A Plea For High-End Audio Manufacturer Honesty and Transparency

[thedudeabides]

I find the audiophile culture disgusting, audiophile herd behavior sickening, and "trust your dealer" mentality pathetic.

If the above is true, why do you post on WBF? What value do you offer others when you participate?

 

[ctydwn]

See my Post #157, above.

lol. sounds like you are implicating Taiko. Am I wrong?

 

[pk_LA]

lol. sounds like you are implicating Taiko. Am I wrong?

The first rule of WBF is...

 

[thedudeabides]

I am satisfied with the likely in terrorem impact of my essay.

You foster the environment for innuendos, rumors, and accusations and you really feel good about what you've created? Beyond explanation and justification if that was your desired "impact". Classic passive - agressive behavior.

 

[Ron Resnick]

lol. sounds like you are implicating Taiko. Am I wrong?

Read my opening post. It is completely general.

 

[ctydwn]

Read my opening post. It is completely general.

will take that as affirmative short of you providing any other example. or if there is no example you should never have started this thread

 

[Ron Resnick]

will take that as affirmative short of you providing any other example. or if there is no example you should never have started this thread

incorrect

 

[ctydwn]

incorrect

the premise behind your self described ‘in terrorem’ is quite exhalted. sounds like you believe you have now put manufacturers on notice with your self proclaimed ‘essay’, for something you still do not admit has even happened/is happening in the industry. are we supposed to be thanking you for something that has yet come to pass. it reeks of snobbism and quite patronizing to members of this/your forum. come on Ron. don’t pretend you are more god like than the rest of us

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...while I was reading in "real-time," I thought this thread seemed to pick a side, popping up during the fabulously derailed "other thread," which was full of assertions and innuendo, which were never substantiated to my knowledge; moreover, they were de-bunked, albeit the gas cloud continued to grow at the landfill known colloquially as: FB.

It may have organically sprouted from the soil of the internet, but the *timing* supports @ctydwn and others' assertions that this was not entirely a random association, IMO. But then, one gets inspiration for new topics wherever it resides, I guess. Gotta generate them clicks and page views.

 

[Porsche]

anyone that would pay for a product and have to wait for months or years is crazy, by the time its ready something new and better be available, it doesn't take months to build a product and if you have that many sold than hire more people or stop taking orders, so many things can go wrong while waiting, not very bright IMO

 

[Al M.]

anyone that would pay for a product and have to wait for months or years is crazy, by the time its ready something new and better be available, it doesn't take months to build a product and if you have that many sold than hire more people or stop taking orders, so many things can go wrong while waiting, not very bright IMO

Good point. I have never waited for a product more than a few weeks. Anything beyond that would be unreasonable indeed.

 

[thedudeabides]

sounds like you believe you have now put manufacturers on notice with your self proclaimed ‘essay’, for something you still do not admit has even happened/is happening in the industry.

In the mental health world, I think it is called dillusional. Pretty commonplace these days.

 

[Lee]

Wow! Some interesting takes here.

My points of view FWIW...
1) Like any industry I have been close to there are a spectrum of characters in high-end audio. I have found most organizations and people to be quite trustworthy. I have also found some to be less than ideal. But, I do think it is important to remember that a small fraction of bad actors can create an oversized impression.
2) Because of the small budgets and talent pool, R&D and testing become constrained. I don't know anyway around this. Do you think that MSB bought a Wadax Reference and a dCS Varese in developing the upcoming Sentinel? Do you think that Taiko has tested the Olympus with a wide variety of connections and environments, etc? Maybe they did but my point is just that R&D is very expensive.
3) Because most companies are quite small (let's say <500 FTEs and annual revenue < $100M), there are not the usual rules of play and engagement. In a larger industry a combination of competition and legal actions keep things somewhat more in check. In audio, what are you going to do? Sue the dealer, distributor and manufacturer? For what? You'll spend $100,000 on legal to recover what, $100,000? Consumer optionality and sentiment isn't a 'thing'. For all practical purposes and intents, if you shutdown negative sentiment on WBF you have effectively stopped the spread of bad sentiment. And I think we all know that there are easy ways for a mfr/distributor/dealer to do that - and it's cheap!
4) How is this industry any different than the startup world? Fake it until you make it!
5) I find that the bad behavior exists throughout the chain. Compare the following and you tell me which is worse? a) A manufacturer taking deposits and using them to finish development on a product, b) A dealer/distributor/manufacturer in cahoots with 'influencers' that masquerade as enthusiastic hobbyists/audiophiles on forums like WBF to share the audio nirvana they've found denying any affiliation with the dealer/distributor/manufacturer.

Just an observation based on working with manufacturers that further supports your view...

On point #3: most, probably 95%, of high end companies have fewer than 30 employees and less than $10 million in revenue.

 

[thedudeabides]

Please stop the innuendos. Have some balls. Name names

 

[Lee]

The industry of high-end audio chronicles the passion for emotionally-engaging sound, the pursuit of engineering perfection and the love of music. The designers of our components come to audio from many different fields, but each designer wants to fill our ears and our souls with joy from the sound of extraordinarily reproduced music.

We are an unusual industry, comprised of a few relatively large companies, and many small companies. Many high-end audio manufacturers start as one person efforts, literally in their garages.

High-end audio is a very unique hobby-based industry in which manufacturers often are in direct communication with end-users, often through WBF. This post is a request for greater honesty and transparency from manufacturers in this industry.

A manufacturer announces a new product, and the manufacturer's distributors and dealers discuss that product publicly. To the end-user the buzz states explicitly or at least implies that the product appears to be a completely engineered, completely tested and ready for production component.

Hobbyists order the component from dealers and the order payments go up the distribution chain back to the manufacturer. If the manufacturer does not have stock on hand, then these payments are used to produce the next copies of the component. In a small, under-capitalized manufacturer this is fine, because the companies are not large enough to produce a quantity of components and maintain an inventory. This is why in our industry orders often take several weeks or months to fill as the manufacturer literally produces the component to order after receiving payment.

But what if, in reality, the manufacturer uses the first purchaser order payments merely to continue and to complete the design and the testing and the pre-production of the component? I think this is wrong.

If a manufacturer conveys talking points to its distributor and that distributor conveys those talking points to its dealers and its dealers convey those talking points to prospective purchasers, I want those talking points to be scrupulously accurate. I don't want those talking points by the manufacturer -- which then are propagated downstream -- to be merely aspirational. If a product is announced as in existence and ready for purchase then that product should be actually fully designed and actually fully tested and actually in production or ready for immediate production.

Unfortunately in high-end audio many manufacturers are under-capitalized with inadequate funds for proper testing of new components under development and about to be released. Manufacturers don't have a dozen prototypes which they send out across the world to be tested in situ in many different audio systems comprised of many different components. High-end audio manufacturers are not like Porsche which sends out prototypes across the world to be test driven from the freezing roads of Finland to the desert roads of Saudi Arabia.

This is not the consumers' problem. This is the manufacturer's problem. Low volume manufacturers in this industry should not use early purchasing consumers as the beta testers. In my opinion many components in this industry are too expensive for the manufacturer effectively to be using the first purchasers as the beta testers.

I advocate for complete honesty and transparency from manufacturers. A hobbyist should not have to wait many months or even a year or more for a component to arrive at his/her front door as the product's design and testing and reproduction -- unbeknownst to the purchaser and maybe even unbeknownst to the distributor and to the dealer -- actually is completed.

Manufacturers should not announce product release dates which are not realistic.

Manufacturers should not take payments for products which are not yet actually fully designed and actually fully tested and actually in production or ready for immediate production.

Manufacturers should not use early-adopting purchasers as beta testers.

Partisan preferences for particular brands and components aside, I hope we all can agree that manufacturers should be scrupulously honest with us hobbyists.

Ron,

Here is my take...

1. It's okay to use customer funds to fund development as long as that is made perfectly clear upfront by the manufacturer.
2. Customers should be aware of the high failure rate of companies in our industry.
3. Honesty rules should also apply to this and other forums and all types of media. Forums and influencers should disclose all financial relationships they have with various products like WBF has with Taiko, CMS, etc. Influencers like Jay/Darko/Guttenberg/etc. should disclose where they are a dealers or have a financial relationship or offer consulting services.
4. Manufacturers should disclose any running changes and I would ideally like to see a right for the customer to get an economical update on any major ones. dCS and others are especially good at this.
5. Ideally manufacturers should spend more time in development and have less frequent updates.
6. I agree that release dates need to be realistic and mores even conservative.

My biggest worry is the customer getting screwed. They should be aware that if customer funds have to be used then they should probably understand and consider that the chances of that company going bankrupt are higher due to being undercapitalized. Customers should also know about all the financial relationships so they can weigh that into how much they believe the review was objective.

 

[thedudeabides]

My biggest worry is the customer getting screwed. They should be aware that if customer funds have to be used then they should probably understand and consider that the chances of that company going bankrupt are higher due to being undercapitalized.

This gets better by the minute. Aware of this knowledge beforehand, what type of customer, with any common sense, would make such an investment?

 

[Porsche]

Ron,

Here is my take...

1. It's okay to use customer funds to fund development as long as that is made perfectly clear upfront by the manufacturer.
2. Customers should be aware of the high failure rate of companies in our industry.
3. Honesty rules should also apply to this and other forums and all types of media. Forums and influencers should disclose all financial relationships they have with various products like WBF has with Taiko, CMS, etc. Influencers like Jay/Darko/Guttenberg/etc. should disclose where they are a dealers or have a financial relationship or offer consulting services.
4. Manufacturers should disclose any running changes and I would ideally like to see a right for the customer to get an economical update on any major ones. dCS and others are especially good at this.
5. Ideally manufacturers should spend more time in development and have less frequent updates.
6. I agree that release dates need to be realistic and mores even conservative.

My biggest worry is the customer getting screwed. They should be aware that if customer funds have to be used then they should probably understand and consider that the chances of that company going bankrupt are higher due to being undercapitalized. Customers should also know about all the financial relationships so they can weigh that into how much they believe the review was objective.

1--u have to be kidding, customers should pay for beta testing and hypothetical gear, that's absurd
2--you think, if they are dumb enough to do #1 than oh well
3--than they won't exist
4--never happen
5--need to get product out the door
6--delays happen, however, taking a customers money on promise of new product is wrong

 

[Anton D]

In the mental health world, I think it is called dillusional. Pretty commonplace these days.

People who think they are pickles?

 

[Rt66indierock]

Please stop the innuendos. Have some balls. Name names

I suppose we could talk about Meridian Audio’s bank overdrafts or dCS’s inventory.

 

[Lee]

Please stop the innuendos. Have some balls. Name names

Being in the industry, I can’t share private financial information.