[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg Are you volunteering to receive the donations, buy amps from Mikhail, arrange for their tests, and prepare the unbiased report of results?

That ain't my job. I didn't make the series of decisions that got Mikhail into this mess. He did. He'll have to dig himself out. I'm merely suggesting one way he could salvage the situation and turn it into something positive.

 

[mikeg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy That ain't my job. I didn't make the series of decisions that got Mikhail into this mess. He did. He'll have to dig himself out. I'm merely suggesting one way he could salvage the situation and turn it into something positive.

Sorry, I was mislead by your statement that "None of us will have perfect evidence unless some of us are willing to pony up money for a proper UL-style certification test ......" IMHO, what you, as well as some others, seem to be after is maintaing this vociferous dialog until Mikhail is somehow browbeaten into complying with your demands. Somehow I don't think that he will, nor do I think that he should. I hope that we'll soon grow tired of these innuendos regarding supposed hazards to SinglePower amp. users. As I mentioned previously, I don't think that injuries, or even perceived injuries have ever occurred to any of the 200 plus Head-Fi users of Mikhail's computers. Please realize that I'm limiting my comments to the issue of safety. I'm not addressing the the esthetics of Mikhail's construction of circuits.

 

[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy I agree with you, and I feel really bad for the manufacturer. Really bad. However, there are also serious potential consequences to his customers if these amps are unsafe (you in particular will be interested in my comments in the other thread about fire insurance in Canada) and it's only reasonable to try to get to the truth as well as we can. None of us will have perfect evidence unless some of us are willing to pony up money for a proper UL-style certification test (and even then some people, e.g. Tyrion, have said they won't believe safety tests conducted by a UL facility! ). Since that is unlikely, even with the test money coming from Mikhail (I suspect even he doesn't seriously believe his amps, as currently assembled, would meet UL standards), we can only listen to opinions, however imperfect they are. I agree with you, it would be nicer if people giving opinions always provided their names and qualifications, but just because they don't doesn't mean the stated opinions are invalid, just that they need to be taken with a bigger grain of salt. Try to evaluate what arguments are they using. Do they appear valid? What about Braillediver's specific point-by-point questions in Strohmie's new thread? What does your gut tell you when looking at those pictures? Ultimately, when the interior of these amps looks like such trash, the burden of proving their safety falls upon the manufacturer. He made the decision to assemble them that way, and it seems that he may have been ashamed of it enough to try to prevent pictures from getting out for two years. He also made the decision not to get UL certification as far as we know (he's not listed in the UL's database, though there is a chance that he chose an alternate standards organization). Not exactly the best set of judgments. IMHO, it's still possible for Mikhail to salvage this thing and turn it into a win-win situation for everyone. However, he needs to stop the BS. He should tell us that he's submitting his amps to a lab for testing, or if he has already done so he should tell us. If the amps fail independent safety testing, he should be honest about why. He should promise to fix the problems in new amps, and offer to fix the problems in older amps if people want them fixed. He also needs to explain to us why he claimed the amps were single-ended when they weren't. It's fine if he made a mistake, but he should be honest about it! He can also be honest that the "pure class A" was more marketing than strict reality for low impedance cans. Fine. Just be truthful. People will respect that more than the carefully couched lawyer/marketing talk that he used in his last public statement. If he handles this right, I suspect he could easily emerge stronger and more respected than before. If he just sticks his head in the sand while True Believers defend him with increasingly tenuous arguments ("I won't even believe it if the UL says it's unsafe! They're just a bunch of know-nothing idiots! I have absolute faith in Mikhail!") things will just smolder forever.

Do me a favor and don't put words in my mouth. I never said I wouldn't believe UL testing. I said that just because something is UL tested does not mean it is safe. I even provided an example of the FDA approving Vioxx and the company later removing it from the market. Trust me when I tell you that the testing of a pharmaceutical drug is far more strenuous than UL testing and sometimes they get it wrong. It's not a matter of the unnamed witnesses being invalid. They may be right. However, that information should not form the basis of an opinion when we have no idea who they are, what their experience is and what, if any, bias they may have.

 

[chumley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg Since you mentioned that you consulted numerous experts, I'm surprised that you don't have sufficient time to arrange for a few photographs of your already opened amps. Are you saying that SinglePower implied a lawsuit against you, were you to provide pictures for Dr. Gilmore's consideration? I was under the impression that your sense of public responsibility (e.g., not wanting to endanger others by selling your amps) may weigh on you sufficiently to have the photos furnished, or at least forwarding your amps for examination, and photography by others.

Could you be any more sarcastic?

Singlepower's general stance is (and has been, AFAIK), that public dissemination of pics of their amps' internals by 3rd parties is not cool. I am a fan of erring on the side of caution. YOU'VE got an SP amp- why don't YOU start snappin, mike?

My posts do not imply, nor do they promise, anything other than my personal experience, the opinions of 3 friends 'in the field', and my personal conclusions. As far as my getting into some kind of homegrown 'verification process', such as the one you outline... any proposal I consider, where my first thoughts are to retain an attorney in order to participate, is way down on the list of possible activities, in my book. I contribute to this forum on my terms; if you have a problem with that, please feel free to provide whatever pictorial evidence you care to, on your time, to whomever. To quote John Garfield: "Include me out."

 

[PhilS]

I have been trying to stay away from this thread and the related Singlepower threads. It appears to me that many intelligent, rational, respected members of this forum are doing likewise. The growing absence of these members from the more recent postings in the past few days is rather conspicuous. In my opinion, those who think either Singlepower or Mikhail are being criticized (or convicted) unfairly (as opposed to constructive criticism) should boycott these threads henceforth. By arguing with certain people who wish to present a particular point of view regardless of the facts, or wish to act as prosecutor, judge and jury, you're giving them what they want -- a forum to make their questionable arguments and conclusions, and notoriety. Let's kill these threads by letting the people who want to howl at the moon do it by themselves without our participation or attention.

 

[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS I have been trying to stay away from this thread and the related Singlepower threads. It appears to me that many intelligent, rational, respected members of this forum are doing likewise. The growing absence of these members from the more recent postings in the past few days is rather conspicuous. In my opinion, those who think either Singlepower or Mikhail are being criticized (or convicted) unfairly (as opposed to constructive criticism) should boycott these threads henceforth. By arguing with certain people who wish to present a particular point of view regardless of the facts, or wish to act as prosecutor, judge and jury, you're giving them what they want -- a forum to make their questionable arguments and conclusions, and notoriety. Let's kill these threads by letting the people who want to howl at the moon do it by themselves without our participation or attention.

Good point.

 

[mikeg]

Sorry if I offended, but I was not being sarcastic. I was trying to be factual. I found your rationale not to sell your amps. because of the possibility of causing injury to others to be unusually magnanimous. I also found your citation of anonymous experts to be distressing. Finally, I found your excuse of not having sufficient time to assist because you are such a highly paid and busy professional to be distressing. But, please believe me when I say that I never intended any sarcasm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumley Could you be any more sarcastic? Singlepower's general stance is (and has been, AFAIK), that public dissemination of pics of their amps' internals by 3rd parties is not cool. I am a fan of erring on the side of caution. YOU'VE got an SP amp- why don't YOU start snappin, mike? My posts do not imply, nor do they promise, anything other than my personal experience, the opinions of 3 friends 'in the field', and my personal conclusions. As far as my getting into some kind of homegrown 'verification process', such as the one you outline... any proposal I consider, where my first thoughts are to retain an attorney in order to participate, is way down on the list of possible activities, in my book. I contribute to this forum on my terms; if you have a problem with that, please feel free to provide whatever pictorial evidence you care to, on your time, to whomever. To quote John Garfield: "Include me out."

 

[mikeg]

I appreciate your recommendation, and I'll henchforth comply with it. I'm off this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS I have been trying to stay away from this thread and the related Singlepower threads. It appears to me that many intelligent, rational, respected members of this forum are doing likewise. The growing absence of these members from the more recent postings in the past few days is rather conspicuous. In my opinion, those who think either Singlepower or Mikhail are being criticized (or convicted) unfairly (as opposed to constructive criticism) should boycott these threads henceforth. By arguing with certain people who wish to present a particular point of view regardless of the facts, or wish to act as prosecutor, judge and jury, you're giving them what they want -- a forum to make their questionable arguments and conclusions, and notoriety. Let's kill these threads by letting the people who want to howl at the moon do it by themselves without our participation or attention.

 

[chumley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earwax That leaves me wondering why you apparently don't believe Mikhail's response: "Fourth, as to rumors of legal threats, we have never made any threats to anyone. This is pure rumor." I'll understand if you don't want to answer on the thread, but I'm curious enough to ask anyhow.

Yeah, I can answer that without PM'ing you back... no harm in asking... I'd be curious, too.

In reviewing my latest posts, I see that I (correctly) wrote 'implied' threat. Any business person who's company's patent(s) are in the 'lockup' period of 'patent pending', which I believe Mikhail claims Singlepower is, may indeed have legal grounds to claim harm to their enterprise, in several different ways, if pictorial information depicting their patents/patents' use in a larger product is disseminated publicly... having worked as a consultant with small and medium sized businesses and at length with their lawyers going on 18 years now, I can attest to the balancing act a small business such as Mikhail's tries to maintain: on the one hand, it is crcuial that customer relations be cultivated, especially where WOM advertising is concerned... OTOH, said small businesses need to protect the lifeblood of their enterprise's value: intellectual property, patents, etc.. Whether or not Mikhail feels the same about the issue after any other, more comprehensive pics are disseminated of his products' innards is a question to which I would rather not need to know the answer.

IOW, I have no wish to place my future in Mikhail's, or anyone elses', hands but my own. Whether Mikhail would, or should, threaten, or even undertake, legal action needs to be none of my concern- literally. Thus, no pics.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrion Do me a favor and don't put words in my mouth. I never said I wouldn't believe UL testing.

and earlier...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrion And no, I don't buy that because a UL lab says something isn't safe, that means it isn't safe.

I'm not the one putting words in your mouth, it would seem.

As for your Vioxx example, you're using the converse of an argument to argue against the argument itself. This is a classic trial misdirection technique. It works with juries because most cannot tell the difference between refuting a statement and refuting its converse, especially during cross-ex. However, it's logical bunkum. I'm asserting that failing expert approval may imply not safe. This has ZERO relation to your Vioxx example, which argues the converse: passing expert approval may imply not safe.

 

[archosman]

I thought someone posted that if the product has been out for 2 years withouth a patent then it would be fair game. That and the fact no one seems to be able to find Singlepower's request for patent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumley Yeah, I can answer that without PM'ing you back... no harm in asking... I'd be curious, too. In reviewing my latest posts, I see that I (correctly) wrote 'implied' threat. Any business person who's company's patent(s) are in the 'lockup' period of 'patent pending', which I believe Mikhail claims Singlepower is, may indeed have legal grounds to claim harm to their enterprise, in several different ways, if pictorial information depicting their patents/patents' use in a larger product is disseminated publicly... having worked as a consultant with small and medium sized businesses and at length with their lawyers going on 18 years now, I can attest to the balancing act a small business such as Mikhail's tries to maintain: on the one hand, it is crcuial that customer relations be cultivated, especially where WOM advertising is concerned... OTOH, said small businesses need to protect the lifeblood of their enterprise's value: intellectual property, patents, etc.. Whether or not Mikhail feels the same about the issue after any other, more comprehensive pics are disseminated of his products' innards is a question to which I would rather not need to know the answer. IOW, I have no wish to place my future in Mikhail's, or anyone elses', hands but my own. Whether Mikhail would, or should, threaten, or even undertake, legal action needs to be none of my concern- literally. Thus, no pics.

 

[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy and earlier... I'm not the one putting words in your mouth, it would seem. As for your Vioxx example, you're using the converse of an argument to argue against the argument itself. This is a classic trial misdirection technique. It works with juries because most cannot tell the difference between refuting a statement and refuting its converse, especially during cross-ex. However, it's logical bunkum. I'm asserting that failing expert approval may imply not safe. This has ZERO relation to your Vioxx example, which argues the converse: passing expert approval may imply not safe.

Wrong again. The point of all this is that mistakes can be made at all levels. You are suggesting that a mistake can only be made if the finding is that a product is safe and not if a product is found to be unsafe. That argument makes no sense at all.

My statement earlier did not state that I wouldn't believe UL testing if they found a product unsafe. I said that just because they find that doesn't mean it is unsafe. Again, mistakes happen, as with Vioxx. When I said that I was not discussing whether I would or wouldn't believe or rely on a UL finding. Again, this goes back to what started this whole discussion, the statement by chumley and your response to me. Everything else was an attempt to illustrate my point. No matter how hard I try to explain this to you, you continue to try to argue with me.

Interestingly, it is you who are using misdirection, not me. I have clearly stated in every post since the original one that my only issue was chumley's reliance on the unamed, unknown experts and your post regarding my response to that comment.

By the way, if a product I owned was found to be unsafe by UL I would probably not continue to use that product. I hope that makes my position clear. I suppose I would have to know what the safety issue is before making the decision. I certainly would not dismiss the finding.

 

[comabereni]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumley And, no, I'm not shipping anything anywhere. Period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumley Thus, no pics.

chumley,

I suggest that you are discredited in this discussion. Your experiential claims with Singlepower products were both extraordinary and convenient. If you can produce harmless photos of the outsides two amps you describe along with some way of identifying them as yours, then I may reconsider my position. How about the word "chumley" scrawled on a $1 bill in red ink laid across each amp. Or, a trusted third party could submit a stipulation for the photo evidence in a PM that will make it unique and serve as witness.

Further, that you will not consider submitting your retired amps for additional review at our expense when you have stated so strongly your concerns for the safety of others further serves to destroy both the strength and sincerity of your position. I will put it plainly, I am in doubt that you actually own two Singlepower amps and, by extension, doubt that you submitted two Singlepower amps to have their internal wiring inspected for safety. Your experiences read almost too perfectly to be plausible and I am left wondering at your motive.

Since you have clearly stated you will neither use them or sell them, you needn't even reveal who you are--just ship them without a return address. No one will ever know who you are/were. If you have been honest in all your declarations, then you have nothing to lose. Anonymously donate your self-declared worthless items to the cause you have so strongly espoused and for the good of all involved.

Will we see the evidence, or just more carefully crafted reasoning...

 

[chumley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by comabereni chumley, I suggest that you are discredited in this discussion. Your experiential claims with Singlepower products were both extraordinary and convenient. If you can produce harmless photos of the outsides two amps you describe along with some way of identifying them as yours, then I may reconsider my position. How about the word "chumley" scrawled on a $1 bill in red ink laid across each amp. Or, a trusted third party could submit a stipulation for the photo evidence in a PM that will make it unique and serve as witness. Further, that you will not consider submitting your retired amps for additional review at our expense when you have stated so strongly your concerns for the safety of others further serves to destroy both the strength and sincerity of your position. I will put it plainly, I am in doubt that you actually own two Singlepower amps and, by extension, doubt that you submitted two Singlepower amps to have their internal wiring inspected for safety. Your experiences read almost too perfectly to be plausible and I am left wondering at your motive. Since you have clearly stated you will neither use them or sell them, you needn't even reveal who you are--just ship them without a return address. No one will ever know who you are/were. If you have been honest in all your declarations, then you have nothing to lose. Anonymously donate your self-declared worthless items to the cause you have so strongly espoused and for the good of all involved. Will we see the evidence, or just more carefully crafted reasoning...

What are you, a Prosecutor? Perry Mason? 'Discredited', 'produce', 'witness', 'motive', 'declarations', 'evidence'... man, you must be fond of your auditions at Summer Stock Theatre... Listen up, comabereni. Before you mention the word 'convenience', let's see how that term stacks up with your point:

a) If I'm honest, I'll do what you say.

b) If I don't do what you say, then I must be either a competing unscrupulous headphone manufacturer, engaging in sabatoge against Singlepower, or I'm a liar with lots of time on his hands and a yen to tweak Head-fi forum members.

The obvious omission here is (c): That I am who I say I am, did what I said I did, and feel like holding onto my privacy, my schedule, and my property. I'm going to ship amps, for which I paid thousands USD, to whom? YOU? Strangers who could just use them as their own, or resell them? Don't make me laugh. Whether I ever use these amps again is none of your business- it's mine.

That said, do I care one whit whether you or anyone else believes me? In the largest sense- not really. If I'm being honest, do I have anything to lose? Yeah. My self-respect at doing what is commercially, ethically and legally Singlepower's job- shoring up doubting customers with action, not forum posts, to protect them. Last time I looked, no checks have arrived in my mailbox made out to me from Singlepower. Until any do, I'm not going to do Singlepower's job for them. Remember- I'm the one who took it in the shorts, investment-wise, by removing two of these high-priced potential barbecues from commercial circulation. Heck, show the Singlepower amp innards pics that HAVE been posted on this forum to anyone who knows anything about the field, and they'll likely rattle off at least 4 clearly visible issues, all of which could easily result in tragedy. Look at the pics in Braillediver's post #3 of this thread:

http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=90513

and read his post. Let's just say that 'experts agree' with Braillediver's easily understood (even by laypersons), points. And that's just the beginning.

You should probably stick to creating posts that aren't lame and illogical attempts at a legal Interrogatory or a Hollywood cross-examination, comabereni. That way, YOU won't be discrediting yourself in any 'discussion' before you even join same. Just a tip, Esquire...

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumley What are you, a Prosecutor? Perry Mason? 'Discredited', 'produce', 'witness', 'motive', 'declarations', 'evidence'... man, you must be fond of your auditions at Summer Stock Theatre... Listen up, comabereni. Before you mention the word 'convenience', let's see how that term stacks up with your point: a) If I'm honest, I'll do what you say. b) If I don't do what you say, then I must be either a competing unscrupulous headphone manufacturer, engaging in sabatoge aganist Singlepower, or I'm a liar with lots of time on his hands and a yen to tweak Head-fi forum members. The obvious omission here is (c): That I am who I say I am, did what I said I did, and feel like holding onto both my privacy, my schedule, and my property. I'm going to ship amps, for which I paid thousands USD, to whom? YOU? Strangers who could just use them as their own, or resell them? Don't make me laugh. Whether I ever use these amps again is none of your business- it's mine.

Talk is cheap buddy. Very few, if any, know you personally here. And you haven't contributed any pics. It has already been well established that you cannot be sued for showing the inside pics, let alone outside pics of a product you own. You are simply blowing hot air.

Got a digicam? Pen and paper?

Or continue trying to squeeze blood from a stone......

-Ed