Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
Scott, did you ever get that unit for review? Rumour has it that some
of your impressions were posted on RO recently, but they seem to have been deleted. So, what were your thoughts? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
Jroberts writes
Scott, did you ever get that unit for review? Rumour has it that some of your impressions were posted on RO recently, but they seem to have been deleted. So, what were your thoughts? I'm trying to figure out what the story was about what was posted. Apparently someone from Sebatron was very angry about what I said, claimed it was not accurate, and claimed that there was some secret technology employed. I did not see any of this flaming, since I am not on the RO forum and what was posted were only some offhanded comments I made to Luke. I didn't see any secret technology myself, or anything particularly unusual, but since I didn't have full schematics, the little that I know I got from reverse-engineering the board, and I did not do a full or complete job of this. It's built on a 4 channel PC board made from the Express PCB system, with only two channels stuffed. This means it should be fairly easy to upgrade from 2 to 4 channels later on. I like that a lot although it probably increases the price of the 2-channel version considerably. Input stage is a rather depressing 1:10 transformer going into a 2-triode 12AT7 configuration. Square wave response of the transformer is not so good, but again the transformer is an easy thing to replace. (In the thing that was posted to the RO forum, I had said it was a "12AX7" meaning basically that general sort of dual triode family, and that is one of the things I was flamed about. It is indeed a 12AT7, though.) The output stage looks to be solid state, but I have not drawn the schematic for that stuff out yet. I assume they are doing this rather than using a tube follower in order to reduce the cost of the power supply. I don't hear anything bad going on with this. The overall sound is okay, but it is very clear that the input transformer is the real bottleneck in the sound. Upgrading the input transformer would be a really good idea. The power supply is a little bit undersized too, I think. They are also using two power transformers; if this is going into any kind of production volume, they can actually save considerable money by going with a custom power transformer on the unit. Also, using a little PC board on the front panel rather than hand-wiring it can cut the manufacturing cost considerably. The overall design is a good one, but I was really disappointed in the input transformers. It would cost THAT much to install Jensen or Cine-Mags in there, and the sonic improvement would be considerable. The real dominant sound of the thing is the input transformer and it is really difficult to hear beyond that. It's definitely a lot woolier sounding than it could be... I think a good input transformer would bring a lot more detail out. Anyway, this posting is apt to be greeted with a lot of flames and such and more information about some new proprietary technology. There might be something new and amazing going on here that I missed, but a proprietary technology you don't talk about is not particularly helpful. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
"Luke Kaven" wrote in message ... (J. Roberts) wrote: ..... Sebastian (aka Sebatron) has shifted somewhat on his views over the course of a couple of days, and now appears to be more willing to engage in an open discussion of his designs (which should not embarrass him or his business in my view). I wish I could say the same for the management at Recording.org, which appears to hold steadfast to what I consider to be a morally untenable editorial policy. In short, there are no negative reviews allowed at Recording.org ever. And the "Designer's Corner" gives manufacturers "Carte Blanche" to be able to delete any comments that they deem to be unfavorable towards their products. ..... Luke Are you positive about all that? If nothing else, it makes the site completely useless. From their website: "RO is 100% independent , created for musicians by musicians. NO BS!" Indeed. jb |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
"reddred" wrote:
"Luke Kaven" wrote (J. Roberts) wrote: .... Sebastian (aka Sebatron) has shifted somewhat on his views over the course of a couple of days, and now appears to be more willing to engage in an open discussion of his designs (which should not embarrass him or his business in my view). I wish I could say the same for the management at Recording.org, which appears to hold steadfast to what I consider to be a morally untenable editorial policy. In short, there are no negative reviews allowed at Recording.org ever. And the "Designer's Corner" gives manufacturers "Carte Blanche" to be able to delete any comments that they deem to be unfavorable towards their products. .... Luke Are you positive about all that? If nothing else, it makes the site completely useless. From their website: "RO is 100% independent , created for musicians by musicians. NO BS!" Indeed. Yes, I'm positive -- I'm taking this all from correspondence. The words "carte blanche" appear veratim. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:06:32 -0500, Luke Kaven
wrote: I was the one who originally posted Scott's remarks. It is true that the original postings were deleted twice, once by the manufacturer, and once by Kurt Foster. Business as usual over at recording.org eh? Now various parties, including disenfranchised participants from Recording.org and a former moderator, have been asking me to take the matter to a public forum. I am going to sit on the matter for another day before I decide whether to do this or not. Seems like you just did. Mark "I'm the master of low expectations." GW Bush Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
"Luke Kaven" wrote in message ... "reddred" wrote: "Luke Kaven" wrote (J. Roberts) wrote: .... Sebastian (aka Sebatron) has shifted somewhat on his views over the course of a couple of days, and now appears to be more willing to engage in an open discussion of his designs (which should not embarrass him or his business in my view). I wish I could say the same for the management at Recording.org, which appears to hold steadfast to what I consider to be a morally untenable editorial policy. In short, there are no negative reviews allowed at Recording.org ever. And the "Designer's Corner" gives manufacturers "Carte Blanche" to be able to delete any comments that they deem to be unfavorable towards their products. .... Luke Are you positive about all that? If nothing else, it makes the site completely useless. From their website: "RO is 100% independent , created for musicians by musicians. NO BS!" Indeed. Yes, I'm positive -- I'm taking this all from correspondence. The words "carte blanche" appear veratim. They need to quit having forums then, if they're just going to play the game like a print magazine. Without the overhead! jb |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
In response to the afore mentioned allegations I feel it is only fair
for all the parties involved for me to post the communication that transpired between Luke and myself. Luke is operating under the misguided impression that he somehow can dictate to RO's administration how we should run the board. So here it goes, Luke sent this to Sebatron and myself. Kurt, Sebastian -- Since you both took the time to write me, I'm responding to both of you here so that the discourse doesn't become splintered hereafter. You may feel free to share what I write with Chris Bialuski if you wish. In a short time, the issues became so complex, that it takes a bit of effort to separate them and address them. Here is an attempt at that. * Many months ago, there was an imbroglio in rec.audio.pro, due to two of Sebastian's neighbors who took it upon themselves (as far as we know) to start hyping Sebatron preamps, making themselves look like shills. This created a backlash. In order to prevent a premature meltdown for Sebatron, I offered to arrange to faciliate several reviews as a way for the preamps to gain notice on the North American market through both grass roots and published commentary. I made arrangements through Diana Black. * I paid special attention to Scott Dorsey, whose opinions are widely trusted. Whatever one may think, he is an influential member of the community when it comes to answering questions such as "what is the best 2-channel preamp under $1000?". He is understated and rarely is superlative, however his readers understand what is implicit in his recommendation: the few things he finds worth mentioning are probably the best of the bunch, considering the things he doesn't mention, and the few faults he finds are taken as a part of the tradeoff in the given price-performance bracket. Also, his comments are usually constructive in the sense that he often contributes design improvements that are adopted by manufacturers. [His chinese-mic modifications were adopted by more than one manufacturer after they were published.] * Earlier this summer, a couple of VMP2000e evaluation units became available to us through Dan Valencia in cooperation with Sebatron. I used one on a live record with pleasing results. I would have written more of this, but the setup I used on location was not a fair test of the preamps, and my opinions would not have meant much. [They did a good job on bass and saxophone...good loading on both SM57 and Coles 4038...plenty of gain for the ribbon. But mixing through a Mackie, who knows what it really sounds like?] * Subsequently, I asked Scott whether he had formed any impressions of the preamps, and he sent me some offhand remarks. I asked if he would give permission for me to put them up for discussion, and he assented. * I went to the Sebatron forum rather than rec.audio.pro, the Massenberg forum, or either of Fletcher's forums, because I felt it would be most useful to put the comments directly in front of Sebastian so that he could engage in a healthy dialog, and because this was a forum designated specifically as "designer's corner", presumably where design issues could be discussed. * I quoted Scott's emails to me entirely, which consisted of mostly informal remarks. I was in the middle of writing some qualifying text when the thread was deleted from under me. This was followed by two angry emails from Sebastian, and a short exchange followed. Sebastian felt he may have been oversensitive, and he agreed to let the messages be reposted without locking or deleting the thread. Once the messages were reposted, I again wrote some qualifying text, but the thread was again deleted from under me when I tried to post, this time by Kurt Foster, citing editorial policy. The issues: I acknowledge that Recording.org is a private concern and that subscribers agree to be subject to it's bylaws. However the case at hand involves a matter of moral (and practical) judgment, separate from the legal issues. In this case, claims such as "that's the way it is" (Kurt) or "it's my forum" (Sebastian) are not in dispute. However these do not constitute moral arguments. The moral argument concerns (i) a conflict of interests, and (ii) the undermining of trust in Sebatron and Recording.org, and (iii) the undermining of the best interests of all concerned. Note this last point acknowledges what I think is the damage to your own interests that you risk, and the fact that your well being does concern me along with everything else. 1) The first concern is the policy towards so-called "reviews". There may be good reasons for having a Review Editor. A RE may be responsible for ensuring the integrity of a review. For example, the RE may ensure that no conflicts of interest are present in the review (eg., the review is written by a relative, or by a competitor). But in the present case, the conflicts of interest are present in the relationships between the Manufacturer and the director of RO who oversees the RE and who oversees administrative policy and bylaws. Specifically, the Director of RO is a national sales representative in Canada for Sebatron. This means that the RE has a clear conflict of interests when it comes to editorial content concerning Sebatron. 2) There are also concerns about what constitutes a review, and whether this policy is (i) fair and (ii) applied fairly. It is difficult to tell whether the case in question fit the criteria for being a 'review', since the RE acknowledges that he did not read the posts in question before deleting them, and thus cannot be said to know whether they were in fact reviews in any sense. If we are to assume that they were reviews, then this calls into question whether the policy is applied evenly. Would any implicit evaluation of the equipment constitute a review? Wouldn't the stream of positive evaluations published in Designer's Corner also constitute reviews, and therefore be subject to editorial certification? Or is it only negative commentary, or commentary *perceived* to be negative? The remarks in question were offhand enough that they were indistinguishable from a number of remarks previously allowed that happened to be of a positive nature. 3) The RE acknowledges that only positive reviews are published, and he cites practices of trade magazines such as Mix, EQ. He says that it would be "suicidal" to publish negative reviews, although he doesn't make the reasons for that clear. I presume that the potential withdrawl of advertising dollars would make publishing such reviews a risky proposition. The claim is that "if the gear isn't good, we simply don't write about it". If this could work in practice, it might be possible to allay concerns about ethics, but to do so requires vigilance. But the process breaks down in a few places. [And we note the widespread perception that so-called "reviews" in the trade press are really just glorified sales-brochures, and that this is why a number of people come to USENET and Scott Dorsey for what they feel is a more even-handed and trustworthy opinion.] a) The Director of RO has a business relationship with the manufacturer involving a significant stake, which calls into question matters of editorial judgment concerning that manufacturer's products at RO. b) RO provides a forum for the discussion of that manufacturer's products under the heading of "Designer's Corner". This gives the clear impression that issues of *design* may be discussed there, and this in turn gives the impression that the forum is not intended as a presales or post-sales marketing support facility. And so the users of the forum come to expect a certain degree of journalistic integrity and fidelity in the way the forum is administered. This is much different from the editorial issues involving you E magazine publications. This would lead one to assume that commentary involving remarks about circuit design and manufacturing issues from qualified persons would be appropriate there. 4) What was in fact posted was an even-handed (and offhand) commentary on the design and manufacturing issues. Positive (but not superlative) comments were made regarding the basic circuit design, including the preamp block and the solid-state follower/line-driver. Positive (but not superlative) comments were made about the overall sound. Negative comments were made about the selection of input transformers, and suggestions were made about possible substitutes. Constructive comments were made about how to save money in manufacturing so that a bigger power supply (with a custom transformer) could be integrated, allowing a tube-follower circuit (this making for an all-tube topology). None of these comments were outside of what the public perceives to be the purpose of the forum. Nor did these comments constitute a negative "review". Scott is highly understated, and his audience reads accordingly. 5) The decision to remove the comments posted (the second time) undermines the public's trust in Sebatron and in Recording.org. The close business relationship between Sebatron and the director of Recording.org gives the impression that the remarks were deleted because they were not favorable to the manufacturer, and that this in turn was an endangerment to joint business interests. Indeed, this is corroborated by Sebastian's own remarks. While policy may have permitted you to do this, this was a serious mistake on your own behalf, because: a) Your readership feels disappointed in you, and cannot trust that the glowing tributes that they read on Recording.org are not selected to manufacture a false image for public relations. They cannot help but feel that all critical discourse is being suppressed to prevent prospective buyers from being discouraged, and similarly, to promote the appeal of the product for prospective buyers. You've created the impression that you have something to hide. b) You've also denied yourself the advantages of an open discourse on the subject in creating a negative impression about yourselves. Scott's remarks were not damaging to Sebatron. The remarks were in a form familiar to Scott's readers, and they were favorable towards many aspects of the product--enough so that significant sales could have been generated this way, had suspicion not been created through untowards interventions. You missed terms like "could be GREAT", "sounds good", "is okay", all of which are favorable to sales. c) Also, through open discourse, you could have generated more interest through an interesting discussion of the actual *design*, which is presumably why "Designer's Corner" is called "Designer's Corner" and not "presales and postsales support". For example, Scott said that the input transformer was his major problem. Sebastian could have said (ex hypothesi) that he selected that transformer because of the way it empirically sounded to him, which he took to be prior to issues of whether the transformer could pass a good square wave". We would have been interested if there had been further experiments with variations on the transformer. [After all, people make a practice out of changing out opamps on Syteks and Presonus units, and the like.] Perhaps Sebatron could have given good reason for his design choices; he could say that he was after a certain *unique* sound that necessitated some of his design decisions. There's no reason to think that he and Scott couldn't have had a productive and interesting exchange, and that this would have drawn increased interest and *respect* for the designer. If Scott's suggestions had been any good at all, then it would have been a boon to the designer. d) All this could have been conducted with any embarrassment or fallout. 6) It should be clear to you that I was not acting against the interests of anyone involved. All that was required was a little finesse to produce sales. Scott's opinions were a subtle bonus, warts and all, if handled correctly. It should also be clear that I was posting what I thought was consistent with what "Designer's Corner" was intended for, and that I was not trying to provoke negative sentiments about the product in question. I personally like the preamps insofar as I am acquainted with them to date. I find the overall concept interesting enough to be worth digging further into, and I truly believe that out of an open discussion could come a truly GREAT product, one that will keep Sebastian productively engaged in producing creative designs in the future. 7) Unfortunately, you have shaken up the trust of a number of people (some of your subscribers wrote of this to me), and it has become fairly widespread. This is something that I did not start, nor can I control. But it is in your power to control it. What I'd suggest is the following: a) Instate a policy of open discussion in the Designer's Corner forums, and restrict editorial control to off-topic postings, and hate messages. b) Adopt a more careful and balanced policy that distinguishes comments on design issue from reviews. c) Allow some of Scott's later remarks to be posted there. d) Sebastian should invite Scott to dialog on *design issues*, whereupon any misinformation can be corrected all at one time, and whereupon some benefit for all may come from it. Sebastian can stand on his own merits I'm sure, and has no real need to limit people from being exposed to open dialog on his products. He only stands to benefit. Scott is dependable enough to engage in good faith and with good fidelity. If you were to do some of these things, and do them quickly, then some kind of respect will likely be restored. Otherwise, I suspect that the spin from this will be damaging, and it will be very hard to dispell the rumors that Recording.org is tainted with conflicts of interest which detract from the editorial quality and journalistic integrity that the management wishes to promote, and the perception thereof. Luke I then replied to Luke; Luke, That is a lengthy dissertation. I will try keep my comments a bit shorter. (1) RO had nothing to do with the SPAM attack you spoke of. Please don't attempt to penalize us for it. It is irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing events at RO. (2) I am the editor of the Reviews process. I have nothing to do with Sebatron or Sebatron Canada or any other manufacturer and I receive no compensation for doing reviews either from RO or the manufacturers. There is no conflict of interest, no matter how much people who don't like the reviews I write or comments I make on the BB, try to imply there is. Please don't make the mistake of following that line of thought as it is erroneous. Many publications place reviews on products they also advertise. This is not a new practice and as long as there is a separation of the reviews department and the advertising department, there is no conflict. This is why I have full control over reviews at RO. I do not "clear" anything with Chris or anyone else. I have full control. (3) The reason bad reviews are a suicide move is the minute any publisher places negative reviews, the supply of gear from that company is stopped. Word of mouth spreads quickly through the manufacturing community and eventually all supply, from all manufacturers, is cut off. That is the sad truth. Perhaps if Scott were a little more observant of this, he could get gear directly from the manufacturers instead of having other people wangle pieces from dealers through friends. I enjoy being getting pieces directly from Millennia, Yamaha, Studio Projects, Sebatron, JLM, SPL, ADK, to name a few and I am not willing to jeopardize this ability to satisfy someone else's sensibilities of "fairness". Of course there are some who want to see mud slinging. Everyone is drawn to the "train wreck". I don't choose to cater to that. (4) The Designers corner is a place for manufacturers to interface with the public. In order to get these manufacturers to be willing to do this, we have had to guarantee their security. This means we have given them Carte' Blanche', to delete anything they may perceive and harmful to the promotion of their products. The Internet is a powerful tool and if it is not handled correctly, it can do as much damage as good. Every time someone posts "I think such and such sucks", a link is created. Word of mouth is the most powerful advertising tool available these days. So much, that many advertisers are turning to it instead of more traditional media with "man on the street" campaigns. One negative comment can resonate on the Internet for years. If Scott himself, wishes to come to RO and post comments in threads he is free to do that. We are not trying to control content or thought. But "Pre Reviews" and the like are not accepted. No one gets to "drop a turd" and then walk away and second hand posts such as yours are no more than hearsay and unacceptable in my pov. The only reason I got involved at all, was the attempted posting of a review on the BB. As I stated, the BB is not the correct place for that and there is a process that all articles like that, must go through. So while I appreciate your suggestions, I think we will continue down the path we have chosen ourselves. Once again, I am willing to publish Scott's review after he is finished it, if he will submit it for my review and allow Sebatron to approve it. I would also welcome his reviews of other pieces of gear. Second opinions would also be great! I might even arrange for him to receive some gear for review, if things worked out in a way that I felt comfortable doing that. However, I will not publish negative comments regarding any gear other than the occasional, "I wish they had used such and such or done that and that" or "A power indicator lamp would be nice". But these kind of comments should be followed up with an opportunity by the manufacturer to respond, and in many cases they may change the design to remedy the perceived problem. But inaccuracies such as tube types and erroneous comments regarding the transformers (which in the case of the vmp were done that way intentionally) should not be permitted. This is why these things need to be edited. This got a bit longer than I wanted. I am interested in hearing your comments, Kurt I hope that this clears the water. I stand by the comments in this communication and the actions taken at the board. If Luke, and anyone else wish's to change the policies at RO, they are welcome to make an offer to purchase it! Thanks for reading, Kurt |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
Kurt Foster wrote:
(3) The reason bad reviews are a suicide move is the minute any publisher places negative reviews, the supply of gear from that company is stopped. Word of mouth spreads quickly through the manufacturing community and eventually all supply, from all manufacturers, is cut off. That is the sad truth. Perhaps if Scott were a little more observant of this, he could get gear directly from the manufacturers instead of having other people wangle pieces from dealers through friends. I enjoy being getting pieces directly from Millennia, Yamaha, Studio Projects, Sebatron, JLM, SPL, ADK, to name a few and I am not willing to jeopardize this ability to satisfy someone else's sensibilities of "fairness". Of course there are some who want to see mud slinging. Everyone is drawn to the "train wreck". I don't choose to cater to that. I'm sorry, but I consider this highly insulting. For one thing, I do not want to "get gear directly from manufacturers" or "have other people wangle pieces from dealers through friends." I offered to look over a piece of gear and give my personal opinion about it. The last thing I need around here is more equipment. I thought that someone was honestly interested in how the product performed, and I gave that information. Most of the time, people pay me to review products. I do not normally do this sort of thing for free. I resent the implication here that I would do reviews in order to get gear, and my personal feeling is that if you are doing reviews specifically to get gear, you are doing your readers and the manufacturers a disservice. Up until now, I have mostly been amused by this whole matter, since the general comments I had were fairly positive ones. But your implication that I am doing this to get free equipment is positively insulting. If Scott himself, wishes to come to RO and post comments in threads he is free to do that. We are not trying to control content or thought. But "Pre Reviews" and the like are not accepted. No one gets to "drop a turd" and then walk away and second hand posts such as yours are no more than hearsay and unacceptable in my pov. The only reason I got involved at all, was the attempted posting of a review on the BB. As I stated, the BB is not the correct place for that and there is a process that all articles like that, must go through. Sorry, I don't have web access. I was actually evaluating the gear with the intention of doing a review in a print magazine at some point, but frankly at this point I really don't see any reason if I am just going to receive rudeness from all parties involved. Once again, I am willing to publish Scott's review after he is finished it, if he will submit it for my review and allow Sebatron to approve it. I would also welcome his reviews of other pieces of gear. Second opinions would also be great! I might even arrange for him to receive some gear for review, if things worked out in a way that I felt comfortable doing that. However, I will not publish negative comments regarding any gear other than the occasional, "I wish they had used such and such or done that and that" or "A power indicator lamp would be nice". But these kind of comments should be followed up with an opportunity by the manufacturer to respond, and in many cases they may change the design to remedy the perceived problem. But inaccuracies such as tube types and erroneous comments regarding the transformers (which in the case of the vmp were done that way intentionally) should not be permitted. This is why these things need to be edited. In the case of the tube type, I was making a general statement that is was one of those common dual triode types. The 12AT7 and 12AX7 are in the same family of tubes. As far as the transformers go, I can't see why anyone would intentionally pick a transformer with a poor square wave response, but I suppose one could do that if one desired more colored sound. I hope that this clears the water. I stand by the comments in this communication and the actions taken at the board. If Luke, and anyone else wish's to change the policies at RO, they are welcome to make an offer to purchase it! Thanks for reading, Kurt From my perspective, I have no idea what the fuss is about. But I do not have access to the web most of the time, and I have never even seen RO before, so I don't really know what sort of forum it is or what it's like. I cannot comment about how accurate or impartial it is without having seen it. All I know about any of this is what I have seen in this thread. And you must pardon me, but what I have seen in this thread is not particularly good. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
So, to summarize, Luke spent way more time than any ordinary person
would coming up with some good suggestions as to how to make RO a better place, but you're too much of a pig-headed buffoon to listen to him. You're worried that if people were allowed to freely discuss things on RO, manufacturers might stop sending you free stuff. Yep, that sounds like the Kurt Foster I've grown to know and love. (Kurt Foster) wrote in message... [deleted] |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
This is a real zoo. I know Scott, but who are all these other people? And has anyone else seen a Sebatron preamp? I like to read about products I can (and might) buy, or products that are available to people who have a whole lot more money that I do, or products that are used by people in other areas of audio in which I don't participate. But this is beginning to sound like a review of policies, not a review or even informal comments about a preamp. I don't read the recording.org forum, but if reviews are a feature, either they should be understood as a free-for-all, or there should be some dialog and fact-checking between the reviewer and the manufacturer before anything is published as a revirew. Everything that Scott, Dave, Paul, I, and others have reviewed for Recording has been sent to the manufacturer for fact-checking, responses, and perhaps information about updates before it goes to press. If recording.org is going to play the role of a publisher, then they should treat their reviews (and reviewers) as other publishers would treat them. And if it's going to be an open forum, then there shouldn't be any censorship. I'm sure the manufacturer's comments are as welcome as the reviewer's. -- I'm really Mike Rivers - ) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
(Kurt Foster) wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote ......what was posted were only some offhanded comments I made to Luke. Which he posted as a "pre review" in Luke's words. I don't believe I used those words. In point of fact, you claimed that you didn't even read the posting before you deleted it! So one has to wonder how you knew it was a "review" in the first place? And now you've destroyed the evidence that would adjudicate this claim. Seeing as you weren't finished with you evaluation it seems hardly responsible on Luke's part but rather more like champing at the bit to post negative comments. He posted it with the disclaimer that you (Scott) rarely say anything really good regarding your review subjects but that your readers "understood" this and would take these comments as a good review. But RO members are not familiar with this aspect of your review style. Really not fair. It's unfortunate that you are getting painted with this paint brush because of Luke's pre mature ejaculation. It is false that I intended this to be a negative review. First of all, I posted rather clearly on several occasions and accompanied by lengthy explanation that it was not a negative review. Again you are falsely citing evidence that you destroyed. Regardless, whatever Scott had written, I would have posted it verbatim, since the remarks were pertinent to the design of the preamps, and thus apt material for "Designer's Corner", which I believed until recently was a design forum, and not a pre/post-sales promotion and marketing support forum. As far as my claims about Scott's writing style, I think that all the readers in rec.audio.pro can corroborate this. Reading Scott's remarks in this thread, it is pretty clear that this is not a negative review. It is an even-handed review with some positive elements and some negative, but by and large it is not negative in the context of equipment in this price-performance bracket. [No good piece of gear is perfect.] We take Scott seriously because he doesn't overhype. When he says something isn't bad in this bracket, it is worth considering for purchase. You can see plainly from Scott's comments here that this was not actually a negative review. And knowing that, I could not have intended to create a negative impression by posting it. Quite the opposite, in fact. And at this point, I think this is more something that worries Recording.org than it worries Sebastian (aka Sebatron), who has apparently thought better of it. [For the record, I took Scott's remarks as being more reason to look into this gear than any of the overwrought tributes I've read over the last few months. You keep overlooking the fact that this could have been a good thing for you. But you took defending your conflicts of interest as the first order of business, and these cannot be defended in my view.] I didn't see any secret technology myself, or anything particularly unusual, but since I didn't have full schematics, the little that I know I got from reverse-engineering the board, and I did not do a full or complete job of this. As I already have pointed out, you were not finished with the review. I would very much like to see it when you are finished. I might even publish it if you didn't mind. Again, we believed "Designer's Corner" was a discussion forum for design issues. The requirements of a review were not even a part of the consideration. These were "comments", of just the same sort that people post there all the time. I note that none of the glowing tributes are subject to editorial review, though they might equally be considered "reviews". But again, you claimed that you didn't even read the posts in question. So you contradict yourself here again, trying to critique the content of a posting while claiming at the same time that you never actually read it (and were thus, one would suppose, meting out 'blind justice')! It's built on a 4 channel PC board made from the Express PCB system, with only two channels stuffed. This means it should be fairly easy to upgrade from 2 to 4 channels later on. I like that a lot although it probably increases the price of the 2-channel version considerably. Actually, the vmp was designed as a 2 channel unit (which sells for $1450 USD) from the start. The vmp 2000 is a more affordable scaled down unit. You meant to say it was a four-channel unit. Input stage is a rather depressing 1:10 transformer going into a 2-triode 12AT7 configuration. Square wave response of the transformer is not so good, but again the transformer is an easy thing to replace. The transformer was intentionally designed that way to produce the sound the vmp yields. I like it quite a bit myself and wouldn't want it to change. This would have been an appropriate rejoinder to an open discussion of the design issues. There's no harm in this. (In the thing that was posted to the RO forum, I had said it was a "12AX7" meaning basically that general sort of dual triode family, and that is one of the things I was flamed about. It is indeed a 12AT7, though.) Yes it is unfortunate Luke posted the comments before you were finished with your evaluation and before you had given Sebatron an opportunity to address your comments, prior to publishing. You do that don't you? Every reputable review I have ever seen does. This was supposed to have been a discussion of design issues, not a review. It was purposely posted on Sebatron's board so that Sebastian could be the first to respond. It is a philosophy shared by many of us that open discourse is the most healthy. All of the negative fallout from this incident came not from me, but from your subscribers, many of whom were outraged that you censored their opinions, and urged me to take the matter to the public. Had you left things as they were, something positive would have come from it. [...] Anyway, this posting is apt to be greeted with a lot of flames and such and more information about some new proprietary technology. There might be something new and amazing going on here that I missed, but a proprietary technology you don't talk about is not particularly helpful. --scott Scott, No flame here. I chose to assign the blame where I feel it belongs, with Luke. You were essentially innocent in all of this. It was Luke who was anxious to flame Sebatron and RO, I think because of his affiliation and friendship with a well known gear dealer who as Luke himself stated, use to mod at RO. This gear dealer has a rep for bashing products he doesn't carry, part of the reason he was asked to leave RO, and because of this has a grudge to bear against the administration at RO. Unfortunately, it seems you got caught up in all of this. I would like to offer you, as Editor of Reviews at RO a chance to write reviews for us. I can be contacted thorough the PM system at www.recording.org. Sincerely, Kurt Foster No matter how many times I say I like Sebatron preamps (in this thread even) or how many times I say that this was not a negative review (which readers here will readily understand), you have attempted to manufacture an issue to distract us from your own conflicts of interests and unethical behavior by painting your critic as an agent of a conspiracy against you. And by the way, I never wrote a thing to you about a "gear dealer" (I have to guess at which one you're talking about, and the more I think about it, the less certain I am about who you're talking about), and you have again claimed to be citing evidence that you previously destroyed and claimed not to have even read before you destroyed it. I referred to one moderator anonymously who in fact was not a gear dealer at all. The only harm has come from your awkward mischaracterization of a good thing as a bad thing, which shows a lack of finesse. You have only yourself to blame for the negative fallout from this incident having been caught in a clear conflict of interests. Now even Sebastian knows that my intentions weren't to cause him harm, and quite the opposite. He has months of emails from me indicating that my intentions were other than you opportunistically paint here. And you yourself have emails (including one you quoted here) that spell out my intentions precisely. If you think that you are going to be able to use me as a receptacle for blame in order to try to save face, then you've moved into territory even more serious than where you started. Luke |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
Kurt Foster wrote:
It was Luke who was anxious to flame Sebatron and RO, I think because of his affiliation and friendship with a well known gear dealer who as Luke himself stated, use to mod at RO. First off **** bag, you obviously don't think. This is a thinly veiled swipe at me; seeing that I'm a pimp, and I used to be a moderator at RO... and seeing that no other pimps, well, other than you and Chris, moderate at RO [from what I read in your posting of private correspondence, it appears that Chris is the Canadian distributor for Sebatron... and from the spew of yours I snipped... it would seem that you're his marketing bitch]... who else could it be that you're talking about? Who could it be... So... uhhh, why don't you have the balls to just come out and say the name? [and BTW, according to Luke's post, he never said jack **** about a gear dealer... he referenced a moderator, or former moderator, but was not referencing moi. How could he, I've never heard one of these boxes, so I can't say anything about them... not good, not bad] This gear dealer has a rep for bashing products he doesn't carry, part of the reason he was asked to leave RO, and because of this has a grudge to bear against the administration at RO. Schmuck, what you don't know could fill a ****ing book. First, it's the other way around... we don't carry **** we don't like... or, we don't carry **** we haven't tried (and if we haven't tried it, how would we know whether or not we like it... as is the case with Sebatron... and Prism... and A-Designs... and I'm sure more than a few others). Anyone who has hung on this group or PSW could tell you that. I think there are more than a few people on this group to whom I've recommended hardware that M-A doesn't carry... and just ask EveAnna Manley, I speak my mind about the stuff we do carry... some of it I happen to not like all that much, but they're isolated units within a line... and the rest of the line is fine... but I kinda mention it straight up. How 'bout that ****. Did Seb mention to you that I ran into him at the AES show earlier this month? Did he mention that I had asked to try his stuff as I had heard really good things about it. Did he? However Kurt baby... I've read more than a few of your "reviews" and frankly, I don't know where you got your experience... but I sure as **** hope I never have to work there. I reckon you're doing it for the free gear and all... which I guess you get from that prestige position at N. America's most dysfunctional audio related internet address... where pulling posts that disagree with the party line is an everyday occurrence. As for being "asked to leave RO"... are you on crack? I got a better offer, and as a 'free agent', I took the offer. WTF? ProSoundWeb.com offered me a rather nice salary to work on their site, so I took it. I didn't even leave Chris in a lurch, I hand delivered Julian Standen who left when Chris tried to charge people to join RO. Jules now runs a marginally popular site called Gearslutz... if you haven't seen it, you should check it out http://gearslutz.com/board/index.php3 it's probably one of the absolute best internet forums in existence. As for a "grudge against the administration of RO"... again, put the ****ing cap back on the glue you sanctimonious ****. I bear no ill will towards Chris... he's his own worst enemy but that's none of my problem. If he could come up with a guaranteed contract and a few shiney duckets with which to fulfill that contract, I'd be happy to go back [when my PSW contract expires... if they don't pick up my option... if the moon were blue and the wind blew nearly as warm as the hot air you spew on a regular basis]. Unfortunately, it seems you got caught up in all of this. I would like to offer you, as Editor of Reviews at RO a chance to write reviews for us. I can be contacted thorough the PM system at www.recording.org. Sincerely, Kurt Foster Seeing as your last paragraph here is addressed to Scott, I reckon it's none of my place to mention that you could learn a whole hell of a lot about class and competence from this man. Scott has been of more assistance to more people in a single, average, week of his life than you've been during your entire tenure on the planet. In the future sweety... if you have a ****ing problem with me, call me. I was not in this ****ing fire fight until you opened your little cocksucking mouth. I was very happy lurking this forum, avoiding the political posts, the retarded "People Magazine" / "classic rock fanzine" spew and slicing the occasional tidbit of wisdom from what was available [mostly from brothers like Mr. Dorsey]... but nooooo, you ****ing go off half cocked like you might actually have something of a brain, or a useful thought... well, asshole, I'm going back to lurk mode, and if you have a beef with any of this, try calling the phone number below as a man might do. Anytime, anywhere girlfriend... any ****in' time, any ****in' place... just ****in' name it. -- Fletcher Mercenary Audio TEL: 508-543-0069 FAX: 508-543-9670 http://www.mercenary.com "this is not a problem" |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
I hope that this clears the water.
Oh yeah, its pretty clear, alright. I stand by the comments in this communication and the actions taken at the board. If Luke, and anyone else wish's to change the policies at RO, they are welcome to make an offer to purchase it! Thanks for reading, Kurt Umm...Or I could just vote with my feet. You see, without your visitors you are just another guy with a computer - it's not YOUR forum. Your policies might get changed for you - if enough people read what you have foolishly posted here, and abandon your website and its contrived reviews, why then you can shout your policies at the sagebrush as it rolls by in your little Internet forum ghost town. Luke should start a forum of his own, since it seems that even his private communications with you, now aired publicly, are presented with some integrity and straightforward intent...it might be supposed that he could be trusted to run a site with honest reviews and discussion. Or at the very worst, he might play the industry standard good-old-boys-club-postive-review-every-time back scratching game with some "finesse", something ~you~ might think about doing. We all know that's what your game is, shouting it out loud to everybody is just distasteful. Oaf. Looks like Seb distanced himself from you early on in this fracas - you've done way more harm to his company with all your ethically questionable public discourse than any commentary of Scott Dorsey's might've. ****, if I had a product I'd be happy if Scott Dorsey had even heard of it. d |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
if luke sent this e-mail to you and seb.why did you go public with it?
btw fletcher nailed you BIG TIME. ho ho ho ho. (Kurt Foster) wrote in message . com... In response to the afore mentioned allegations I feel it is only fair for all the parties involved for me to post the communication that transpired between Luke and myself. Luke is operating under the misguided impression that he somehow can dictate to RO's administration how we should run the board. So here it goes, Luke sent this to Sebatron and myself. Kurt, Sebastian -- |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
(Kurt Foster)
I enjoy being getting pieces directly from[list of manufacturers] to name a few and I am not willing to jeopardize this ability to satisfy someone else's sensibilities of "fairness". I imagine you think you are somehow "protecting the reputations" of audio gear manufacturers, who are generally pretty nice folks who consider their reputations and integrity to be critically important. But you seem to have a blind spot to the fact that in doing so you are compromising your own credibility. And that's going to "resonate on the internet for years" as much as any comments Scott makes on a Sebatron micpre is - ya think? Most folks who make gear will tell you they have learned from public criticism of their work, that it's important to deal with that in a graceful manner and that that's part of the process of what makes you better at what you do. But saying things like you have above probably does more damage than good to the creative people involved, and in fact it's kind of insulting in what it implies. You ain't anyone's Mama Kurt, and trying to be is just hurting your own reputation. Sure, as far as the major audio press goes no one's setting much better an example - but that's really not much of an excuse. Will Miho NY Music & TV Audio Guy Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
(real, real long post by Kurt Foster snipped)
Kurt, I read your long, long post. You have such a unique view of how information should be exchanged on the internet. I don't know how all other sites will ever compete with your vision. You should patent your method. Such an enlightened recipe for success: a cup of "Alice In Wonderland" an ounce of "holier than thou" a pound of "I'm really important" a stick of "First Amendment not honored here" Bake for 3 hours. Serves 6. Very Orwellian, Kurt. -- Stephen T. Boyke |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
"Stephen Boyke" wrote in message ... (real, real long post by Kurt Foster snipped) Kurt, I read your long, long post. You have such a unique view of how information should be exchanged on the internet. I don't know how all other sites will ever compete with your vision. You should patent your method. Such an enlightened recipe for success: a cup of "Alice In Wonderland" an ounce of "holier than thou" a pound of "I'm really important" a stick of "First Amendment not honored here" Bake for 3 hours. Serves 6. Don't you mean, "Serves 1"? Glenn D. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
In article ,
Kurt Foster wrote: (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message ... Up until now, I have mostly been amused by this whole matter, since the general comments I had were fairly positive ones. But your implication that I am doing this to get free equipment is positively insulting. Ahh, I see that the same old crowd has miraculously congregated here. What a coincidence. Hello minions. Scott, I never said that you were doing reviews to get free equipment. I never implicated it. Yes, you did. You said, and I quote: Word of mouth spreads quickly through the manufacturing community and eventually all supply, from all manufacturers, is cut off. That is the sad truth. Perhaps if Scott were a little more observant of this, he could get gear directly from the manufacturers instead of having other people wangle pieces from dealers through friends. I enjoy being getting pieces directly from Millennia, Yamaha, Studio Projects, Sebatron, JLM, SPL, ADK, to name a few and I am not willing to jeopardize this ability to satisfy someone else's sensibilities of "fairness". You flat out said that I had "other people wangle pieces from dealers through friends." This is insulting. I have now been enlightened that you do it for pay. I am sorry but I can't offer that to you. At RO we don't get paid to say good things about gear. We don't charge for reviews, and in most cases, we return the gear once we are finished with it unless, as in the case of my Sebatron vmp 4000, I like the piece enough to purchase it. It's to bad, because I would really like to have some other writers do reviews for RO to add some variety of opinion to the mix. That's fine. Since I have, as I have pointed out here before, never actually seen RO, all I know about it is what other people, including you, tell me. And you have seen fit to insult me in a public forum. If you don't agree with my review, that's fine. Lots of people don't agree with me. If you don't like the way I conduct it, you don't like what I do, or you don't like my design philosophy, that's all fine. If you don't want to publish discussion on your private site, and you don't want my review there, that's fine too. It's your place to do what you see fit with. But when you insult me and imply that I do this in order to get free gear, that's not fine. That is a personal slur. I agreed to check out the Sebatron preamp because it sounded interesting and because I think interesting new products deserve some publicity. I did not expect to be yelled at and insulted by you and by the manufacturer. I did not expect to have someone in a public forum tell me that I don't know anything about electronics and that I am an idiot. I did not expect to be slandered about my motives for doing reviews. I'm sorry, but I have better things to do with my life than deal with this. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
(jslator) wrote in message . com...
So, to summarize, Luke spent way more time than any ordinary person would coming up with some good suggestions as to how to make RO a better place, but you're too much of a pig-headed buffoon to listen to him. You're worried that if people were allowed to freely discuss things on RO, manufacturers might stop sending you free stuff. Yep, that sounds like the Kurt Foster I've grown to know and love. (Kurt Foster) wrote in message... To summarize, administration at RO should let the animals run the zoo? Hardly! You prove my point by resorting to name calling and personal attacks instead of addressing any real issue. And we at RO should simply lie down and let you and the others run it into the ground, I guess because it is something more than a "good ol boys club" where outsiders are treated with disdain and ridiculed for no reason other than they don't carry the "celebrity" that you seem to be so impressed with. You are such a "rump swab" Jason. I don't get it why you need to post at RO. There are so many other places that welcome your type of behavior. Why don't you just stay there and let it lie? I have to assume you come by just to try to throw a monkey wrench in the works. It's the types like you that make us have to censor and delete the boards. You are one of the main offenders. Just stay away and you will be happy and we all can be happy, happy, happy! |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
I'm tempted to tell all of you to go to your rooms without any supper for
getting so spun up, low down mean nasty and hateful. --Chak No, I'm not your mother |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
Andre Majorel wrote in message ...
In article , Kurt Foster wrote: Luke is operating under the misguided impression that he somehow can dictate to RO's administration how we should run the board. But the real issue, of course, is : 5) The decision to remove the comments posted (the second time) undermines the public's trust in Sebatron and in Recording.org. Andre, The post was removed because RO does not accept reviews outside of the process. Sebatron was not given a chance to see said "review" before it was posted and a even Scott says, this is part of the process. Luke failed to get that right. At RO reviews are placed in our E Mag and not on the bulletin board. I offered to publish the review but in the correct place and with the correct procedures. I think Lukas posting of the review was an instigation to create the fracas we're are all embroiled in. Why he wanted to do this and at whose behest is anybodies guess. I have my suspicions but I withhold my thought on this as I don't wish to unjustly accuse or slander unlike some. (3) The reason bad reviews are a suicide move is the minute any publisher places negative reviews, the supply of gear from that company is stopped. Word of mouth spreads quickly through the manufacturing community and eventually all supply, from all manufacturers, is cut off. If you can only make positive reviews, what is the value of your reviews ? What's the point of making reviews in the first place ? Does recording.org contain actual *reviews*, or paraphrases of the marketing brochures ? Why do I have the feeling I'm stating the obvious ? This is no different than a policy of "we don't carry gear that we don't like". It exactly the same thing. I don't make requests for pieces I don't think I will like. If I do get something I don't care for, I don't waste my time writing about it. I don't waste the readers time by publishing it. There is far too much good gear to talk and write about to spend my time on things I dislike. Unlike some who seem to thrive on engaging things that are distasteful to them, I choose to so simply address something I like. I have never seen any publication that published a bad review. If you can show one to me, I would love to see it. Some people try to goad me into saying negative things in reviews because they know it will harm my ability to get gear from manufacturers. Like I have "stupid" tattooed on my forehead .. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
"Kurt Foster" wrote in message om... But back to the question you raised. Every review I have ever published is seen and approved by the manufacturers prior to publication, sometimes several exchanges are gone through until they are satisfied and they are given the chance to address any critiques. Then why do I keep seeing letters to the editor in various audio publications addressing issues in previously published reviews of their equipment? If they had already addressed the issues prior to publication, there shouldn't be any need for later rebuttals. Glenn D. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
"Kurt Foster" wrote in message om... Andre Majorel wrote in message ... If you can only make positive reviews, what is the value of your reviews ? What's the point of making reviews in the first place ? Does recording.org contain actual *reviews*, or paraphrases of the marketing brochures ? Why do I have the feeling I'm stating the obvious ? This is no different than a policy of "we don't carry gear that we don't like". It exactly the same thing. Then what you're publishing aren't reviews as most folks understand them; you're publishing advertising. Glenn D. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
Luke Kaven wrote in message . ..
(Mike Rivers) wrote: This is a real zoo. I know Scott, but who are all these other people? And has anyone else seen a Sebatron preamp? I like to read about products I can (and might) buy, or products that are available to people who have a whole lot more money that I do, or products that are used by people in other areas of audio in which I don't participate. But this is beginning to sound like a review of policies, not a review or even informal comments about a preamp. I don't read the recording.org forum, but if reviews are a feature, either they should be understood as a free-for-all, or there should be some dialog and fact-checking between the reviewer and the manufacturer before anything is published as a revirew. Everything that Scott, Dave, Paul, I, and others have reviewed for Recording has been sent to the manufacturer for fact-checking, responses, and perhaps information about updates before it goes to press. If recording.org is going to play the role of a publisher, then they should treat their reviews (and reviewers) as other publishers would treat them. And if it's going to be an open forum, then there shouldn't be any censorship. I'm sure the manufacturer's comments are as welcome as the reviewer's. For the record, Sebatron consented to having the comments posted the second time around. The reposted comments were deleted by Kurt Foster who claimed at the time to not even have read them but to somehow have divined that they constituted a "review". The remarks constituted no more a "review" than many of the favorable comments that do not get censored from the Sebatron forum. Luke, For the record, Sebatron oversteped his authority. I am the Review Editor at RO, not Sebatron. You yourself stated in your post that it was a "pre review".. In view of that and because you were not the writer of the said "pre review", therefore making it no more than hearsay, because it contained inaccuracies and because, as I have stated numerous times, your post was against RO policy, I deleted it. I offered to publish it when it was finished and fact checked in the E Mag (which btw has far more links than RO does because it is html instead of ubb) but that wasn't good enough for you. You wanted to make it a big deal and at the urging of RO competitors and a disgruntled former RO moderator, you decided to take this into this public place and air your side of the story. I am sure this is also getting an airing at PSW also but for some reason, I have been banned there, in spite of the fact that the only posts I ever made there were in the classified ads.. Now go explain that! Obviously someone is attempting to keep me from speaking my mind. Talk about censorship. Now I come under attack for revealing the "private communications" you and I exchanged?? Laughable at the least! I will rabidly defend myself and my position using all that is available to me and not permit my hands to be tied by someone else's biased view of what is "fair". It's not fair if it benefits my side of the debate but it is fair if it scores points for those who attempt to assassinate my character? Even to the point of name calling and personal insults? You did this in order to create this calamity. This is precisely what you and who ever you are butt swabbing for wanted and now we are here wasting time shaking our fists at each other. You or anyone else will not do an end run around the process and the editorial policies at RO simply because you don't agree with what is said. You're just upset because your lame attempt at this failed. Fact is someone doesn't want the word to get out on Sebatron and many other great products we are highlighting at RO. We scooped the world with the Sebatron. This ****es some people off who view me as an upstart. "Why did he get one and I didn't!? Wahhhhh! Momeeee" . He's not in the club. He doesn't hang with the popular kids! Grow up and graduate from Jr. High! I have been accused of being a "marketing bitch" and of writing untruths in my reviews. If anyone can prove these allegations, now is the time to put up or shut up. Fact is, I don't get paid to write reviews. I don't get paid by RO. I don't get paid by Chris. I return the gear I review or I purchase it. I post reviews along with audio samples to let the readers hear the products. Sometimes they come up with completely different opinions than I have.. Fine, it doesn't matter to me. But the "gear pimps" are a bit upset because I am not under their control. I represent an independent point of view. I provide to the readers a chance to make up their own minds by posting quality audio samples rather than be herding them into the corral of marketing the "gear pimps" have set up for themselves, while all along, bashing great gear only because they don't sell it. Many are upset that Chris has decided to do just what these "gear pimps" have been doing for years, sell gear while administering a Forum, crying that it's a conflict of interest for him to do exactly what they have been doing all along. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black. I, and RO have been under attack from many of the people who are in this very thread for the past year. It is becoming very evident where these attacks are originating from and the more it occurs, the more the truth will be known. I have nothing to hide. If anyone can prove any duplicity on my part, now is the time to put up or shut up. I for one, welcome this discourse. Every time something like this has occurred I, and RO have emerged even stronger than before with even more readers and members. People want to see what it's all about and come over to Recording.org to see what all you cry babies are sniveling and whining about. Go ahead! Make my day! |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
Hi Kurt:
1) My guess is that you know very little about Scott Dorsey, particularly as a member of the online and AE community. If such is the case, before making additional statements regarding him, you might do well to spend just a few minutes in the archives, and then consider offering him a direct and explicit apology. I think anyone would be extremely hard-pressed to find a more honest, knowledgeable, well- intentioned, and generous person in the online community. To disparage someone like Scott is absolutely abhorrent. http://www.google.com/advanced_group...uthor :dorsey 2) Free Speech: Kurt Foster ) wrote: But really, I don't know where this concept of "free speech" on a privately owned and funded bulletin board comes from. With all due respect, this strikes me as either disingenuous or misinformed -- (a) the overwhelming majority of BB's are privately owned and funded, (b) the 'concept of free speech' is endemic to the internet, (c) as is the objection to blatant censorship, particularly when it victimizes the dissemination of information or well-informed, honest opinions (e.g. a policy of deleting negative criticism). That said… 3) I took the time to check out the 'Designers & Distributors Corner' at RO. D&DC is one of a half-dozen forum categories, and currently consists of three forums (Manley, PMI, Sebatron), out of about two dozen forums at RO. Currently, the following disclaimer is visible at the top of the subject listing pages of each D&DC forum: Disclaimer: slander, flames, trolls, gunslingers, the politically or financially motivated competition etc. For obvious reasons "censorship is accepted here". This corner of RO is intended for promotion, company announcements, customer FAQ. RO is making it clear here that these are not 'forums', but rather extensions of the marketing and customer service arms of the respective companies. Fair enough. 4) Under the 'Studio' category, there is a section called 'RO REVIEWS!', with a subheading that instructs potential reviewers to contact Kurt Foster via PM. Personally, I believe that an editorial policy of 'no negative reviews' hugely cripples the usefulness of any media source or discussion resource, but to each his/her own. - Brian |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
Kurt Foster wrote:
I have never seen any publication that published a bad review. If you can show one to me, I would love to see it. Some people try to goad me into saying negative things in reviews because they know it will harm my ability to get gear from manufacturers. Like I have "stupid" tattooed on my forehead .. Recording does, the British version of Audio Media does, and Vacuum Tube Valley does all the time. Back in the old days, R/E/P and Studio Sound published very detailed bad reviews all the time. If you don't want to publish bad reviews, that's fine. Mix and EQ never do, for instance. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
"WillStG" wrote in message But you seem to have a blind spot to the fact that in doing so you are compromising your own credibility. Yep, skewing the results like only presenting views that doesn't upset the organisations cronies and supporters is a bad thing. In internet forums as well as news organisations. geoff |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
Scott Dorsey is a stand up guy, even when he's sitting down!
Tom "Brian Takei" wrote in message .net... Hi Kurt: 1) My guess is that you know very little about Scott Dorsey, particularly as a member of the online and AE community. If such is the case, before making additional statements regarding him, you might do well to spend just a few minutes in the archives, and then consider offering him a direct and explicit apology. I think anyone would be extremely hard-pressed to find a more honest, knowledgeable, well- intentioned, and generous person in the online community. To disparage someone like Scott is absolutely abhorrent. http://www.google.com/advanced_group...uthor :dorsey 2) Free Speech: Kurt Foster ) wrote: But really, I don't know where this concept of "free speech" on a privately owned and funded bulletin board comes from. With all due respect, this strikes me as either disingenuous or misinformed -- (a) the overwhelming majority of BB's are privately owned and funded, (b) the 'concept of free speech' is endemic to the internet, (c) as is the objection to blatant censorship, particularly when it victimizes the dissemination of information or well-informed, honest opinions (e.g. a policy of deleting negative criticism). That said. 3) I took the time to check out the 'Designers & Distributors Corner' at RO. D&DC is one of a half-dozen forum categories, and currently consists of three forums (Manley, PMI, Sebatron), out of about two dozen forums at RO. Currently, the following disclaimer is visible at the top of the subject listing pages of each D&DC forum: Disclaimer: slander, flames, trolls, gunslingers, the politically or financially motivated competition etc. For obvious reasons "censorship is accepted here". This corner of RO is intended for promotion, company announcements, customer FAQ. RO is making it clear here that these are not 'forums', but rather extensions of the marketing and customer service arms of the respective companies. Fair enough. 4) Under the 'Studio' category, there is a section called 'RO REVIEWS!', with a subheading that instructs potential reviewers to contact Kurt Foster via PM. Personally, I believe that an editorial policy of 'no negative reviews' hugely cripples the usefulness of any media source or discussion resource, but to each his/her own. - Brian |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
(Kurt Foster)
Will, I could give a rats ass about protecting anyones reputation, much less gear manufacturers. I am protecting my ability to get gear to review. Plain and simple. Show me one example of someone who writes negative revews and continues to get gear besides some "gear pimps" who don't really recive gear from manufacturers rather than pull it from their own stock. I don't have that luxury and other than going out and purchasing gear to review (which quite frankly I can't afford to do) I have to rely on the good will of these manufacturers. Kurt, you have to understand that I was _trying_ to see some kind of motivation in your actions other than those of a purely self serving nature. In that regard your response is the worst one possible. Do you actually beleive that no manufacturer will provide demos for you to review if you allow any sincere criticisms of their products on your forum? You actually think they will hold you responsible for the feedback of others? And now that you have admitted so publically that getting gear to review is more important to you than being honest and truthful in one's evaluations, why would _anyone_ "give a rat's ass" about what Kurt Foster thinks about audio gear anyway? Now I am sure the "gear pimps" wold love to see me cut my nose off to spite my face. I don't think so. I don't write about the stuff I get that I don't like, but when I say I do like something, it's because I do like it. I don't see a problem here. Just because I don't focus on the negatives but instead the positives, does that mean I should be villified? Your reputation is everything Kurt. Millenia's HV3 micpre had problems in it's early few units. They listened and fixed the problem, and now there are over 12,000 channels of them out there. The other point I was trying to make that went totally over your head was that you might consider learning from the example of many of the boutique gear manufacturers in how they deal with public critcism. You really might learn something that could help you salvage something of your pro audio reputation, which frankly brother is well on it's way down the drain at this point. Will Miho NY Music & TV Audio Guy Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
Rec.audio.pro VS RO
Short preface - been a rarely-posting lurker for 10 years here. Since I don't have the gear experience cred or blue language skills of a Fletcher, nor the gear experience cred and erudite restraint of a Scott Dorsey – I listen. A lot. And learn from giants in my midst. One of the things I've learned over the years is that the "information wants to be free" spirit of rec.audio.pro trumps a quasi-editorialized commercial comic book like RO every day of the week. In my opinion, RO is simply an ad-supported gear rag transported to the web. Caveat emptor. Cheers. MJ |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review
The interesting thing is that the "no negative reviews policy" is
applied very inconsistantly at RO. A while back, Kurt was very vocal about his opinion that the RNP was a cheap piece of crap and that it didn't sound any better than a Mackie pre. Of course, by his own admission he had never actually tried an RNP or even heard one. But he was still adamant that it sounded like crap. "Rack crap" he calls it. He was also very clear that he would keep telling everone he could that it was garbage until FMR sent him a free one to try, and then he'd reconsider his opinion. Keep in mind that these were the statements of the so-called "review editor" of RO. Honesty? Integrity? Objectivity? Common sense? I'd say none of the above. Brian Takei wrote in message... Personally, I believe that an editorial policy of 'no negative reviews' hugely cripples the usefulness of any media source or discussion resource, but to each his/her own. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Scott Wheeler's extraordinary life. | Audio Opinions | |||
Paging Scott Dorsey | Pro Audio | |||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko" | Pro Audio | |||
Question ADAT RP-1 Chip replacement (Scott Dorsey?) | Pro Audio | |||
Scott Reams' reaction to Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference | Pro Audio |