Anyone solved MF Tri Vista SACD problems?

Can I bring some sanity to this thread?

The following facts apply to the UK and Australian markets. I don't live in the US so don't know what happened there or why.

Fact - Musical Fidelity gave full new price value for exchange on other MF products to first owners whose TriVista SACDs failed during their warranty period.

Fact - Musical Fidelity gave large discounts on other MF CD players to first owners whose players failed after expiration of the warranty period.

Fact - the problem with the transports in both the TriVista and kW SACD players is nothing to do with "parts obsolescence". Philips left MF and a number of other manufacturers badly in the lurch by supplying insufficiently robust SACD transports (these have a failure rate approaching 100%). Philips then refused to support these transports with parts or replacements once the failures began. This has been well documented on Audiogon and elsewhere. MF are not the only manufacturer affected - Krell and dCS have been placed in the same position.

Fact - if you have either a TriVista or kW SACD player there is no point in asking for or expecting it to be repaired by the manufacturer. It can't be done. The transport replacements are gone.

How many of the people slating MF on this thread are initial purchasers? If you are, you may be able to get something out of the dealer or distributor. If, however, the US distributor has changed since you bought the player and the current distributor won't play ball, you are probably screwed. That is hardly MF's fault however.

If you bought it used, your only recourse is the dealer.

If you bought it used privately, you're probably screwed.

The problems with these Philips transports came close to sending several companies to the wall.

Given that plus the fact that with the best will in the world nothing can be done to fix these players, the apparently widespread belief on this thread that a manufacturer is somehow responsible to secondhand purchasers of a player - no matter how high-priced - after expiration of the warranty is simply unrealistic.

If you want someone to blame, blame Philips.

Cerrot,

I took the line in your post - 'Fourth, why would I trade mine back to them for another one of their "unrobust" players--as that is all they had when mine broke down.' - to mean that you had been offered and rejected a trade to a different CD player. Apparently it doesn't, so for that and that alone, I apologize.

For the rest, you have enough information in Alex Peychev's post to determine whether all of your remarks about Musical Fidelity are justified.

So Budt, enlighten me. I've heard the standard anti-MF rant from US owners before. Tell me something new, such as:

What was the product?

When did you buy it?

When did it fail?

What happened next?

Were you offered anything by the dealer/distributor/manufacturer?

If so, did you refuse it (and why)?

Why does MF attract all the hostility and not Krell? What did Krell do differently?

Your post is light on detail, but it implies that you bought a new MF product, which failed?/became obsolete? (it's not clear from your post) under warranty and MF left you completely holding the baby. It's hard to believe that US consumer law would allow that in any form.

Here's my story:

I bought a new TriVista SACD in 2003, the drive failed under warranty and after quite a few months of uncertainty, I accepted the MF exchange offer and replaced it with a brand new kW 500 amplifier at no charge.

It did cost me money because at that point I had no source and two amplifiers. Sorting that out meant spending, but it also became an upgrade. Six years on I still have and love the kW 500, so overall I'm not at all unhappy.

Cerrot,

1. Again I ask, why does this hostility only go at Musical Fidelity?

Krell used the same Philips transport in the SACD Standard. Did they stockpile transports in case of failure? Did they know it was a crap transport when they built/designed it? Did they test it properly? Why no shame on Krell?

2. My TriVista also went in for repair and came back unrepaired (and with a different fault). As is always the case with repairs outside the country of the product's origin, it went to a local repairer chosen by the distributor. I was unhappy with what happened but I have enough objectivity to judge that it was not directly Musical Fidelity's fault.

3. So you concede that in fact MF did offer to trade your kW SACD for another player but you declined their offer. That is, you made a choice. Be a man and take responsiblity for your choices.

4. My kW 500 has not missed a beat in six years of operation. I suspect it would survive a nuclear attack. Is it possible that you are so embittered by what happened with your kW SACD that you have lost perspective where Musical Fidelity is concerned?

Hi Alex,

Thank you for your post.

It is great have some input on this subject from someone who knows the facts and is able to assess what happened calmly and rationally.

The Philips SACD transport debacle cost a lot of people a lot of money. It also damaged many reputations.

It is important that at that same time as we recognize that customers were hurt and that companies didn't always react as promptly and effectively as they could have done, we don't rush to the kind of overblown, overwrought judgements that "all Brand X is crap, all of the time" as are being posted here.

The Philips SACD transport problem shouldn't be allowed to taint reputations beyond the scope of that singular issue.

Cheers,

Chris