Legal fund for Reviewers/Erin?

[Thomas Lutro]

I just posted this on Erics "apology".

"I find it hard to spot the sincerity in this.

It is an apology that starts with thanking for what amounts to support for the actions you claim to apologize for, as much as (if not more than) support for you as a person.

Then it proceeds to apologize for the reactions of others, rather than your actions.

It also excludes Amir by relegating him to 'others hurt or offended'.

Then finally, it goes on to justify the actions you claim to apologize for.

It's really not an apology at all. You're obviously sorry, but it does not appear you're sorry for what you did. You appear to be sorry for how the overwhelming majority of the audiophile community responded to your aggressive, threatening and bullying attacks.

I know owning up is hard. I have a couple of decades of professional experience in rehabilitation of offenders. I'm also a human being, and recognize this resistance in myself. Maybe giving it time can help. Entrenching yourself in your current position will certainly not."



I think I'll leave it at that. Now donated a little to both Erin and Amir/ASR. Your effort is highly appreciated, and the money I used to spend on the mainstream audio press can go to people like you.

 

[tomtoo]

Not publishing reviews of poor products is already the rule. The arguments I've heard:

• People don't want to read about bad products (not sure that's true)
• We rely on advertisments to make a living (true)
• Just returning / not writing about products that they can't recommend is the least dramatic course of action, and will avoid burning bridges with the manufacturer in case of future, better products and/or advertisement revenue (makes sense)

Most audio magazines / online websites / etc get all their income from manufacturer advertising (even more so now than in the past where they had paper magazines they could sell).

I think it's at least a better approach to silently return the product and not writing about it than actively recommending poor products and outright lying just to make money.

EDIT: Let me assure you that this is not information I have because anyone have returned my products but rather through conversations with various review establishments.

Thats why i prefer ASR. Iam not a fan of infomercials.

 

[AaronJ]

Thats why i prefer ASR. Iam not a fan of infomercials.

I am finished with YouTube reviewers at this point as well. If a reviewer can’t demonstrate any ability to discern good gear from bad then what’s even the point other than to advertise a product? Strangely the only one I actually do watch at this point is Darko who has shifted toward dedicating the majority of time to discussing features as opposed to assessing sound quality. There are certainly your share of people who could sell ketchup popsicles to women in white gloves as well as the late Tom Callahan. I’d definitely want Tarun and on the floor of my brick and mortar store. Notice how he has been getting ever more expensive gear to review lately? Guttenberg would be his mentor. I’d have Randy out back in shipping/receiving and Strve Huff offering complimentary tea leaf readings.

 

[zhabotinsky]

Can Erin sure Eric for libel? I mean it's clear that Erin's measurements follow the standard industry protocol. They don't lie. OTOH, Eric has been lying about "his" measurements all the time and has shown comical levels of incompetence when it comes to measurements. IMO, Eric's attack was damaging to Erin's reputation and has argubaly caused a great deal of psychological distress to Erin. Note, I am not saying Erin should do this (high cost in terms of time and money, unpredictability...), but it would be great to get a full closure on this episode and restore a sense of fairness. OK... I am probably too naive.

 

[holbob]

I think we should let Erin move on. He clearly doesn't want this to continue, and looked and sounded very anxious. I think he's had a needlessly horrific week. I hope he doesn't receive anymore threatening manipulative e-mails next week.

 

[Kervel]

Data is mere data, it is neutral and as such means nothing. Meaning comes from our interpretation of the data. This is the area of theorizing, modeling and judging and if no clear consensus exists within the art then expert statements backed by data may qualify as opinions. Some theories and models (e.g. ideas about which spin results are desirable/good/bad or relate to what kind of human perceptions) are quite controversial and I'd consider much of that as opinion.

Right, the spinorama is a model based on theory to interpret the raw data (or convert data to information). This is subjective to the extent it not does not include all dimensions that affect sound quality, such as SPL capability and distortion.

 

[CedarX]

Right, the spinorama is a model based on theory to interpret the raw data (or convert data to information). This is subjective to the extent it not does not include all dimensions that affect sound quality, such as SPL capability and distortion.

Apologize if I misunderstand you, but I would disagree with that: the Spinorama does not have feelings or emotions. The Spinorama results are repeatable (within spec). I believe it meets the criteria of being an objective measurement.
Spinorama results may not completely characterize a speaker, this I would agree, but this is not about objective vs. subjective.

 

[Doodski]

Right, the spinorama is a model based on theory to interpret the raw data (or convert data to information). This is subjective to the extent it not does not include all dimensions that affect sound quality, such as SPL capability and distortion.

You can't be serious... sigh* It's as objective as can be.

 

[DonM]

Right, the spinorama is a model based on theory to interpret the raw data (or convert data to information). This is subjective to the extent it not does not include all dimensions that affect sound quality, such as SPL capability and distortion.

The Spinorama method is widely used by major speaker manufacturers, audio engineers, and researchers in the audio industry. It provides a standardized and objective way to evaluate the performance of speakers, making it easier to compare different models and ensure consistent quality testing. By using the Spinorama method, manufacturers can assess factors like frequency response, directivity, and other key parameters accurately, which ultimately helps in designing and producing high-quality speakers.

 

[jimroge]

The review is back online.

 

[TheBatsEar]

The review is back online.

Most of us had noticed, it's back for some time now.
Anyway, must feel good for Erin to finish this all with that video.

 

[ahofer]

This is subjective to the extent it not does not include all dimensions that affect sound quality, such as SPL capability and distortion.

Just to focus on one problem with your statement, how does the completeness of a measurement suite make it more or less “subjective”?

 

[Kervel]

Apologize if I misunderstand you, but I would disagree with that: the Spinorama does not have feelings or emotions. The Spinorama results are repeatable (within spec). I believe it meets the criteria of being an objective measurement.
Spinorama results may not completely characterize a speaker, this I would agree, but this is not about objective vs. subjective.

Of course, thats all true. Apologies for not being clear. Spinorama is an objectively specified model that can be built using measurements. It is based on a theoretical model of what should constitute a good speaker, however it is not a complete description. Which variables enter the spinorama have had a certain subjectivity---and in this case, were chosen by what Toole and others thought relevant. What I call subjective here is that it does not include some variables, such as SPL capabilities or distortion. If you give Toole a large team to built a Spinorama 2.0, I am sure the model would improve and may include more variables (like SPL or distortion), or transformations of existing variables (to better capture what constitutes a good speaker).

 

[Doodski]

Of course, thats all true. Apologies for not being clear. Spinorama is an objectively specified model that can be built using measurements. It is based on a theoretical model of what should constitute a good speaker, however it is not a complete description. Which variables enter the spinorama have had a certain subjectivity---and in this case, were chosen by what Toole and others thought relevant. What I call subjective here is that it does not include some variables, such as SPL capabilities or distortion. If you give Toole a large team to built a Spinorama 2.0, I am sure the model would improve and may include more variables (like SPL or distortion), or transformations of existing variables (to better capture what constitutes a good speaker).

Reinventing the term subjective does not work. Use the term correctly. Unless you can make something better I don't see why this commentary is occurring.

subjective​

(səbdʒektɪv )
ADJECTIVE
Something that is subjective is based on personal opinions and feelings rather than on facts.
We know that taste in art is a subjective matter.
The way they interpreted their past was highly subjective.
Synonyms: personal, emotional, prejudiced, biased More Synonyms of subjective
subjectively ADVERB
Our preliminary results suggest that people do subjectively find the speech clearer.
subjectivity (sʌbdʒektɪvɪti ) UNCOUNTABLE NOUN
They accused her of flippancy and subjectivity in her reporting of events in their country.

 

[amirm]

Spinorama is an objectively specified model that can be built using measurements. It is based on a theoretical model of what should constitute a good speaker, however it is not a complete description.

Spinorama is not a model. It is a set of measurements that aids in analyzing performance of a speaker in a standardized way. It takes us from mere on-axis response to a more complete response of the speaker on and off axis. To do that, it doesn't need to be complete any more than an x-ray is complete scan of your body if your arm is broken.

 

[CaptainTuttle]

A couple of points, keeping in mind that the law may vary by jurisdiction.

First, note that there is potential liability for willfully or recklessly misrepresenting the characteristics of a product. For example, in First Act Inc. v. Brook Mays Music Co., 429 F. Supp. 2d 429, 436 (D. Mass. 2006), a music instrument manufacturer successfully sued a retailer for false advertising under the Lanham Act and commercial disparagement for issuing a false ISO alert. (See, https://casetext.com/case/first-act-inc-v-brook-mays-music-company) Of course, this matter is distinguishable because Erin simply offered an opinion based on what he viewed as objective measurements. (I have seen Erin's video.)

Which raises a second point -- products, like most things, are subject to fair comment and, in the absence of malice, there is a privilege against liability for publishing such comments. Container Mfg. Inc. v. CIBA-GEIGY Corp., 870 F. Supp. 1225, 1232-1233 (D.N.J. 1994) (See, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/870/1225/1647951/) What this means is that even if the publication -- e.g., speaker measurements without spikes -- is incorrect, there is no liability without malice.

 

[Emlin]

A couple of points, keeping in mind that the law may vary by jurisdiction.

First, note that there is potential liability for willfully or recklessly misrepresenting the characteristics of a product. For example, in First Act Inc. v. Brook Mays Music Co., 429 F. Supp. 2d 429, 436 (D. Mass. 2006), a music instrument manufacturer successfully sued a retailer for false advertising under the Lanham Act and commercial disparagement for issuing a false ISO alert. (See, https://casetext.com/case/first-act-inc-v-brook-mays-music-company) Of course, this matter is distinguishable because Erin simply offered an opinion based on what he viewed as objective measurements. (I have seen Erin's video.)

Which raises a second point -- products, like most things, are subject to fair comment and, in the absence of malice, there is a privilege against liability for publishing such comments. Container Mfg. Inc. v. CIBA-GEIGY Corp., 870 F. Supp. 1225, 1232-1233 (D.N.J. 1994) (See, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/870/1225/1647951/) What this means is that even if the publication -- e.g., speaker measurements without spikes -- is incorrect, there is no liability without malice.

But malice came back from Eric, nonetheless.

 

[Kervel]

Spinorama is not a model. It is a set of measurements that aids in analyzing performance of a speaker in a standardized way. It takes us from mere on-axis response to a more complete response of the speaker on and off axis. To do that, it doesn't need to be complete any more than an x-ray is complete scan of your body if your arm is broken.

I would separate the raw measurements (a few GBs of data), from the way to present the data (spinorama). In this case, I would callthe Spinorama a model in the sense that there are many other ways to present on- and off-axis information.

 

[Kervel]

Take KH310 for example, which is asymmetric in the way the drivers are spaced. I suspect (but am not 100% sure) that a left and right version have the same spinorama; yet the GB's of measurements are different due to said asymmetry. This means Spinorama as a model ignores this particular information.

 

[Emlin]

I would separate the raw measurements (a few GBs of data), from the way to present the data (spinorama). In this case, I would callthe Spinorama a model in the sense that there are many other ways to present on- and off-axis information.

Then take the data and present them as you will, if you think you have a better presentational method. But the data will remain unaltered.