[Tuberoller]

yeah,It's really easy to jump me,but I don't publish Sixmoons and have no idea what he has seen to change his mind or cast doubt on what he previously said. You don't either. tell yourself it's a lie enough times and you just might convince youself it is.

 

[Len]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuberoller Niether you nor I know what Sixmoons has seen as evidence. That we do know is that he assumed then and is likely assuming now. How is this polarizing? He assumed in both cases and assumption is his fault,not mine.

By polarizing, I meant making the distinction between pro-Singlepower and anti-Singlepower sentiments. I'm saying that has nothing to do with it and shouldn't have been brought up.

Yes, I openly admit I've made assumptions about the knowledge Sixmoons is privey to. I will contact them and see if they are willing to substantiate their "facts."

For the record, I'm not saying it's your fault, Tuberoller (if it was implied, it was not my intent). All I've been saying this whole time is Srajan Ebaen hasn't displayed the best sense in his reporting, although I have absolutely no doubt in my mind he had the best of intentions. If he's reading this, I'm sure he'll be more careful with future publications.

 

[Tuberoller]

Do you guys think the big problem here is that he has taken this current stance or that he published the original review without checking the facts?

This is a serious question and I'll make my position clear that I think he should have checked facts before hand. Retractions always cast doubt and I agree that Sixmoons engaged in poor journalism practices here.

 

[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuberoller yeah,It's really easy to jump me,but I don't publish Sixmoons and have no idea what he has seen to change his mind or cast doubt on what he previously said. You don't either. tell yourself it's a lie enough times and you just might convince youself it is.

I am not jumping you. I am addressing what you said in the post "...what's the real problem" I think it is a "real problem" for Mikhail or anyone else for that matter to be put in that position with the unfounded countless allegations. You're right, I have no idea. I merely pointed pointed out the coincidence. I am sorry you don't see it and don't consider it a "real problem" but I do. My guess it is a bunch of emails from head-fi members that prompted this. I may be wrong but I don't believe it is an unreasonable conclusion.

 

[Tuberoller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrion I am not jumping you. I am addressing what you said in the post "...what's the real problem" I think it is a "real problem" for Mikhail or anyone else for that matter to be put in that position with the unfounded countless allegations. You're right, I have no idea. I merely pointed pointed out the coincidence. I am sorry you don't see it and don't consider it a "real problem" but I do. My guess it is a bunch of emails from head-fi members that prompted this. I may be wrong but I don't believe it is an unreasonable conclusion.

This is not a conclusion,it is an assumption. This is why the letter was printed in the first place. I blame no one other than the writer of this article. I would'nt be one bit suprised if he added another letter on top of this one.

 

[raaj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuberoller Do you guys think the big problem here is that he has taken this current stance or that he published the original review without checking the facts? This is a serious question and I'll make my position clear that I think he should have checked facts before hand. Retractions always cast doubt and I agree that Sixmoons engaged in poor journalism practices here.

Unless he posts what proofs he was shown and how and why they are correct, 6moons is infact once again following poor journalistic practices, and saving their ass at the expense of casting aspersions on Mikhail's integrity.

 

[Tuberoller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raaj Unless he posts what proofs he was shown and how and why they are correct, 6moons is infact once again following poor journalistic practices, and saving their ass at the expense of casting aspersions on Mikhail's integrity.

Why? All he is saying now is that he's unsure of earlier claims posted in the article. In his mind this places any notion of false claims squarely on the manufacturer. Had he seen solid proof of the intitial claims he would not have doubts now,don't you think? yes,he covering his ass by saying "the Manufacturer made these claims,not me".

 

[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuberoller This is not a conclusion,it is an assumption. This is why the letter was printed in the first place. I blame no one other than the writer of this article. I would'nt be one bit suprised if he added another letter on top of this one.

I will accept the correction, a reasonable assumption. It doesn't change a thing, however.

 

[Tuberoller]

I bet if he posted another letter saying he was wrong and all the stuff published in the first article was correct,you guys would take it as fact

 

[gsferrari]

This whole thing is distasteful.

A reviewer is NOT always a technician. Srajan could have opened up the MPX3 and played with it till his hair fell out and he still wouldnt have a clue about what was going on in there unless he was technically inclined.

A reviewer depends on the manufacturer for information - verifying is not essential and is not common in audio reviews. It is when crap like this happens that the people "reading" the reviews must be responsible for themselves. The reviewer comments about sound and features...not on biasing etc. The review was highly "non-technical" and I dont blame the reviewer for writing a review solely based on sound, without touching electronics.

That said - posting that "letter" in his feedback section was not classy at all. He should have waited for further evidence before doing it.

Tell you what - as of now Mikhail is neither right or wrong until proven so. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt in this matter because everyone seems to have a load of gas on why he sucks - but no one seems to have the cojones to come out with the proof.

6moons - where is the proof? Who are your sources? What did they conclude and how did they get to this conclusion?

Mikhail - since you are confident that you are correct - how about explaining yourself. As of now I think singlepower is in a precarious position and silence is only making it worse.

 

[raaj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuberoller I bet if he posted another letter saying he was wrong and all the stuff published in the first article was correct,you guys would take it as fact

In that case, the faceless, nameless whistleblowers don't have anything to loose, but the only person accused of wrong doing - 'Mikhail' will be let off the hook, but who will compensate him for the loss of good faith in his company??

So, I wouldn't mind if after everything, 6moons goes back on his addendum if that would magically restore Mikhail's reputation.. On the other hand, I would like the undeniable truth to come out sooner than later, and if it has to be at the expense of someone's reputation, then so be it. But until someone with the proofs shows it to the whole world, this whole issue screams 'witch-hunt'..

 

[darkclouds]

I really don't know how you guys are interpreting this letter, but I can't seem to find any remark of his that outright states that Mikhail lied about anything. He seems to be pretty cautious in bringing up what he has been told by various other sources "are brought up here solely for the record " and that he is "suspicious that my review might have misrepresented both the single-ended Class A nature and the patent-pending claim of the SinglePower MPX-3." And that he is uncertain one way or the other but advises his readers "that any potential misrepresentation occured solely as a result of taking the manufacturer's claims at face value." That's mostly his words. As usual some of you are reading way too much into this.

 

[gsferrari]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuberoller I bet if he posted another letter saying he was wrong and all the stuff published in the first article was correct,you guys would take it as fact

Now that I have doubts of my own - OF COURSE NOT. I never trusted the review from the beginning - I posted to this effect in the thread and got blasted

I think srajan's credibility just took a huge drop. This doesnt go to say that Mikhails credibility rating has improved...

Good god!!

I thought people would be having discussions about the elections in less than a months time - you guys are groaning and moaning about amplifiers

Must be because I cant see any posts in the outside forums

 

[robzr]

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT AN AUDIO COMPANY WOULD MISREPRESENT OR OVERSTATE THE VALUE THEIR PRODUCTS. NO.

Of all the hobbies and interests I have had, I have never experienced the levels of snake oil, bull**** marketing, outrageous claims not supported by any technical evidence, and downright sleaziness that I have witnessed in the high end audio community.

Rob

 

[Len]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuberoller Do you guys think the big problem here is that he has taken this current stance or that he published the original review without checking the facts?

I think the big problem is when he published the original review (and likely the current addendum), things were assumed and stated as facts when they should not have been.