advertisement


Manufacturer Litigation Against YouTube Reviewer

Well given they are claiming 'realistic sound' and incredible value themselves, just the usual BS in my view. At the prices offered you know you are in to compromises, I have never heard them an have no interest in doing so, Ive heard many multi driver speakers and never liked any, I thought point source was a desired objective why on earth do you want or need 15 tweeters, with a speaker named after a viking sword ?!
 
No wait..... They did say this.......

Named after medieval-era Viking swords, the Ulfberht loudspeaker is the ultimate hammer/butterfly of sonic expression, striking out at the listener with percussive elements and a constant velocity that matches all musical instruments and the human voice. The listening experience is an entirely new level of realism with a huge soundstage, energy, realism and perfect finer details. It’s a bold claim, but we believe that the Ulfberht is the most acoustically advanced audiophile loudspeaker available on earth today.

What utter drivel, if they are saying this I'm already shopping elsewhere.
 
Talk about being your own worst enemy.


I now wonder whether most big review sites show their reviews to the sample supplier before going live and posting?
 
tuga said:
I have read a US critic saying he was once barred from reviewing B'n'O speakers.
Click to expand...
Barred by who? The magazine he wrote for? The manufacturer? And why?

I can think of some legitimate reasons why somebody might not be the preferred candidate for a review. Perhaps they value characteristics which are different to the strengths of the product, in which case it is arguably better to send them to somebody who ‘gets’ them. Perhaps they are known to be a superfan of the brand, so readers might doubt the impartiality of the review. Just for example. It’s not necessarily something to draw a negative inference over, without the context that led to it.
 
krenzler said:
Click to expand...

I watched this earlier despite never having seen his channel before nor having any interest in the speakers (have I mentioned I’m a fan of point-source designs?!). He seems like a decent bloke and I fully understand the stress this has placed him under. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. My attitude these days is just to delete. I don’t get paid anything like enough to take any shit from anyone. The bizarre thing is the way this has played out where a YouTube reviewer who wasn’t on my radar reviewing a speaker brand I’ve barely even heard of is now the talk of the whole internet audio community across the world. I’d suggest any manufacturers reading this to consider whether that is the sort of publicity they want?!
 
Columbo said:
I've been following Erin's Audio Corner for a while, useful reviews with a decent balance of subjective and objective info https://www.youtube.com/@ErinsAudioCorner

Couple of days ago he reviewed some Tekton speakers, actually a fairly complimentary review that pointed out 1 or 2 measured niggles. Now the head honcho is opening litigation against Erin. Erin pulled the review from YouTube.

Is this kind of thing common in the industry?

I can't really think of another industry where this would happen?

I know I certainly won't be considering Tekton from here on in. Nobheads.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how it would be possible in the U.S. for Tekton to win a libel suit over a review. That said the owner had a pretty intense cult of Audiogon folks who, for years, lavished hyperbolic praise on his designs. Now Stereophile has just reviewed a $30,000 Tekton and found it ‘class B’. This should rattle the designer, as his Audiogon following had consistently reported that his $5000.00 speakers were better than Wilson’s etc. They always looked like clumsy, poorly finished boxes to me.
 
Last edited:
Linus said:
They always looked like clumsy, poorly finished boxes to me.
Click to expand...
IMG-8716.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top