That is what I would do, but I suspect that it is Chinese and when it was found to be defective by a retailer, they put the NOT FOR RESALE on it, and got a refund from manufacturer. It probably cost too much to send it back to China for repair and ship it back.
I've had some experience with sellers on ebay. My first suggestion is to NEVER buy from someone with such a low feedback score again. It clearly shows that they've had multiple bad interactions they didn't resolve.
Step one is to send a message to the seller letting them know that the item is defective and not working in one channel. Don't get complicated with channel imbalance or anything that could be potentially interpreted as the item working. Remember, anything you write the seller ebay can read, so be careful there, and communicate ONLY through ebay. The seller may agree to allow a return in order to prevent another negative feedback or an ebay mandated return. Be clear with the seller that the amp is not in working condition when received. If the seller offers anything less than a full refund and return (and HE pays shipping, not you) do not accept.
Step two, if the seller takes a hard line to the 'no refund'/as is crap, Start a dispute with ebay. Make sure that the return is for an item that doesn't work. Bottom line, it does not matter what the seller writes in the description. He can say 'as is' until the cows come home; the listing implied it was a working amp in 'like new' condition. Like new means that it works. It was not sold "for parts or repair" which would imply there is an issue.
Hopefully you saved the original packaging so you can just put it back and send it back with the label ebay provides. Good luck .
If it is I have a couple things to amend above. First, his feedback is alright, 99.2%; by saying 'over 90%' I thought it was lower. If you ever see a seller with a 90% feedback rating, run away.
Second, the item was listed as 'used' not 'like new.' In the future, take what people say in the comments with a grain of salt. Like I mentioned above, it means less what he writes in the description, and more what he puts in the item condition category. The listing conditions matter more. Luckily, you're still protected by ebay's guarantee even though it's listed as used and he states no returns. You have to be clear that you didn't receive a working item.
I added a couple notes to my post where I was asking that. See above. You're still ok, just follow the steps. If the seller doesn't respond in 1-2 business days open a dispute ticket with ebay letting them know it's a non working item. He should be a bit more open to accepting a return as his feedback rating is still decent and he'll want to protect that.
Last thing, I would still reach out to the manufacturer. If there are any identifying unit numbers or such on the unit I would let them know the identifier and that the unit was sold to you. If it is a loaner or review unit hopefully they can identify who it went to and no longer send them gear.
Last thing, I would still reach out to the manufacturer. If there are any identifying unit numbers or such on the unit I would let them know the identifier and that the unit was sold to you. If it is a loaner or review unit hopefully they can identify who it went to and no longer send them gear.
If it is I have a couple things to amend above. First, his feedback is alright, 99.2%; by saying 'over 90%' I thought it was lower. If you ever see a seller with a 90% feedback rating, run away.
Second, the item was listed as 'used' not 'like new.' In the future, take what people say in the comments with a grain of salt. Like I mentioned above, it means less what he writes in the description, and more what he puts in the item condition category. The listing conditions matter more. Luckily, you're still protected by ebay's guarantee even though it's listed as used and he states no returns. You have to be clear that you didn't receive a working item.
Correct, it does list it as used.
But Ebay defination of used says "The item may have some signs of cosmetic wear, but is fully operational and functions as intended."
And the seller said "it's like New", as the seller did not specify what was like new, it would imply everything with it is like new, not just the looks.
Still think the buyer should start a dispute, eBay might (hopeful) agree with my logic.
The seller was supposed to sell it for parts or repairs if he/she didn't know if it worked or not. Those forums will help you more than here, but I think you will be refunded in the end.
As I mentioned before, the "like-new" description can be accurate even if the item is defective. In fact, given that someone put a NOT FOR RESALE label on the amp probably means it was defective from the factory even when it was brand new. So the term "like new" usually only applies to the cosmetic condition of a product, unless it has a part that wears out (like a vacuum tube).
I think the reason why eBay changed their policy with regard to AS-IS (they pretty much ignore it now and force sellers to give refunds if the buyer claims the product is defective), is that (as you mentioned) when selling online it is not possible for the buyer to inspect the item.
But I don't actually believe that an item cannot be sold AS-IS in Australia. For example, if someone has a 50 year old classic car sitting outside for 40 years, and the car has not be started or driven for 40 years, and is obviously rusty, I doubt that the buyer can return it if they discover that the engine does not work. It is not reasonable to expect that a rusty car not started for 40 years still has a working engine.
Just remember that AS-IS means it is not in complete working condition, period. So don't buy it if advertised AS-IS unless you don't care if it works.
Down here an item must function as the buyer would expect or it must be specifically stated otherwise so AS-IS = defective would land you in court
AS-IS would only cover defects evident in either the description or photographs, hidden defects such as a channel imbalance would not be covered
Cars or vehicles generally have unique requirements depending on if they are registered or not, if registered or even just bearing a number plate they must be roadworthy if not they are considered parts . Even in the case you mention, to avoid difficulties the seller would need to state "for parts" or "wrecking" in the description
Our consumer law places heavy weight on what a reasonable person would expect it even includes warranty, eg a seller may sell a new tv with a one year warranty and they do but our consumer law states a reasonable life span for a new tv is five years so the seller is required to repair or replace for the longer period
NOT FOR RESALE could indicate a demo model sent for review or shows . In the factories I have worked defective stock was rebuilt or stripped for parts or destroyed
Something that is sold as "like new" would not have a channel imbalance.
Start a dispute with eBay, request a refund and state you will ship it back to the seller.
Tell eBay the headphone tube amplifier has a channel imbalance, so it's not "like new".
The serial number on the unit itself, and also on the paper document "Declaration of Conformity" (apparently a document that says when it was tested and the test results) is "Not for SALE! 0002". So it definitely sounds like a demo or review sample. On the manufacturer website, they list about 10 publications or websites that reviewed it. https://www.aurisaudio.shop/products/euterpe
The Declaration of Conformity (shown on eBay listing) says that it was tested (and passed) on 26.06.'19, which means June 26, 2019. But the "Item specifics" of the eBay listing says it was manufactured in 2022. This could be one sure way to get a refund.
The buyer said that the unit seems to come back into channel balance at some point when the volume knob is turned up high enough, but is apparently too loud at that level for the headphones he is using. It is not unusual for some headphone amp volume knobs to have a left-right imbalance, so it is hard to know whether the problem is how it came from the factory or whether something went wrong after some use of the amp. It is possible that the headphones of the buyer are a more efficient than used by all the reviewers, and therefor the reviewers did not experience the balance problem because they typically had the volume turned up high enough where the channel balance problem no longer occurs (as described by the buyer).
If the buyer is using unusually efficient headphones (at least for audiophiles), and can adjust the input volume with Roon to force use of the amp volume control to a level when it is fairly balanced between left and right (as the buyer said he can do that), that might be a reason to keep it, so long as doing that did not introduce any audible background noise.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.
