AudiogoN Forums: Sbass vs Kevbur: Other transaction related problem

Sbass vs Kevbur: Other transaction related problem

Problem: Other transaction related problem
02-14-2003: Sbass initiated process
02-15-2003: Kevbur submitted response

Sbass describes the events as follows:
Quite a while ago I sold a YBA Integre DT integrated amplifier to a buyer in Canada. He paid approximately $1300 and I sent him a beautiful-sounding amp that worked wonderfully with my Quads. (I never would have sold it but for the need to patch in a crossover for use with Gradient subs.) Anyway, about three months later I received an e-mail (which I no longer have) in which buyer complained that when using the line stage the volume control usually was only at about 8 or 9 o'clock, and that this did not match the volume control's position when using the phono stage. Buyer claimed that a hand-written note in the owner's manual (which I'd included with the item) stating "resolution not as good with remote control" implied that unit was somehow flawed or malfunctional. I replied that I had no idea as to who had written the note in the manual, that I sold him what I'd represented and that he had no recourse to me. In response, he left negative feedback on me stating that he would not have purchased the amplifier if he'd listened to it before-hand. Well, he was welcome to come to my apartment in Washington; he chose not to.

Sbass is requesting the following resultion:
Remove negative feedback from my file left by buyer.

Kevbur describes the events as follows:
I purchased a YBA DT #a415303dt amp from the seller on 02/21/01 for $1400.00 us. As soon as I hooked up the amp there was a problem with the volume control. It was giving about 75% of the volume from the 9 o'clock to 10 o'clock position on the volume control. I contacted the seller right away and he informed me that he did not have any problem. I asked him about a hand written note in the manual, he said it was written by the original owner, the note said; " as per phone call with YBA distributer, volume with remote is compressed". The seller made no mention in his add that this amp had this unusual feature. I contacted the distributer, thinking this could not be normal. They said that is was, but I could not acccept that a company like YBA would release a product with such an obvious flaw. I sent the amp off to the distributer and they put a resistor in the c.d. input to try and stop it but it did not work. Still having a hard time believing that YBA would do this I e-mailed the factory and got their service tech, a Mr. Hurand. He first thought it was a mis-connected ground wire, but he contacted me the next day when he checked the serial # and found that the early versions of the remote model had this problem. He said that the only solution was to have the remote option changed to the current version and I would have to pay for the "upgrade". I e-mailed Mr.Andre himself and told him how I felt about this situation and asked for a serious discount in the price, but I got no response. When I contacted the seller with this information, he dismissed me as "wacky and crazy" and told me not contact him any more about "how my amp was doing". I talked to a local dealer who has a connection with the Ontario sales rep for the YBA distributer, the rep talked to his boss and based on their advice I decided to go ahead with the change in the volume control. I got my amp back on 06/13/01, with the latest volume control and it now works fine. With the repair and the shipping, I paid a total of $496.01 cdn., to get this situation sorted out. If the seller had mentioned the "compressed" feature in his add I certainly would not have purchased this amp . When I got the amp back, I e-mailed the seller, and let him know what come of the situation, what I paid and asked him if this volume control was not a problem, then why was it changed by YBA. But got no response. I also do not have the e-mails sent to the seller, distributer and YBA, but I can provide copies of the repair and shipping invoices and a copy of the manual page with the note from the original owner.

Kevbur's proposed resolution:
I do not agree with his request. I could change the feedback if he would like. What I would say is; The buyer purchased this amp without being informed of its "compressed" volume feature and he passed it on to me without informing me of it and was very rude in the process. E-mail me for details.

Sbass's rebuttal:
Again, I have no idea of the origin of the hand-written note in the owner's manual to which the buyer refers; I loved the YBA and would never have sold it had I not needed a pre-out in order to patch in a subwoofer x-over. That he paid $460 to replace the volume control seems a waste to me, I never saw any need for any service or change to it or any other aspect or control of the amp.

As of 02-18-2003, Audiogon is requesting input from members regarding this dispute.

Audiogon (Threads | Answers | This Thread)

02-18-03

Responses

02-18-03: Rcprince
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)

02-18-03: Paulwp
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)

02-18-03: Jcbtubes
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)

02-18-03: Rhljazz
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)

02-18-03: Drubin
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)

02-18-03: Viridian
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)

02-18-03: Swampwalker
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)

02-18-03: Zaikesman
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)

02-19-03: Noonen
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)

02-20-03: Classe
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)

Closed for Input

Only the two Disputants may post now

This thread is no longer accepting general input.
Only the two disputants may post their follow ups about resolution.