This is an additional gloss on my previous
post to be more fair to those with issues.
To be fair, there IS a difference between providing new or upgraded
features, and fixing problems with original features that are broken and
do not work as warranted.
If an original feature does not work right out of the box, then it is
broken and should be fixed as a matter of original warranty. One IS
entitled to expect original features should work right from the start.
Now, where it gets muddy and corn-fusing, is when a feature works, but
does not work well enough to suit one or more buyers. I think the
purported Omni VII AGC weakness falls into this rather hazy gray area.
Is it broken, or does it simply not work to one's liking or
expectations. Were the expectations justified, based, perhaps, on
advertising and other product claims promulgated by the manufacturer?
Did the manufacturer overstate or oversell that particular feature?
So, you see, it may not be as cut and dried as I first let on.
Consider, for example, a feature that "works," but not as well as
expected by some users. Is this a broken feature, which could be the
subject of a valid claim for breach of warranty? If so, then TT may
have an obligation to fix it. If not - if it is simply a matter where
the feature under scrutiny works well for some, under their
circumstances and surroundings, but not for others, perhaps who are not
similarly situated - then it may NOT be broken, but simply a case where
it fails to satisfy some buyers.
This is a difficult case, because it is not as clearly cut as one might
first imagine. It is a case of sliding down the old "slippery slope" -
just how far can a feature deviate from expectation before it becomes an
unreasonable expectation, as opposed to falling within the same?
I suggest the purported AGC shortcoming falls squarely within this
middle ground. For me, the feature works super and is perfectly fine
as is, with no issues and no shortcomings. But for others, WHO ARE NOT
SIMILARLY SITUATED, it may not work as well - at least not UNDER the
CIRCUMSTANCES at THEIR QTH.
So, the question is: is it broken, or just not good enough to satisfy
some customers? And when is good, good enough? When is a poorly
performing feature considered so bad as to be broken? This is not
always easy question to answer.
Other features fall within this middle area, including, but not limited
to, DSP NR (noise reduction), NB (noise blanker), AN (automatic notch
filter), and other features and characteristics of the rig.
To be fair to Dave (I think) he and others have complained that TT
changed the way the MON (voice input monitor) works. This presents
still another difficult case.
TT affirmatively represented the MON function samples the audio at the
final output stages (or at least a roughly equivalent description
thereof.) This is the way it worked using early firmware. But, TT
changed that feature in later firmware releases. So the rig DID perform
as warranted, and you CAN return to the original firmware release to
restore that feature, but it was changed in later firmware releases -
so, to some users, their rigs no longer meet original specifications, or
at least no longer perform as originally warranted.
Is THIS a breach of warranty? Does this mean it is now broken? Should
later firmware be allowed to alter the original performance?
And the fact this is a rather minor exception should not distract us
from the principles involved. Consider the argument in the case of a
more significant feature.
The noise blanker issue is similarly and equally abstruse and
convoluted. (This is my personal pet peeve...)
The Omni VII noise blanker was, in my experience, originally very smooth
and far less aggressive in early firmware releases. But TT changed it
in later firmware releases to meet complaints it did not work hard
enough. It ramped up from low to high much more slowly than it does
now. I much preferred that to the current configuration, which seems to
ramp up quickly and is, overall, far more aggressive.
To ME, TT broke a perfectly good and properly functioning feature. To
others, it was broken right out of the chute, and the later firmware
"fixed" it. To still others, it was always, and still is, broken and
they remain unhappy.
But the NR DOES WORK... perhaps it is not broken in a way that would
ground a claim for breach of warranty, and yet it is not the same as
what I purchased from the start, so the rig is now a different rig.
All this forces the operator into making a Hobson's Choice - a dilemma
of sorts - where he must chose which feature to fix by electing one
firmware from among many - each of which fix some things, and break
others. And, I suppose, no one likes to be in that position!
Thus, these issues are all quite relative to each respective
owner-operator. Whether a feature is altered, or broken, or what, is a
personal decision and whether one's disappointment with a certain
feature rises to the level of a breach of warranty will depend on many
factors, not the least of which is one's personal predilections.
And this is, I believe, what makes these discussions so volatile, and so
engaging. In any case, I don't want any of my comments to be construed
as insensitive or to signal that I am unaware of how personally
aggravating these things can be to a particular operator. But the
question of whether or not a particular shortcoming means the rig is
broken or just not satisfying to a user is a difficult, amorphous and
abstruse one in many cases.
To this extent, I apologize to Dave and others who are unhappy with
certain aspects of their rigs. I hope this puts the matter into better
perspective.
Happy days, gentlemen.
------------------- K8JHR ----------------
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|