Arcaydis

[The_Lhc]

Recommending the built to order EB1 and subsequently the EB2 after reviewing them against mass produced, retailer stocked products, is wrong. It is not impartial. It is not a level playing field.

All they're doing is listening to them, in the same reviewing room, if that's not a level playing field I don't know what is.

Reviewing them together implies that I can go and pick up EB1 and EB2 as easly as the other speakers they were tested against, get the same level of customer support etc. This is not the case.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort! All it "implies" is that all the products will make a noise when you connect them to an amplifier. WHF is not Which magazine, they don't review customer service or delivery times or anything of that nature.

Can you not see that there is a clear distinction between the costs incurred by say Kef, Q Acoustics etc. who have a dedicated customer services/tech support team, produce stock, ship it to retailers who in turn take their mark-up, and EB who do none of these things?

And on the other hand KEF and the like will be buying parts in far greater numbers than EB can, so will be getting much bigger discounts on their components.

Is that a fair test of like-for-like?

If they're comparing a £100 speakers against EB's £600 speaker then clearly not, they're putting equivalently priced products up against each other as they always have done.

I think not as they are completely different products.

They're speakers. That's all they are, they all do the same job.

 

[Gazzip]

LHC, they are very different. The EB1 and EB2 were the only internet retailer product in those tests. Due to a lack of EB's overheads WHFSAV were in essence comparing a much cheaper speaker to a £600 speaker.

The WHFSAV test of the EB1 was flawed for that reason alone. Perhaps a review of six internet retailer products would have been a fairer test. WHFSAV then did it again with the EB2. This was inspite of many, many complaints about delivery dates for the EB1 being missed and poor customer service already having surfaced. Are you telling me that doesn't stink to high heaven, because I certainly think it does.

As previoulsy stated I am not critisising the product. I myself had a pair of EB2's for a while which sounded really, really transparent. Lacking in the bass department for me but still really good.

 

[bigboss]

I don't think the overheads matter. It's the price the end consumer pays to buy the product. Speakers don't have complex electronics to deal with, which can break down in the future. Most speakers easily last decades. As long as the product is available to buy, WHF is right to test it. I see no sense in criticising WHF for reviewing a product which is actually available to buy (even though Richard has failed people of late).

 

[Gazzip]

I don't think the overheads matter. It's the price the end consumer pays to buy the product. Speakers don't have complex electronics to deal with, which can break down in the future. Most speakers easily last decades. As long as the product is available to buy, WHF is right to test it. I see no sense in criticising WHF for reviewing a product which is actually available to buy (even though Richard has failed people of late).

Exactly, but my point is that the "product" goes way beyond just the physical speakers in the box. You have to include the often overlooked pre and after sale customer service and technical support when considering the "product" as a whole.

There was another thread running a couple of days ago about PMC's great after sales care. Another about the value of the retailers demo was running a few weeks ago. These are all parts of the high street "product" that are not available with the EB Acoustics "Product".

If all people cared about is the physical item itself when considering a "product" then this thread would not exist. However people have clearly purchased from EB acoustics not realising that the standard of their "product" was below what one might expect from a high street "product". The EB "product" was wrongly legitimised by WHFSAV through direct comparison with High Street "Products".

Once again I should point out that the physical EB product is, from my experience, very well made and sounds very nice.

 

[The_Lhc]

I don't think the overheads matter. It's the price the end consumer pays to buy the product. Speakers don't have complex electronics to deal with, which can break down in the future. Most speakers easily last decades. As long as the product is available to buy, WHF is right to test it. I see no sense in criticising WHF for reviewing a product which is actually available to buy (even though Richard has failed people of late).

Exactly, but my point is that the "product" goes way beyond just the physical speakers in the box. You have to include the often overlooked pre and after sale customer service and technical support when considering the "product" as a whole.

But that isn't something WHF can test or review.

There was another thread running a couple of days ago about PMC's great after sales care. Another about the value of the retailers demo was running a few weeks ago. These are all parts of the high street "product" that are not available with the EB Acoustics "Product".

But again that's not because EB Acoustics only sell direct, there's plenty of companies doing that that offer perfectly good customer service and plenty of "real" shops that don't.

If all people cared about is the physical item itself when considering a "product" then this thread would not exist. However people have clearly purchased from EB acoustics not realising that the standard of their "product" was below what one might expect from a high street "product". The EB "product" was wrongly legitimised by WHFSAV through direct comparison with High Street "Products".

As you keep saying, there's nothing wrong with the product, other than the fact that the people in this thread haven't got theirs yet but to blame WHF for RA's inability to answer the phone or reply to an email is absolutely insane. To suggest it's some kind of deliberate plot on WHF's behalf is firmly in conspiracy theory nut-job territory, I mean, what exactly are WHF supposed to be gaining from this scheme of theirs?

 

[Gazzip]

LHC,

RA's failure to employ a proper team to answer the phone/email and keep to delivery deadlines is entirely his issue and nothing to do with WHFSAV. All I have said is that EB Acoustics were given a great deal more press and publicity by WHFSAV than they should have been, and that this press has put him in the position to fail all of these people.

I don't suspect a conspiracy but I do suspect that somebody in the editorial team did an old friend a favour.

WHFSAV treated EB Acoustics a bit like UKIP are being treated by the BBC at the moment. The former has led to a gaggle of disatisfied customers and a series of boring threads on the WHFSAV forum. God only knows where the latter will lead.

 

[Al ears]

LHC,

RA's failure to employ a proper team to answer the phone/email and keep to delivery deadlines is entirely his issue and nothing to do with WHFSAV. All I have said is that EB Acoustics were given a great deal more press and publicity by WHFSAV than they should have been, and that this press has put him in the position to fail all of these people.

I don't suspect a conspiracy but I do suspect that somebody in the editorial team did an old friend a favour.

WHFSAV treated EB Acoustics a bit like UKIP are being treated by the BBC at the moment. The former has led to a gaggle of disatisfied customers and a series of boring threads on the WHFSAV forum. God only knows where the latter will lead.

And I was thinking exactly the same about this thread.

 

[Jota180]

What HIFI should amend their review and add a disclaimer in red text. If their review is the thing that's convincing a steady stream of their own paying subscribers to purchase speakers they never get it's surely incumbent on What HIFI to highlight that risk in that review.

 

[unsleepable]

I've worked in professional reviews of IT products, and what Gazzip says is how it's usually done. Reviewers don't want to risk their credibility, so will usually not even consider products by companies that don't meet certain minimums, such as financials, long-term viability, capacity to deliver, etc.

But I suspect that most companies in the Hi-Fi sector might not be able to prove long-term viability. And aspects like the quality of support in this kind of one man shops will likely depend just on the personality of the owner.

What surprises me is that the 5-star reviews for the EB Acoustics speakers are still online. Seeing the problems that customers of EB Acoustics are having, What Hi-Fi should remove or at least qualify those reviews. In my opinion, the way that What Hi-Fi gives stars, then removes them in some cases and not in others, is quite unprofessional.

 

[BigH]

Hi All,

I am new to this Forum and don't usually post comments; however, I write this out of sheer frustration. I am having problems getting a pair of DM1s from Richard and am having problems contacting him about the status of my order. Richard please contact me, my payment went through on 12th Feb for a pair of DM1s in natural oak. Sorry but I don't enjoy not having confidence in an order that I have placed.

Chris

Only 1 month, think there is about 3 months waiting list?

 

[BigH]

LHC, they are very different. The EB1 and EB2 were the only internet retailer product in those tests. Due to a lack of EB's overheads WHFSAV were in essence comparing a much cheaper speaker to a £600 speaker.

The WHFSAV test of the EB1 was flawed for that reason alone. Perhaps a review of six internet retailer products would have been a fairer test. WHFSAV then did it again with the EB2. This was inspite of many, many complaints about delivery dates for the EB1 being missed and poor customer service already having surfaced. Are you telling me that doesn't stink to high heaven, because I certainly think it does.

As previoulsy stated I am not critisising the product. I myself had a pair of EB2's for a while which sounded really, really transparent. Lacking in the bass department for me but still really good.

I don't agree its about comparing similar priced products. If you can buy them for £600 then thats it. Its what the consumer can buy them for that matters. Its their job to test the products, delivery is not really mentioned in reviews unless there are problems, I think they did mention something in one review?

 

[jonathanRD]

The WHFS&V reviews of both EB1 & EB2 were quite clear - in the against column they clearly warned of limited availability and that you may have to wait a while for them. Anyone reading those reviews can't then complain that WHF did not explicitly mention the lead-times.

Buying online on the basis of reviews requires a bit of research - so after reading the WHF review - it dosn't take much effort to find a few more reviews and comments regarding these products and any issues.

As a matter of interest does anyone have any idea how many pairs of speakers EB produce in a month? (apart from not enough)

 

[Gazzip]

LHC, they are very different. The EB1 and EB2 were the only internet retailer product in those tests. Due to a lack of EB's overheads WHFSAV were in essence comparing a much cheaper speaker to a £600 speaker.

The WHFSAV test of the EB1 was flawed for that reason alone. Perhaps a review of six internet retailer products would have been a fairer test. WHFSAV then did it again with the EB2. This was inspite of many, many complaints about delivery dates for the EB1 being missed and poor customer service already having surfaced. Are you telling me that doesn't stink to high heaven, because I certainly think it does.

As previoulsy stated I am not critisising the product. I myself had a pair of EB2's for a while which sounded really, really transparent. Lacking in the bass department for me but still really good.

I don't agree its about comparing similar priced products. If you can buy them for £600 then thats it. Its what the consumer can buy them for that matters. Its their job to test the products, delivery is not really mentioned in reviews unless there are problems, I think they did mention something in one review?

Yes, but there are also checks and measures to be done before publishing. You should have to earn your stripes before a worldwide publication like WHFSAV puts you on a pedestal.

 

[bigboss]

LHC, they are very different. The EB1 and EB2 were the only internet retailer product in those tests. Due to a lack of EB's overheads WHFSAV were in essence comparing a much cheaper speaker to a £600 speaker.

The WHFSAV test of the EB1 was flawed for that reason alone. Perhaps a review of six internet retailer products would have been a fairer test. WHFSAV then did it again with the EB2. This was inspite of many, many complaints about delivery dates for the EB1 being missed and poor customer service already having surfaced. Are you telling me that doesn't stink to high heaven, because I certainly think it does.

As previoulsy stated I am not critisising the product. I myself had a pair of EB2's for a while which sounded really, really transparent. Lacking in the bass department for me but still really good.

I don't agree its about comparing similar priced products. If you can buy them for £600 then thats it. Its what the consumer can buy them for that matters. Its their job to test the products, delivery is not really mentioned in reviews unless there are problems, I think they did mention something in one review?

Yes, but there are also checks and measures to be done before publishing. You should have to earn your stripes before a worldwide publication like WHFSAV puts you on a pedestal. 

What checks and measures? WHF warned about limited availability and long wait times in the reviews.

 

[bigboss]

Hi All,

I am new to this Forum and don't usually post comments; however, I write this out of sheer frustration. I am having problems getting a pair of DM1s from Richard and am having problems contacting him about the status of my order. Richard please contact me, my payment went through on 12th Feb for a pair of DM1s in natural oak. Sorry but I don't enjoy not having confidence in an order that I have placed.

Chris

Only 1 month, think there is about 3 months waiting list?

 

Must've read the horror stories after paying up.

 

[spiny norman]

I don't suspect a conspiracy but I do suspect that somebody in the editorial team did an old friend a favour.

So you don't suspect a conspiracy but you do suspect a conspiracy, then? ;-)

 

[Gazzip]

I don't suspect a conspiracy but I do suspect that somebody in the editorial team did an old friend a favour.

So you don't suspect a conspiracy but you do suspect a conspiracy, then? ;-)

To me a conspiracy implies a criminal, fraudulent or an all together wrongful act, not somebody giving a bit of free, allbeit poorley judged, advertising.

 

[Gazzip]

LHC, they are very different. The EB1 and EB2 were the only internet retailer product in those tests. Due to a lack of EB's overheads WHFSAV were in essence comparing a much cheaper speaker to a £600 speaker.

The WHFSAV test of the EB1 was flawed for that reason alone. Perhaps a review of six internet retailer products would have been a fairer test. WHFSAV then did it again with the EB2. This was inspite of many, many complaints about delivery dates for the EB1 being missed and poor customer service already having surfaced. Are you telling me that doesn't stink to high heaven, because I certainly think it does.

As previoulsy stated I am not critisising the product. I myself had a pair of EB2's for a while which sounded really, really transparent. Lacking in the bass department for me but still really good.

I don't agree its about comparing similar priced products. If you can buy them for £600 then thats it. Its what the consumer can buy them for that matters. Its their job to test the products, delivery is not really mentioned in reviews unless there are problems, I think they did mention something in one review?

Yes, but there are also checks and measures to be done before publishing. You should have to earn your stripes before a worldwide publication like WHFSAV puts you on a pedestal.

What checks and measures? WHF warned about limited availability and long wait times in the reviews.

Exactly. They failed those checks and measures yet WHFSAV chose to publish their reviews anyway.

 

[The_Lhc]

LHC, they are very different. The EB1 and EB2 were the only internet retailer product in those tests. Due to a lack of EB's overheads WHFSAV were in essence comparing a much cheaper speaker to a £600 speaker.

The WHFSAV test of the EB1 was flawed for that reason alone. Perhaps a review of six internet retailer products would have been a fairer test. WHFSAV then did it again with the EB2. This was inspite of many, many complaints about delivery dates for the EB1 being missed and poor customer service already having surfaced. Are you telling me that doesn't stink to high heaven, because I certainly think it does.

As previoulsy stated I am not critisising the product. I myself had a pair of EB2's for a while which sounded really, really transparent. Lacking in the bass department for me but still really good.

I don't agree its about comparing similar priced products. If you can buy them for £600 then thats it. Its what the consumer can buy them for that matters. Its their job to test the products, delivery is not really mentioned in reviews unless there are problems, I think they did mention something in one review?

Yes, but there are also checks and measures to be done before publishing. You should have to earn your stripes before a worldwide publication like WHFSAV puts you on a pedestal.

What checks and measures? WHF warned about limited availability and long wait times in the reviews.

Exactly. They failed those checks and measures yet WHFSAV chose to publish their reviews anyway.

So you would therefore agree that no car magazine should ever review a Morgan as they take 6 months to deliver a vehicle after ordering?

 

[bigboss]

The readers are adults and should be capable of taking their own decisions. Why should WHF police that? They've been made aware of the delays and limited availability. So if anyone wants to buy them after reading the review, they should be prepared for the wait.

 

[Gazzip]

LHC, they are very different. The EB1 and EB2 were the only internet retailer product in those tests. Due to a lack of EB's overheads WHFSAV were in essence comparing a much cheaper speaker to a £600 speaker.

The WHFSAV test of the EB1 was flawed for that reason alone. Perhaps a review of six internet retailer products would have been a fairer test. WHFSAV then did it again with the EB2. This was inspite of many, many complaints about delivery dates for the EB1 being missed and poor customer service already having surfaced. Are you telling me that doesn't stink to high heaven, because I certainly think it does.

As previoulsy stated I am not critisising the product. I myself had a pair of EB2's for a while which sounded really, really transparent. Lacking in the bass department for me but still really good.

I don't agree its about comparing similar priced products. If you can buy them for £600 then thats it. Its what the consumer can buy them for that matters. Its their job to test the products, delivery is not really mentioned in reviews unless there are problems, I think they did mention something in one review?

Yes, but there are also checks and measures to be done before publishing. You should have to earn your stripes before a worldwide publication like WHFSAV puts you on a pedestal.

What checks and measures? WHF warned about limited availability and long wait times in the reviews.

Exactly. They failed those checks and measures yet WHFSAV chose to publish their reviews anyway.

So you would therefore agree that no car magazine should ever review a Morgan as they take 6 months to deliver a vehicle after ordering?

Yes, but a car magazine would never review a Morgan against a standard, "off the shelf", BMW or Audi in a review.

 

[Gazzip]

A magazine that is dedicated to reviewing like for like in a supertest situation in order to make a recommendation should be doing just that.

They should be comparing apples with apples which they did not. They caveated their winner by saying that "although it looks like an apple, and tastes like an apple, it is actually an orange - Now go live with your decision". That is NOT responsible journalism.

 

[spiny norman]

To me a conspiracy implies a criminal, fraudulent or an all together wrongful act, not somebody giving a bit of free, allbeit poorley judged, advertising.

If, as you're suggesting, someone 'did an old friend a favour' knowing that friend would be unable to supply the product for which readers had paid, then that sounds pretty fraudulent to me.

Make your mind up: either make the accusation or stop back-pedalling.

 

[The_Lhc]

LHC, they are very different. The EB1 and EB2 were the only internet retailer product in those tests. Due to a lack of EB's overheads WHFSAV were in essence comparing a much cheaper speaker to a £600 speaker.

The WHFSAV test of the EB1 was flawed for that reason alone. Perhaps a review of six internet retailer products would have been a fairer test. WHFSAV then did it again with the EB2. This was inspite of many, many complaints about delivery dates for the EB1 being missed and poor customer service already having surfaced. Are you telling me that doesn't stink to high heaven, because I certainly think it does.

As previoulsy stated I am not critisising the product. I myself had a pair of EB2's for a while which sounded really, really transparent. Lacking in the bass department for me but still really good.

I don't agree its about comparing similar priced products. If you can buy them for £600 then thats it. Its what the consumer can buy them for that matters. Its their job to test the products, delivery is not really mentioned in reviews unless there are problems, I think they did mention something in one review?

Yes, but there are also checks and measures to be done before publishing. You should have to earn your stripes before a worldwide publication like WHFSAV puts you on a pedestal.

What checks and measures? WHF warned about limited availability and long wait times in the reviews.

Exactly. They failed those checks and measures yet WHFSAV chose to publish their reviews anyway.

So you would therefore agree that no car magazine should ever review a Morgan as they take 6 months to deliver a vehicle after ordering?

Yes, but a car magazine would never review a Morgan against a standard, "off the shelf", BMW or Audi in a review.

not the 3-series or A4 saloon no, because they're a completely different class of car in a different price category, but they would review them against other two-seater sports cars in the same price bracket (and the Morgan would lose, but that's not the point).

 

[The_Lhc]

A magazine that is dedicated to reviewing like for like in a supertest situation in order to make a recommendation should be doing just that.

They should be comparing apples with apples which they did not. They caveated their winner by saying that "although it looks like an apple, and tastes like an apple, it is actually an orange - Now go live with your decision". That is NOT responsible journalism.

This is just ********, they reviewed a £600 standmount speaker against other £600 pound standmount speakers, there is nothing more to say!