Legal fund for Reviewers/Erin?

[hyfynut]

You do not need to be right. You need to cost a defendant enough money that they give up fighting.

While I def misremembered the legal outcome and hence was wrong here, I did remember the fallout.

 

[Multicore]

Here is a big question: has his intimidation worked? I can see every reviewer that reads what is going on here think twice about writing anything negative about a product. I will continue of course as I have but others? I can see fingers shaking as they write anything remotely not complimentary. And not just about Tekton speakers. But everything.

The chilling effect. It doesn't need to be directly observable to be pernicious. We've seen the power in other areas of life. I agree that it's a big and important question. Idk. We should be vigilant.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

It has been the darkest time since I started this site.

I've been there, more than once. And I am happy not to be there.

What got me through such times with online communities is this. This place is worth defending. The vast majority of people here are with you and behind you and will support you. The amount of good you have done is IMMENSE!

You created a website, but a community has been built, through your hard work and the work of many here. All out of love of audio. You have brought many people together who never would have known each other. The very existence of this place, its strength, is something that would not have happened if not for you and others who put in the hard work.

Does it suck right now? Yes. Think about how much it has not sucked in the past, and how much it won't suck in the future.

Dark days are darker when we are used to the light. You mostly live in the light. And soon the clouds will be gone.

Those are the kind of thoughts that helped me when such things happened to places I managed online. Hopefully it helps you, at least a bit.

 

[rdenney]

Well they certainly are not trained to simply accept beliefs or opinions?

They are trained (noting the difference between training and education) to apply accepted methodologies in appropriate contexts. Example: Does most any structural engineer question, say, the ASTM Steel Manual? They do not--they accept that the Steel Manual has been validated by the credentials of its creators and long unchallenged use sufficiently to protect them from error, at least for static and conventional dynamic loads. This is a belief whose primary mechanism is faith, but that doesn't mean it is an unreasonable position to take.

That said, someone doing structural analysis in edge cases will likely avoid the Steel Manual, because the likely structure will be too heavy. They will, instead, perform their own basic analysis of the structures. But even then will they go to first principles? Maybe, but probably not, except here and there. Probably, they will use structural analysis software that performs something like a finite elements analysis, which is an approach facilitated by computerized numerical methods. Does this software get everything right? Again, that is a matter of (usually quite reasonable) belief and faith.

The next step if the risks are high--and risk is the product of exposure and consequences--would be to simulate the structure at the boundaries of loading conditions. Again, they believe through faith that the simulation model is realistic, especially if it uses a different mechanism for analysis than the design software. But this will allow them to expand the loading conditions to failure modes, even including fatigue and harmonic dynamics from vibrations of various sorts. I suspect most aircraft structures go this far at least, though that is not my area of expertise.

If the design must be even more marginal (think: ultralight design needed for a spacecraft) and the costs (and risks) high enough, they will probably build prototypes and test them to destruction under all anticipated use cases.

None of those steps will take the engineer back to the first principles of metallurgy and materials science, even though they get a smattering of that in college, because they assume the standards and margins provided will encompass that body of knowledge fully enough.

Yet much of the built world, the design of which consumes the efforts of most of the structural engineers in practice, doesn't extend past the use of the Steel Manual. And undergraduate engineers don't get past about Step 2 in the above progression, and only then if they focus on structures. (California and a few other states are different in that they require more extensive seismic study in order to be licensed, and that dips into Step 3, but only in terms of methods rather than theory.)

If they were taught to challenge opinions and beliefs, they would start with molecules of steel and Newtonian physics and move up from there. And an undergraduate engineering education would take eight years, and employers would complain that their new hires can't get any work done.

My story is from the structural world, about which we know quite a lot compared to other fields. My own expertise is in a different branch that is far more stochastic. Practitioners, by my observation, have little or no knowledge of underlying theory, and most of what they know they learned as standard methodologies from manuals and policies after college. I train practitioners as a principal part of my work, and many of them greatly appreciate even the little bit of historical theory I can add to their basic understanding. I'm actually a rare example of someone in my field: advanced degree with theoretical work that did not lead to an academic research career, but was instead proved in actual practice.

It should be noted that when I was in college, software-based design was in its infancy compared to now, so current students are taught to be even more dependent on software than we were.

No, engineers are not trained to challenge beliefs or (qualified) opinions, and they are absolutely trained to accept them based only on credentials and long application.

Back to topic: Even if a speaker designer took his speaker out into a large, empty field and tested it with a UMIK and REW, he'd have data. Even if he piled the driver specs and cabinet designs into speaker simulation software, he'd have analysis.

Rick "engineers in private practice are just like lawyers and are mostly measured by how many billable hours they write down each week" Denney

 

[prerich]

Monster Cable at that time had a reputation for sending letters to smaller cable manufacturers threatening litigation against them for patent infringement. Unbeknownst to them, the owner of Blue Jeans Cable was a former patent attorney who knew damn well that Monster Cable's claims against him were frivolous and an attempt to limit and eliminate competition. He basically invited Monster Cable to sue and made it clear how that would proceed.

Unfortunately, Erin Hardison is not an attorney and needs our support to defend his first amendment rights. That is what this long discussion is really all about.

Truth! On a side note ... I bought my current speakers from the sales rep of Blue Jeans Cable.

 

[Multicore]

I'll give you Erin's concluding sentence.

That's how I felt after a bruising experience with a legal pugilist last year. The overriding feeling was of wanting it gone and wanting to not have it occupy my attention any more, preferably ever again. This drama has had a reality TV-like attraction for some of us, certainly me, but I suspect Erin no longer wants to be a lead in it and if so there's something we in the audience can do to help.

 

[No one who matters]

Man I sure hope this is not a sign of things to come. Expert third party objective reviews of audio equipment combined with open discussion within a highly competent group of passionate individuals has taken the audio hobby to a new level. The hobby and the industry are the better for it.

I sure hope Erin continues as he is one of the very best at what he does. He is always honest and respectful which gives him credibility over many others.

As for Eric, I would highly recommend he takes a month off and deep dives into the works of Tom Peters.

“If a window of opportunity appears, don’t pull down the shade!” Tom Peters

”There is no such thing as a minor lapse of integrity.” Tom Peters

I’m optimistic that immense good will come of this in the end. The matter has brought forward profound discussion of integrity, abuses, factual performance, and bias in decision making in matters of money.

It’s long overdue, and is a direct result of the bright sunlight @amirm, Erin, Audioholics and others have shone on an otherwise opaque industry reliant upon ignorance and salesmanship in the sale of electronics.

As an example of the rapidity of change this matter has unleashed, I received an email from Lenbrook’s The Audio Factory earlier this week “Debunking Common Audio Myths and Misconceptions”. While I found some of it somewhat dancing around issues currently top of mind, it’s also the case they made statements they thought could back up with facts. I don’t know whether or not this was due to the current brouhaha. But the timing was such that it felt like they were addressing, if indirectly, the question of integrity and trying to show they were operating in good faith. I respected the position, without regard to any given product offering’s performance or price, distribution model or service.

Others will respond differently, and some not at all. But some will be forced to rethink their business model and behaviors. Some will likely drop out.

And in the end, the industry and hobby will be much better off, present heartburns notwithstanding.

 

[Hiten]

Here is a big question: has his intimidation worked? I can see every reviewer that reads what is going on here think twice about writing anything negative about a product. I will continue of course as I have but others? I can see fingers shaking as they write anything remotely not complimentary. And not just about Tekton speakers. But everything.

If this is true, we have a major setback here that we need to repair.

Wouldn't a properly worded disclaimer work ? And if any equipment owner sends any equipment an email of him/her requesting measurement and his/her acknowledgement that he/she totaly agrees with measuring method be enough ?
Regards.

 

[voodooless]

Wouldn't a properly worded disclaimer work ? And if any equipment owner sends any equipment an email of him/her requesting measurement and his/her acknowledgement that he/she totaly agrees with measuring method be enough ?

In this case, it was not the owner that complained, but the manufacturer. Totally different thing.

 

[Multicore]

It has been the darkest time since I started this site.

Summary of my excessively long thank you back here:

Now we can clearly see that it takes real courage to do what you do. I wouldn't have the stomach for it. I admire and thank you for leading by example.

 

[kemmler3D]

If I publish it, it's solid and defensible.

"No hint of a possible objection" is a ludicrous standard. When I've been threatened (three or four times), my answer is always the same: "We'll have fun in discovery," and it has always ended there.

You can personally afford to pay lawyers to go through a discovery process without discomfort? That's wonderful.

Not everyone is that rich. Many people would be bankrupt before they get to trial. That's why obviously bogus threats like this are still serious threats.

 

[SIY]

You can personally afford to pay lawyers to go through a discovery process without discomfort? That's wonderful.

Not everyone is that rich. Many people would be bankrupt before they get to trial. That's why obviously bogus threats like this are still serious threats.

No, I am the farthest thing from rich. But the “d word” is usually enough to end the conversation.

 

[rdenney]

This makes me think about how Stereophile used to give negative reviews, like this one of the Crown Macro Reference power amplifier.

IIRC, Crown threw a fit, and the amplifier was added to Recommended Components in spite of the negative review, and the reviewer soon disappeared from the masthead and blunt reviews faded away.

Moral: you can’t give in to bullying. The current Stereophile shows where that leads

It looks to me like Thomas Norton threw the fit. The measurements were good and did not in any way explain the first reviewer's impressions. His own subjective listening heard a few of the same effects as the first reviewer, but did not draw the same conclusion about the overall sound. And that conclusion from the first reviewer was: "It didn't make music." If anything, walking back that review wasn't a sop to the company so much as it was a recognition that those sorts of subjective impressions, without any controls, cannot and should not be authoritative. It's not like the first reviewer was humble about it. One yearns to test the first reviewer's hearing with a properly controlled blind test. Had the reviewer drawn his conclusion based on properly controlled subjective testing, Crown would have had no basis for complaint.

And in that I can see why Crown would have complained: The measurements so comprehensively disputed the first subjective review that a concern about prior (undisclosed) bias could not be discounted. Crown did not, I suspect, challenge the measurement section.

I've seen Stereophile give negative reviews, but negative opinions were more humbly expressed, and they were at least somewhat supported by measurements.

Rick "providing the value of actual test data in support of subjective evaluations" Denney

 

[kemmler3D]

No, I am the farthest thing from rich. But the “d word” is usually enough to end the conversation.

I've also had every threat of litigation disappear after I told them I'd await contact from their actual lawyer.

But it only takes one seriously crazy person to ruin your week / month / year... I don't blame anyone for being worried about an actual lawsuit from EA.

 

[No one who matters]

You can personally afford to pay lawyers to go through a discovery process without discomfort? That's wonderful.

Not everyone is that rich. Many people would be bankrupt before they get to trial. That's why obviously bogus threats like this are still serious threats.

The use of terms such as “publish” and badges like Technical Expert suggest @SIY is a researcher, perhaps with a PhD. And it’s hard to go after facts backed by an endowment.

 

[Jim Taylor]

If anything, walking back that review wasn't a sop to the company so much as it was a recognition that those sorts of subjective impressions, without any controls, cannot and should not be authoritative. It's not like the first reviewer was humble about it. One yearns to test the first reviewer's hearing with a properly controlled blind test. Had the reviewer drawn his conclusion based on properly controlled subjective testing, Crown would have had no basis for complaint.

Exactly!

Jim

 

[kemmler3D]

The use of terms such as “publish” and badges like Technical Expert suggest @SIY is a researcher, perhaps with a PhD. And it’s hard to go after facts backed by an endowment.

Sure... in Erin's or Amir's case, either they'd be paying out of their own pockets, or if they're lucky insurance might cover some of it.

I don't disagree with @SIY that often calling a bluff works on people like this, but I also understand if that's not a risk someone is interested in taking.

 

[No one who matters]

Sure... in Erin's or Amir's case, either they'd be paying out of their own pockets, or if they're lucky insurance might cover some of it.

I don't disagree with @SIY that often calling a bluff works on people like this, but I also understand if that's not a risk someone is interested in taking.

Totally agree also. I don’t lay down either, and will call the bluff. I detest losing money, but I detest predatory behavior even more.

 

[Hiten]

In this case, it was not the owner that complained, but the manufacturer. Totally different thing.

But if owner of the speaker has emailed the reviewer and said I want to test this, I understand your method/process of measuring and allow it to share it with public (audio enthusiasts) should work ./?
regards

 

[voodooless]

But if owner of the speaker has emailed the reviewer and said I want to test this, I understand your method/process of measuring and allow it to share it with public (audio enthusiasts) should work ./?
regards

That basically happened, yet here we are...