Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

DUT Return Policy

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:
  Amplified Parts  


Topic - DUT Return Policy - bjh 17:45:36 02/20/07 (64)


You can not post to an archived thread.