-
Is OLED burn-in a problem? We want your input on one of TV’s hottest topics!
Grottyash:
Aren't active speakers a bit yesterday? Judging by the recent show here valves are the way of the future.
It could be active speakers are a peculiarly British phenomenon - Genelec are the big active players here, but there's not been hundreds other manufacturers flocking to follow suit, and there is a more than health local speaker industry here and in the region..
See also Dynaudio, Adam, Tannoy...the pro-audio field has plenty of names you'd recognise in the domestic market. And they're definitely not a British phenomenon - Genelec are Finnish I think and have a global reach. Same goes for the rest.
Aren't active speakers a bit yesterday? Judging by the recent show here valves are the way of the future.
It could be active speakers are a peculiarly British phenomenon - Genelec are the big active players here, but there's not been hundreds other manufacturers flocking to follow suit, and there is a more than health local speaker industry here and in the region..
See also Dynaudio, Adam, Tannoy...the pro-audio field has plenty of names you'd recognise in the domestic market. And they're definitely not a British phenomenon - Genelec are Finnish I think and have a global reach. Same goes for the rest.
the_lhc:Ajani:
the_lhc:Ajani:FrankHarveyHiFi:I see they're already slagging off the competitionwithout even an A/B demo.... It's interesting how much of that occurs in HiFi... I can name so many brands that claim to offer "the best products available at any price" and other such nonsense... Sometimes I wonder if delusions of grandeur are a prerequisite for building good gear....No, that's just marketing, you expect companies to talk up their own products, it's when they start slagging off everyone else's that it moves into dodgy territory. They wouldn't be allowed to in an advert (in the UK at least) but it appears nothing happens if they do it in a more informal setting.
I don't really see a meaningful differences between claiming my product is the best available versus directly saying that my competitor's products are inferior to mine...In the first instance all you're saying is "We're the best!", you're not actually mentioning anyone else's products at all, in the second instance, at least wrt what this thread is talking about you're actively naming other brands and putting them down. There's a big difference there. I might be more readily able to avoid lawsuits for one claim versus the other, but in spirit they amount to the same claim...No, they really don't, one is positive marketing of your own products, the other is distinctly negative discussion of someone else's products.Also, I've seen several brands that readily diss the competition (or at least the competition's technology - SS vs Tubes, Class A/B vs D, etc)... See there again, you can "diss" a particular technology, without actually attacking a rival manufacturer, technology is speaking in generalities, it's not the same as picking out a particular brand and claiming them to be rubbish.
So if a manufacturer of Class A/B amps claims that his amps are superior to Class D amps because Class D is rubbish, and it's only benefit is to save on electricity, that's just positive advertising?
However, if that manufacturer was to say that X brand's products are rubbish because they use Class D tech, then that would be wrong?
I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one... While in the first scenario, competitors are not specifically mentioned, it still amounts to the exact same claim: Class D amps are rubbish and by extension products from competitors (using Class D) are rubbish.. One is just more politically correct than the other...
the_lhc:Ajani:FrankHarveyHiFi:I see they're already slagging off the competitionwithout even an A/B demo.... It's interesting how much of that occurs in HiFi... I can name so many brands that claim to offer "the best products available at any price" and other such nonsense... Sometimes I wonder if delusions of grandeur are a prerequisite for building good gear....No, that's just marketing, you expect companies to talk up their own products, it's when they start slagging off everyone else's that it moves into dodgy territory. They wouldn't be allowed to in an advert (in the UK at least) but it appears nothing happens if they do it in a more informal setting.
I don't really see a meaningful differences between claiming my product is the best available versus directly saying that my competitor's products are inferior to mine...In the first instance all you're saying is "We're the best!", you're not actually mentioning anyone else's products at all, in the second instance, at least wrt what this thread is talking about you're actively naming other brands and putting them down. There's a big difference there. I might be more readily able to avoid lawsuits for one claim versus the other, but in spirit they amount to the same claim...No, they really don't, one is positive marketing of your own products, the other is distinctly negative discussion of someone else's products.Also, I've seen several brands that readily diss the competition (or at least the competition's technology - SS vs Tubes, Class A/B vs D, etc)... See there again, you can "diss" a particular technology, without actually attacking a rival manufacturer, technology is speaking in generalities, it's not the same as picking out a particular brand and claiming them to be rubbish.
So if a manufacturer of Class A/B amps claims that his amps are superior to Class D amps because Class D is rubbish, and it's only benefit is to save on electricity, that's just positive advertising?
However, if that manufacturer was to say that X brand's products are rubbish because they use Class D tech, then that would be wrong?
I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one... While in the first scenario, competitors are not specifically mentioned, it still amounts to the exact same claim: Class D amps are rubbish and by extension products from competitors (using Class D) are rubbish.. One is just more politically correct than the other...
the record spot:Grottyash:
Aren't active speakers a bit yesterday? Judging by the recent show here valves are the way of the future.
It could be active speakers are a peculiarly British phenomenon - Genelec are the big active players here, but there's not been hundreds other manufacturers flocking to follow suit, and there is a more than health local speaker industry here and in the region..
See also Dynaudio, Adam, Tannoy...the pro-audio field has plenty of names you'd recognise in the domestic market. And they're definitely not a British phenomenon - Genelec are Finnish I think and have a global reach. Same goes for the rest.
Yep active speakers are still dominant in the pro audio world... Also, active speakers with built in DACs are becoming more and more popular in the pro audio world... AVI's active products are only radical in the consumer HiFi market...
Aren't active speakers a bit yesterday? Judging by the recent show here valves are the way of the future.
It could be active speakers are a peculiarly British phenomenon - Genelec are the big active players here, but there's not been hundreds other manufacturers flocking to follow suit, and there is a more than health local speaker industry here and in the region..
See also Dynaudio, Adam, Tannoy...the pro-audio field has plenty of names you'd recognise in the domestic market. And they're definitely not a British phenomenon - Genelec are Finnish I think and have a global reach. Same goes for the rest.
Yep active speakers are still dominant in the pro audio world... Also, active speakers with built in DACs are becoming more and more popular in the pro audio world... AVI's active products are only radical in the consumer HiFi market...
Apologies, the record spot, I wasn't clear enough in my post. I'm living in Finland at the moment and was referring to the Finnish, Swedish and Danish speaker industry, not the British.
Grottyash:It could be active speakers are a peculiarly British phenomenon
Not quite. Here's a scandinavian take on the concept: Audio Pro Living LV3
Wireless ready, clad in leather, and according to todays exchange rate cost £1274.12
There's also a small bookshelf version costing £636.60 (Living LV2). Unfortunately, neither seem to be available in the UK.
Especially when you consider the cost of the AVI ADM9T + AVI Subwoofer + AirPort Express + Airfoil (£2025), the Living LV3 seems a very tempting proposition indeed.
Not quite. Here's a scandinavian take on the concept: Audio Pro Living LV3
Wireless ready, clad in leather, and according to todays exchange rate cost £1274.12
There's also a small bookshelf version costing £636.60 (Living LV2). Unfortunately, neither seem to be available in the UK.
Especially when you consider the cost of the AVI ADM9T + AVI Subwoofer + AirPort Express + Airfoil (£2025), the Living LV3 seems a very tempting proposition indeed.
Ajani:the_lhc:Ajani:
the_lhc:Ajani:FrankHarveyHiFi:I see they're already slagging off the competitionwithout even an A/B demo.... It's interesting how much of that occurs in HiFi... I can name so many brands that claim to offer "the best products available at any price" and other such nonsense... Sometimes I wonder if delusions of grandeur are a prerequisite for building good gear....No, that's just marketing, you expect companies to talk up their own products, it's when they start slagging off everyone else's that it moves into dodgy territory. They wouldn't be allowed to in an advert (in the UK at least) but it appears nothing happens if they do it in a more informal setting.
I don't really see a meaningful differences between claiming my product is the best available versus directly saying that my competitor's products are inferior to mine...In the first instance all you're saying is "We're the best!", you're not actually mentioning anyone else's products at all, in the second instance, at least wrt what this thread is talking about you're actively naming other brands and putting them down. There's a big difference there. I might be more readily able to avoid lawsuits for one claim versus the other, but in spirit they amount to the same claim...No, they really don't, one is positive marketing of your own products, the other is distinctly negative discussion of someone else's products.Also, I've seen several brands that readily diss the competition (or at least the competition's technology - SS vs Tubes, Class A/B vs D, etc)... See there again, you can "diss" a particular technology, without actually attacking a rival manufacturer, technology is speaking in generalities, it's not the same as picking out a particular brand and claiming them to be rubbish.
So if a manufacturer of Class A/B amps claims that his amps are superior to Class D amps because Class D is rubbish, and it's only benefit is to save on electricity, that's just positive advertising?
Hmmm, no, that isn't actually what I said at all. I did say that pointing out the downsides of a generic type of technology (LCD vs Plasma for example) is not the same as picking out a particular manufacturer for criticism, I didn't say it was positive advertising. Positive advertising is simply saying "Hey buy our products, they're GREAT!!!", as opposed to having anything to say about any other manufacturer.
It's not that difficult a concept surely?
However, if that manufacturer was to say that X brand's products are rubbish because they use Class D tech, then that would be wrong?
Just saying that any competitor's product is rubbish is wrong, regardless of the reason. It's negative advertising yes, you're not saying anything good about your product, just saying that someone else's is bad, see, negative, positive.
I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one...
Clearly, especially as you're not following my line of reasoning at all.
While in the first scenario, competitors are not specifically mentioned, it still amounts to the exact same claim: Class D amps are rubbish and by extension products from competitors (using Class D) are rubbish.. One is just more politically correct than the other...
No, because you could simply say you prefer to use a different type of amp, not because class D is rubbish but because you prefer the advantages of class A/B, it doesn't necessarily imply that every manufacturer that uses class D is rubbish. Besides, most people wouldn't know off the top of their heads which manufacturers are using class D, so they won't make the link. Either way you're still not picking a particular manufacturer and rubbishing their products, which is simply rude and in the UK at least, won't make you look very good in the eyes of the public (it doesn't seem to matter to the americans, from what I can tell).
the_lhc:Ajani:FrankHarveyHiFi:I see they're already slagging off the competitionwithout even an A/B demo.... It's interesting how much of that occurs in HiFi... I can name so many brands that claim to offer "the best products available at any price" and other such nonsense... Sometimes I wonder if delusions of grandeur are a prerequisite for building good gear....No, that's just marketing, you expect companies to talk up their own products, it's when they start slagging off everyone else's that it moves into dodgy territory. They wouldn't be allowed to in an advert (in the UK at least) but it appears nothing happens if they do it in a more informal setting.
I don't really see a meaningful differences between claiming my product is the best available versus directly saying that my competitor's products are inferior to mine...In the first instance all you're saying is "We're the best!", you're not actually mentioning anyone else's products at all, in the second instance, at least wrt what this thread is talking about you're actively naming other brands and putting them down. There's a big difference there. I might be more readily able to avoid lawsuits for one claim versus the other, but in spirit they amount to the same claim...No, they really don't, one is positive marketing of your own products, the other is distinctly negative discussion of someone else's products.Also, I've seen several brands that readily diss the competition (or at least the competition's technology - SS vs Tubes, Class A/B vs D, etc)... See there again, you can "diss" a particular technology, without actually attacking a rival manufacturer, technology is speaking in generalities, it's not the same as picking out a particular brand and claiming them to be rubbish.
So if a manufacturer of Class A/B amps claims that his amps are superior to Class D amps because Class D is rubbish, and it's only benefit is to save on electricity, that's just positive advertising?
Hmmm, no, that isn't actually what I said at all. I did say that pointing out the downsides of a generic type of technology (LCD vs Plasma for example) is not the same as picking out a particular manufacturer for criticism, I didn't say it was positive advertising. Positive advertising is simply saying "Hey buy our products, they're GREAT!!!", as opposed to having anything to say about any other manufacturer.
It's not that difficult a concept surely?
However, if that manufacturer was to say that X brand's products are rubbish because they use Class D tech, then that would be wrong?
Just saying that any competitor's product is rubbish is wrong, regardless of the reason. It's negative advertising yes, you're not saying anything good about your product, just saying that someone else's is bad, see, negative, positive.
I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one...
Clearly, especially as you're not following my line of reasoning at all.
While in the first scenario, competitors are not specifically mentioned, it still amounts to the exact same claim: Class D amps are rubbish and by extension products from competitors (using Class D) are rubbish.. One is just more politically correct than the other...
No, because you could simply say you prefer to use a different type of amp, not because class D is rubbish but because you prefer the advantages of class A/B, it doesn't necessarily imply that every manufacturer that uses class D is rubbish. Besides, most people wouldn't know off the top of their heads which manufacturers are using class D, so they won't make the link. Either way you're still not picking a particular manufacturer and rubbishing their products, which is simply rude and in the UK at least, won't make you look very good in the eyes of the public (it doesn't seem to matter to the americans, from what I can tell).
chebby
Well-known member
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,257
- 34
- 19,220
What's with all the multi-nested quotes? Thread stuffing?
When they get to that length no-one actually cares whats in them anymore. (Or whether you are right or not.)
This thread is about a prototype 3-way active speaker from AVI that was discussed and photographed on a competing web forum. Therefore it cannot be linked to (or quoted from) nor photos shown here. Especially as two banned ex-forum members are prominent in the photos and are responsible for (a) the website that we can't link to or quote from under forum rules and (b) the speakers themselves.
All the rest seems to be about whether you are right or not in some argument about negative marketing.
Frankly I think the original post was intended as a 'wind-up' from someone who well knows the rules here and equally knows exactly how that limits discussion of these product prototypes on WHF until they appear on the official AVI manufacturer website or at dealers or someone here buys some themselves.
When they get to that length no-one actually cares whats in them anymore. (Or whether you are right or not.)
This thread is about a prototype 3-way active speaker from AVI that was discussed and photographed on a competing web forum. Therefore it cannot be linked to (or quoted from) nor photos shown here. Especially as two banned ex-forum members are prominent in the photos and are responsible for (a) the website that we can't link to or quote from under forum rules and (b) the speakers themselves.
All the rest seems to be about whether you are right or not in some argument about negative marketing.
Frankly I think the original post was intended as a 'wind-up' from someone who well knows the rules here and equally knows exactly how that limits discussion of these product prototypes on WHF until they appear on the official AVI manufacturer website or at dealers or someone here buys some themselves.
Grottyash:Apologies, the record spot, I wasn't clear enough in my post. I'm living in Finland at the moment and was referring to the Finnish, Swedish and Danish speaker industry, not the British.
Audio Pro are a Swedish company (see my post above).
Have you heard the Living LV3? Can't find any reviews online, although plenty of rave reviews for their little brother (LV2).
Audio Pro are a Swedish company (see my post above).
Have you heard the Living LV3? Can't find any reviews online, although plenty of rave reviews for their little brother (LV2).
chebby
Well-known member
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,257
- 34
- 19,220
Anyway.
Here is a link to a flickr picture, publicly searchable and viewable by anyone, containing no banned WHF members and showing the prototype AVI ADM40 with it's designer...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24264570@N04/5187220083/
It is 'all rights reserved' so that is why I used the flickr link rather than posting the photo itself.
Here is a link to a flickr picture, publicly searchable and viewable by anyone, containing no banned WHF members and showing the prototype AVI ADM40 with it's designer...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24264570@N04/5187220083/
It is 'all rights reserved' so that is why I used the flickr link rather than posting the photo itself.
@ IHC
Had to remove the excess quoting...
So back to my original point: which was never about whether a brand openly bashes another one... My point is that arrogant claims in HiFi seem to be almost the norm... Whether you just claim your product is the greatest available at any price or whether you bash other brands doesn't make much difference...
If I claim my $300 speaker is the best available at any price, then does it really matter whether I pick out competitor X and say that their $3,000 speaker is overpriced? It is clearly implied in my original statement... So while the original may not upset British sensibilities, it is still a ridiculous and arrogant claim...
So arrogance is not the exclusive preserve of AVI... Nor is openly bashing competitors for that matter... To me, both are bad advertising tactics, that hurt a brand's credibility in the long run...
Had to remove the excess quoting...
So back to my original point: which was never about whether a brand openly bashes another one... My point is that arrogant claims in HiFi seem to be almost the norm... Whether you just claim your product is the greatest available at any price or whether you bash other brands doesn't make much difference...
If I claim my $300 speaker is the best available at any price, then does it really matter whether I pick out competitor X and say that their $3,000 speaker is overpriced? It is clearly implied in my original statement... So while the original may not upset British sensibilities, it is still a ridiculous and arrogant claim...
So arrogance is not the exclusive preserve of AVI... Nor is openly bashing competitors for that matter... To me, both are bad advertising tactics, that hurt a brand's credibility in the long run...
JohnDuncan:Grottyash:
Aren't active speakers a bit yesterday? Judging by the recent show here valves are the way of the future.This is a great quote, can I use it?Please be my guest.
Aren't active speakers a bit yesterday? Judging by the recent show here valves are the way of the future.This is a great quote, can I use it?Please be my guest.
chebby:
Anyway.
Here is a link to a flickr picture, publicly searchable and viewable by anyone, containing no banned WHF members and showing the prototype AVI ADM40 with it's designer...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24264570@N04/5187220083/
It is 'all rights reserved' so that is why I used the flickr link rather than posting the photo itself.
It looks ugly...
Anyway.
Here is a link to a flickr picture, publicly searchable and viewable by anyone, containing no banned WHF members and showing the prototype AVI ADM40 with it's designer...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24264570@N04/5187220083/
It is 'all rights reserved' so that is why I used the flickr link rather than posting the photo itself.
It looks ugly...
AL13N:Grottyash:Apologies, the record spot, I wasn't clear enough in my post. I'm living in Finland at the moment and was referring to the Finnish, Swedish and Danish speaker industry, not the British.
Audio Pro are a Swedish company (see my post above).
Have you heard the Living LV3? Can't find any reviews online, although plenty of rave reviews for their little brother (LV2).
Audio Pro have been making actives for a while, like B&O. I've only heard their LV2s, and that in passing. You get a lot for your money, including built-in wireless and quality of finish, but I wasn't taken with them.
Audio Pro are a Swedish company (see my post above).
Have you heard the Living LV3? Can't find any reviews online, although plenty of rave reviews for their little brother (LV2).
Audio Pro have been making actives for a while, like B&O. I've only heard their LV2s, and that in passing. You get a lot for your money, including built-in wireless and quality of finish, but I wasn't taken with them.
chebby:Frankly I think the original post was intended as a 'wind-up' from someone who well knows the rules here and equally knows exactly how that limits discussion of these product prototypes on WHF until they appear on the official AVI manufacturer website or at dealers or someone here buys some themselves.
Frankly, you're wrong. And FWIW, I don't memorise the rules to this degree, so sue me. And maybe establish your facts first ahead of publishing erroneous conclusions in the manner above.
This was, much as you probably don't believe it, merely a comment on what may end up being a pair of 750w powered floorstanders with an onboard DAC. Nothing more, nothing less.
Frankly, you're wrong. And FWIW, I don't memorise the rules to this degree, so sue me. And maybe establish your facts first ahead of publishing erroneous conclusions in the manner above.
This was, much as you probably don't believe it, merely a comment on what may end up being a pair of 750w powered floorstanders with an onboard DAC. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ajani:
@ IHC
Had to remove the excess quoting...
So back to my original point: which was never about whether a brand openly bashes another one... My point is that arrogant claims in HiFi seem to be almost the norm... Whether you just claim your product is the greatest available at any price or whether you bash other brands doesn't make much difference...
If I claim my $300 speaker is the best available at any price,
Realistically though, who actually does this? I don't think I've ever seen any manufacturer claiming their 300 quid speaker is the best you can possibly buy at any pricepoint.
I do find it funny that you think companies shouldn't praise their products in their advertising though...
"Buy Brand X, it's alright, you know, does the job I guess, nothing exciting though..."
That's not going to make too many sales is it?
@ IHC
Had to remove the excess quoting...
So back to my original point: which was never about whether a brand openly bashes another one... My point is that arrogant claims in HiFi seem to be almost the norm... Whether you just claim your product is the greatest available at any price or whether you bash other brands doesn't make much difference...
If I claim my $300 speaker is the best available at any price,
Realistically though, who actually does this? I don't think I've ever seen any manufacturer claiming their 300 quid speaker is the best you can possibly buy at any pricepoint.
I do find it funny that you think companies shouldn't praise their products in their advertising though...
"Buy Brand X, it's alright, you know, does the job I guess, nothing exciting though..."
That's not going to make too many sales is it?
Ajani:chebby:
Anyway.
Here is a link to a flickr picture, publicly searchable and viewable by anyone, containing no banned WHF members and showing the prototype AVI ADM40 with it's designer...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24264570@N04/5187220083/
It is 'all rights reserved' so that is why I used the flickr link rather than posting the photo itself.
It looks ugly...
My thought was not exactly 'ugly' but those grilles are definately a negative. I think the proportions and finish are ok, but there i stoo much shape in the grilles and zero elegance. as this is a prototype I hope they can change the styling.
Anyway.
Here is a link to a flickr picture, publicly searchable and viewable by anyone, containing no banned WHF members and showing the prototype AVI ADM40 with it's designer...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24264570@N04/5187220083/
It is 'all rights reserved' so that is why I used the flickr link rather than posting the photo itself.
It looks ugly...
My thought was not exactly 'ugly' but those grilles are definately a negative. I think the proportions and finish are ok, but there i stoo much shape in the grilles and zero elegance. as this is a prototype I hope they can change the styling.
the_lhc:Ajani:
@ IHC
Had to remove the excess quoting...
So back to my original point: which was never about whether a brand openly bashes another one... My point is that arrogant claims in HiFi seem to be almost the norm... Whether you just claim your product is the greatest available at any price or whether you bash other brands doesn't make much difference...
If I claim my $300 speaker is the best available at any price,Realistically though, who actually does this? I don't think I've ever seen any manufacturer claiming their 300 quid speaker is the best you can possibly buy at any pricepoint.I do find it funny that you think companies shouldn't praise their products in their advertising though..."Buy Brand X, it's alright, you know, does the job I guess, nothing exciting though..."That's not going to make too many sales is it?
I actually saw almost exactly that claim in a quote I received this week from a small manufacturer for a $300 full-range speaker driver:
" Because they are such high quality, a pair of XXXX XXXX speakers is very heavy.....from 9 to 24 kilos per pair (except for our 3 inch model). So shipping costs are high.
However, you cannot buy better sounding speakers, anywhere, for any price. So, the final price you pay is still very reasonable."
I've X-ed out the name of the brand, as I don't want to give them any bad publicity (as apart from the ridiculous claim I've found them very helpful)...
Also, I don't see anything wrong with advertising your products' strong points and claiming it be "incredible value for money" (which doesn't really mean anything but sounds nice) or something like that... But some claims just get so preposterous that they become a joke rather than a selling point...
@ IHC
Had to remove the excess quoting...
So back to my original point: which was never about whether a brand openly bashes another one... My point is that arrogant claims in HiFi seem to be almost the norm... Whether you just claim your product is the greatest available at any price or whether you bash other brands doesn't make much difference...
If I claim my $300 speaker is the best available at any price,Realistically though, who actually does this? I don't think I've ever seen any manufacturer claiming their 300 quid speaker is the best you can possibly buy at any pricepoint.I do find it funny that you think companies shouldn't praise their products in their advertising though..."Buy Brand X, it's alright, you know, does the job I guess, nothing exciting though..."That's not going to make too many sales is it?
I actually saw almost exactly that claim in a quote I received this week from a small manufacturer for a $300 full-range speaker driver:
" Because they are such high quality, a pair of XXXX XXXX speakers is very heavy.....from 9 to 24 kilos per pair (except for our 3 inch model). So shipping costs are high.
However, you cannot buy better sounding speakers, anywhere, for any price. So, the final price you pay is still very reasonable."
I've X-ed out the name of the brand, as I don't want to give them any bad publicity (as apart from the ridiculous claim I've found them very helpful)...
Also, I don't see anything wrong with advertising your products' strong points and claiming it be "incredible value for money" (which doesn't really mean anything but sounds nice) or something like that... But some claims just get so preposterous that they become a joke rather than a selling point...
Nick21:Andrew are we not still What HiFi Sound and? Surley
You have one day out of the office and they change the title of the magazine, but is that last word meant to be Surly or Surrey?
You have one day out of the office and they change the title of the magazine, but is that last word meant to be Surly or Surrey?
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
chebby:
Anyway.
Here is a link to a flickr picture, publicly searchable and viewable by anyone, containing no banned WHF members and showing the prototype AVI ADM40 with it's designer...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24264570@N04/5187220083/
It is 'all rights reserved' so that is why I used the flickr link rather than posting the photo itself.
Though I think you'll find that there has been no test case on linking of copyright material within a web page, since copyright refers specifically to copying, which you're not doing if you embed a photograph in a web page...
Anyway.
Here is a link to a flickr picture, publicly searchable and viewable by anyone, containing no banned WHF members and showing the prototype AVI ADM40 with it's designer...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24264570@N04/5187220083/
It is 'all rights reserved' so that is why I used the flickr link rather than posting the photo itself.
Though I think you'll find that there has been no test case on linking of copyright material within a web page, since copyright refers specifically to copying, which you're not doing if you embed a photograph in a web page...
chebby:
What's with all the multi-nested quotes? Thread stuffing?
When they get to that length no-one actually cares whats in them anymore. (Or whether you are right or not.)
This thread is about a prototype 3-way active speaker from AVI that was discussed and photographed on a competing web forum. Therefore it cannot be linked to (or quoted from) nor photos shown here. Especially as two banned ex-forum members are prominent in the photos and are responsible for (a) the website that we can't link to or quote from under forum rules and (b) the speakers themselves.
All the rest seems to be about whether you are right or not in some argument about negative marketing.
Frankly I think the original post was intended as a 'wind-up' from someone who well knows the rules here and equally knows exactly how that limits discussion of these product prototypes on WHF until they appear on the official AVI manufacturer website or at dealers or someone here buys some themselves.
I dont get this, why would discussing a product or prototype or whatever made by AVI be against any rules?
What's with all the multi-nested quotes? Thread stuffing?
When they get to that length no-one actually cares whats in them anymore. (Or whether you are right or not.)
This thread is about a prototype 3-way active speaker from AVI that was discussed and photographed on a competing web forum. Therefore it cannot be linked to (or quoted from) nor photos shown here. Especially as two banned ex-forum members are prominent in the photos and are responsible for (a) the website that we can't link to or quote from under forum rules and (b) the speakers themselves.
All the rest seems to be about whether you are right or not in some argument about negative marketing.
Frankly I think the original post was intended as a 'wind-up' from someone who well knows the rules here and equally knows exactly how that limits discussion of these product prototypes on WHF until they appear on the official AVI manufacturer website or at dealers or someone here buys some themselves.
I dont get this, why would discussing a product or prototype or whatever made by AVI be against any rules?
It's nothing to do with discussing the prototype of whatever it is, but the pointlessness of using these forums to discuss something being discussed on another forum, whichever forum it is, as I said over 12 hours and three pages ago.
Well, to bring this somehow back on track, I've discussed with an AVI owner the possibility of an active floorstander some time ago. It seems an entirely natural progression to extend the range.
drummerman:Well, to bring this somehow back on track, I've discussed with an AVI owner the possibility of an active floorstander some time ago. It seems an entirely natural progression to extend the range.
Certainly it has always been a "no-brainer" to have an active floorstander in the line, rather than just a bookshelf/sub combo... However, as was mentioned earlier, by FrankHarveyHiFi if I'm not mistaken, is that the claims around the Bookshelf model were that they were essentially perfect perfection and hence a floorstander would be undesirable... So developing one now is naturally met with cynicism...
Certainly it has always been a "no-brainer" to have an active floorstander in the line, rather than just a bookshelf/sub combo... However, as was mentioned earlier, by FrankHarveyHiFi if I'm not mistaken, is that the claims around the Bookshelf model were that they were essentially perfect perfection and hence a floorstander would be undesirable... So developing one now is naturally met with cynicism...
Just because they're developing a floorstander active doesn't mean that they're going back on what they've said in the past. If the market demands a floorstander active then it makes sense to design and build one. Business.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram