Thin Line Between Critique and Courtrooms: A Dialogue on the Recent Audiophile Drama

This reeks of insecurity, not surprising for a company that can't design loudspeakers correctly. 

Tekton would have to prove malice on the part of the reviewer, which is just short of impossible. The sad part is the reviewer will have to pay lawyers to defend himself. Just the threat of being sued might keep other reviewers from mentioning obvious problems with designs which hurts us. 

Just take a pair into the courtroom and measure them in front of the judge. They either can repeat the measurements and win, or fail to repeat and lose.

Frivolous lawsuits. It's a USA MO.

I unfortunately got used to it a long time ago

And 2 years from now Tekton will rebrand itself. Another unfair corporate benefit.

Money, lobbying by businesses, supported by legislators overwhelming the people.

Government of the corporation, by the lobbies, and for the lawyers.

Did Erik from Tekton send his speaker to Him for reviews? Or the reviewer just did listen to Tekton speakers? I think Erik was gracious with stereophile result of his 30k speakers.Though the comments is not favorable.

I always wonder up to now ? The waiting time to buy Tekton speaker is at least a month or more if you decided to have a better finish on the box.They always have people buying their speakers. Why? Inspite of all the bad comments like they are ugly, they are cheaply made?They don’t sound good?

Audiophile drama looks like isn't really worth the courtroom unless it desires some clownade to go public.

The person so emotionally fragile as to sue someone for a review he didn't agree with should be embarrassed. Chances are he's bringing way more attention to the review than would have happened naturally. Not smart.

+1 @roadcykler 

I will be donating to this when I have a few minutes today. 
 

https://www.gofundme.com/f/erins-audio-corner-litigation-fund

I watched Erin's video right when it came out of those hideous garage speakers.  The review samples were sent to him by a viewer, not the manufacturer.  

The manufacturer should have just opened a constructive dialog with Erin, first.  But the way this was handled was wrong and heavy-handed is being polite.  

There are so many other speaker brands out there with better finishing and aesthetics that if Tekton goes away, I wouldn't notice.

Will you explain why you didn’t do that in the first place instead of threatening to sue him? Forgot that little tidbit.

I’m not a lawyer and don’t have any special expertise in libel/slander laws, but I’m guessing that before taking legal action in a case like this, a manufacturer has to first publicly and/or privately advise the alleged offender that they have made false claims about their product and that if they don’t stop doing so then legal action will be pursued. Otherwise, a lack of such a warning immediately after the manufacturer becomes aware of the alleged false claims might indicate tacit approval and could affect any right to future legal damages if the matter can’t be resolved out of court.

I haven’t reviewed all the reports cited in this thread, but it sounds like Tekton could have been more tactful in how they went about dealing with the reviewer, but it may have been legally necessary to protect any future case.

Tekton would have to prove malice on the part of the reviewer, which is just short of impossible.

Again, I'm not an expert but I'm not sure a finding of malice would be necessary. As I understand from a bit of googling, malice is required for a defamation finding against a public figures or officials. In all other cases, mere negiligence in making knowingly false defamatory statements is sufficient. So it seems that if someone knows that a claim is false and makes it anyway, it may be actionable regardless of motive.

I hate to sound like a defender of big business, which I'm not, but the law can be complex (probably too much so!) and it's not usually a good idea to reach conclusions about stuff like this unless you 1) know all the facts, and 2) know the law.

Did Tekton actually sue Erin, or merely "threaten" to sue?  What would constitute a "threat"?  If Erin relies heavily on measurements, an incorrect measurement would could damage the company's reputation and I can see why they would take action.  If the Tekton representative's explanation is correct, that action involved getting Erin to redo the measurements and repost his review after such correction in the measurement protocol.  While this certainly suggest pressure on Erin to change his review to avoid further threats, the ball is in Erin's court--he could still post a negative review, but, at least he will not have published factually incorrect measurements.  

It appears to me that there is a bit too much hysteria about evil companies attacking reviewers.  This does not happen often, and in this case, it is not even clear from the discourse here that Tekton did anything more than protect their interest by getting the reviewer to do the measurements correctly.  It is pure speculation on the part of the posted video that the measurement issues were minor and insubstantial.  

@james633 

I would too but it's closed

This is the answer to the question we see all too often, "why do we see only good reviews". Reviewers exist to make money, not get sued and lose money. 

Judge : I heard these speakers and I have to agree with the reviewer's / defendant sentiment. 

Yet another display of low class bullying tactics by the Tekton Man.   This behavior will continue until he drives his business to closure.  We have seen his true colors on this forum as he does a World Class job of building haters.

It’s time for a pilgrimage to bring Tekton speakers for a bonfire display  at “Burning Man”

Having reviewed this case, my verdict is the reviewer is in general very thorough based on other reviews of his I have read and did nothing wrong that I can discern in the TEkton case of concern. There were suggestions made regarding improvements and reviewer agreed to a second review with that in mind (holes in the cabinet for footers by design that ideally should be plugged...strange but apparently true). Tekton guy was combative and way out of line threatening legal action up front as opposed to engaging in constructive discourse and looks bad accordingly which is bad PR period. Case closed.

Note: I have observed in general that it is a common thing on ASR site for reviewer to do a follow-up  or revised review in cases where vendor or others point out a valid defect in the process,  and admit mistakes or oversights prior, which is admirable and how it should be.       

The problem here there are two sides of the story? What really happen.  We will never know. If they are on litigation now. Their lawyers will advise them to keep their mouth close.

I hope they can resolve the issue and no more suing.

I have not observed two sides to this particular story. Seems to be just a single story and little debate about how it unfolded.  

Sad thing to me is Tekton offers unique products that have garnered pretty decent reviews. Not everyone’s cup of tea but what is? I get it that the owner is passionate about his products, but everyone can benefit from a little more self awareness and respect for others.

For me, a useful  response for a vendor who has objections to a review is to cite the objection politely and then give the other person a chance to respond and see where it goes from there.

The point is there are reviews with no feet actually posted on Tekton’s website that do not use the feet on the speakers that he knocked for the review.

 This is just another MQA kerfuffle again.

The point is there are reviews with no feet actually posted on Tekton’s website that do not use the feet on the speakers that he knocked for the review.

Yes I believe that to be true in which case add that to the mix regarding how all this comes off to potential buyers.

- Where do we draw the line between constructive criticism and damaging feedback?

@rowlocktrysail Generally speaking, a negative review (not one that is positive with a few minor beefs) should be looked upon as unethical.

Here’s a list of why:

1) the reviewer might have a bone to pick that has nothing to do with the equipment; IOW its political.

2) the reviewer may not know what he’s doing.

3) the equipment under review might have a malfunction which might be caused by shipping, abuse, inability to follow instructions (see 2 above) etc.

4) there may be a conflict of interest between the advertising vs editorial staff. I’ve seen this one first hand; no advertising=bad review.

5) the reviewer feels a need to prove something (usually that they are some kind of ’expert’; if they really are they don’t need to prove this); whereas if they have any moxy at all this simply isn’t necessary. This is a very powerful motivator!

6) When a reviewer or magazine purports to have ’hard hitting’ journalism, at least in the case of high end audio its usually not the case- more likely, its to cover up problems like 4 above.

If a magazine or reviewer is on the up and up, if a product falls well short of a good review, the ethical thing to do is to send it back to the manufacturer without any mention in print (or in this case, online). Out of sight out of mind, quite simply. Put another way, a rising tide raises all boats.

When you see a bad review, keep these things in mind. I’ve seen them all play out many times in the past, often hurting legitimately good companies, sometimes even putting them out of business. For example Quicksilver got a bad review (undeserved, as most people here already know) simply because they had a policy of not advertising at the time. This happened with a fairly well-known magazine. Gryphon got trashed about 30 years ago, which ended their US distribution for years afterward, because they refused to simply give the review sample to the reviewer (see 1 above). I happened to be in the Gryphon room at CES when the reviewer made this threat- and a few months later, saw his comments in print. 

I know many of you out there will not understand this right away, because you might think the reviewer is helping by steering you away from a "bad" product. That idea is false- the ethical way to handle it is the reviewer doesn’t mention a product that falls short- its shunned.

I concur with atmasphere here ...

This does not means that negative impressions must not be written in the diplomatic form of reservation or very cautious wordings ..

Being ethical is a fine line ...

Staying objective too ...

If a magazine or reviewer is on the up and up, if a product falls well short of a good review, the ethical thing to do is to send it back to the manufacturer without any mention in print (or in this case, online). Out of sight out of mind, quite simply. Put another way, a rising tide raises all boats.

It’s a dog eat dog world out there for sure. Ethics may often take a back seat which is quite an unfortunate thing really. 

I myself most of the times lend way much more credibility reading a reviewer about his "reserves" and "between the line implication" than about a flat negative remarks...

And we have users reviews which are not constrainted by any ethical professional guideline anyway ... I used statistical users analysis myself ...

There is difference between flat negative observation and cautious choice of words... There is a reviewer ethical line, implicit or explicit ...

Then atmasphere post make sense to me ...

We have way more users opinions than reviewers opinion to compare to anyway...

The old tried and true adage 'opinions are like a** holes; everyone has one' still fits today. The problem is that everyone today has been raised to believe they are never wrong and they all deserve a trophy.

@atmasphere 

WOW - so there can be no negative reviews because the reviewer has a bone to pick. That is a condescending attitude. 

Then why send out equipment to be reviewed at all except to stroke the ego of the manufacturer? 

Being ethical is a fine line ...

Staying objective too ...

There are way too many fine lines everywhere and anywhere you go -- a mesh or a web of fine lines and those very often disguise truth.

There's a fine line on ethical definition(s) as well. Way too many, but the best remedy -- the very best remedy is being truthful whether there is or there isn't fine line or multiples of fine lines simply because there's only one singular truth and one singular definition that can break any web or mesh of fine lines.

Bottom line is I am in general always against censorship, including hifi reviews. Just take things for what they are worth and let the cards fall where they may. THere will be some false positives and negatives naturally along the way. Time will tell.

There’s a fine line on ethical definition(s) as well. Way too many, but the best remedy -- the very best remedy is being truthful whether there is or there isn’t fine line or multiples of fine lines simply because there’s only one singular truth and one singular definition that can break any web or mesh of fine lines.

I agree completely with this attitude in life for sure... Truth is over anything else...

😊

But once this is said an audio product review imply as a medical reporting truth a fine line about what must be said with the right choice of word... We can say our truth without making it a negative destruction of the product...

«He said with good reason for sure  :" your body is wrong beyond repair 35 years ago"»-- Groucho Marx surviving cancer 🤓

@botrytis 'Bone to pick' can cover a wide range of issues. For example, the manufacturer could have said something online with which the reviewer disagrees. I agree this might look like condescension but I have seen this happen more than once. It might simply be the reviewer got in a bad mood having nothing to do with the equipment at all, maybe his car got towed. There's no way to know. 

A good reviewer isn't there to stroke eqos. His/her job is to inform the public of something in which the public for whom he/she writes might be interested, like high end audio or fine watches. There's plenty of good stuff out there, no need to waste everyone's time with that which doesn't cut the mustard.

@atmasphere 

You should repress your ego.  We all respect your smartest-guy-in-room assumption, and you probably are most of the time, but you and your products are not beyond reproach.  Have you ever been wrong?  Get a grip.  I know I have just committed blasphemy by challenging you.  Forgive me.

@atmasphere

You should repress your ego.

I dont remember atmasphere "ego" very much all around the place since the 8 years i came here..😊

He always spoke the best he can to help everyone here with acoustics and engineering information ...

Smartest-guy-in-the-room is it not me ? 😁

If it is not me, it is certainly not you either, you (we) have too much "ego" anyway, then stay calm instead of attacking someone who just gave in a rational way his own well motivated , if debatable, opinion among a raging crowd...... ( i was raging myself against threat to a reviewer for sure)..

😊

@mahgister 

Have you considered professional help?

There are ways to assess and compare products thoroughly. It can be based on both subjective opinions and/or objective data. Those are the reviews I like. They help inform me as a buyer.

As long as that, I don’t mind if the reviewer then gives their own personal thumb’s up or thumb’s down determination. THey did the work and are entitled to that. But that’s just their personal opinion based on the data. Others may well judge differently. That’s just how things work.

There are a core set of measurements - FR, Soundpower, directivity, dispersion, waterfall, etc that a) in combination b) if one knows how to interpret them and c) has enough points of reference, could get one into a fairly good ballpark of whether it it matches his tastes (or not) and how it could work out in his room (or not). It would be more reliable to proceed with the decision for trying it out (or not).

The subjective poetry spewers are a bit harder to decipher.... You may have to buy the crud he recommended at times and return it to figure out that your tastes don’t match. For example, there are a couple of reviewers out there, i know i most probably will like the opposite of what he liked. And, of course, there are those who’re paid to sing poetry on anything and everything...There ain’t anything that didn’t make his jaw drop ever.

I did see Erin’s review before he took it down. Subjectively, his tastes and mine don’t match..I would not buy any speaker he strongly recommends subjectively. But, he throws the measurements out there and makes it a bit easier for folks with differing tastes.

The zero fidelity YTer was a guy who would actually get close to the sound signature of things. He’d make an effort to subjectively describe its sound signature as accurately as possible (in case it suited a different guy’s tastes). There are other clueless "reviewers" who are unable to do such a thing. The latter is the type of guy, who will start describing an upstream component, when in reality he’s describing the speaker and so on....It’s mostly a goofy path, trying to navigate around the subjective poetry spewers.

@abnerjack You're forgiven as if I have anything to say about it and its all good. 

I agree, I am not nor are my products beyond reproach. A lot of manufacturers I know simply try to do the best they can, but none of us are perfect and there's always something new to learn about how we can do better.

I've been wrong plenty of times! Sometimes I feel like I spend most of my life being wrong... When I have doubts about a topic I usually keep my mouth shut. This isn't one of those topics- I've seen others experience unethical reviews and I've experienced them myself (in my case, it was because I couldn't afford a 6-month advertising contract with the magazine).

I have raised this issue of negative reviews being unethical in the past, and I always get some pushback. I think we all would like to think that a negative review is always honest and hard-hitting journalism at its best; that story died an ugly death for me. We are all human and prone to human imperfection; the best reviewers I know all just don't say anything when they encounter what they think is a bad product. Fortunately they are the majority out there IME.  

I am not patient as atmasphere is with people insulting others..

I came here to learn patience reading poster as you displaying insult to well know useful member with no argument...

For the moment the cure is not effective ... 😊

@mahgister

Have you considered professional help?

having read and catalogued 97 speaker manufacturers' stories, I feel for them. This is not an easy ride. But I were in the business, I would be happy if someone reviewed my product and I would learn from the feedback. It's like the movie Chef - focus on your craft, not on attacking the reviewer.

@atmasphere Your reply is part of the issue. A good reviewer is there to give information to their audience, not stroke the egos of the manufacturers. That was the way IT USED to be. 

I will use a car review as an example. How would you deal with a review like this?

Her Name Is Rio… And She’s Crap | The Truth About Cars

I remember reading this after I had a Rio as a rental - I totally agreed with it.

How can products improve if no one is there to give honest opinions about them?

@mahgister 

My sincere apologies to you.  I forgot that you know everything about audio (and almost everything about every other  thing).  Why do you waste your supremacy on such a trivial platform as this?  As others have asked, what is your point?  Oh never mind, I forgot, it's all about your ability to understand acoustics and the real meaning of life.

A review of a product, for example speakers, based on specs measures or in subjective impressions in a room , or the two together is always a debatable matter, because there is always many parameters, many different needs at play, the only exception is if the speakers are very bad design to begin with ...( but very bad speakers design do not go very far in sales)

then for me any reviews result as any design from a set of trade -off choices, in the designer intention as well as in the reviewers needs and wishes...

Where are the dots ?

If you look at one side they are there, if you look at the other side they are there...

there is no absolute truth in design no more than in reviewing...

Designer must not use threat of legal pursuit and reviewers must be cautious in their choice of words for sure ...

The extinction illusion: the left side and the right side have the same number of black dots...

In reality, both sides of the image contain the same number of black dots, but our brains' selective attention and processing mechanisms cause us to perceive them differently. This illusion highlights the complex interplay between perception, attention, and cognition in shaping our visual experiences.

@mahgister 

I repeat, " Why do you waste your supremacy on such a trivial platform as this?" 

Also, why do you have to impose your opinion on any subject?               

I will return back your question to yourself ? why do you need sarcasm instead of argument in an audio platform especially against someone as rational as atmasphere ?

For my mental health personal report , it is not for you here to have an answer...

This thread is about a precise matter which you can adress as i did myself and atmasphere with "arguments" and reason ...Not with insult, innuendos, sarcasms only and mainly ...

Anybody using arguments and reason here is welcome... Even me... 😁

By the way i never "impose" my opinion as you just did with your personal adress to atmasphere, me i always gave plenty of arguments and  anybody can reply with arguments  ... Nobody can give an argument as answer to sarcasm, as your useless pointing to atmasphere "ego" was...

is it clearer ?

I am not a perfect human being too  because i answered you ... 😊

@mahgister

I repeat, " Why do you waste your supremacy on such a trivial platform as this?"

Also, why do you have to impose your opinion on any subject?

@mahgister 

Another non-answer.  

I repeat, " Why do you waste your supremacy on such a trivial platform as this?"

Also, why do you have to impose your opinion on any subject?