Ryan Coleman’s departure
1. Original draft of Acoustic Revive RTP-4 review by Ryan Coleman
2. Email correspondences between Ryan Coleman and me
(two sub-sections, email correspondences in chronological order)
(edited segments in italics, excluding final editing on syntax)
Intro
If there were one tweak that an audiophile could use to educate non-audiophiles on why we labor so much for sound, power conditioning would be at the top of my list. Whereas cables & vibration control are often subtle in their effect, power conditioning can be as obvious as a fart in church. Even in my system, which uses four dedicated 20a lines (and those use high-end wire & AC outlets), adding my current reference conditioner was a dramatic improvement, resulting in a much lower noise floor, better detail & separation between notes, deeper bass, and a more organic flow to the music. Even my 60 year old mother could hear the difference in my system. I’ve yet to encounter a system that didn’t benefit from power conditioning, and audiophiles should consider AC conditioning an indispensible addition to a high-end system.
Despite the myriad products available to audiophiles, all of them fall into one of two camps: active, or passive. The former involve the use of isolation transformers to reduce AC noise, require their own AC source to operate, are usually large & heavy, and can starve a system of dynamics if poorly matched to the downstream components that plug into it; a conditioner that uses too small a transformer for the amperage draw of the downstream components is usually the reason dynamics suffer, which is why audiophiles typically avoid active conditioners in front of amplifiers. The latter group, passive conditioners, use no parts that require an AC source (i.e. transformers), are smaller & lighter, and typically do not limit the current draw of the downstream components (making them more suitable for amplifiers). Which approach is “best” is like asking which car is best: ultimately, the only thing that matters is what gets you to your destination.
When speaking with Joe Cohen at Lotus Design Group about the Acoustic Revive Digital Cable that I reviewed some time back, he was beyond enthusiastic when speaking about another product he imports from Acoustic Revive: the RTP- series of power conditioners. Given how effective I found the non-conventional DSIX digital cable, I was curious about what the designers at Acoustic Revive cooked up for power conditioning (and as I found, “curious” would be the operative word of the day).
Technical Info
For those interested in the construction that goes into these units, I invite you to review Acoustic Revive’s highly informative web site about the unit:
http://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/rtp/rtp_01.html
and accompanying power cord is featured at:
http://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/power_reference/power_reference_01.html
For audiophiles who feel they must sneak their purchases and purchase prices around an incredulous spouse, the Acoustic Revive RTP-4 is going to be “Exhibit A” in hiding your hobby from your better half. By all accounts, it looks like a well built AC outlet strip that you could buy from Home Depot for @ $30. Trouble is, this thing costs $2250! Lucy, you got some ‘splaining to do!
So, what are you getting for your extra $2k? Lets run through the design to explain. The RTP-4 is constructed from a solid piece of high grade aluminum to prevent flexing and vibration; indeed, if you took my audio system and fast forwarded 1,000 years, the Acoustic Revive would be the only thing that never degraded with the passage of time or use, such is its build quality. The outlets are custom versions of the excellent Oyaide R-1s (the best grip I’ve ever come across), with a high-purity wiring inside linking the outlets to a Furutech IEC. Taken together, these parts would sum to the most overbuilt Home Depot power strip ever made, and do nothing for cleaning the power out of your wall (which is the point of this exercise).
And here’s where things get “curious”: the only element of the RTP-4 that actually “cleans” your power is a proprietary mix of chemicals: tourmaline, quartz powder, and green carborundum, all sealed in the bottom of the unit by a potting epoxy. For simplicity’s sake (as well as good copy), I’ll simply refer to this mix as “magic dust.”
That’s it folks: a couple world class AC outlets in the most overbuilt box I’ve found, with some ‘magic dust’ at the bottom to clean your power. It doesn’t look like much, and I’d have to say that, despite the obvious ‘spare no expense’ build quality, the unit appears to reflect a poor value of your audiophile dollar; again, this product is Exhibit A for those of you who hide one’s equipment purchases from your spouse, as a significant other would never understand why you just spent over $2k on a fancy power strip. You have been warned.
(I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that one outlet has a floated ground, which enables digital gear to be plugged into the same strip as non-digital gear while keeping them electrically isolated from one another. While this is a good trick to further lower the noise floor of a system, it is just that—a trick, and one that might not work in combination with components that require ground to operate; check with your manufacturer, or simply try before you buy, which is sound advice for every component in your buying horizon.)
The Power Reference power cord is a very unassuming affair; it looks like Darth Vader’s power cord. It’s a solid core, 12 gauge jobber, with some customized Oyaide plugs on the ends, some very high purity copper wire with silk wrapped around them, and a dual-shielding system; one shield is a non-conventional copper tube (the cord is still quite flexible) and the black braid sleeve cover is actually another form of shielding as its impregnated with carbon paper. All I can say is “huh?” I generally have an idea of what a designer is trying to do with cabling, but silk as a damper? Carbon paper as a shield? These guys take the cake—make that pudding; as in, the proof is in the pudding.
Listening Impressions
The RTP-4 was able to power all my line level gear, with my having placed the EMM CDSA on the ground-free outlet (so as to prevent digital nasties from finding their way into other gear via common ground). The RTP-4 takes no time to warm up, and its effects were obvious in the most ideal, unassuming ways. First off, the RTP-4 lowers the noise floor to the point of invisibility, but what made it unique is that silent passages have physical space, and the emptiness is palpable. Live in-studio recordings really demonstrate this; in the studio, musicians key off the decay into silence, listening (or watching) to cues from fellow band mates as to when to kick into gear again. It’s that noise-free space, that palpable emptiness, which defines a good recording studio, where the decay goes down from a pervasive noise, retreating into the corners of the room, and slowly into inaudibility, leaving the musician (and this listener) with the room’s space that was defined by the preceding decay. Needless to say, the RTP-4 delivers this in spades, and better than any conditioner I’ve tried.
I’ve struggled to understand why the RTP-4 did this so well, and I’m left to rely on a pat answer that is ultimately correct: the RTP-4 delivers the lowest level details on the recording, better perhaps than any other conditioner available. Friends, there is a lot of information on those pits, but we audiophiles, despite our best efforts, lose great amounts of it, whether through imperfect data retrieval, signal loss, vibration-induced obscuration, or AC grunge. Is the RTP-4 removing more grunge, or is it simply not committing sins of commission in performing its task? Really, what I’m asking in the 2nd part of that question is whether other conditioners are making errors in their chosen methods of reducing the noise floor; after all, the RTP-4 is a passive unit with a vibration-immune chassis housing a minimal amount of parts, and there is no perfect part. Is it the other parts in the other units and their less rigid chasses that ultimately compromise the minutest details? Or is it the RTP-4 the pinnacle of removing noise? I’m inclined to think it’s the former. Lots of good products have a non-existent noise floor, which means the grunge is gone, but if the details with the RTP-4 don’t show up with other units, its because the other units are making mistakes somehow, either through imperfect parts, vibrating chasses, or both.
As I already pointed out, this additional detail is easily heard in the decay into the venue, so it should as no surprise that the RTP-4 has a remarkable way of placing performers on a soundstage. The previously discussed sense of palpable emptiness is also heard as a performers’ body, the sense of a musician located in a three dimensional plane. Depth is obvious, thanks to the delivery of physical space accompanied by the low level details that illuminate musicians’ proximity in that space.
If there were a secret audiophile society for those who hear different tonal colorations with different AC plugs & outlets, I’d likely be the Grand Poobah. I’ve wrote at length of how various outlets color the tonal palette, noting the golden hue that Hubbell impart, the zippiness and aggressiveness of Acmes, the warmish and sweetness of Isocleans, and the ever-so-slightly cool linearity of Oyaide R-1s. However, the RTP-4 doesn’t have any of the coolness that I’ve heard with R-1s, instead delivering a very even-handed signature, with perhaps a tinge of warmth added. But to cut to brass tacts, I must say I find the tone beyond reproach. When listening to a recorded piano (the instrument I find easiest to detect tonal anomalies), the RTP-4 treated me to extended overtones thanks to its superior delivery of low-level details, but whether in the initial development of a note or its decay, I could spot no tonal errors. No golden hues, no whitish blurs, nothing.
So often audiophiles (myself included) are bowled over because the latest change sounds different, as though different is the equivalent of better. Not true. The RTP-4 has an understated presentation of frequency extremes, which may ultimately lead some less critical listeners to prefer alternate conditioners over the RTP-4. Other conditioners, particularly active units, deliver more powerful bass, thanks to the ready store of low-resistance AC they delivers to downstream electronics. The RTP-4 does not have the powerful bass that a transformer-based conditioner has, but ultimately what the RTP-4 delivers is more tuneful, accurate bass. Let me explain a theory why: when executing a new design, electrical engineers are not apt to have in the circuit description a multi-kVA store of nearby power external to the unit. If a component is designed expecting normal AC, providing a low-resistance source of large amounts of juice is a variable that was not expected in the initial design. The presence of this additional juice is primarily heard in the nether regions, as deep bass requires lots more power (both going in and out of the electronics) than the remaining frequency spectrum. But what you end up hearing is something that was unexpected in the design, and its not surprising that its realization is not linear; active conditioners deliver more / deeper bass, but bass that is tubbier, less articulate, and potentially overpowering. The RTP-4 doesn’t make these errors, instead delivering taut, tuneful, accurate bass, but not the sort of bass that makes for a sensational demonstration or on-the-spot sales.
Perhaps that’s the reason I’m so bowled over by the RTP-4. It simply doesn’t draw attention to itself in any way. It is not exciting, spot-lighting, or thunderous. It simply is clean power with no errors thrust into the equation via suboptimal parts or chassis resonances. This deceptively simple formula lets the RTP-4 deliver music in an organic, unforced presentation devoid of emphasis anywhere in the frequency spectrum. I don’t like to make hyperbolic statements (as subsequent products make me rue my mistake), but I doubt anything will make me believe it is more correct in its overall music presentation than the RTP-4.
Now, having spoken at length on all the things the RTP-4 does right, it pains me to say that it gets much better when using the Acoustic Revive Power Reference AC Cable (which, thankfully, is hard wired into the RTP-2 unit). Every parameter I’ve described is simply more so, and it’s obvious the two units were voiced together. One should not dismiss the ‘voicing’ parameter; we’ve all heard about how the Audio Research facilities have Wilson loudspeakers for design and analysis purposes. Point being, some pieces are simply designed to work together, and the Acoustic Revive RTP-4 is designed to work with the Power Reference. Like Abbott and Costello, the RTP-4 simply needs to be paired with the Power Reference to achieve its maximum potential, as a number of different cords I tried with the RTP-4 didn’t deliver the goods the way this combo did. Frankly, the RTP-4 needs to be hardwired like the RTP-2, but I’m running low on my nit-picking list when that’s all I can come up with.
(As an aside, to see the effectiveness of the RTP-4 on amps, I did try the unit with my monoblock McIntosh 501 amps plugged in, using the RTP-4 to feed these amps along with my preamp and CD player. While I got a lot of the same sensations I noted before, I was troubled by a loss of dynamics, which was to be entirely expected. While the RTP-4 is not current limiting in any way, the configuration I was forced into for this test had 4 components on the RTP-4, and the RTP-4 plugged into one dedicated wall outlet. Normally, each of my amps has a dedicated outlet, and I use a third dedicated outlet for my line level gear, which is of such a low current draw that one dedicated line suffices. A fair test would have been using three RTPs, one for each monoblock, and a third for use on the front end electronics as I did throughout the review; I’m certain this would remove the dynamic constriction I heard when the amps were on the same RTP-4 as my preamp and CD player. Alas, not to be at this time. However, the point is worth mentioning again: the RTP-4 does not limit current, and can confidently be used in front of any amplifier.)
Additional Considerations
As I stated earlier, there are many different ways to get to clean power, but it strikes me that this product serves a market that most other conditioners cannot. No, I’m not talking about the “I want my wife to think I’m nuts for spending $2k on an awesome sounding fancy power strip” prospect list. I’m speaking of the group of audiophiles who have to integrate their systems into family rooms and find themselves subject to aesthetic concerns. This unit is tiny, and it tucks neatly behind a rack, or even inside a cabinet beside other components, making it the most physically unobtrusive power conditioner I’ve come across. Audiophiles who crave world-class performance in compromised quarters would be well served to get an Acoustic Revive for audition.
As this is a passive conditioner, its worth pointing out that there are no parts to break, no items to be updated, no risk of failure in this unit. As much as any audiophile component, tweak, or doodad I’ve come across, this thing is meant to last a lifetime…or two. However, with the low part count, there are no fuses, MOVs, or circuit breakers; this unit is designed to sound good, not to protect equipment. So Caveat Emptor dear reader, but if you’re like me, your house’s breaker box along with the fuses inside your components will provide you with sufficient surge protection to placate your worries. One final consideration, and this matters to any environmentally-conscious audiophile like me who would not own a class A amp because of its wasteful use of electricity: the Acoustic Revive is completely passive, and as such does not have any ‘loss’ associated with its use. Any active conditioner will not convert all of its input AC to output AC, resulting in waste and increasing your overall energy usage. I realize this may seem trivial to some of you, and that’s your choice, just as its my choice to try to ensure this planet that I am a temporary resident on is degraded by me as little as possible, and to make choices consistent with that principle.
Conclusion
If there were ever a product I wanted to send back with a ‘HAH!” to the distributor, this was it. But slap a wig on me and call me Susan if it didn’t just find a new reference AC conditioner. For a moment, let us consider things unrelated to the sonic performance of the unit (which ultimately factor into purchasing decisions). While I greatly appreciate the tuck-it-behind-my-rack-easily size, the bullet-proof design and durability, and the outright simplicity of the RTP-4, I still take issue with the value for my audiophile dollar (this is a lot of money for a sturdy box, 2 nice outlets and some magic dust!). So, let us call the two factors a draw and get to the crux of the matter: the sound.
While my tests with amplifiers is hardly fair (for reasons articulated earlier), every line level electronic I tried got better with the Acoustic Revive RTP-4 feeding it. Folks, this thing took my system to levels I had not previously achieved; it alerted me to colorations in the other conditioners I’ve tried, and it delivered depth of image and an organic sense of continuity that I had not previously encountered with any conditioner. The RTP-4, used with the Power Reference AC cable, didn’t simply stitch together all the pieces involved with a recording, it simply made one fabric of them.
While making the rounds in the reference level systems of local audio-friends who use AC filtering systems ranging from $4k to $10k, the Acoustic Revive promptly served notice that it was the superior sounding unit. For the improvement in performance these things deliver (which is ultimately what we audiophiles value), I’m left to consider them a bargain, and I offer the Acoustic Revive RTP-4 my highest recommendation.
In closing, allow me to make and belabor a point: Acoustic Revive is a company you probably haven’t heard of. That said, of the products I’ve tried from them, I can state emphatically that their designs are the real deal, and its just a matter of time until you hear lots more from them, and from lots more people like me who are singing their praises.
Official review
Ryan Coleman’s objection to my editing, and his resignation
Ryan Coleman’s 1st Email
Date:
Sat, 19 Apr 2008 07:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
From:
“Ryan Coleman”
Subject:
RTP review
To:
“Constantine Soo”
constantine, i would be happy if your editing improved my reviews, but when you materially change the tone and enjoyment of them, i question why i bother submitting them?
you changed “obvious as a fart in church” into “obvious as a yawn in church”. very different, and i am not at all pleased. —are your readers so childish that they would feign offense? are you not willing to allow your writers to interject some of their own individuality and humor into their reviews?
this is not the first time i have felt my individual expression silenced by your editorial pen. if you choose to continue to materially alter the tone of my reviews as such, i encourage you to simply write them, as i will stop altogether.
let me put it simply, i expect you to change it back, promptly. my continued participation with dagogo depends on your handling this.
best
ryan
Ryan Coleman’s 2nd Email
Date:
Sat, 19 Apr 2008 07:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
From:
“Ryan Coleman”
Subject:
Re: RTP review
To:
“Ryan Coleman” , “Constantine Soo”
having read the remainder of it, i’m even more upset. also restore the section on “additional considerations” in its entirety. i have the draft, so i know what to expect.
if your readers are upset by what i write, they have my dagogo.com email address to reach me at
if these changes are not made, you have my immediate resignation, and i will no longer provide you with free copy (i submit that any publication of the EMM CDSA review pt 2 would be against my stated permission, and would take appropriate action to defend my intellectual property).
ryan
My Reply
Date:
Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
From:
“Constantine Soo”
Subject:
Re: RTP review
To:
ryan.coleman@shell.com
Dear Ryan,
I am perplexed at the tone of your emails. We have certainly worked closely enough to deserve a level of cordiality and trust between us? I have entrusted you with reviewing, and you should’ve trusted me on editorial matters. The editorial changes made to your article is not to undermine your opinion, but to keep all expression of opinin within the context of the publication’s objective.
Your ultimatums are noted. My editorial decision stands, and your resignation is accepted, and I wish you the very best in your future endeavor.
Sincerely,
Constantine Soo
DAGOGO
www.dagogo.com
510-223-3999
Subject:
Out of Office AutoReply: RTP review
Date:
Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:22:17 -0500
From:
ryan.coleman@shell.com
To:
editor@dagogo.com
I will be out of the office until Monday May 5. If urgent matters, please contact Kxxxx Sxxxxxx or Bxxxx Bxxxx.
Thanks and best regards,
Ryan Coleman
Ryan Coleman’s 3rd Email
Date:
Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:
“rhyno”
Subject:
dagogo email
To:
“Constantine Soo”
did you cancel my dagogo email account? i no longer have it listed, nor did i ever receive the courtesy of a reply from my prior two emails.
rc
“A Democrat is what you become when you try to discredit your own sources.”
–Ryan Coleman (yes, i’m quoting myself. but its a good quote.)
Bush: Why one should never trust the GOP
Ryan Coleman’s 4th Email
Date:
Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
From:
“rhyno”
Subject:
testing
To:
rcoleman@dagogo.com
“A Democrat is what you become when you try to discredit your own sources.”
–Ryan Coleman (yes, i’m quoting myself. but its a good quote.)
Bush: Why one should never trust the GOP
Ryan Coleman’s 5th Email
Date:
Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:
“rhyno”
Subject:
step 2
To:
“Constantine Soo” , ryancoleman@yahoo.com
i gather from the fact that you removed me from your web site as a reviewer that i am no longer associated w/ dagogo. sorry it came to that, but that’s your choice. all i wanted was my articles published reflecting my tone & tenor, not yours.
so, why is it you have my reviews still listed on your web site? i see no documentation that they are the intellectual property of dagogo; you paid no monies for them. there was no transfer of title or ownership. so, your republication of my intellecutal property has been a virtue of a cordial relationship, that you have since terminated. (and i must say that the complete lack of reply from you is quite telling).
i suggest you take every review on your web site associated with my name off your site, or you reactivate my account and my status in this quid pro quo relationship, otherwise i will have you served for intellectual property rights violation, as without my being acknowledged of association to dagogo, you are redistributing my intellectual property for personal gain without expressed written consent.
this will move quickly (and this email will be forwarded to my attorneys and will be matter of public domain). the choice is yours, if you wish to avoid further escalation, suggest you take one of 2 possible courses of action
rc
“A Democrat is what you become when you try to discredit your own sources.”
–Ryan Coleman (yes, i’m quoting myself. but its a good quote.)
Bush: Why one should never trust the GOP
Ryan Coleman’s insistence on writing negative reviews
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:02:39 -0800 (PST)
From: “Constantine Soo”
Subject: FOR YOU TO REVIEW: Plinius pre-amp & power amp
To: “Ryan Coleman”
Hello Ryan,
How are you?
Scot Markwell has informed me that a Plinius SA-201 power amp and the Toutoro preamplifier will be en route to you soon. I shall let you know once I hear more details.
Thank you for your wonderful, hard work.
Yours,
Constantine
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0800 (PST)
From: “Ryan Coleman”
Subject: Re: FOR YOU TO REVIEW: Plinius pre-amp & power amp
To: “Constantine Soo”
hi constantine,
that’s fine. must say i’m not too interested in mid-fi gear, but outside of a power strip from joe cohen i’ve nothing to review.
btw, your links to the CES 2008 are all broken. you may want to take a look.
best to you,
ryan
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:48:45 -0800 (PST)
From: webmaster@dagogo.com
Subject: Re: FOR YOU TO REVIEW: Plinius pre-amp & power amp
To: “Ryan Coleman”
Ryan,
Thank you for the heads-up. The links should work fine now.
Are you considering Plinius mid-fi as compared to the McIntosh? Plinius is a reputable name in high-end audio, and whoever gets their equipment to review is receiving a privilege not enjoyed by others. In addition, we can’t always expect to get whatever we want to review, and restricting oneself to the most exhalted names in audio does not help everybody in your team. Ed Momkus had to review the Music Hall Maverick, and I had to review the Audio Horizons DAC, etc. You must learn to be appreciative of the opportunities and privileges presented to you. If you don’t want to review Plinius products, then I will have to relate this to Scot Markwell, who will not take this very lightly. I will also have to convince him to continue his consideration of a Dagogo review by another Dagogoan.
However, I have seen how you write when the product being reviewed is not to your liking. Therefore, if you don’t think you are motivated enough to review the Plinius, I shall not risk having a narrow viewpoint unbecoming of a Dagogo review to be cast onto the Plinius.
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:39:43 -0800 (PST)
From: “Constantine Soo”
Subject: Fwd: link
To: “Ryan Coleman” , “Bill Epstein” , “Phillip Holmes” , “Ed Momkus” , “Gordon Pryor” , “Chris Redmond” , “Jack Roberts” , “Doug Schroeder”
My Friends,
This is a nice surprise, being mentioned alongside the big boys. Kudos to everyone for your work.
Honestly, I don’t really know what we’ve been doing right, but let’s stay focused, keeping doing it the way we’ve been doing it, and not congratulate ourselves too much. For as soon as we think we are really special, we will stray from our passion and path.
My sincere thanks to everyone for your wonderful, hard work.
Yours,
Constantine
“Ping Gong (AAA Audio, LLC)” wrote:
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:04:27 -0800 (PST)
From: “Ping Gong \(AAA Audio, LLC\)” Subject: link
To: editor@dagogo.com
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=general&m=507318
you may or may not have seen it yet.
it is the same way I feel.
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:39:50 -0800 (PST)
From: “Ryan Coleman”
Subject: Re: Fwd: link
To: “Constantine Soo”
we need more ‘bad’ reviews to increase viewership & credibility—audiophiles like being told what is good, but love knowing what is not.
tough situation, as a negative review would piss off the mfg royally and preclude further samples / relationship. most e-zines are advanced marketing copy, and being critical, sometimes especially hard, is our job, and IMO enhances our readers’ loyalty to us.
rant over; glad for us and esp for you C.
best
rzc
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:07:10 -0800 (PST)
From: “Constantine Soo”
Subject: Review process
To: “Ryan Coleman”
Hello Ryan,
I thought about your suggestion of writing about products that didn’t sound good to your ears, and I have decided to continue publishing reviews only on products that appeal to us. Dagogo will simply return products that didn’t sound good back to the manufacturer/distributor.
Please let me know if you have any problem with this.
Thank you for your wonderful, hard work.
Yours,
Constantine
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:41:30 -0800 (PST)
From: “Ryan Coleman”
Subject: Re: Review process
To: “Constantine Soo”
C, i fear that this policy will marginalize dagogo and ruin our credibility. audiophiles are increasingly callous & skeptical to formal reviews. you’re playing into this stereotype. not all products are good. only publishing “good” reviews will make us cheerleaders, not reviewers. if a product isn’t good, chances are good we’re not going to have a relationship w/ the mfg regardless of whether its published or not—they’ll simply go to greener pastures. and as nothing but “good” reviews come along, we’ll be no diff than any other e-zine.
i see no upside whatsoever to this policy.
we should screen & match product to reviewer, but if its no good, we need to say so.
best to you
ryan
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 12:52:23 -0800 (PST)
From: webmaster@dagogo.com
Subject: Re: Review process
To: “Ryan Coleman”
Ryan, I appreciate your candor very much. Yours is an approach that differs from mine, and I respect your insistence.
I also believe it is counterproductive to try to “preach” my approach to you, as I thought long and hard about it and I think you will not be happy even if you agree to adhere to my policy.
Other than an agreement of exclusivity of your reviewing, I will also not be able to arrange review samples on your behalf. You will have to procure review samples proactively. This is necessary as we now have two different policies at Dagogo, and as I will do my best in making Dagogo as politics-free as I can, my pitch to manufacturers of “positive reviews or no reviews” will put both of us in a bind should your review turns negative.
- (Page 1 of 1)
