Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
J. Roberts
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Luke Kaven
 
Posts: n/a
Default Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review

(J. Roberts) wrote:

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 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. 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. For my part, I can no longer
trust what appears there as veridical information, and the illusion of
journalistic integrity there has been shattered for good. I had
wondered why all participants in the forums there were so sycophantic,
and now I believe I know why. All else is apparently expunged, along
with any followup complaints. 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.

Luke
  #6   Report Post  
Mark Plancke
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #8   Report Post  
Kurt Foster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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."
  #10   Report Post  
Kurt Foster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message ...

......what was posted were only some offhanded comments
I made to Luke.


Which he posted as a "pre review" in Luke's words. 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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.


Once again, I like the sound as it is. It is different than other pres
and I enjoy the variety instead of it being another "me too" product.
I think the sound on acoustic guitars is phenomenal. You can check
some sound samples I posted at RO. It costs nothing to register. The
samples of the Sebatron as well as many other pres are in the Audio
Projects streaming critique forum. Drop me a pm while you are there
and say "HI!"

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.


Seb uses point to point wiring intentionally, regardless of the costs.
he thinks, as I do, this kind of approach just sounds better, ala'
vintage Fender amps vs. newer PCB designs. Large traces are
implemented on the PCB for lower voltages but all high voltage paths
are point to point wired.

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.


Once again, the trasfos are that way on purpose. Part of the sound.
Changing it would only serve to defeat the unique sound and put the
pre into the "me too" realm.

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.


As I said, I love how it sounds. Evidently so do a lot of other
people. Since I reviewed the vmp 4000 at RO, the demand for them has
shot up trough the ceiling. Sebatron has recently announced that he is
moving to a new facility ten time the current size, to accommodate the
demand.

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


  #11   Report Post  
jslator
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Mike Rivers
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Luke Kaven
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Luke Kaven
 
Posts: n/a
Default Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review

(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.
  #15   Report Post  
Fletcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Dan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #18   Report Post  
WillStG
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Stephen Boyke
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Glenn Dowdy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Kurt Foster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1067558893k@trad...
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.



Mike,
I agree 100% and we do just that. As a Matter of fact, this is one of
the problems (among others) I had with Luke posting Scott's
"comments". It appeared without Sebatron ever seeing it, or having an
opportunity to reply to any criticism. This was not Scott's doing
however and I freely admit that. 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. Every manufacturer I have ever had dealings
with through RO, has expressed great satisfaction with the outcome of
the review.

As far as censorship on an "open forum", the only people who have any
complaint regarding this issue are those who wish to attack others
with personal comments instead of addressing the issues, or as in the
case with Luke's post, a posting of a "Review" (which he clearly
stated it was) on the bulletin board, instead of in the E Mag where we
publish all our reviews. Luke's attempt was nothing more than an
attempted end rub around the editorial process and the result was that
it was deleted. We really do not want to control thought at RO but we
do have a lot of young impressionable people come by and we have many
members who tell us "Hey, I have this up on the computer when my kids
are here". So we strongly discourage the use of profanity, unlike
other "pro" forums. As long as someone stays on topic, doesn't go off
on a personal attack like

...... "Don't forget, assh#le, that you're the one who
started this. I never said a fuc%ing word in public about what a
sanctimonious sh*theel you are ...."

Three guesses as to where that stream of vileness came from.. (btw, I
edited that because I would have been ashamed to post it, as it was
sent to me.)

But really, I don't know where this concept of "free speech" on a
privately owned and funded bulletin board comes from. No one pays any
user fees at RO. No one contributes a dime to the operation of it. I
know, there were a couple times we needed some cash to pay for server
upgrades and we put out the call for donations. We also asked people
to support RO and buy some merchandise from the "store". I have to
say the results were disappointing. When flames erupt, our traffic
slows down. We attempted to try to control this with all other methods
which proved unsuccessful. We then decided to try something new and we
started deleting the personal attacks. When the poster came back and
cried. "mommieee, they deleted my post!", we delete that too. Traffic
is way up now, so I guess aside from the complaints of a few of the
people here (who incidentally are some of the major offenders), things
run pretty smoothly at RO. I don't apologize for this. If people want
to come to RO and speak their minds, that fine and it will stand. If
all they want to do is raise discourse and make personal attacks
against members or moderators, then it gets deleted..
  #24   Report Post  
Kurt Foster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Chakaal The Indifferent
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Kurt Foster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Glenn Dowdy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Glenn Dowdy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Kurt Foster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!
  #30   Report Post  
Kurt Foster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review

(WillStG) wrote in message ...
(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



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.

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?


  #32   Report Post  
Brian Takei
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Geoff Wood
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Tommy B
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
WillStG
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



  #38   Report Post  
Michael Joly
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Kurt Foster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Scott Dorsey Sebatron Review

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message ...
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.


Well then how did you get that Sebatron from Dan? Didn't one of your
friends get it for you to review? I know Sebatron didn't send you
one.. I see nothing in that comment that says you kept the piece, I
simply stated that in order to get one you had someone act as your
liasion and get it from a dealer for you. If I am incorrect in this
then I here and now aplogise for my mistake..
  #40   Report Post  
jslator
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scott Wheeler's extraordinary life. Lionel Audio Opinions 39 October 21st 03 08:03 PM
Paging Scott Dorsey Seymour Pro Audio 3 September 14th 03 06:10 PM
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko" Scott Dorsey Pro Audio 25 August 25th 03 11:45 PM
Question ADAT RP-1 Chip replacement (Scott Dorsey?) Blacktick Pro Audio 3 August 14th 03 01:15 AM
Scott Reams' reaction to Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference Jerry Barnes Pro Audio 15 July 3rd 03 11:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:38 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"