Talon-New owner-NO customer service

The response from Rives clears up the big question, namely, the $1600 repair cost (much of which is labor to rework the cabinet). This makes sense. The remaining question is if it's possible for someone (other than Talon/Rives)to provide / replace the buzzing transformer (or whatever) in the amp. Is the company still in business? How is their reputation for repairS? Who are they?

As someone who bought his Talons new, I am glad to hear that Rives will service them at a reasonable price for either me or whomever I sell them to.

I am a little mystified by the concern many companies have about product sold over the internet or by unauthorized dealers. How did the product get into the hands of the unauthorized dealer? If it wasn't stolen or extorted, and isn't counterfeit, they should be obligated to stand behind it. It should not be up to the consumer to have to verify that a dealer is authorized. Do you check with DeWalt to see if Home Depot is an authorized dealer before you buy a saw? The manufacturer made it, sold it, made their money, and agreed to provide warranty. How have they suffered a loss that justifies weasling out of warranty obligations? If their loss is due to loss of image because someone is turning their product from an exclusive boutique product into a commodity, I can understand that. In this case, the manufacturer should just shut off the dealer who is violating the marketing plan. Every major audio component is serialized, and the company should know who they sent each unit to. If they keep wholesaling their product to dealers who discount it, they have no right to complain.

While manufacturers have a legal right to do what's in their financial interests, so do we. We should continually publicize manufacturers who have bad attitudes toward second owners. This should drive the used price of their products downward, which will hopefully dissuade new buyers from buying their products. If companies that are openly hostile to the used market, like Theta, hear enough people say their product is great, but can't stand the depreciation when they go to sell it, maybe they will change. On the other hand, companies that treat 2d owners well (like AtmaSphere)should be rewarded with high used market prices, to encourage people to buy new without fear of losing everything.

CLEANEDUPHIPPY:

(Great username by the way!) To answer your question I would say the best manufactures, which by definition are the most customer service oriented, do not draw a line at all. Rather they take pride in their product(s) and stand behind them when a problem arises. This is not to say that they are not entitled to charge a reasonable amount for servicing products that are out of warranty, certainly they are, but my question to you would be what possible difference does it make who the owner is or how they acquired said manufacture’s product? Why should a manufacturer care whether the current owner is the original owner, or second, or even tenth? With the exception of possible future revenue from out of warranty service and parts (or upgrades) the manufacturer already made their money when they sold to the dealer. How often do we see dealers blowing out their demo equipment, or items that just didn’t sell, for at or near dealer cost with full manufacturer warranty? It is how manufactures stand behind their product after the sale that is important, not who the current owner may be.

By second and third parties I assume you are referring to the marketing of used equipment by dealers and private sellers. While it is true that many manufactures are very careful about protecting their dealer’s interests and want to be sure that their product is properly demonstrated and represented, this applies only to new product and our discussion here is about used gear. Once that initial sale is complete and the product is in the field there is no dealer network to be concerned with, so it brings us back to the question of business ethics and how a manufacturer supports product once it is in the field. My argument is it is not only ethical, but a good business practice to stand behind your product even years after the original sale.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that only original purchasers buying product from authorized dealers deserve quality service from the manufacturer. It is this point that I am in disagreement with. I am certain that the companies I mentioned in my earlier post do not feel this way and they are all extremely successful. Many companies offer transferable warranties to subsequent owners. One of the most successful manufactures of high-end and pro-sound amplification in the world is Bryston who offers a 20 year warranty. They track their amps by serial number and could care less about who owns it (it is my understanding that Bryston has never charged anyone for repair service regardless of the age of the unit). Bryston also maintains such high quality of manufacture, parts quality, and design that their amplifiers rarely fail in the field, thus ensuring them minimal warranty expense.

I am not saying I am sympathetic to Robyatt as I was not privy to his conversations with Rives or even know if he is being completely truthful. I made a point of qualifying this when I stated “if it is in fact as you describe” and later commenting that we “so far only had his side of the story.” So my comments have nothing to do with sympathy for his situation, but rather are directed toward business ethics and issues of a manufacture’s responsibility in supporting what they sell. Obviously not all companies are shining examples of customer service, but clearly some are as my earlier examples clearly show. As a very satisfied Talon owner, and the fact that Talon has only recently changed hands, you can understand my desire to express my view on this subject.

“Apparently, you feel that manufacturer should "bend over backwards" to take care of the problem.”

No, I do not and certainly not in this case where there is no standing warranty. My only expectation would be that the manufacturer stand behind the product and make every effort to rectify the problem in as timely a manner as possible, regardless of how and when it was acquired. My own experience with Pass Labs described above is an exemplary example, and one could even go so far as to say they ‘bent over backwards’ to keep one of their products up to spec, especially given they did not charge me anything even though it was out of their stated warranty period.

“To expect Talon/Rives to go the "extra mile" for the second owner is unrealistic because let's face it, neither Talon or Rives made any money on that second sale.”

I fail to see your logic in this statement. Manufactures never have, and never will, make any money on subsequent used sales of their product, but if they expect to receive good press and reviews, and the loyal customer base that usually follows, they sure better stand behind their product, and treat all their customers the same. As I stated earlier, the used market is an important part of our economy and a wise manufacturer knows this to be true. The customer who buys a used product not only makes it possible for the original owner to upgrade to the newest product, but very often will buy upgrades from the manufacturer for the older product, or even new product in the future.

“More and more you're starting to see disclaimers from manufacturers about products sold over the Internet and through unauthorized dealers and second and third parties. Don't believe me, starting visiting some of their websites.”

I am aware of this, but once again you are talking about new product, not used. This tends to apply more to really large corporations like Sony that distribute worldwide, and it should be clearly stated in their warranty. If you buy a Nikon camera in the US and expect Nikon USA to provide warranty service you had better be sure that you get it from an authorized US Nikon dealer. It is Nikon USA in California that is providing the warranty service, not Nikon in Japan. Same goes for some brands of audio equipment. In some instances importers such as Nikon USA will not even repair gray market equipment as a way of encouraging people to spend the extra money for authorized US product. As you are probably aware, most reputable dealers of high-end audio equipment who sell via the Internet are restricted by certain manufactures and will not sell those brands if they are available in your local area. Some manufacturers will not allow their dealers to sell mail order at all. But make no mistake, the Internet is here to stay, and as we are all becoming increasingly aware, the brick and mortar model of marketing product will never be the same. In the world of high-end audio, even in larger metropolitan areas it is becoming difficult, if not impossible, to audition and purchase many brands of audio equipment, even that of quite successful companies. As stated in my post above, I purchased my Talon Khorus loudspeakers from the original owner because it was a local sale (he had purchased them in another state before relocating here) and prior to that it was not possible to for me to even hear them without getting on an airplane, much less in my own listening room. I felt very fortunate to find them at all in my local area.

RIVES:

Thanks for joining in here and offering some ‘encouraging words.’ As a Talon owner it is nice to know you are there to provide service should the need ever arise. Your explanation of the situation with Robyatt’s model of the Roc makes perfect sense to me and it’s good to know your side of the story.

JEFFCOTT:

Thanks for your kind words and for the clarification. You make a good and valid point about the risks and potential rewards inherent in the used market. It has become my habit whenever buying a product, new or used, to become aware of what to expect in terms of service. Before buying a used item I have often called the manufacturer to let them know that I was considering the purchase of one of their products used and to ask questions. The type of response you get goes a long way to telling you what kind of a company you are dealing with. In high-end audio often you are even talking to the owner. In my experience I have never contacted a manufacturer and not had a positive response to purchasing one of their products used.

Thanks also for sharing your perception of Robyatt’s first post here on Audiogon. Going back and re-reading it I can see how his complaint could have been expressed differently and how it could be interpreted as a direct flame. As I write this it has been 3 days since he posted here and yet he has had nothing further to say on the subject. Given all of the response this thread has generated I find it odd that he has nothing more to offer, especially since Rives response. None-the-less, it has provided for a thoughtful discussion.

Interesting topic and good discussion. Anyway, was browsing the speakers sales this morning and noticed that a 'goner was selling a "NEW/FACTORY SEALED BOX" of VS VR-1s.

I also know that VS has a policy about Internet sales of their speakers which states "ANY NEW VSA PRODUCT SOLD OVER THE INTERNET, BY OTHER THAN OUR ONE AUTHORIZED ONLINE DEALER, WILL NOT HAVE ANY WARRANTY."

Now this is the sort of thing that leads to misunderstandings between customers and manufacturers. No doubt the individual buying these speakers from this seller (and I'm assuming the seller is NOT an authorized dealer) will probably, and erroneously, assume that the speakers are under VS's warranty. So what happens, if couple months down the road, one of the speakers develops some problems? No doubt, VS would fix the speaker, but should the repair be covered "as if" the speaker was under warranty (which unless the seller is an authorized dealer, it is clearly not) or should they charge the buyer (who will "no doubt" be upset to find out his "NEW/FACTORY SEALED BOX" of VS VR-1 speakers didn't include a warranty) the cost of doing the repairs on his speaker?

BTW, I sent the seller the following message:

"Are you an authorized Von Schweikert dealer? If not you might want to mention the speakers will not being under warranty (see link - http://www.vonschweikert.com/_pricesus.htm). Just mentioning this because someone buying these "NEW" speakers might assume that they would be under Von Schweikert warranty, and if you're not a dealer that's not the case."

Hopefully, he'll amend his ad, and mention about the lack of warranty, but nevertheless, I think you can see some of the points I was trying to make about warranty issues and second/third party sales and manufacturers and who's responsible for what.

Cleaned up - You are absolutely right that this is the condition of the market right now. I do not think that it is right, though. How did this guy get these speakers? Did Von Schweikert sell them to him, make his fair profit? If this is a one time deal because of some special circumstance, it shouldn't be such a big deal to VS. If this is a recurring problem, VS should stop selling speakers to him. While VS seems to have the LEgAL right to do what he wants, it seems like from a perspective of fairness, he should take responsibility for his product.

Well heard back from the seller, and apparently he won these speakers in a drawing at an audio show. Also, the seller does a fair amount of business on Audiogon, and has a good reputation. Nevertheless, the seller also thinks that VS would provide warranty on these speakers since they are not "gray market" speakers, even though VS website is quite clear about on-line sales and warranties. I emailed VS and asked them what their thoughts are, and if I get a reply, I'll let you know what VS thinks on this matter. One more thing, I see the seller lower his price, since I let him know that VS had significantly lowered it's price on the VR-1 in the particular finish that he is selling. Apparently the finish is being discontinued.