[Harp-L] Re: Suzuki Firebreath Problems



Winslow wrote:

"What Jonathan Ross and John Balding write below shows a significant
misunderstanding of my position on this matter."

We shall see. I think rather you may be backtracking from your original post:

http://harp-l.org/pipermail/harp-l/2006-September/msg00373.html


"I never suggested keeping things "hush hush" or that a product problem should not be mentioned on the list."

True. Perhaps what I wrote was misleading in the sense that it could be interpreted as such. However, I feel that your insistence (you screamed it at the top of your lungs) on contacting the manufacturer first as the only "fair" way and that not doing so was somehow wrong or even malicious is essentially the same in effect. I see little difference between the attitude that one MUST (to copy your shouting) first contact the manufacturers before having any moral right ("should") to post to the list and the idea of not posting at all. There is a difference, but it's minimal and both are forms of censorship (self or otherwise).

"My point was that rather than complaining to the world at large without
- or even before - getting the manufacturer involved - is both
unproductive and unfair to the manufacturer."

How is it unfair. You have made this claim now several times. I have yet to see any reasoning behind the labeling of this action as unfair. I have given my reasoning as to why I don't see "fair" as being anywhere involved in this, but I have yet to see how it is at all unfair. To me, the manufacturer sells the product, Richard bought it, Richard reviewed it, Richard followed that up. Aside from the money first transferred, there is nothing owed to the manufacturer at all other than factual reporting to this and other lists. Nothing whatsoever. What is the reasoning behind your disagreement with the above? Again, you seem to be missing the context within which Richard wrote about the problem--his previous glowing reviews and posts.

"Rather than simply saying, "My harmonica broke," wouldn't it be both
more helpful to the manufacturer to make a better product, and more
revealing to the consumer about how responsive, helpful, and
conscientious the manufacturer is in fixing the immediate problem and
in improving their products in general to:"

Is it any less reasonable to say "it broke, I'll see what the manufacturer has to say" and then do the follow up? What's the difference except possible embarrassment to the manufacturer? And, why should the client care about that--it's not the buyers job to make the manufacturer's reputation. If there was nothing wrong, then that would make the reputation for them. If something is wrong and they handle it well, that is also good. But, the purchaser/reviewer here (especially as he's just doing this out of a sense of charity to the list) has no obligations to the manufacturer aside from truthful reporting. It would behoove Richard to let Suzuki know about this, but it doesn't change any of what he's told the list and it isn't an obligation.

"1) contact the manufacturer and get their response and initial action"

Sounds good. But no reason it need be done before posting. It can be done as easily after as before. If you think this is unfair, I'd love to hear why, as it doesn't seem logical to me whatsoever.

"2) tell the list about the problem and how the manufacturer handled it"

A good idea. But why must these be together. I see no reason why the first can't happen and then the second telling the list about both when they occur? Why is there an obligation on someone who promised a follow up to wait--why not continue telling the list about the process as he had done originally, as it occurred?

"3) follow up a few weeks, month, later, etc. to see how well the
manufacturer followed up on any promises made."

Again, good. Again, how does this preclude mentioning the problem on the list as it occurred. I'm wondering, did you object to Richard's original, positive review because he hadn't directed all potential questions to Suzuki at that time. Is it just the negative nature of the comment in question that brings this up? If so, well, that's the definition of not being fair. Richard was updating his development with this new design as he used it and as they developed. When positive, he was glowing. When a negative came up, he mentioned it (with still fairly nice comments about the tone of the instrument, I noticed) in the same way in terms of time. Is it fair to insist that he change his time-based updating just because the news isn't glowingly positive? I can't possibly see how.

"I think that this procedure hides nothing from other consumers, and
actually gives them more rather than less information about the
situation. It is also more helpful in the long run in improving product
quality."

The later is a supposition without support. Many times showing flaws without giving the manufacturer warning has had a good effect on quality. Other times not. As for the first part of the above paragraph, it ignores (once again) the context of how Richard was posting on this matter. Moreover, it is not necessarily less honest than immediate reporting, but the possibilities are there more than otherwise. If nothing else, it allows for post-facto editing of the situation (it is quite different to describe the failure as Richard did immediately following an event than it is to do so months later after everything is ironed out). There may be nothing wrong with that, but when things can be less edited and more real-time they allow a far greater resource for the future, IMO. In the end, the amount of information will be greater if Richard does do follow up and let's the list know that as well; more entries into the log on this heading and more data from which to draw a conclusion.

To bring this back to harmonicas, I still want to try the Firebreath and Pure Harp (and still think the names are horrible). I will be doing so soon, but must admit my desire is tempered by my absolute lack of need for any more standard GMD tuned diatonics--I'm swimming in the things as is. Still, I intend to check them out as soon as I can. Sadly, right now I won't even be home enough to get a package in the mail the next, well, months.

Also, as a follow-up on the Suzuki SCT-128 tremolo chromatic here it is: a very nice beast indeed. I had the tremolo touched up by Pat Missin to my tastes and he, of course, did an excellent job. There is a flaw in the design of the top octave that makes getting a good tremolo all-but impossible, but I'm not sure it's a major problem (I sort of think a three-octave may have been better, if nothing else then they might have used the design for an octave-chrom instrument as well). Still, it's a wonderfully made instrument, very airtight and ergonomically comfortable for me, as well as a good weight. If I needed another chromatic, I'd definitely consider Suzuki's standard (and similarly constructed mouthpiece-wise) SC series. If they were to come out with the SC-56 as a tenor-C tuned instrument, I'd probably have bought it by now (despite the cross-tuning).

Similarly, I've recently rediscovered a Charlie Musselwhite Hering chromatic in G. Quite a nice beast as well. I still don't care for Hering's windsavers, but that can be easily fixed. Other than that the airtightness and overally playability rank very highly indeed. Quite a nice instrument, which I believe is essentially still made under the 7148 number. Herings of this period (and perhaps still-- but I couldn't say about that) are not known for their reed longevity, but so far despite being a few years old (though barely played) and having been played a fair bit this summer, it's doing quite well in that department, with no significant detuning whatsoever.

I feel no desire to tell the manufacturers about any of these flaws. Either they already know them (they must in regards to the Suzuki) or not. In either case, it's not my obligation to tell them.



 ()()    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()  ()   & Snuffy, too:)
`----'







This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.