Cavalli Audio Liquid Lightning

[eggil]

Oldies comments are eerily similar to certain moderators from the other site.

Or one of Cavalli's famous fans, also from the other side.

Or just a stupid ignorant fool who would buy the London bridge twice, even if it did not meet safety standards.

[Grahame]

Do car analogies work?

What would you have had Ralph Nader do with the Cavalli "Corvair"?

[tin ear]

I could have done without that mental image...

yeah, save it for your internet dating profile defqon.

[Aimless1]

I'm all for giving someone an opportunity to make things right - privately.  If they don't, then all bets are off and out in the open with it.  Not sure, but I think Birgir did let Alex know and was rebuffed.  At least I seem to recall reading that somewhere but I don't actively follow these threads. 

[jwzhan]

I don't know... to me, posting stuff here is still closer to "private" than "public," since only a handful of people see it (especially after HC got taken off google search.)

The most repulsive part of this thread is not how horribly built the LL is, but how daring Cavalli is in his response, knowing that most people here know what they are looking at.

To be human is to err. If Cavalli is any reasonable manufacturer who is willing to correct his mistakes, I'm all for it, but evidently he is not, so I don't care if this thread ruins his business; in fact, I do hope so, since he clearly is enjoying screwing over consumers.

[spritzer]

I also truly don't get this utter delusion of "discussing the issues" with the manufacturers as a way of getting anything done.  This is not how the world works and never has.  That said I have tried this with both Cavalli and Woo Audio, neither have listened.  This was also the basic stuff that any competent engineer should have avoided in the first place.  Seriously, exposed pins on the PSU of the WES carrying +600V with more than enough current to kill you and the Exstata being designed to throw away parts on purpose. 

 

Something that springs to mind are the guidelines Hifi News and Record Review used back in the day when reviewing gear.  They were the first to test the operational parameters of the gear so what should they do if the gear was way out of the published spec or simply sounded horrible?  This was in the 60's so the components quality and build standards were not as consistent/good as they are now.  They decided that the manufacturer was offered a chance to supply a new unit that worked to spec as shit happens but failing that, the full review was posted with all the gory details. 

 

As is clear to everybody we do our projects out in the open with nothing to hide.  If there are issues then we address them but don't try to hide it.  Shit happens is a good motto to have but it's hard to accept when one does have a god complex... 

[jvlgato]

 

 

Something that springs to mind are the guidelines Hifi News and Record Review used back in the day when reviewing gear.  They were the first to test the operational parameters of the gear so what should they do if the gear was way out of the published spec or simply sounded horrible?  This was in the 60's so the components quality and build standards were not as consistent/good as they are now.  They decided that the manufacturer was offered a chance to supply a new unit that worked to spec as shit happens but failing that, the full review was posted with all the gory details. 

 

 

I recall other audio magazines following the same protocol - Stereophile and Stereo Review (years ago) follow this. (Not that they're the gold standard for opinions, but being major publications, they probably set the standard for reviewing protocol.)

[kevin gilmore]

At least 200 phone calls with Mikhail trying to get him to see the errors of his ways.

We all know how that turned out.

 

There is a lot of money behind cavalli and they are going to succeed by trying

to do every thing in the ray samuels playbook, plus lots of things in the advanced

edition. Cavailli has taken paid for shills to a new level. Ray would be proud.

[tkam]

I don't know... to me, posting stuff here is still closer to "private" than "public," since only a handful of people see it (especially after HC got taken off google search.)

 

 

 

No idea what you are talking about, we're still heavily indexed by Google and see quite a large portion of our traffic coming from Google searches.

[jwzhan]

No idea what you are talking about, we're still heavily indexed by Google and see quite a large portion of our traffic coming from Google searches.

 

hmm... I might be imagining things up... I thought I saw somewhere someone mentioning that HC got taken off.

[shellylh]

I think someone mentioned that the FS ads were not indexed by google (although I am not true if that is true). 

[DefQon]

HC f/s threads are not archived

[roadtonowhere08]

Pretty sure it's the casino section that is hidden, but I could be wrong.

[The Monkey]

I wonder how forums that allow ads, sponsored content, and shilling are not more concerned about their own liability viz. the veracity of their MOTs' claims and some of the serious vendor flameouts that cause people to lose money/gear.  I know I would be. 

[eggil]

Headfi doesn't care because they have a steady supply of newbies and sheep, so if more experienced users get tired and leave, it is not a big loss anymore.

It is a never ending meat grinder.

And it is a business, not a hobby for honest conversations.

[forbigger]

^^ this +10000000000000

[Torpedo]

It reminds a bit of the classical pyramidal scam scheme.

[Grahame]

Business model: Meat Grinder.

Prerequisites: Fresh Meat.

[tjkurita]

Headfi doesn't care because they have a steady supply of newbies and sheep, so if more experienced users get tired and leave, it is not a big loss anymore.

It is a never ending meat grinder.

And it is a business, not a hobby for honest conversations.

 

This is so true.  I can't really remember or pinpoint when it happend.  I have been a member at HF since 2003.  During my early days I thought it was really great.  And then everything went bad.  I could never put my finger on why or how, but I thing Eggil might be on the right track here.  The other issue might be that I started as a newbie, went through the meat grinder, and now I'm just a pile of old hamburger. 

[grawk]

I'd say it happened when it moved from cmoy's forum over to headfi.  

[spritzer]

That sounds about right...

[morphsci]

I'd say it happened when it moved from cmoy's forum over to headfi.

I think the first 2 or 3 years were pretty good and not really about money or profit. After that it was an ever increasing move to a money making operation. Selling to Huddler just sealed the deal.

[grawk]

Initially it was about building the brand to make money later.  I'd be shocked if profit wasn't always the goal.  I certainly don't remember there ever being a time without sponsors.

[acidbasement]

 

Initially it was about building the brand to make money later.  I'd be shocked if profit wasn't always the goal.  I certainly don't remember there ever being a time without sponsors.

 

I seem to recall Jude saying at one point (I think around the same time as the switch to Huddler), in defense of all the advertising, that his intention was never to lose money on head-fi.  As if he was in any danger of doing so at the time.

 

I wonder how forums that allow ads, sponsored content, and shilling are not more concerned about their own liability viz. the veracity of their MOTs' claims and some of the serious vendor flameouts that cause people to lose money/gear.  I know I would be. 

 

Are you suggesting that, if someone were to launch a class-action suit over, say, the Singlepower debacle, HF might be a defendant?

Edited October 24, 2013 by acidbasement

[The Monkey]

Headfi doesn't care because they have a steady supply of newbies and sheep, so if more experienced users get tired and leave, it is not a big loss anymore.

It is a never ending meat grinder.

And it is a business, not a hobby for honest conversations.

 

^This doesn't address the issue I highlighted (if indeed it was even meant to do so).  That sites cater to the business end and not the hobby is manifest and has been for some time.  That's fine and is a business decision I have no problem with.  However, I continue to be mystified by how people who run such sites can get comfortable with their endorsements (express or implied) of vendors who are making false claims or who have outright committed fraud--in some cases using the forum as the medium, at least in part.  I certainly would not be comfortable with that from a risk/liability perspective.  We all say that "they don't care."  In my opinion, "they" should.  Not because it's "right," but because there's real risk.  All it takes is one nasty AG with a bug up his ass.  Accordingly, the notion that only one side (i.e., the positive side) can be presented doesn't make any sense to me.