Cant settle with new system - help!!

[the record spot]

Yes, play 15 seconds of music on old system A. Play 15 seconds of music on new expensive system B that sounds easily noticeably worse than system A. Case proven Mi' Lord.

This Superfi system clearly is not of a necessary standard for its intended use. It is well below standard due to it sounding worse than the old system whilst costing 3 grand.

Just the same as you'd expect a meal at a £150 restaurant to taste better than one at your local Wetherspoons. If it didn't you'd be quite entitled to your money back if you'd paid in advance.

I personally don't buy this "give it time to break in" nonsense. At best you will get a subtle improvement with use. What you'll also get is your ear aclimatising to the sound. Also the psychological factor of "I've had it so long. I can't take it back now." The basic poor level of performance will still be there. The very poor value for money will still be there.

Did Superfi say "If you're still not happy with the sound after the bedding in period, bring it all back for a full refund"?

If they won't give you a full refund are you then looking at the pragmatic solution of selling some or all of it and accepting a financial loss?

Nice in theory, a non-starter in real life.

The legislation is quite clear and the buyer had the option to see the goods, try them out in the shop (presumably), deem them fit-for-purpose ahead of buying and chose to buy them. The fact that you don't like them is neither here nor there.

They do what they say on the tin as they are; consequently, they're fit for purpose, work as intended and are free from fault.

Had this purchase been undertaken via the Superfi online site, the OP could've returned the goods within 7 days from the day aftfer delivery thanks to the Distance Selling Regulations and paid only the return postage/courier charges.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, play 15 seconds of music on old system A. Play 15 seconds of music on new expensive system B that sounds easily noticeably worse than system A. Case proven Mi' Lord.

This Superfi system clearly is not of a necessary standard for its intended use. It is well below standard due to it sounding worse than the old system whilst costing 3 grand.

Just the same as you'd expect a meal at a £150 restaurant to taste better than one at your local Wetherspoons. If it didn't you'd be quite entitled to your money back if you'd paid in advance.

I personally don't buy this "give it time to break in" nonsense. At best you will get a subtle improvement with use. What you'll also get is your ear aclimatising to the sound. Also the psychological factor of "I've had it so long. I can't take it back now." The basic poor level of performance will still be there. The very poor value for money will still be there.

Did Superfi say "If you're still not happy with the sound after the bedding in period, bring it all back for a full refund"?

If they won't give you a full refund are you then looking at the pragmatic solution of selling some or all of it and accepting a financial loss?

Nice in theory, a non-starter in real life.

The legislation is quite clear and the buyer had the option to see the goods, try them out in the shop (presumably), deem them fit-for-purpose ahead of buying and chose to buy them. The fact that you don't like them is neither here nor there.

They do what they say on the tin as they are; consequently, they're fit for purpose, work as intended and are free from fault.

Had this purchase been undertaken via the Superfi online site, the OP could've returned the goods within 7 days from the day aftfer delivery thanks to the Distance Selling Regulations and paid only the return postage/courier charges.

That's worth thinking about for my next purchase... Very good idea. Audition at Superfi, then order through their website...

Smashing.

 

[lindsayt]

:rofl: Cost is irrelevant in this case. Its purpose is to play music and it does.

On the contrary. According to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, cost is highly relevant.

Ref: http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

Goods should be of satisfactory quality i.e. they should meet the standard a
reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any
description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all other relevant
circumstances;

The quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among
others) are, in appropriate cases, aspects of the quality of goods -
(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are
commonly supplied...

...Satisfactory quality
To be of satisfactory quality, goods must be of a standard that a reasonable person
would regard as satisfactory at the time of sale (having regard to any description
applied to them, the price and all other relevant circumstances).
In deciding whether goods are satisfactory the various aspects of quality which may be
taken into account include fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in
question are commonly supplied, appearance and finish, freedom from minor
defects, safety and durability. But in some circumstances other characteristics may
also be relevant...

I would expect the judge to take the point of view of a "reasonable person". Would a reasonable person feel that this new system delivered the sort of sound quality that one would expect at the price, especially when compared to the old system?

In addition if the buyer told the dealer "I'm looking for a system that will sound better than what I've already got" before he purchased the system, his case would be even stronger:

Particular purpose
If a customer says – or when it should be obvious to the retailer – that the goods are
wanted for a particular purpose, even if that is a purpose for which those goods are not
usually supplied, and the retailer agrees that the goods will meet the requirement, then
they have to be reasonably fit for that purpose. If the retailer is not confident that
the goods will meet the customer's particular requirements, he should make
this clear, perhaps on the receipt, to protect himself against future claims.

 

[Lee H]

Give a solicitor a call then, or the CAB and let us know what they say.

Again - its purpose is to play music. It does this. Any other opinion is subjective. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that if it costs more it must be better.

I do love it when people start throwing the Sale Of Goods act around. It also states that the buyer has no recourse if they simply no longer want the item. It also states that if you have had the opportunity to inspect the item and fail to spot a defect that the inspection should have revealed, you may not have recourse.

In law, the question is quite simple. What is the purpose of this system and does it meet that purpose?

 

[lindsayt]

Nice in theory, a non-starter in real life.

The legislation is quite clear and the buyer had the option to see the goods, try them out in the shop (presumably), deem them fit-for-purpose ahead of buying and chose to buy them. The fact that you don't like them is neither here nor there.

They do what they say on the tin as they are; consequently, they're fit for purpose, work as intended and are free from fault.

Had this purchase been undertaken via the Superfi online site, the OP could've returned the goods within 7 days from the day aftfer delivery thanks to the Distance Selling Regulations and paid only the return postage/courier charges.

The dealer demo will make the dealers case stronger. However, to use an analogy:

Let's say someone goes to a car dealer and takes a new car for a test drive. The test drive takes in some local urban roads. The customer is happy with the demo and buys the car - which happens to be a premium priced executive car. After taking deliver, the buyer drives it on the motorway where he finds that the performance is worse than his 10 year old small family hatchback. I think the buyer in this case would be entitled to return the car for a full refund, as bearing in mind the nature and price of the car it's reasonable to expect it to have first class performance on all roads, especially motorways.

In the hi-fi store it's possible that the demo was the equivalent of pootling round some local streets without taking it out on the motorway. There are a number of factors that could explain a satisfactory demo at the dealers and unsatisfactory performance at home. The use of unfamiliar CD's at the dealer demo. The use of CD's that flattered the new system. Unfamiliar room acoustics. The lack of comparison against a known reference - ie the buyer's old system. Sample deviation. Buyer being in a different state of mind at the dealers to how he normally is when he listens to music at home.

The important thing is, according to the law, would a "reasonable person" feel that the buyer was being reasonable in asking for a full refund on return of the hi-fi system? Or would a "reasonable person" feel that it was reasonable for the hi-fi shop to say "You had a demo. You bought them. You keep them"? Or would a "reasonable person" feel that there was some middle ground for the best natural justice in a case such as this?

Also, this is not a case of a buyer returning the items because he decides he doesn't like some incidential feature of it, such as the colour. He's not happy in this case because it doesn't sound particularly good for playing music. The fidelity is not high.

Have we now got to the stage where some people think it's reasonable that you shouldn't expect to buy a new system with genuine high fidelity for £3000? That you should expect to buy a system with large sonic flaws at this price? What sort of wonderful marketing job has been done in the world of hi-fi to lower expectations so much?

 

[Lee H]

Or if I book a "winter sun" holiday and it rains all week? That's not as described. I wanted to read a thriller but it didn't thrill me, is this also unfit?

I think you're taking a very simplistic view of the world. I might listen to this set up (it's more expensive than mine) and say, "wow, that sounds fantastic". I may even think it sounds better than the original set-up, because that's how I prefer my sound. My mate can't hear the difference (he's not in to all this anyway) and my other mate thinks it sounds just awful. We're all correct, as it's a subjective matter. You will never be able to prove otherwise.

 

[Anonymous]

Hello Andy

I was nearly in the same situation, when I bought new hifi (Mission 794se and Marantz MCR-603).

The Missions sounded bright, uncontrolled and bas was nearly not present.

I thought running in would help, but it did not. I tried reposition the speakers, carpets, active subwoofers, cables - but nothing did help.

Then I tried another amplifier (Primare A20), and a whole new world began 🙂

Now I have the XTZ Class A100 D3, and the soundstage is really superb IMO. I lost a little money on the old amp, but that doesn't mean anything, because I'm so happy now.

If I where you, I'll try to borrow another amp, and se what that's like...

Good luck

 

[DIB]

Hello Andy

I was nearly in the same situation, when I bought new hifi (Mission 794se and Marantz MCR-603).

The Missions sounded bright, uncontrolled and bas was nearly not present.

I thought running in would help, but it did not. I tried reposition the speakers, carpets, active subwoofers, cables - but nothing did help.

Then I tried another amplifier (Primare A20), and a whole new world began 🙂

Now I have the XTZ Class A100 D3, and the soundstage is really superb IMO. I lost a little money on the old amp, but that doesn't mean anything, because I'm so happy now.

If I where you, I'll try to borrow another amp, and se what that's like...

Good luck

I was under the impression that you were really happy with the Marantz/Mission combo initially, then disliked it intensely?

By the way, how's your back after shifting the XTZ into position? 🙂

.

 

[Anonymous]

I was under the impression that you were really happy with the Marantz/Mission combo initially, then disliked it intensely?

By the way, how's your back after shifting the XTZ into position? 🙂

.

At the start I was happy with the Marantz/Mission combo, mostly because of the cool features on the small Marantz box. But the soundstage was never satiesfied - of course it sounded better than my old Ipod dock system, but it was a bad combo imo 🙁

My back still hurts after rearanging the XTZ, because of heat problems - it gets pretty hot in class a mode. But wow what a soundstage running class a mode, and playing 96/24 flac files :dance:

It's really an awsome amp, for so small money - same price as the MCR603 here in Denmark!

 

[lindsayt]

Or if I book a "winter sun" holiday and it rains all week? That's not as described. I wanted to read a thriller but it didn't thrill me, is this also unfit?

I think you're taking a very simplistic view of the world. I might listen to this set up (it's more expensive than mine) and say, "wow, that sounds fantastic". I may even think it sounds better than the original set-up, because that's how I prefer my sound. My mate can't hear the difference (he's not in to all this anyway) and my other mate thinks it sounds just awful. We're all correct, as it's a subjective matter. You will never be able to prove otherwise.

I don't think that the rainy holiday analogy holds up because the weather is beyond the control of the travel agent / hotel. The sound quality of a £3000 hi-fi system is under the control of the dealer / hi-fi manufacturers. A better analogy would be if the holiday was to a £150 a night hotel that had cockroaches in the bathrooms. Maybe there's someone on a holiday forum writing about just such an experience? And some posters replying "Wow that's fantastic. I'd love to stay there because that's how I prefer my hotels. I'm an amateur entomologist." And other posters saying "You could pay for an upgrade into the Honeymoon suite, which you might enjoy more as it is less infected." And other posters saying "You could try some bug killer."

The thriller analogy doesn't hold up because that's a £10 book - equivalent to a CD. An art form. And not a £3000 set of electro-mechanical devices that are supposed to replay CD's with high fidelity.

From the description in the OP it's highly likely that we could make a simple frequency response measurement that would show that this £3000 system is a long way from being tonally neutral. This would be objective proof. When buying a system at this price I think it's reasonable to expect a certain amount of tonal neutrality.

Also, it's mere speculation to say that anyone with an unbiased mindset would prefer the sound of the new system over the old one. I'm willing to trust andyscothern's opinion on this. I find it quite easy to believe that if 10 or 100 or 1000 reasonable people compared the two systems that they would all prefer the old system.

I often find in hi-fi that 2 systems can sound so different to each other, with one system sounding so clearly superior that there isn't any real subjectiveness about it at all. This may well be the case here.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry Lindsay, I enjoy the different perspective you bring to this board, but that is simply nonsense as far as the law on this area is concerned.

 

[Lee H]

Also, it's mere speculation to say that anyone with an unbiased mindset would prefer the sound of the new system over the old one. I'm willing to trust andyscothern's opinion on this. I find it quite easy to believe that if 10 or 100 or 1000 reasonable people compared the two systems that they would all prefer the old system.

I often find in hi-fi that 2 systems can sound so different to each other, with one system sounding so clearly superior that there isn't any real subjectiveness about it at all. This may well be the case here.

I trust his opinion too, but it is his opinion.

If I was heavily in to drum 'n' bass I would want a different presentation than if I had a passion for classical or any other genre.

Sorry lindsayt, I really think you're wrong on this one. This doesn't change my sympathy for the OP and the hope that he gets something sorted out, but there is no legal recourse in this example.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree there is no legal recourse in respect of the hifi equipment, it is clearly fit for purpose. The only recourse I think is in respect of the demo service offered by the shop, which the customer got free and the customer took the decision to purchase said equipment on account of listening to it via the free demo.

I would say an analogy is buying a 4x4 after giving it a test drive on a motorway, then finding it doesn't cope well with the rocky drive up to their home. The buyer should have ensured the demo/test drive was representative of the way in which the equipment would be used, not sure responsibility for this can be pinned on the dealer.

Is it the dealer's responsibility to "recommend" a product based on its intended use, or to demo a product and let the customer decide if its suitable? I'd say the former, in which case the OP is at the mercy of the dealer.