Remove the negative feedback. The "problem" is that the unit works as it was designed, that's certainly no fault of the seller's. End of story, IMHO.
Rcprince (Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread)
Seller did not misrepresent the condition of the product. Seems like he passed it on in the same condition as when he bought it, and as shipped from the factory according to Buyer's research. I don't know what "compressed" volume means, but if all he is talking about is that the volume control is full on at a low level and doesnt have much range, that is true of many a preamp (e.g., CJ PFR rated Class A by Stereophile), and should not affect sound quality. (Even if it did, I don't think Seller had any duty to speculate about someone else's reaction to a characteresitic he found unobjectionable.)
I say remove the negative fedback.
Paulwp (Threads | Answers | This Thread)
Kevbur- Remove the negative feedback. The product functioned as designed. Just because you would have preferred a different characteristic, it is not the sellers responsibility to educate you beyond an accurate physical description of the product and whether it is functioning as designed. Knowledge is your best defense, but don't expect others to do your leg work for you. Sorry for your confusion, but lessons learned.
Jcbtubes (Threads | Answers | This Thread)
The negative feedback on Sbass should be removed immediately. Sbass had no problem with the volume control and the operation didn't bother him. As Kevbur stated, the manufacturer indicated that is how that serial number unit was made orignally hence "no defect". Since Sbass didn't have another later production unit on hand to compare, he would have no reason to believe his unit was any different than any other. Manufacturers state that a product is subject to change at any time. If Kevbur found the volume operation not to his liking, then any expense to make it meet "his" expectations should be entirely at his expense.
Rhljazz (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread)
I'm confused about the problem. I read three differrent complaints. Is it (1) the volume control is not linear, so that you get most of your gain in the first quarter turn, or (2) the CD and phono inputs exhibit differrent gain levels, or (3) the volume curve behaves differently when you adjust volume using the remote? Maybe I'm not reading it clearly.
Drubin (Threads | Answers | This Thread)
Interesting dispute. A feature or function that is a part of the design, unless optional, need not be listed in an ad. If various iterations of a product exist the onus must, unfortunately, rest with the buyer to research those iterations and determine, perhaps by serial number, which version he is getting. The seller cannot be expected to know all about the development of the product line. Sbass sold a unit that was stock and in working order as the unit was designed. End of story.
Viridian (Threads | Answers | This Thread)
This seems to me to be a case of buyer not being satisfied with a "feature" or design quirk of the amplifier. The manufacturer has seemed to confirm that the "flaw" was somehow inherent in the design. The unit was not "broken" or damaged. Although disappointing, I do not believe that negative feedback is warranted. Neither seems to have the emails which would have established a better timeline, but if a product you buy over the 'net is not "broken" but instead doesn't work quite the way you had hoped, well that's life on the 'net. Buy from your local dealer if you want right of return for any reason (but make sure he will allow it; lots charging restocking fees now). I'm not even sure neutral feedback is warranted. I understand that buyer is disappointed, but obviously he liked the amp well enough to pay $400 CDN to get the remote to work the way he wants. Seems like a lot to me to avoid a few steps to the couch, but that's his business.
Swampwalker (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)
The seller did not misrepresent the product. The usefulness of an integrated's volume control taper will be highly dependent upon the output level of the partnering sources, the partnering speaker's input sensitivity (notice that the seller has relatively insensitive Quads), and the size of the listening room, as well as the listener's preferences. All of which means that what turned out not to be a good volume control taper for the buyer could have been just fine for the seller, who might never have had reason to suspect that there was a 'problem' with the integrated in this area, since it could have worked fine in his system the way it was. The note inside the manual -however it actually reads - seems ambiguous at best (it might even have lead one to think something had been wrong with the remote control at some point), and is certainly no 'smoking gun' concerning the seller's veracity in this transaction. To me, the buyer elected to have an upgrade performed to make the integrated work better in his system, and that was his choice and his responsibility.
However, the question here is not one of restitution, but of feedback. Since this transaction took place almost 2 years ago, according to the buyer, I'm wondering where any of original feedback is - the buyer has none at all, and the seller's recent negative feedback from the buyer (suspended by Audiogon pending a resolution) is the only feedback from the buyer to be seen among his ratings (which are otherwise all positive). That the seller may subsequently have been somewhat 'rude' as stated by the buyer could be a bit understandable considering the nature of the buyer's recontact after such an extended period of time passing since the deal was presumably originally concluded. If they had exchanged positive feedback initially, and then the seller wanted to add additional feedback (open to rebuttal) later on, after he felt he had been somehow wronged, that might be one thing (even though I'm not at all convinced the buyer has a legitimate complaint to begin with). But since both he and the seller seemed to agree to forgo (for whatever reasons) leaving any mutual feedback at all during or after the original time of their deal 2 years ago, I think the buyer has exceeded his 'statute of limitations' in trying to leave negative feedback for the seller 2 years later. Any feedback between both of them should be disallowed at this point, but I see nothing wrong with Audiogon maybe inserting a neutral reference to the existence of this dispute thread within their feedback files.
In fact, come to think of it, I think maybe Audiogon ought to always insert an alert to the existence of all dispute threads, in all involved parties' feedback files generally.
Zaikesman (Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread)
Remove negative feedback- buyer should have researched the product PRIOR to purchase- certainly the information was available. The unit works as designed- the buyer chose to have the upgrade done and cannot expect the seller to pay part or all of the cost.
Noonen (Threads | Answers | This Thread)
I must concur with everyone here. Remove the negative feedback. Seller did not misrepresent the product for sale. The product functioned per it's design. It is not a sellers responsibility to list every caveat of a products design. The responsibilty of researching a product before purchase rests with the buyer.
Classe (Threads | Answers | This Thread)