[netaron]

Hi Hugh,

I was curious if you have submitted one of your LF amps for review to 6moons and if you know the review date.

Haron

[AKSA]

Haron,

With great regret, I have to tell you the 6Moons review is off.  I was not happy with their approach, they were not happy with my approach, we parted company.

This is the second time it's happened.  I'm beginning to wonder if there is something wrong with me;  I'm not normally a difficult person.  I did have a difficult situation years ago;  I encountered corruption and this really distressed me.  I think I resent the power these guys have and I want to prove a point......  they pick it up pretty quickly and decline to review the product.

Cheers,

Hugh

[netaron]

Hugh,

If I recall the latest thread regarding this review on this site, Srajan Ebaen asked you to send in the unit to be reviewed. I also remember both parties apologizing and I thought it was all good to go, so did something happen after all that long blog?

[AKSA]

Yes Haron,

Without going into long details, he privately emailed me after talking with his reviewer in Sydney, my side was denied, and he was forced to make a decision - his reviewer, or my product......

The review, by mutual agreement, was dropped.

However, that's the end of it, I've moved on.

What is frustrating is that the reviewers generally are concerned only with their readership and their advertisers.  This means they have some autonomy, a nice position to be in, but with the potential to ignore good products.  The manufacturer needs good reviews, but the reviewer has it pretty much on his terms as he has the marketing machine.  Unless one pays for advertising, this is the reality.  This is expensive, so the payment must be supported by the retail price!  That said, there are still reviewers who show integrity and ignore the advertising revenue, but it's a tricky balance.

I would suspect that this post will be read, and further comment will only offend...... nough said.

Cheers,

Hugh

[netaron]

Hugh,
First and foremost, never think there is anything wrong with you. You are one of the most straight forward gents I have ever had the pleasure of speaking with. Your support for what you believe in has no equal, somehow good people and that money/advertising thing rarely mix together. 

Hmmmm, interesting about the review portion, I guess I must have missed something, I could have sworn he said he would review the LF amp himself. Well, so much for that, but I guess if you are outsourcing, you do loose some control. Well the integrity bug will bite soon enough, seems you can't fool it once too often.

In all honesty, having your products reviewed by a stranger, other than the people who really use it on daily basis would be like gilding the lily anyway, the amps speak very well for themselves and need no introduction.

Enough said is right.

Haron

[Srajan Ebaen]

I had indeed offered Hugh a review, done personally, by me here in Cyprus. After the exchange on AC leading up to that offer my Australian reviewer had forwarded me his prior correspondence with AKSA for my benefit. I forwarded some of that to Hugh then to refresh his memory since his recounting of things didn't entirely mesh with our records.

Well, I don't want to go there again. I would just say that there is something very wrong with Hugh's second half of the answer above if, by insinuation, it's supposed to describe us. Namely, it "is frustrating is that the reviewers generally are concerned only with their readership and their advertisers.  This means they have some autonomy, a nice position to be in, but with the potential to ignore good products.  The manufacturer needs good reviews, but the reviewer has it pretty much on his terms as he has the marketing machine.  Unless one pays for advertising, this is the reality.  This is expensive, so the payment must be supported by the retail price!  That said, there are still reviewers who show integrity and ignore the advertising revenue, but it's a tricky balance."

This is simply horse shit where 6moons is concerned. My reviewers don't get paid, period. They could care less about who advertises and who doesn't. It doesn't make one iota of difference to them. They review what they're interested to review after I've signed off just so I know who is doing what. They get to say it as they heard it, no editorial restrictions applied other than fixing commas and spelling. That's it. Further, anyone who cares to look at our archives will see that the vast majority of companies reviewed don't and have never advertised with us so it's simply ludicrous to claim that there's monetary considerations involved to get a review with 6moons. And, there's more than one negative review with companies who did advertise. That thinking simply is faulty.

All it takes to get reviewed is an interest on part of our reviewers and delivery of the promised product in the time frame agreed upon. That's it. If none of my guys is interested and I don't have the time or interest either, then it's no go. If they had an interest but never got the product and because of that lose interest, that's indeed their perogative. And that's all there is to it.  But Hugh's take on it -- mixing in a generalized statement with a specific answer to imply a connection -- does indeed close this door for good. I made my offer in good faith thinking we had somehow dropped the ball. That's all I could do even though, after the fact, I'm not at all convinced we did drop the ball. Hugh's answer now makes it obvious that there's a stubborn communication problem at hand. We never have asked him for money to do a review. We don't ask anyone for advertising. If they're interested to support us because they like what we do, they come to us. They then subsidize 6moons so the readers don't have to pay.

With AKSA, we committed to a review, twice, first with Edgar, then with me. We simply didn't receive the product. That's all we at 6moons know about this. To avoid further ping pong exchanges, that's all we'll have and can say about it.

[AKSA]

Hi Srajan,

I thought this might happen.....  And I do apologise for any offense given, it was not my intention, I knew your sensitivities, and was determined to avoid visiting them here again.  Furthermore, I regret that you have forced me to respond to your points in a public email;  this is something of a train wreck, not good for either of us.  We should have taken this private, as we largely did before, but I was committed to answering Haron.  In any case, for the bloody record, I quite like you, you are 1 straight up and down fellow, but you really should know better........

Let me explain MY position, which you have miscontrued, in precise, abject, and infinitesimal detail.

I had indeed offered Hugh a review, done personally, by me here in Cyprus. After the exchange on AC leading up to that offer my Australian reviewer had forwarded me his prior correspondence with AKSA for my benefit. I forwarded some of that to Hugh then to refresh his memory since his recounting of things didn't entirely mesh with our records.

Well, I don't want to go there again.

We are there again, so let's get it straight!!

I understood very clearly, from the outrage in your second private email, that you were so upset you were not interested in a review.  You'd made the offer of a true review in good faith, for which I thank you, prior to this final blowup.  True story!!  You implied that your reviewer was blameless, took his side completely, which took leadership and loyalty too far in my view.  Besides, look at it from my POV!!  Why would I send you an amplifier for review if you doubted my integrity, and insulted me by suggesting I had 'forgotten' all relevant details?  I did not know you then, do not know you now, and the damage to my brand would have been mortal had you decided to cane the product on the basis of our 'difficult' relationship.  Worse things have happened in good families, Srajan.  Would you, Sir, would you entrust your life's !@#$ work in this situation?

I would just say that there is something very wrong with Hugh's second half of the answer above if, by insinuation, it's supposed to describe us. Namely, it "is frustrating is that the reviewers generally are concerned only with their readership and their advertisers.  This means they have some autonomy, a nice position to be in, but with the potential to ignore good products.  The manufacturer needs good reviews, but the reviewer has it pretty much on his terms as he has the marketing machine.  Unless one pays for advertising, this is the reality.  This is expensive, so the payment must be supported by the retail price!  That said, there are still reviewers who show integrity and ignore the advertising revenue, but it's a tricky balance."

Srajan, you are posturing.  In my last email to you dated 22nd December, after explaining IN DETAIL my less than edifying experiences with another reviewer who shall remain nameless, I said this:

I knew you guys to be much more upright than this, and was keen for a review and had an amp in NYC, but you demurred because none of your US reviewers were interested, and asked that I send one on to ******.

When you wrote just now that I was clearly insinuating 6moons lacked integrity, I was outraged.  I had specifically explained to you that I had selected you as my reviewer BECAUSE I perceived your honesty.  I can only conclude that you are either baiting the situation, or being very cynical because you perceive ANY bad press for 6moons must be flattened regardless.  This reminds me of a couple of warring academics, 'The fighting was bitter, and trenchant, and vindictive, because the stakes were so low'.  Not a good look, Srajan.  You suggested my memory was flawed;  perhaps this is just yours similarly afflicted.  I hope it is merely that.

I further added on 22nd December:

I have no beef with you, never did, and with sincerity I wish you a Merry Christmas.  I am quietly furious with ******, who is not telling the whole story.  I really don't want this to go any further, but I cannot prevent ****** telling his story in the forum if he chooses.  I thank you for discouraging him at this time;  you might suggest quietly to him that manufacturers are hypersensitive - even neurotic - about their products, and he would be advised to be very careful with email communication.  The problem is that, for the most part, their products are their life's work - just as your ezine is your life's work, something which fires you up each day and brings you into contact with fascinating products and people.

Thank you for the kindness of your forum offer.  That really impressed me and I was touched.

Srajan, I think this makes it very clear I was not having a shot at you.  I think my post today makes that clear, too - I did say we parted by mutual agreement and I hold with that now.

I will say it now, and shout it from the treetops, that I still like your ezine.  I always did, and that is why I felt, at the suggestion of one of my customers, that I should approach you for a review.  I think it is well written, of high integrity, technically and musically rigorous and graphically outstanding.  I think you guys are dead honest, and I had said that to you some months back, which is why this outburst from you is both astonishing and intensely disappointing, at least to me.  I refute utterly that you had any intention of reviewing my amp after our communication of the 22nd December when I bid you farewell, and I am frankly astonished that you imply any differently.  There is nothing to be gained by pretending otherwise.

I am seated at my PC in sweltering 100F heat today, this is not really helping any.  Again, I apologise if you are offended, but it's not my doing.  For your own reasons, you have chosen, despite earlier private comments and no clear insinuation in today's post, to be offended.  I like 6moons, will go on reading and recommending it, but sadly it is not for me and I've gone elsewhere.  Please, Srajan, let us end this here.

Neither of us needs this;  I regret it deeply, and hope we can walk away without further bloodshed.

Cheers,

Hugh 

[netaron]

Srajan, my only reason for asking Hugh about this is precisely what your statement conveys:

I had indeed offered Hugh a review, done personally, by me here in Cyprus. After the exchange on AC leading up to that offer my Australian reviewer had forwarded me his prior correspondence with AKSA for my benefit. I forwarded some of that to Hugh then to refresh his memory since his recounting of things didn't entirely mesh with our records".

Well, if memory serves right, it was this problem why the last flame gathered so much momentum and the amp never got reviewed. My post to Hugh was to ask him if you had kept your word, and you did not. When a promise is made, one does not rehash the past and find a reason to wiggle out of it. Your correspondence (or perhaps your taking sides) with your counterpart spoiled  the good faith offer you had publicly extended to place behind you precisely the issues that led up to all of this to begin with. 

I think this is the closest I have gotten to a flame yet, but willing to stop since all three of us have said their peace.


I am sorry Hugh, I really didn't know anything about this since I was actually really looking forward to the review and that is why I asked.


Haron

[ServerAdmin]

I have stepped in here and moved the post by rnhood to the Intergalactic Waste. Regardless of anyone's position on this issue, I see no reason why manufacturers who put their time into supporting their customers on this site are required to take abuse from people who don't agree with them.

[AKSA]

Hi John,

Thank you!

Like your motto.  Perhaps a reversal of the verbs would be more appropriate?

Cheers,

Hugh

[Joules]

Hugh - I'm sorry to break in here, but I'm so sorry your are going thru this.
It really upsets me to see a breakthrough product like the Lifeforce amplifiers meet with such turmoil. You have poured your heart and soul in to this product - not for the bottom line, but for the passion of audio (DIY audio at that!). It's all about truth, both in audio and people. If you see something that is not right or that you don't agree with, then please stick to your guns. Your "breakthrough" Lifeforce amplifiers are well above petty market manipulation! They very very clearly speak for them selves!

[AKSA]

Joules,

Many thanks for your, Haron's and others' support, but really, there are always two sides;  I don't blame Srajan, there were delays, he needs to defend his staff, and he does have strong integrity.

I am fortunate I can defend myself.  In my previous career, self-defense was not permitted, as it was often short circuited by administrative procedures, which could hold up natural justice by years.  At least in the forums I stand entirely on my arguments, and can respond the instant I am criticised.  This right to free speech is very important to me, and a great privilege afforded by John Reekie, and the internet generally.

It's still a great world, I'm doing what I love, and sincerely wish 6moons continuing success as a very impressive ezine.

Cheers,

Hugh