Lansche Audio

Keith - I meant your attitude to such lightweight /passing commentary is unbecoming for a dealer partcipating in a public forum; whence a general blanket threat of litigation is laughable at best and contemptible at worst.

No one here has even suggested this product does not or cannot actually sound good or is even undesirable specifically. In any case such comments would be made as a purely a matter of opinion, which is not remotely actionable.

Personally, I have zero professional interest in audio, I'm an architect specialising ostly in healthcare and education facilities. That's a sideline for a healthy interest in acoustics and feeds the inner physicist.

 

Erm......it's Defamation....unless you mean that the thread, or you, or the slander or whatever, is actually becoming deformed and out of shape!

 

I've removed HG's third post. The former post commented on generation of gas, and the post by rob directly following stated this is not the case for the Lansche speaker. Enough said.

As you were!

 

Not quite. I have no problems with Keith and his posts which only harm himself and his business but I find your and Rob's behaviour unacceptable. It is your forum to do with as you please by rewarding and encouraging certain types of posts and posters while punishing and discouraging others. This has happened here and things are not quite as they were.

 

LANSCHE will be exhibiting at the Munich show, which starts this Thursday.
Last year they demonstrated their Cubus speaker, which was outstanding probably the bst sound in the entire show.
H.G why don't you visit and put your points to the designers?
Keith.

 

Not quite.

I happen to think that the points you've raised regarding this type of driver are valid in the general sense and welcome discussion. However, you don't appear to have researched this particular implementation before posting, and that is certainly unfair though in no way falling foul of libel laws, and it certainly didn't call for the response from the distributor. The likely result of any repeat has been made clear.

 

H.G. Your participation is valued, you obviously have some good knowledge on this subject. However, if you believe the Lansche speaker generates toxic by-products I suggest you take this up with the manufacturer.

 

To support Keith's position: I've been at audio shows where Lansche speakers have been playing in small rooms for several hours. There was not the slightest whiff of ozone.

A friend runs Lansche speakers in his system, and has been doing so for years. He is an engineer for a car company and thoroughly investigated the ozone issue before buying the Lansches. He says he has not had the slightest problem with them.

So, whatever the practical difficulties of plasma implementation may be, Lansche seems to have mastered them.

 

I don't agree with Forum Moderators heavily editing and removing contributors posts.

It's the thin end of the wedge, and they might as well write the whole forum themselves, - as has pretty much happened in some cases.

If they feel it necessary to make their own position clear they merely need to add a bold comment that the views expressed are not those of the forum proprietors and that they do not share them.

There is little point in operating what purports to be a public forum if contributors may only post in accordance with such heavy censorship.

I support h.g.'s right to voice his criticisms, which may then be tested, as has been the process, up until his posts were changed.

I also support Keith's right of reply.

JC

 

Hi JC,

Free speech is all very well, but if someone is going to post something calling into question the safety of a product, that is a very serious matter. We will host such discussion but only where the necessary background research has taken place to support comments made.

This is quite different to someone saying they dislike the sound of something, hate the looks, don't like the marketing, company policy etc. So long as such comment is made constructively we have no objections.

regards,

 

Hi Rob, I understand your motivation, but I can't help but feel that it might be taking things slightly too far.

Their is no reason for you (as proprietors) to become arbitrators, or public watchdogs, in fact that is a burden too great for your facilities anyway.

If you feel the posted comment lacks substantiation, then simply say so, and disassociate yourselves from it, by inserting a bold statement into the post, rather than changing the content.

It makes for a much better and credible forum if you do that rather than arbitrary censorship, by what amounts to re-writing contributors posts.

Best wishes, JC.

 

We've publicly removed misinformation and explained why.
Had posts been simply edited or removed without explanation, I would agree with you entirely.

 

I accept what you say, but you effectively re-write the post by doing that.

You could state that you believe the post contains misinformation (in your opinion), and leave readers to decide for themselves.

The thread would make more sense that way, and be more valuable.

No further comment.

JC

 

For the record, this is in the terms and conditions of use. It was there when the forum was ZeroGain, and it is still there now.

 

I assume 'Audiosmile' is actually 'Simon Ashton (a sole trader) trading as Audiosmile'

If that is the case, I would consider the pro's and cons of a few status changes.

Possibly differentiate between 'Audiosmile as a manufacturer and trader' and 'Audiosmile Forum'. This might be as simple as changing the forum name to 'Audiosmile Forum', but is not wholly helpful whilst they have the same sole trader as proprietor.

Possibly the incorporation of 'Audiosmile' as a Ltd Company, and the separate incorporation of 'Audiosmile Forum' as a Ltd Company.

Check your Public Liability and Product Liability insurance cover

Please understand my advices and opinions to be merely of the 'Barrack Room' variety, and consider obtaining qualified expert opinion on the matters.

JC

 

I really wouldn't worry about it - storm in a teacup and dealt with.

 

Just trying to be helpful .............. I'll get my coat.

 

Not a dig at you in any way JC - just think this has run out of steam.

 

Yeh, a perfectly good thread spoiled, though that appears to have been the intention. The poster never accepted he was incorrect or retracted his error, which can really only lead you to conclude it may have been intentional.

I'm with JC, it's better practice to add a BOLD to the post in question but leave the content otherwise unadulterated.

 

Tend to agree, the moderators reactions seemed overdone.