|
|
Post by srb on Dec 16, 2010 17:26:19 GMT -5
I agree.. but then you know if Emo offers to pay shipping to those people who want a refund on the XDA-1 because the features were not like it was originally stated, then every single return made on that product is going to be for that reason.  The law calls false advertising and sales as a result of it, fraud. I am not going to say that I was intentionally defrauded, but it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to correct their mistakes without penalizing the buyer. If the manufacturer incurs extra return shipping costs because a few handfuls of buyers are without moral or ethical values, that unfortunately has to be chalked up to a lesson learned for the manufacturer to accept the responsibility of due diligence. Steve |
|
|
|
Post by Botafogo on Dec 16, 2010 17:33:37 GMT -5
And who uses with Squeezebox? You can use the Squeezebox remote control to decrease the volume to a minimum?
|
|
tonys
Minor Hero
Posts: 14
|
Post by tonys on Dec 16, 2010 17:34:20 GMT -5
Here's what the web page said about the volume …
"•Internal Volume Control: Digitally controlled in increments of 0.5 steps"
What is defective, misleading, or fraudulent about it? I do feel for the oversees gentlemen since the postage is almost half the cost of the unit, but there is nothing wrong with the XDA-1. For me the cost of returning the unit is under 10%, so as I said I’ll eat that and be grateful it’s not a total loss.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 16, 2010 17:37:33 GMT -5
I agree.. but then you know if Emo offers to pay shipping to those people who want a refund on the XDA-1 because the features were not like it was originally stated, then every single return made on that product is going to be for that reason. The law calls false advertising and sales as a result of it, fraud. I am not going to say that I was intentionally defrauded, but it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to correct their mistakes without penalizing the buyer. If the manufacturer incurs extra return shipping costs because a few handfuls of buyers are without moral or ethical values, that unfortunately has to be chalked up to a lesson learned for the manufacturer to accept the responsibility of due dillegence. Steve Be sure to let us know the results of your lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Post by rixtergonzo on Dec 16, 2010 17:38:28 GMT -5
Here's what the web page said about the volume … "•Internal Volume Control: Digitally controlled in increments of 0.5 steps" What is defective, misleading, or fraudulent about it? I do feel for the oversees gentlemen since the postage is almost half the cost of the unit, but there is nothing wrong with the XDA-1. For me the cost of returning the unit is under 10%, so as I said I’ll eat that and be grateful it’s not a total loss. You have not been following. They updated the website. So what next. They are sure to update the USB problem to say that it only will do 16/48. |
|
tonys
Minor Hero
Posts: 14
|
Post by tonys on Dec 16, 2010 17:43:02 GMT -5
OK then what did the "old' web site say? I'm sure it never said it could be directly connected to an amp and play at whisper low volumes. I've read every post and even contributed my own very early on.
|
|
|
|
Post by rixtergonzo on Dec 16, 2010 17:47:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Dec 16, 2010 17:50:09 GMT -5
Here's what the web page said about the volume … "•Internal Volume Control: Digitally controlled in increments of 0.5 steps" What is defective, misleading, or fraudulent about it? I do feel for the oversees gentlemen since the postage is almost half the cost of the unit, but there is nothing wrong with the XDA-1. For me the cost of returning the unit is under 10%, so as I said I’ll eat that and be grateful it’s not a total loss. You have not been following. They updated the website. So what next. They are sure to update the USB problem to say that it only will do 16/48. Well that's one way to solve the problem. Didn't you see that Twilight Zone episode in which at first 3 astronauts returned from space and then there were only 2 and all traces of the existence of the 3rd one were completely wiped clean, then only 1 left and at the end, the astronauts never existed? |
|
tonys
Minor Hero
Posts: 14
|
Post by tonys on Dec 16, 2010 17:51:07 GMT -5
Thanks, but that still don't reference the original claim that you are disputing...
|
|
|
|
Post by srb on Dec 16, 2010 17:58:33 GMT -5
OK then what did the "old' web site say? I'm sure it never said it could be directly connected to an amp and play at whisper low volumes. I've read every post and even contributed my own very early on. The original webpage said "increments of .5 dB" and only just several days ago was modified to say "increments of .5 steps". I have several components with digitally-controlled resistive ladder volume controls (logarithmic of course), both with less than 160 steps, and they can control volume to whisper-low levels and below, and anywhere in between without thinking you could use a step between adjacent steps. Steve |
|
|
|
Post by ajani on Dec 16, 2010 18:00:21 GMT -5
Here's what the web page said about the volume … "•Internal Volume Control: Digitally controlled in increments of 0.5 steps" What is defective, misleading, or fraudulent about it? I do feel for the oversees gentlemen since the postage is almost half the cost of the unit, but there is nothing wrong with the XDA-1. For me the cost of returning the unit is under 10%, so as I said I’ll eat that and be grateful it’s not a total loss. The original wording on the website was the same as what you quoted EXCEPT the last part said "0.5db"... They removed the db since the complaints arose... 0.5db means a logarithmic volume control as users expected and not a linear one as we've been given... Now, I'm willing to assume that the word change is for fear of future customers also being misled, but the fact still remains that us early adopters were misled... So I would hope that the word change is not also an attempt to conceal the source of our complaint, which would be deliberate rather than constructive fraud... Even the yet to be officially released manual has 0.5db in it: s273856667.onlinehome.us/emotiva/xda-1_manual.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by rogerwilco on Dec 16, 2010 18:06:52 GMT -5
Perhaps I'm missing something here... What’s not functioning as it should? Volume control works, inputs work, outputs work... just not to your liking if I understand the complaints correctly. Let’s not forget there is a lot to be said for system matching, synergy, and personal tastes. It’s taken me years to get the sound in my reference stereo just where I like it. I agree..... |
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff 
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Dec 16, 2010 18:12:12 GMT -5
I agree.. but then you know if Emo offers to pay shipping to those people who want a refund on the XDA-1 because the features were not like it was originally stated, then every single return made on that product is going to be for that reason. The law calls false advertising and sales as a result of it, fraud. I am not going to say that I was intentionally defrauded, but it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to correct their mistakes without penalizing the buyer. If the manufacturer incurs extra return shipping costs because a few handfuls of buyers are without moral or ethical values, that unfortunately has to be chalked up to a lesson learned for the manufacturer to accept the responsibility of due diligence. Steve Hmmm..Well Fraud would be defined as an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. Since every unit has a 30 day audition period and can be returned for a refund, there goes the personal gain aspect and since the units were sold to a variety of individuals, there goes the damage to an individual. ;D So calling it fraud implies a willful attempt to decieve which was not the case and therefore could actually be considered a slanderous statement, in my opinion. ;D Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV. ;D (I hope you do realize I am making a joke here) Guys relax. No one has been harmed here. If anyone is unhappy with the unit, send it back. All this speculation is getting out of control. |
|
|
|
Post by ajani on Dec 16, 2010 18:18:38 GMT -5
The law calls false advertising and sales as a result of it, fraud. I am not going to say that I was intentionally defrauded, but it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to correct their mistakes without penalizing the buyer. If the manufacturer incurs extra return shipping costs because a few handfuls of buyers are without moral or ethical values, that unfortunately has to be chalked up to a lesson learned for the manufacturer to accept the responsibility of due diligence. Steve Hmmm..Well Fraud would be defined as an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. Since every unit has a 30 day audition period and can be returned for a refund, there goes the personal gain aspect and since the units were sold to a variety of individuals, there goes the damage to an individual. ;D So calling it fraud implies a willful attempt to decieve which was not the case and therefore could actually be considered a slanderous statement, in my opinion. ;D Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV. ;D (I hope you do realize I am making a joke here) Guys relax. No one has been harmed here. If anyone is unhappy with the unit, send it back. All this speculation is getting out of control. If I send it back then will I get my shipping costs to and from Jamaica reimbursed? Or will I just have lost $120 and have no DAC to show for it? |
|
|
|
Post by srb on Dec 16, 2010 18:21:24 GMT -5
Perhaps I'm missing something here... What’s not functioning as it should? Volume control works, inputs work, outputs work... just not to your liking if I understand the complaints correctly. With all due respect, you are missing something and not understanding the complaints correctly. 3 out of 4 (~75%) users who are using as a preamp (as Emotiva suggests) have experienced one or both of these: A. The lowest step, .5, is still too loud for the lowest available volume setting B. The volume jumps between the handful of available steps before it is too loud are too large. It is simply not a matter of personal preference. Steve |
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Dec 16, 2010 18:30:47 GMT -5
Hmmm..Well Fraud would be defined as an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. Since every unit has a 30 day audition period and can be returned for a refund, there goes the personal gain aspect and since the units were sold to a variety of individuals, there goes the damage to an individual. ;D So calling it fraud implies a willful attempt to decieve which was not the case and therefore could actually be considered a slanderous statement, in my opinion. ;D Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV. ;D (I hope you do realize I am making a joke here) Guys relax. No one has been harmed here. If anyone is unhappy with the unit, send it back. All this speculation is getting out of control. If I send it back then will I get my shipping costs to and from Jamaica reimbursed? Or will I just have lost $120 and have no DAC to show for it? Well I'm hoping to find something that will make people happy. But should you choose to send it back for a refund then yes, your assesment is correct. On our FAQ page it states the customer is responsible for the shipping charges. |
|
|
|
Post by xyz1 on Dec 16, 2010 18:33:41 GMT -5
The law calls false advertising and sales as a result of it, fraud. I am not going to say that I was intentionally defrauded, but it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to correct their mistakes without penalizing the buyer. If the manufacturer incurs extra return shipping costs because a few handfuls of buyers are without moral or ethical values, that unfortunately has to be chalked up to a lesson learned for the manufacturer to accept the responsibility of due diligence. Steve Hmmm..Well Fraud would be defined as an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. Since every unit has a 30 day audition period and can be returned for a refund, there goes the personal gain aspect and since the units were sold to a variety of individuals, there goes the damage to an individual. ;D So calling it fraud implies a willful attempt to decieve which was not the case and therefore could actually be considered a slanderous statement, in my opinion. ;D Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV. ;D (I hope you do realize I am making a joke here) Guys relax. No one has been harmed here. If anyone is unhappy with the unit, send it back. All this speculation is getting out of control. I was just going to post this definition. Watch what you write srb, Emotiva could put some hurt on you if they wanted, just like Lonnie said in his post. Two torts that involve the communication of false information about a person, a group, or an entity such as a corporation. Libel is any Defamation that can be seen, such as a writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.
Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.
To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 16, 2010 18:37:48 GMT -5
All this speculation is getting out of control. But this is the INTERNET! Things are supposed to get out of control and blown out of proportion! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by xyz1 on Dec 16, 2010 18:41:25 GMT -5
If I send it back then will I get my shipping costs to and from Jamaica reimbursed? Or will I just have lost $120 and have no DAC to show for it? Well I'm hoping to find something that will make people happy. But should you choose to send it back for a refund then yes, your assesment is correct. On our FAQ page it states the customer is responsible for the shipping charges. I'm super happy with my XDA-1 as is! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ajani on Dec 16, 2010 18:54:30 GMT -5
If I send it back then will I get my shipping costs to and from Jamaica reimbursed? Or will I just have lost $120 and have no DAC to show for it? Well I'm hoping to find something that will make people happy. But should you choose to send it back for a refund then yes, your assesment is correct. On our FAQ page it states the customer is responsible for the shipping charges. That's why it is a big issue to me, If I was a US customer, then I'd probably just absorb the shipping... I don't mind losing out on shipping if I just don't like the sound of the unit (as no-one promised me I would), but losing out over a feature not working correctly would be very frustrating. I put faith in Emotiva based on my experience with my XPA-2, so I can only hope you find something... Anyway, I think I've said enough in this thread, so I'll let my input end here... |
|
