The readings of user forums (I did not say venerator) are always explicit on the qualities and defects of the devices and their technical support.
https://devialetchat.com/Thread-Serius-software-problem-with-Devialet-D200
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Devialet Expert 200 Amplifier, DAC and Streamer Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
The readings of user forums (I did not say venerator) are always explicit on the qualities and defects of the devices and their technical support.
https://devialetchat.com/Thread-Serius-software-problem-with-Devialet-D200
Not that I recall. While I don't claim to be an expert on this subject, reading lots of consumer magazines over several decades has made it pretty clear to me that there are some unwritten rules of the product testing game. Take cars. Consumer Reports is a nonprofit that places great emphasis on independence, just like ASR. CR accepts no advertisements. It makes a point of buying the cars (and everything else) it tests at retail (no strings, no golden samples).
If something goes wrong in CR's version of a stress-test (an SUV rolls over in an emergency maneuver) do you think CR asks the manufacturer to repair it free of charge? I sure don't. If I thought special accommodations like that were being made, I wouldn't trust CR's reviews. My assumption (yours may be different) is that CR will eat the bill, because that is the price of being independent. And it's not cheap: Every month or so I get a letter from CR asking for a donation, above and beyond the nontrivial subscription rate.
A few years ago, the car review dude for the L.A. Times took a $250k sports car onto a track and totaled it. The car maker (Ferrari I think) ate the bill. Why? Because 1) they knew the importance of good press from him, and 2) he published no conclusion about the merits of the product based on this ad hoc "stress test." (At the time many said it was his fault. I am not a sports-car enthusiast and have no opinion one way or the other.)
I think that ASR is closer to Consumer Reports than to the car-reviewer for the L.A. Times. You're saying, Hey, this amp has basic performance issues. That's not a bad thing - on the contrary. It's what Consumer Reports would say about an SUV that rolled over. But it's inconsistent, in my opinion, to expect Devialet to fix the wrecked car for free. Better just to say you think it's not a well-engineered amp, and let it go at that. Think of it as the price of independence.
I've serviced ~55K units of repair and I can easily say I have done many many favors and re-serviced or serviced out of warranty units as in-warranty repairs and then billed the supplier like it was a warranty claim. Not happy about doing all of them but back scratching occurs and it is good business sometimes.
It's considered in good faith to contact the supplier/manufacturer and ask if this is a anomaly and offer the opportunity to respond. It's simply good practice and is done by some and not done by others. It's not being biased and dependent.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Messages
- 1,137
- Likes
- 1,498
Let's imagine if Kali had not responded.
If ASR does not receive perks and does disclose which samples come straight from the manufacturer/dealer, I'm satisfied. Just like having company reps on the forums, with that status shown beside every post, it's mostly about transparency.
If ASR does not receive perks and does disclose which samples come straight from the manufacturer/dealer, I'm satisfied. Just like having company reps on the forums, with that status shown beside every post, it's mostly about transparency.
Tks
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2019
- Messages
- 3,221
- Likes
- 5,496
For free? You got companies that refuse service ENTIRELY regardless if you want to pay or not.
Or in the case of many companies "we can service the unit", and then quote a price 80% of the original MSRP of the device (in the same way Geico insurance told me to fuck myself when I tried to get my bike ensured, and they wanted $14,000 per year). Only problem was, that was above MSRP of the bike itself...
I would be surprised if they don't get the amp back to see what has happened.
On the one I saw demonstrated (about 10 years ago and well before the perfume bloke bought in) by one of their engineers it seemed bullet proof.
He shorted out the speaker sockets whilst running to show how fast the protection worked.
I can understand reduced and/or strange output depending on the input conditions since the protection looks at several parameters before deciding to cut output so there may well be test signals that get this sort of odd behaviour, but at such a low power level then blowing it up? I am surprised.
Maybe the heat sink thermal pads were dislodged or something, this is possible to do if the base is removed and not replaced in the right way.
Anyway I am sure they would like to look at it. I have never heard of one being blown up before.
On the one I saw demonstrated (about 10 years ago and well before the perfume bloke bought in) by one of their engineers it seemed bullet proof.
He shorted out the speaker sockets whilst running to show how fast the protection worked.
I can understand reduced and/or strange output depending on the input conditions since the protection looks at several parameters before deciding to cut output so there may well be test signals that get this sort of odd behaviour, but at such a low power level then blowing it up? I am surprised.
Maybe the heat sink thermal pads were dislodged or something, this is possible to do if the base is removed and not replaced in the right way.
Anyway I am sure they would like to look at it. I have never heard of one being blown up before.
Tks
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2019
- Messages
- 3,221
- Likes
- 5,496
We have to agree if we take this line of reasoning, how Amir seems to be a magnet for mostly golden samples and defects, more than he is for regular samples.
your side-by-side comparison with the auto industry is interesting .
the big industrialists are paying a lot of attention to the united states and their huge consumer market.
for them why ? even if Devialet has enough financial power to pay an army of lawyers, she can't afford the luxury of a case like the one of volkswagen, let's not forget that mistakes are made to be experts or innovators in the specialties we are interested in, they are for marketing. a case in court would be disastrous for the brand image. Moreover, you have a very effective thing in the United States that we do not have in Europe it is the class action because even if it starts timidly in Europe class actions in the strict sense do not exist in administrative law (example in France).
the silence of a company like devialet does not work in its favor in my opinion for a market like the united states. i still hope they will show up soon (better late than never). but maybe their marketing department has already analyzed that the bulk of their customers were among rich people passionate about new technologies, design, fashionable objects, not necessarily ASR readers.
That's great - it is just what I thought dealers where there for, and why I initially suggested contacting a Devialet dealer in the U.S. or Canada as a way to get some help with this. So I was scratching my head when you replied that no, this wasn't a matter for a dealer to address. Is there something I'm missing here?
I agree that this is a valid good-faith practice (not the only one, and not CR's). However I think that this approach in particular also involves giving the manufacturer some opportunity to respond before running the negative review claiming a design defect. At least, you would give a heads-up that you're planning to publish a review of their product. Thus alerted, the mfr could tell you something like, "Be sure not to test it the wrong way so that it blows up."
I am pretty sure that is how it's done at Stereophile, which I've read for decades, and with the occasional reviews here on ASR of loaners from the mfr. It allows sufficient communication before the review appears.
In this case, it seems that Devialet was completely blindsided. At least, I've seen nothing in this thread to suggest otherwise. I'd be delighted to see some evidence, any at all really, indicating that was not the case.
I have no affection whatsoever for Devialet. They make bling-y "lifestyle" products for people with lots of money to spend and for the lobbies of hotels for rich people. I used to pass their showroom in Grand Central on my way to and from the office. It was a tacky bad joke with its all-glass walls and bored-looking sales staff of aspiring actress-models. Devialet's marketing lit is pretentious and out of proportion to what they actually have to offer. But the more I follow this thread, the more I'm becoming convinced that ASR has treated Devialet rather shabbily. Maybe that doesn't make them the victim here, but it also doesn't make them the villain you're casting them as.
I should have included that any serviced units that where billed as in warranty that where out of warranty where all authorized by the manufacturer. Sony is a great example. Customer has a unit and has a issue 6 months out of warranty. Customer makes a good case to Sony. Sony escalates the matter to the Sony service manager. Sony service manager contacts the local authorized service depot and advises the customer is bringing in a flaky unit. Unit gets invoiced in warranty and includes a 90 day warranty on the repair. It's all very organized and structured through the chain of command. I have never invoiced a out of warranty repair as in-warranty without authorization. It's just the best way to end a service agreement and be out muchO cash flow and access to the manufacturer's parts. The service agreement with Sony was 3-3 inch ring binders. It detailed everything from how to clean units to service them, to customer service and all sorts of other things they included for one reason or another. There is very little flexibility in the terms and the dealer is expected to know the agreements.
Just like the Phantom it promises something it can't deliver. You have to carefully read between the lines of a Stereophile review. Even JA's measurements try to sweep problems under the rug. Saw that with the Devialet review and withe the reviews of the two Schiit flagships. Everyone of them had problems that were deal breakers, and to Atkinson's credit, he put it out there, but, of course, softpeddled them.
So true.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #235
Two problems with this argument:
1. There is no evidence they would have cared if anyone had given them a heads up.
2. Consumers have full right to test products and report it online. They do so all the time with functionality issue. You think if you found a bug with a product you have a responsibility to first contact the company, wait around to see if they respond, before posting online about it?
Now, if the company had provided a test unit for review, that would be something else. In this case, they have not. Members want to know how their products work and I test them free of charge to them and as a service to the community. If there are problems that are outlined, companies are welcome and encouraged to come and comment on them. A number have to good effect. Others just ignore it, and with it, do away with your argument altogether.
I suggest putting yourself in the shoes of owners, rather than companies in these discussions. We are not the PR arm of the audio companies. You should not be either.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #236
You are missing something. A dealer is responsible for servicing customers who buy things from them. No one has bought anything from a local dealer here for me to go and pester. They would just hang up on you if you called them said you bought something from Canada, now it is broken, will they fix it for you, or help figure out measured performance issues. They would tell you to contact the company which is what I have done.
I don't understand how simultaneously want to take the side of the manufacture at the expense of the owners by saying if it is out of warranty, they are out luck but are willing to then put a burden on a local dealer who has not made a cent to expend resources on this front.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #237
"Sufficient communication" happens in stereophile case because their PR/marketing folks contact the magazine, provide review samples, and in exchange highly desire positive write-ups. Should there be problems, there is a direct contact who is on the line to make good.
Nothing of the sort goes on here. Most of what I test is from owners which gives me huge freedom to speak freely about performance of the product. If manufactures don't want to stand behind performance of their product, they should have their customers sign a contract saying they will never have their products tested by a third-party. Otherwise, consumers have a right to have someone like me test the gear as much you can take a mechanic with you before you buy a car. Demanding that your mechanic call the auto manufacturer before saying anything negative about the car to you or others makes no sense.
The situation is really simple here: either the company cares about its reputation online or it does not. If it doesn't, then that is that. We will fend for ourselves. Likely some number of people will never buy anything from them again. My sense is that the cost of that is much higher than repairing this unit but that is up to them. Should they do otherwise and repair this equipment and provide some answer as to why multiple reviews have shown the same weakness, then they could earn some goodwill.
A lot of audio companies are still acting like print magazines are the center of universe where that is clearly not the new world order. They need to wake up in my opinion and deal with the new reality. If they do not, there are other companies that do and will take their place over time.
That's not quite what I said. I said Devialet might have given you guidance on testing so as to avoid blowing up their amp. Had they, their help wouldn't be needed now.
It seems as though you want to have it both ways: to have complete freedom to use something in a way that is not in accord with the warranty (i.e. stress-test it), and also to expect the mfr to then provide support as though you had used it within the warranty. Of course, any owner can stress-test something they bought, whether directly from the mfr or not, whether second-hand, whether grey goods or not. That's perfectly okay and common, as per my earlier note about Consumer Reports. What I don't think an owner can reasonably expect is for the mfr to then help them and to do so immediately, even though the mfr knows that the use of the product is out of warranty.
You think Devialet is trying to silence you. They're just exercising due care to not, in effect, invite everyone and his uncle with a website to experiment with their products and then come to them expecting help when things go south. This is very much the kind of thing lawyers are paid to worry about. It's baffling to me that this is somehow not blindingly obvious to someone who was a manager for a big consumer products company.
Apparently I must reiterate that I am not in any way a fan of or advocate on behalf of Devialet or manufacturers generally. To imply otherwise is invidious. Like everyone else here I'm sure, I've had great experiences with some manufacturers; others have been useless. I take it case by case, like any adult. The system is clearly not tilted to favor the consumer, as anyone who has dealt with a credit card company, bank or cable provider knows, and there are a great many greedy companies all too ready to take advantage. But this is about a guy who lent you his amp to test and now has a non-functioning amp. It's good and honorable that you're trying to help him, but I think you need to be be a bit more realistic and open about what can and can't be expected under the circumstances.
Beyond that, I don't think that the many posts on ASR tarring Devialet and banging on about other grievances people have will help solve this problem. The common assumption of these posts is that the onus is on Devialet to do more and move faster. I tried before to explain why that expectation might be unrealistic as the Pandemic peaks in Paris. Let's set that aside. What's really missing is any coherent rationale for expecting Devialet to make this a priority. All I've seen so far are variants on We good; Devialet bad. But this specific problem is simply not Devialet's fault. It doesn't matter whether they're a lame company. It doesn't matter whether their protection software is balky or too sensitive. All of this may be true, but it is not relevant in this case. Pointing that out is not doing PR for them. It is stating a simple fact.
With that, I'm making this my last post on the subject. If readers are not persuaded by now then they aren't going to be persuaded. I've seen just a handful of replies where a reader grasps what I'm driving at. Attempting to explain has been a lot of work, and I'm feeling pretty weary. ASR is a great site and I'd very much like to continue contributing if I can - just not about this topic.
I stress tested every amplifier(many) I ever repaired to the maximum and sometimes then some and the manufacturers wanted it that way to ensure it was to specification and properly operating. That's how it is done.
I repaired in-warranty thousands of amplifiers that where obviously blown by operator failure. That's a normal part of the business.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Messages
- 1,137
- Likes
- 1,498
Please point out where @amirm said anything like this. I don't recall it.
Similar threads
- Poll