gaineso
Low Frequency Boat Owner
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Posts
- 835
- Likes
- 10
Operative word Mr,PD is defective.
Total Airhead 9v
- Thread starter chowsa
- Start date
Quote:
The main point is that HR makes the consumer pay for return shipping on even defective products returned for refunds or replacement. This is NOT standard practice for all on-line vendors, nor should it be. Defects are not the consumers fault and therefore the consumer should not be bearing the costs of restitution.
| Originally posted by gaineso Operative word Mr,PD is defective. |
The main point is that HR makes the consumer pay for return shipping on even defective products returned for refunds or replacement. This is NOT standard practice for all on-line vendors, nor should it be. Defects are not the consumers fault and therefore the consumer should not be bearing the costs of restitution.
James
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2002
- Posts
- 339
- Likes
- 12
Quote:
I disagree. Amazon.com is in a tiny minority; for example, except for my book and music purchases from online retailers such as Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com, not a single other vendor I've patronized reimburses the cost of return shipping, even if the item was defective. That list includes:
J&R, Buy.com, Office Depot, L. L. Bean, Eddie Bauer, Lands End, Thomas-Distributing, Sierra Trading Post, Road Runner Sports, Think Geek, etc.
and the list goes on and on. I consider the return shipping costs as a fair substitute for taking time out to drive down to a local store. After all, no one ever asks the store to pay for the gas!
| This is NOT standard practice for all on-line vendors, nor should it be. |
I disagree. Amazon.com is in a tiny minority; for example, except for my book and music purchases from online retailers such as Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com, not a single other vendor I've patronized reimburses the cost of return shipping, even if the item was defective. That list includes:
J&R, Buy.com, Office Depot, L. L. Bean, Eddie Bauer, Lands End, Thomas-Distributing, Sierra Trading Post, Road Runner Sports, Think Geek, etc.
and the list goes on and on. I consider the return shipping costs as a fair substitute for taking time out to drive down to a local store. After all, no one ever asks the store to pay for the gas!
Quote:
I disagree with that. When I buy something from an on-line vendor, I agree to the terms of a purchase (including basic shipping costs) based on the assumption of a working product being delivered. A non-working product is an inconvenience, which necessitates a subsequent car trip to UPS/FedEx/UPSPS that would not have been necessary if the product performed as advertised. So you end up taking a car trip and using your own gas anyway! The time savings and convenience of mail-order goes out the window.
| Originally posted by James I consider the return shipping costs as a fair substitute for taking time out to drive down to a local store. |
I disagree with that. When I buy something from an on-line vendor, I agree to the terms of a purchase (including basic shipping costs) based on the assumption of a working product being delivered. A non-working product is an inconvenience, which necessitates a subsequent car trip to UPS/FedEx/UPSPS that would not have been necessary if the product performed as advertised. So you end up taking a car trip and using your own gas anyway! The time savings and convenience of mail-order goes out the window.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2001
- Posts
- 4,111
- Likes
- 1,336
jpelg - I agree to the terms of a purchase (including basic shipping costs) based on the assumption of a working product being delivered. A non-working product is an inconvenience,
We regularly pay for the shipping on defective unit exchanges. From what I can tell, your unit is not defective. Let me try to explain, real nice:
We are audiophiles here at HeadRoom. Our philosophy is to make the best sounding headphone amps we can. When we have to pick between convienience or convention and good sound, we pick good sound. Because the AirHead has a single sided supply (only one power supply rail as opposed to a +/- DC voltage supply) it is impossible to design the product without a few DC blocking caps in the signal path. Now, every time the signal goes through a capacitor you get phase changes and various secondary effects that distort the sound somewhat, so we try not to build a lot of caps in the signal path. In the consumer electronics world a lot of things are done to supress noises of various types. For example, soft start circuits mute the audio for a few moments while the power supply settles out; various debounce caps get placed around switches to supress pops and clicks heard when changing switch positions; AND caps are put on both sides of the pot to supress surface noise modulation when turning the pot. The problem is that all those little "fixes" degrade the sound. By the time you hear it, it hase been turned into the typical lifeless crap delivered by mid-fi products.
In the land of audiophiles, less is more. High-end products are designed with as few componants as possible so that the sound you hear is as pure as possible. For this reason, you can expect audiophile products to exhibit little clicks and pops when changing control settings. Now on serious expensive stuff (like our high-end stuff) we use VERY expensive parts, which tends to minimize these problems. But on the AirHead we have to use fairly inexpensive parts---it is supposed to be a low cost product. The problem, of course, is that you end up with pots that have some surface noise buried in a design which amplifies that noise when the pot is turned. And we have to decide whether a little noise when you are moving the pot is worth the improved sound when you're not---which is what we chose.
So your product isn't defective, it's working just like we designed it. BTW, you can hear a similar thing on the Cosmic and Supreme when you move the pot for the same reason as the AirHead. Though the pot is better in this case, there are NO DC blocking caps which makes it worse. The net result is less somewhat less noisy than the AirHead, but it is still audible----when you move the pot.
...(long pause to gather restraint)...
...(a hard thing for Tyll at times like this)...
jpelg - nor was this "design choice" ever discussed openly by anyone here nor from Headroom until I authored my posts here. Now they are back-pedalling.
We make hundreds ... thousands of design choices that we don't have time to explain fully. We are NOT back peddling at all. In fact, we are just doing our best to keep everyone informed as issues come up. That's why we sponsor and interact in a community like this. You brought it up. We answered the question. Then you accuse of backpedling. Me thinks you ought to put on a little Duke Ellington and play "In A Mellow Tone."
We regularly pay for the shipping on defective unit exchanges. From what I can tell, your unit is not defective. Let me try to explain, real nice:
We are audiophiles here at HeadRoom. Our philosophy is to make the best sounding headphone amps we can. When we have to pick between convienience or convention and good sound, we pick good sound. Because the AirHead has a single sided supply (only one power supply rail as opposed to a +/- DC voltage supply) it is impossible to design the product without a few DC blocking caps in the signal path. Now, every time the signal goes through a capacitor you get phase changes and various secondary effects that distort the sound somewhat, so we try not to build a lot of caps in the signal path. In the consumer electronics world a lot of things are done to supress noises of various types. For example, soft start circuits mute the audio for a few moments while the power supply settles out; various debounce caps get placed around switches to supress pops and clicks heard when changing switch positions; AND caps are put on both sides of the pot to supress surface noise modulation when turning the pot. The problem is that all those little "fixes" degrade the sound. By the time you hear it, it hase been turned into the typical lifeless crap delivered by mid-fi products.
In the land of audiophiles, less is more. High-end products are designed with as few componants as possible so that the sound you hear is as pure as possible. For this reason, you can expect audiophile products to exhibit little clicks and pops when changing control settings. Now on serious expensive stuff (like our high-end stuff) we use VERY expensive parts, which tends to minimize these problems. But on the AirHead we have to use fairly inexpensive parts---it is supposed to be a low cost product. The problem, of course, is that you end up with pots that have some surface noise buried in a design which amplifies that noise when the pot is turned. And we have to decide whether a little noise when you are moving the pot is worth the improved sound when you're not---which is what we chose.
So your product isn't defective, it's working just like we designed it. BTW, you can hear a similar thing on the Cosmic and Supreme when you move the pot for the same reason as the AirHead. Though the pot is better in this case, there are NO DC blocking caps which makes it worse. The net result is less somewhat less noisy than the AirHead, but it is still audible----when you move the pot.
...(long pause to gather restraint)...
...(a hard thing for Tyll at times like this)...
jpelg - nor was this "design choice" ever discussed openly by anyone here nor from Headroom until I authored my posts here. Now they are back-pedalling.
We make hundreds ... thousands of design choices that we don't have time to explain fully. We are NOT back peddling at all. In fact, we are just doing our best to keep everyone informed as issues come up. That's why we sponsor and interact in a community like this. You brought it up. We answered the question. Then you accuse of backpedling. Me thinks you ought to put on a little Duke Ellington and play "In A Mellow Tone."
Quote:
It is here where we will probably continue to "agree to disagree". More so due to the fact that Headroom has developed a loyal following here with many, many, overwhelmingly positive posts regarding your products and customer service. The Airhead has been one such product. But when new designs introduce new issues that are apparently known by HR, but not explained, an potential customer reasonably assumes that the new version is at least as good as the old one. The whole "pot" issue leads me to believe that this is not true, at least in part. Unfortunately for me, you have power over my credit card at this point.
Quote:
I appreciate your technical, yet accessible explaination. However, using the word "audiophile" does not satisfy me. Under your definition, I guess I am not an audiophile and by your definition, maybe never will. I was not aware that an "audiophile" had to necessarily agree with another audiophile about what is "good sound". I did think, however, that there was some consensus that extraneous sound was "bad". Here again, I guess we must just "agree to disagree".
Quote:
Nor do I expect you to. But it is the OMMISION of a known issue, again not present in previous models, that brings up the issue of "bad faith". Again, you can do what you want. I guess I just "took one for the team", and these posts will serve to inform future potential customers of ALL relevant issues.
Quote:
Trust me Tyll, I am totally "chill"(sorry, rhyme not intended). I hope that when you spend $200+ on something that doesn't work completely as stated, and then you are charged even more for the pleasure of returning it, you can keep the same levelheadedness as you instruct me to.
| Originally posted by Tyll Hertsens From what I can tell, your unit is not defective. |
It is here where we will probably continue to "agree to disagree". More so due to the fact that Headroom has developed a loyal following here with many, many, overwhelmingly positive posts regarding your products and customer service. The Airhead has been one such product. But when new designs introduce new issues that are apparently known by HR, but not explained, an potential customer reasonably assumes that the new version is at least as good as the old one. The whole "pot" issue leads me to believe that this is not true, at least in part. Unfortunately for me, you have power over my credit card at this point.
Quote:
| Originally posted by Tyll Hertsens Let me try to explain, real nice: |
I appreciate your technical, yet accessible explaination. However, using the word "audiophile" does not satisfy me. Under your definition, I guess I am not an audiophile and by your definition, maybe never will. I was not aware that an "audiophile" had to necessarily agree with another audiophile about what is "good sound". I did think, however, that there was some consensus that extraneous sound was "bad". Here again, I guess we must just "agree to disagree".
Quote:
| Originally posted by Tyll Hertsens We make hundreds ... thousands of design choices that we don't have time to explain fully. : |
Nor do I expect you to. But it is the OMMISION of a known issue, again not present in previous models, that brings up the issue of "bad faith". Again, you can do what you want. I guess I just "took one for the team", and these posts will serve to inform future potential customers of ALL relevant issues.
Quote:
| Originally posted by Tyll Hertsens Me thinks you ought to put on a little Duke Ellington and play "In A Mellow Tone." |
Trust me Tyll, I am totally "chill"(sorry, rhyme not intended). I hope that when you spend $200+ on something that doesn't work completely as stated, and then you are charged even more for the pleasure of returning it, you can keep the same levelheadedness as you instruct me to.
kelly
Herr Babelfish der Übersetzer, he wore a whipped-cream-covered tutu for this title.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2002
- Posts
- 5,435
- Likes
- 12
jpleg
Man, I am ALL ABOUT the underdog and when it comes to the little guy verses a company, I'm pretty hard pressed to agree with the company. I want to be on your side, believe me, but consider this...
Other users have the Airhead, Supreme, etc., noisy pots and all, and most people aren't complaining. In fact, it wasn't even mentioned in a couple of reviews that went up. I understand that it's an issue for you and it's your money and you have a right to take issue with it, but I'm not sure what you have is a defect.
You have a product with a known issue. So Todd called it a problem. It is a problem, especially when some customers are dissatisfied. However, products ship every day with known issues. People put up with the known issues because the sum product is worth it for them.
When you buy a fairly entry level product, you should probably expect a few more known issues than you'd get with say, a Cosmic Reference, for example. You're looking at $200 vs. $950, there. There are $200 amps that don't have the noisy pot, but the other amps were, frankly, just different designs.
What Tyll just did was provide for you, in a public forum, the reasons why his company's engineers made the design decisions they made. He certainly had NO obligation to do so. I don't see the owners of Creek or Grado in here proposing their design decisions for new revs of their products, much less answering questions like yours.
As for your actual return, I can only share with you a little cliche and that is: "it's easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar." I'd have probably called them and expressed my feelings honestly and politely rather than the way things were presented here, myself.
I think too often we take the presence of people like Jan and Tyll on the forum for granted and think they owe us some kind of customer service here just because they're HeadFi members and advertisers. I don't think this is the case and I believe the proper venue for issues is a phone call. Now, if that doesn't work out and somehow their telephone customer service sucks, that might be cause for a public forum discussion. Otherwise, I just can't see how this helps.
And sorry jpleg, obviously you're not the only one doing this, it's just something that bothers me and I took an opportunity to rant about it because I wanted the other HeadFi'ers to hear my thoughts on the matter.
Man, I am ALL ABOUT the underdog and when it comes to the little guy verses a company, I'm pretty hard pressed to agree with the company. I want to be on your side, believe me, but consider this...
Other users have the Airhead, Supreme, etc., noisy pots and all, and most people aren't complaining. In fact, it wasn't even mentioned in a couple of reviews that went up. I understand that it's an issue for you and it's your money and you have a right to take issue with it, but I'm not sure what you have is a defect.
You have a product with a known issue. So Todd called it a problem. It is a problem, especially when some customers are dissatisfied. However, products ship every day with known issues. People put up with the known issues because the sum product is worth it for them.
When you buy a fairly entry level product, you should probably expect a few more known issues than you'd get with say, a Cosmic Reference, for example. You're looking at $200 vs. $950, there. There are $200 amps that don't have the noisy pot, but the other amps were, frankly, just different designs.
What Tyll just did was provide for you, in a public forum, the reasons why his company's engineers made the design decisions they made. He certainly had NO obligation to do so. I don't see the owners of Creek or Grado in here proposing their design decisions for new revs of their products, much less answering questions like yours.
As for your actual return, I can only share with you a little cliche and that is: "it's easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar." I'd have probably called them and expressed my feelings honestly and politely rather than the way things were presented here, myself.
I think too often we take the presence of people like Jan and Tyll on the forum for granted and think they owe us some kind of customer service here just because they're HeadFi members and advertisers. I don't think this is the case and I believe the proper venue for issues is a phone call. Now, if that doesn't work out and somehow their telephone customer service sucks, that might be cause for a public forum discussion. Otherwise, I just can't see how this helps.
And sorry jpleg, obviously you're not the only one doing this, it's just something that bothers me and I took an opportunity to rant about it because I wanted the other HeadFi'ers to hear my thoughts on the matter.
Thanks for your input, kelly. I agree that this is not necessarily the best way to hash this out. But both Danny and Tyll started their own threads regarding this issue, and replied here to past posts. It is their defensive stance that has continued this discussion.
I also agree that within the "hi-fi" world, $200 is not that much money comparatively. But it is far from "chump change" for me, and I suspect that is true for many here. With the rave reviews of HR products including the TA, I cannot imagine why this particular issue was not mentioned at all, much less "put up with". Had I heard one inkling about this issue with regard to the TA, I would not have made the purchase in the first place. BTW, while I am new to the headphone world, I am not new to hi-fi. I have plenty of experience with brand names like McIntosh, Tandberg, Luxman, Nikko, NAD, Nakamichi (top-of-the-line), and more. I have never had to "put up" with any such noise as Tyll describes at any price point.
Creek and Grado products have been around long enough that I would hope such issues would have been flushed out by now. Given what is going on with the TA, maybe that is not the case wth the other amps either. Regardless, I would hold them up to the same standard. I just assumed that since you guys are so critical most of the time, and are usually spot-on with your assessments, it would be mentioned at least by someone. But you know what happens when you "assume", right?
I also agree that within the "hi-fi" world, $200 is not that much money comparatively. But it is far from "chump change" for me, and I suspect that is true for many here. With the rave reviews of HR products including the TA, I cannot imagine why this particular issue was not mentioned at all, much less "put up with". Had I heard one inkling about this issue with regard to the TA, I would not have made the purchase in the first place. BTW, while I am new to the headphone world, I am not new to hi-fi. I have plenty of experience with brand names like McIntosh, Tandberg, Luxman, Nikko, NAD, Nakamichi (top-of-the-line), and more. I have never had to "put up" with any such noise as Tyll describes at any price point.
Creek and Grado products have been around long enough that I would hope such issues would have been flushed out by now. Given what is going on with the TA, maybe that is not the case wth the other amps either. Regardless, I would hold them up to the same standard. I just assumed that since you guys are so critical most of the time, and are usually spot-on with your assessments, it would be mentioned at least by someone. But you know what happens when you "assume", right?
kelly
Herr Babelfish der Übersetzer, he wore a whipped-cream-covered tutu for this title.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2002
- Posts
- 5,435
- Likes
- 12
Just in case it came out wrong, I wasn't AT ALL implying that $200 is chump change. I was only reasoning why the product might have shortcomings compared to a product like the Cosmic.
If I'd reviewed the TA, I think I'd have mentioned it if I heard it and thought it was distracting or annoying. But I do think Tyll's explanation for the decision sounds pretty solid. When you try to keep the cost down while trying to make it sound good, something's going to give.
If I'd reviewed the TA, I think I'd have mentioned it if I heard it and thought it was distracting or annoying. But I do think Tyll's explanation for the decision sounds pretty solid. When you try to keep the cost down while trying to make it sound good, something's going to give.
DeanA
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2002
- Posts
- 319
- Likes
- 10
FWIW, I don't hear any odd sounds from my TAH, with source off, until I get into the upper half of the volume. A level I normally can't reach when the source is on. Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones, I don't know. I do know that my TAH does put out a really good sound without any noticeable noise.
Quote:
If you have one of the new 4.5/9V models, and this is true, then this jives with Todd's original comment during my phone conversation with him, that "some do, and some don't". This distinction alone points to a defect, or at least a quality control issue to me. My TA exhibits these sounds from the lowest volume setting on up, source on or off.
BTW, kelly, Tyll is now saying that a similiar sound is heard on the Cosmic too (see a few responses back)! Who ever reported that!
If Tyll had not responded as he did, I might have gone with Todd's original suggestion that I return my TA for replacement, which he would "cherry-pick" (his words, again) one that does not exhibit the crackling sound. Since Danny and Tyll are stating that ALL new Airheads are designed this way, I have elected to return it for a refund instead. Oh, well.
| Originally posted by DeanA FWIW, I don't hear any odd sounds from my TAH, with source off, until I get into the upper half of the volume. A level I normally can't reach when the source is on. Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones, I don't know. I do know that my TAH does put out a really good sound without any noticeable noise. |
If you have one of the new 4.5/9V models, and this is true, then this jives with Todd's original comment during my phone conversation with him, that "some do, and some don't". This distinction alone points to a defect, or at least a quality control issue to me. My TA exhibits these sounds from the lowest volume setting on up, source on or off.
BTW, kelly, Tyll is now saying that a similiar sound is heard on the Cosmic too (see a few responses back)! Who ever reported that!
If Tyll had not responded as he did, I might have gone with Todd's original suggestion that I return my TA for replacement, which he would "cherry-pick" (his words, again) one that does not exhibit the crackling sound. Since Danny and Tyll are stating that ALL new Airheads are designed this way, I have elected to return it for a refund instead. Oh, well.
gaineso
Low Frequency Boat Owner
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Posts
- 835
- Likes
- 10
Tyll's supposed to be here in the Sunshine State in a little over 3 weeks. I'll check out the TA's then, maybe everyone he's got with him.
The only time a noisy pot would bother me is if it was a noisy pot. One where you had to hunt for spots it worked. a littyle noise when i turn it probably wouldn't bother me, as there would be external noises just from me moving.
The only time a noisy pot would bother me is if it was a noisy pot. One where you had to hunt for spots it worked. a littyle noise when i turn it probably wouldn't bother me, as there would be external noises just from me moving.
MacDEF
Headphone Hussy (will wear anything if it sounds good)
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2001
- Posts
- 6,761
- Likes
- 13
Like Kelly (watch out, Kelly, we're agreeing again
), I'm usually on the side of the consumer. But I disagree with your position here, jpelg.
Quote:
How is going onto a public forum, in response to an accusatory customer, and clearly explaining the design decisions made on a product, a "defensive stance?" Your approach to this issue was very accusatory and very public. They responded quite reasonably to you, IMO.
Again agreeing with Kelly
, if you really had a problem paying for return shipping, you probably would have had better results just giving Todd a call and talking to him about your displeasure. And you might have also suggested that putting a note on the web site about this "issue" with volume pot noise might be a good idea for HeadRoom to do.
Anyways, just a few comments below. I'm not trying to "flame" you or anything like that -- I'm just discussing some of the statements you made in this thread.
Quote:
But the product in question is not "defective" -- according to HeadRoom, they made a design decision that offers better sound, but comes with a bit of feedback during volume changes. If that's true, the behavior you're describing is not a defect, however much you don't like it. I think that's the point of contention here, is it not? While you may not like the behavior exhibited during volume changes, and that's entirely your right, it is technically not a defect.
Quote:
I really don't understand your position here. Tyll has explained quite clearly why your AirHead exhibits this behavior. Yet you still seem to be accusing him/HeadRoom of trying to mislead you.
I think it's safe to say that the new AirHeads ARE as good as, and better than, the old ones -- but in order to make them better at a similar price point, HeadRoom had to "out-design" the older models. According to Tyll, they did so, but with the minor drawback explained.
Quote:
Do you change the volume on a continual basis? If your AirHead was exhibiting noise during listening then I would say you have a rock-solid case. But if it only exhibits this behavior during volume changes, and this was a tradeoff to get better "listening" sound, it's hard to call it a major problem.
Let me put it to you this way. Which of the following products would you buy if they were all the same price?
1) A product that sounds pretty good, and is silent during volume changes.
2) A product that sounds better than #1, but exhibits a bit of noise during volume changes.
3) A product that sounds better than #1, and is silent during volume changes.
I think we'd all choose #3; however, according to Tyll, that product doesn't exist because you just can't make it. So, you're left with either #1 or #2. If Tyll is being honest (which, based on his history here at Head-Fi, he usually is, sometimes brutally so), HeadRoom had to choose to make #1 or #2. Given that people who will be buying a headphone amp are people who want the best possible sound, it seems like a no-brainer that they chose #2.
Quote:
To be clear, this is an issue between you and HeadRoom; you aren't representing anyone else in this situation. I, generally a consumer advocate, would gladly put up with a tiny amount of noise, only present during volume changes, if it means that the sound when I'm actually listening is better.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Tyll is pronounced "tile"
Quote:
| Originally posted by jpelg It is their defensive stance that has continued this discussion. |
How is going onto a public forum, in response to an accusatory customer, and clearly explaining the design decisions made on a product, a "defensive stance?" Your approach to this issue was very accusatory and very public. They responded quite reasonably to you, IMO.
Again agreeing with Kelly
Anyways, just a few comments below. I'm not trying to "flame" you or anything like that -- I'm just discussing some of the statements you made in this thread.
Quote:
| The main point is that HR makes the consumer pay for return shipping on even defective products returned for refunds or replacement. [snip] Defects are not the consumers fault and therefore the consumer should not be bearing the costs of restitution. |
But the product in question is not "defective" -- according to HeadRoom, they made a design decision that offers better sound, but comes with a bit of feedback during volume changes. If that's true, the behavior you're describing is not a defect, however much you don't like it. I think that's the point of contention here, is it not? While you may not like the behavior exhibited during volume changes, and that's entirely your right, it is technically not a defect.
Quote:
| It is here where we will probably continue to "agree to disagree". [snip] But when new designs introduce new issues that are apparently known by HR, but not explained, an potential customer reasonably assumes that the new version is at least as good as the old one. The whole "pot" issue leads me to believe that this is not true, at least in part. Unfortunately for me, you have power over my credit card at this point. |
I really don't understand your position here. Tyll has explained quite clearly why your AirHead exhibits this behavior. Yet you still seem to be accusing him/HeadRoom of trying to mislead you.
I think it's safe to say that the new AirHeads ARE as good as, and better than, the old ones -- but in order to make them better at a similar price point, HeadRoom had to "out-design" the older models. According to Tyll, they did so, but with the minor drawback explained.
Quote:
| I did think, however, that there was some consensus that extraneous sound was "bad". Here again, I guess we must just "agree to disagree". |
Do you change the volume on a continual basis? If your AirHead was exhibiting noise during listening then I would say you have a rock-solid case. But if it only exhibits this behavior during volume changes, and this was a tradeoff to get better "listening" sound, it's hard to call it a major problem.
Let me put it to you this way. Which of the following products would you buy if they were all the same price?
1) A product that sounds pretty good, and is silent during volume changes.
2) A product that sounds better than #1, but exhibits a bit of noise during volume changes.
3) A product that sounds better than #1, and is silent during volume changes.
I think we'd all choose #3; however, according to Tyll, that product doesn't exist because you just can't make it. So, you're left with either #1 or #2. If Tyll is being honest (which, based on his history here at Head-Fi, he usually is, sometimes brutally so), HeadRoom had to choose to make #1 or #2. Given that people who will be buying a headphone amp are people who want the best possible sound, it seems like a no-brainer that they chose #2.
Quote:
| I guess I just "took one for the team", and these posts will serve to inform future potential customers of ALL relevant issues. |
To be clear, this is an issue between you and HeadRoom; you aren't representing anyone else in this situation. I, generally a consumer advocate, would gladly put up with a tiny amount of noise, only present during volume changes, if it means that the sound when I'm actually listening is better.
Quote:
| Trust me Tyll, I am totally "chill"(sorry, rhyme not intended |
I'm pretty sure Tyll is pronounced "tile"
Quote:
That's fine. I never actually asked for anyone to defend me or even agree with me. I originally offered advice to someone who was considering the same purchase, I thought that since no one else had brought some issues up, it would be worth it to some people thinking about plunking down 2 c-notes.
Quote:
I do not feel this information was offered freely. It was a response by Tyll and Danny, almost two months after the introduction of these models, to several negative posts regarding the new Airhead, only one of which was started by me. It just seemed to spiral from there. This is the basis of my stance. Coming out with a "new, improved" version of an existing product, ought to imply that there are no shortcomings as compared to the original. I feel that there are some such shortcomings (ie. "noise" issues) which, at least, should have been openly declared so that consumers could make an informed choice.
Quote:
Have you actually heard a new one?
Quote:
Adjusting volume is a frequent consideration especially when using headphones portably.
Quote:
To be clear, YOU do not represent all those here either and it is presumptuous to make such a statement on their behalf. Maybe considerable extraneous noise coming out of your amp is not a problem, but that is far from true for many hi-fi listeners.
Quote:
My apologies to Tyll if I mispronounced his name. I was using a typical German pronounciation of the name.
| Originally posted by MacDEF I disagree with your position here, jpelg. |
That's fine. I never actually asked for anyone to defend me or even agree with me. I originally offered advice to someone who was considering the same purchase, I thought that since no one else had brought some issues up, it would be worth it to some people thinking about plunking down 2 c-notes.
Quote:
| Originally posted by MacDEF How is going onto a public forum, in response to an accusatory customer, and clearly explaining the design decisions made on a product, a "defensive stance?"... Your approach to this issue was very accusatory and very public. They responded quite reasonably to you, IMO. |
I do not feel this information was offered freely. It was a response by Tyll and Danny, almost two months after the introduction of these models, to several negative posts regarding the new Airhead, only one of which was started by me. It just seemed to spiral from there. This is the basis of my stance. Coming out with a "new, improved" version of an existing product, ought to imply that there are no shortcomings as compared to the original. I feel that there are some such shortcomings (ie. "noise" issues) which, at least, should have been openly declared so that consumers could make an informed choice.
Quote:
| Originally posted by MacDEF I think it's safe to say that the new AirHeads ARE as good as, and better than, the old ones. |
Have you actually heard a new one?
Quote:
| Originally posted by MacDEF Do you change the volume on a continual basis? |
Adjusting volume is a frequent consideration especially when using headphones portably.
Quote:
| Originally posted by MacDEF I think we'd all choose #3. |
To be clear, YOU do not represent all those here either and it is presumptuous to make such a statement on their behalf. Maybe considerable extraneous noise coming out of your amp is not a problem, but that is far from true for many hi-fi listeners.
Quote:
| Originally posted by MacDEF I'm pretty sure Tyll is pronounced "tile". |
My apologies to Tyll if I mispronounced his name. I was using a typical German pronounciation of the name.
Users who are viewing this thread
