My point with the Mk II advertising is the same for advertising and even for reading annual reports from corporations that wish to increase their stock value: look at the priority.
Companies struggle with the 'outright lie' and will often put first what is the highest priority. There are exceptions, but this is more the bizarre.
Audioquest "open letter" is an example.
But this letter was not an "open statement" but a reaction, or answer to an allegation.
When AK put out its ad, it did not use strong language to commit to "new" technology. It began with the cable/connector, which is where a tangible problem has been found. Order = priority. Here in the states, we had a chain of stores called "Play it Again Sports: Used and New" where we, hockey parents, spent $ on expensive hockey equipment. Each store had more "used" than "new" for sale. Note the order: "used and new", with "used" coming first.
Look at the order of AK's ad first, and then look at the actual wording:
The AK T8iE MkⅡ
succeeds and improves on the AK T8iE, the world’s first Tesla in-ear headphone, collaboratively developed by Astell&Kern and beyerdynamic. The 2nd generation promises truly outstanding sound and exceptional build quality.The MkⅡ includes:
- high-grade silver-plated fiber cables with coaxial construction (an upgrade from copper cables)
- introduces a new voice-coil, drawing on all of the audio excellence beyerdynamic has pioneered since 1924
- allows users to experience an extremely wide frequency range, with crisp bass, well-balanced mids and crystal-clear highs.
- hand-made by highly skilled engineers in Germany
- combines Astell&Kern's philosophy of "providing the original sound" with the expertise of beyerdynamic and sets a new benchmark.
1. "succeeds and improves" with the word "succeed" coming first. This only addresses the chronological order!
If you had a "new" and dramatic improvement, you would list it first and highlight it! Next, look at the language of the "new" technology:
2. First, "high grade silver plated fiber cables with coaxial construction (an upgrade from copper cables)" is first. This is a true upgrade and it is listed plainly.
3. Then, it does not so much "have a new voice coil" but "introduces" the new voice cable. What "date" is given for this "new voice cable"? Is this breaking technology? The ONLY date in the ad is
1924. This is to
avoid committing to a date of the technology.
This suggests a slight change in the voice coil, perhaps to fix a problem.
According to their own advertising: Essentially, this is the 1st generation repaired, not new technology.
Those who did not have the issue and have replaced their cable likely have the same model, though it cost more.
Opinions, greatly subjective regarding subtle differences, will vary. This opinion is only drawn from their ad and not from hearing.
In terms of the analysis, this is the same procedure used to discern criminal deception. It reveals content, priority, veracity and deception with greater accuracy than a polygraph.
Those who purchase MK II are likely getting the marvelous accuracy of sound, without the headache of worrying if they got one of the 'problematic' ones. Those who own first generation, have had to spend more than 10% of the purchase price to replace the cable, making MK II the value winner.
It will be interesting to read the opinions of those who compare
A. The First Gen WITH replacement Cable with:
B. Mk II stock cable.
If the improvement was more than the fixing of the problem, they would be '
shouting it from the roof top' but they are not. It is lowered in priority and shows no weakness for any lawsuit or claim of fraud. They are not declaring any significant change in sound quality.
