As review policy has been a hot topic here of late it occured to me that while I've seem mention of various policy for review unit consideration I've not seem much, if anything at all, related to DUT return policy.Well I suppose I shouldn't say I haven't seen anything, e.g. there seems to be near unanimous aggrement that at the end of a review a DUT shouldn't be, willingly or otherwise, sold by one's acquaintance on AudiogoN!
OK, that out of the way, it seems pretty clear the some reviewers do sometimes retain test units for considerable periods of time. This can be advantageous for the purpose of component comparisons, in fact it is via such mentions that one can discern such extended possession.
However for organizations that go to pains to establish clear and articulate policies such might perhaps have the effect of creating an opaque blemish on the otherwise transparent policy. For example how is one to distinguish a long term possession of a test unit from a gift?
It can not have escaped notice that Stereophile goes to lengths to articulate clear review policy, something they righly are to be commended for, yet even that eminent organization seems lacking a clear DUT return policy. For example consider the following from Micheal Fremer's December, 2006, review of the TARA Labs The Zero interconnect.
"Here at my place, I have enough cables to build a suspension bridge. Few manufacturers want them back, and I can't sell what's not mine. I've threatened to auction off what's here and give the money to Hurricane Katrina relief; if I can find the time, I will. Otherwise, I'll soon have to rent a storage space just for the cables I've accumulated."
While his intentions certainly seem noble and beyond reproach one must wonder how it is that on the one hand he has the proprietorship to dispose of the cables while on the other hand he openly declares that they are not his property?
It seems obvious that a clear policy could have prevented such an appartently contradictory state of affairs, something that some crude rabid audio press hater might manipulate to create the spectre of impropriety.
As to the policy itself any number of things come immediately to mind, e.g. that a DUT is to be returned within some fixed time limit post review (even to a reluctant manufacturer), etc., the details being of lesser significance than the clarity of the policy.
----
ps
I suggest a lottery to dispose of the MF cable collection. Entrants would purchase $100 tickets. The number of winning tickets would match the number of cables to be disposed of; cables could be numbered in advance and assigned to winning tickets in the order drawn. Proceeds to go to MF's charity of choice.
How's that?
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - DUT Return Policy - bjh 17:45:36 02/20/07 (64)
- Re: DUT Return Policy - andy19191 12:11:53 02/21/07 (5)
- Oh, Mr. audiophile expert... - mkuller 12:55:40 02/21/07 (4)
- Re: Oh, Mr. audiophile expert... - andy19191 01:18:49 02/22/07 (0)
- What are you, the AA police? - nightdoggy 17:23:43 02/21/07 (2)
- no, he's a past reviewer for tas - hifitommy 19:10:27 02/21/07 (1)
- I get it (nt) - nightdoggy 19:15:21 02/21/07 (0)
- Unlike other components... - mkuller 10:15:51 02/21/07 (35)
- Another VERY GOOD REASON to not want cables back... - Al Sekela 12:30:35 02/22/07 (3)
- Well that certainly justifies it! - nightdoggy 16:45:10 02/22/07 (2)
- Re: You continue to presume.... - alan m. kafton 17:37:53 02/22/07 (1)
- No I do not presume the worst in anybody - nightdoggy 10:29:19 02/23/07 (0)
- Re: manufacturers usually do not reuse cables or want them back. - cdb 19:06:39 02/21/07 (0)
- Re: Unlike other components... - bjh 10:36:10 02/21/07 (29)
- So what about free... - mkuller 12:08:44 02/21/07 (22)
- If it is understood to be a gift - nightdoggy 16:50:27 02/22/07 (1)
- Re: If it is understood to be a gift - alan m. kafton 17:40:14 02/22/07 (0)
- Re: Good point. [nt] - alan m. kafton 12:32:03 02/21/07 (0)
- Pretty simple answer. - Rick W 12:29:22 02/21/07 (1)
- Re: Another good point. [nt] - alan m. kafton 12:32:37 02/21/07 (0)
- Re: So what about free... - bjh 12:21:17 02/21/07 (16)
- Cables aren't components... - mkuller 12:24:53 02/21/07 (15)
- Re: On this I disagree.... - alan m. kafton 12:34:19 02/21/07 (14)
- So how about.... - mkuller 12:51:43 02/21/07 (13)
- Stealing is stealing - nightdoggy 17:33:25 02/21/07 (7)
- Re: not stealing is not stealing - ray m 19:02:11 02/21/07 (6)
- Yeah but - nightdoggy 19:23:37 02/21/07 (5)
- Re: Your circumstances are completely different. - alan m. kafton 21:42:42 02/21/07 (4)
- I can only imagine your response - nightdoggy 16:06:03 02/22/07 (1)
- Re: Really?? - alan m. kafton 17:44:55 02/22/07 (0)
- Re: Your circumstances are completely different. - tullman 15:34:18 02/22/07 (1)
- Re: Your circumstances are completely different. - alan m. kafton 17:43:30 02/22/07 (0)
- Re: So how about.... - alan m. kafton 13:02:11 02/21/07 (4)
- Re: So how about.... - ray m 04:40:57 02/22/07 (3)
- "Cables... can only have a negative effect on the signal." Huh? - clarkjohnsen 09:28:01 02/22/07 (1)
- Re: " In the case of AC cords, the "signal" properly speaking does not pass through them". Dhuh. - ray m 17:29:49 02/22/07 (0)
- But if the cables are being used as tone controls ... - Dave Pogue 04:45:04 02/22/07 (0)
- Re: In the famous words of Sylvester Stallone.... - alan m. kafton 11:13:53 02/21/07 (5)
- Is the purpose of this forum just to ask questions to reviewers/editors and.... - Rick W 11:46:56 02/21/07 (1)
- Re: Why must everything be black or white?? - alan m. kafton 12:29:56 02/21/07 (0)
- "Obviously the cable manufacturers feel differently. It ain't your call." - bjh 11:32:39 02/21/07 (2)
- Re: It must be.... - alan m. kafton 11:38:11 02/21/07 (1)
- Hold up! - bjh 11:43:47 02/21/07 (0)
- Re: DUT Return Policy - John Atkinson 04:14:14 02/21/07 (20)
- Why do you visit here? - nightdoggy 14:49:52 02/21/07 (12)
- Re: Why do you visit here? - John Atkinson 04:12:42 02/22/07 (1)
- Re: Why do you visit here? - regmac 13:37:48 02/23/07 (0)
- Re: Why do you visit here? - TomLarson 20:25:05 02/21/07 (4)
- Out of line - nightdoggy 09:24:09 02/22/07 (3)
- Don't Sweat It - John Atkinson 04:06:07 02/23/07 (2)
- Re: What kind of brolly, John? - alan m. kafton 16:51:38 02/23/07 (0)
- I'm such a jerk sometimes - nightdoggy 15:03:54 02/23/07 (0)
- Make that two disagrees. -t - Bruce Kendall 15:50:44 02/21/07 (0)
- Disagree - lancelot 15:42:00 02/21/07 (3)
- JA responds when it is convenient for him to do so - nightdoggy 16:00:30 02/21/07 (2)
- Re: JA responds because he's a stand-up guy.... - alan m. kafton 22:49:39 02/21/07 (0)
- Out of the clear blue sky and for no reason at all, I suppose. -t - Bruce Kendall 16:13:26 02/21/07 (0)
- If the review period is long over and the reviewer does not..... - Rick W 10:27:37 02/21/07 (0)
- Regarding your comment of it being... - bjh 06:59:23 02/21/07 (2)
- Re: Regarding your comment of it being... - John Atkinson 07:44:38 02/21/07 (1)
- I have made it abundantly clear that my concern - bjh 10:12:06 02/21/07 (0)
- A clarification - John Atkinson 04:25:01 02/21/07 (2)
- Does one require permission to return a test unit to a manufacturer? - bjh 07:12:24 02/21/07 (1)
- Who cares in this particular example????? - TomLarson 20:42:27 02/21/07 (0)
- Curiosity Killed The Cat... - bjh 20:41:30 02/20/07 (0)