previously fraud is "knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment". There seems likely experts in the field that would confirm functioning IC semiconductor devices are unlikely of being predictably to fail in some predictable time, short order or otherwise, after being near other devices that did. Depending upon the realization of detriment this can lead to criminal charges. Certainly it can be advised not to make such claims.
Exactly my experience. I ran Ovation High Fidelity for 5 years up until the end of 2021 when COVID-19 and B****t helped kill it. Amps that I expected to retail for 2400 I had to deliver for 1200. I had a rep for a while, and he charged 10% of the retail price. If companies like McIntosh are struggling in the straight 'high-end' space, you can guarantee small outfits will find it almost impossible. The volume and money have moved to digital audio (think Wiim Ultra Pro for example), headphones etc. The only stuff I sold was through word of mouth, or when I did a few micro shows and people remembered my stuff and called me a few months later.
The reason many of these high-end brands share stands at high-end shows is because they cannot afford their own rooms, so they get together to spread the cost and the result is you have a speaker manufacturer teamed up with an amp guy, with a hi-fi stand guy, a turntable supplier etc.
It's not at all clear that this happened or happened like that.
Like I said earlier on crux of it is it's got to look the part for 25,000 pounds.
Case in point I owned a ML Odyssey speakers bought new, one day when I panels
died, decided to open up the speaker to take a look inside. Wow heart broken paid
big bucks & there on the XO were some Bennic caps !!!! Didn't expected this, well Well it at least it looks good on the exterior. Lol
Case in point I owned a ML Odyssey speakers bought new, one day when I panels
died, decided to open up the speaker to take a look inside. Wow heart broken paid
big bucks & there on the XO were some Bennic caps !!!! Didn't expected this, well Well it at least it looks good on the exterior. Lol
If manuals or schematics shared under NDA were published, that would be copyright.
Tracing the circuit and reverse engineering has always been permitted. There are special rules for overcoming locks and encryption for chip firmware, these do not extend to circuits.
New circuits like Quads current dumping, were protected by patent. They were published, but could not be used by other makes. Trade secrets are up to you to keep secret, the law will only go as far as protecting the safe in your office from theft or enforcing proper signed NDAs. Small print in a manual saying that you cannot reverse engineer is unenforceable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.