Rocket or Swan or Axiom??

[Jon Lane]

With all due respect, the internet-direct model does work, but it's also got its own set of drawbacks and risks. The low return rate could also have a lot to do with the high hurdle involved in returning a pair of speakers, and the biases that crop up in the comparison process.

The feedback we get tells us the nearly-nil return rate has to do with the extreme value, nothing more or less. Occasionally I even guarantee freight, which takes that risk out of the equation.

Auditioning speakers sold through a local B&M store is often as simple as borrowing a set of demo units. Comparing them against a set of internet-direct speakers that the customer already paid for and has to ship back on their own dime if they opt for the B&M speakers is hardly a level playing field or unbiased comparison.

I don't agree: In my couple decades experience with B&M, I found "borrowing" from the local dealer typically involves purchasing and transporting, then unboxing and setting up...with the reverse necessary when you return them. It's actually a greater task than guaranteed-via-Internet!

And the comraderie that you speak of can sometimes be interpreted as just a lot of noise and hype. If anything, on this and other boards, the supporters of internet-direct speakers face a more skeptical audience precisely because those speakers cannot be auditioned in stores in a simple process of elimination prior to purchase. So, often the response is to hype up the speakers to almost obnoxiously hyperbolic levels.

I agree that brands sold direct, despite potentially costing up to half what they would in stores, can still get mired in an almost cultish following -- but ours (since it's been named here) is a stable, long-term product, and certainly we don't engage in the sort of emotional subscription you're referring to. We like to think we're offering solid, ongoing value and solid support.

And from what I've seen, there is a sort of flavor-of-the-month cycle to the internet-direct brands that get touted. Two years ago, it was Swan Diva and nOhr, now it's all about Ascend, Axiom, and Rocket.

Well, Swan remains a value leader and we're not pounding the boards (this post excepted ) It's precisely because our users are opposed to the flavor-of-the-month cycle that they keep coming back, four very succesful years later.

We're glad your own Internet-direct purchases worked out. And we respect your opinions of some of the relatively minor considerations every potential buyer should make when considering this special model.

Jon Lane
The Audio Insider.com

[Woochifer]

The feedback we get tells us the nearly-nil return rate has to do with the extreme value, nothing more or less. Occasionally I even guarantee freight, which takes that risk out of the equation.

And the operative word there is "occasionally" and the fact that the shipping charges are part of the equation most other times, then it constitutes a higher hurdle for the consumer if they decide to return something, versus the typical return policies at B&M stores. If I decided that I did not like my internet-direct subwoofer or found some reason to return it, it would have entailed $80 in shipping charges. That's irrecoverable out-of-pocket expense that I would absorbed just to get an audition.

I don't agree: In my couple decades experience with B&M, I found "borrowing" from the local dealer typically involves purchasing and transporting, then unboxing and setting up...with the reverse necessary when you return them. It's actually a greater task than guaranteed-via-Internet!

Well your decades of experience do not correspond to how the dealers in my area operate. All of the dealers where I shopped encouraged me to take the speakers home. I simply lined the trunk of my car and loaded the demo units off their showroom floor. After doing my home comparisons, I simply returned them to the dealers. No boxing, no unpacking, no upfront charges.

To me, the greater task is having to PURCHASE the speakers up front just to get a listen to them. That entails risk, and if the customer's willing to do that for potentially greater reward, then it's their choice. But, it's hardly the win-win situation that you portray.

I agree that brands sold direct, despite potentially costing up to half what they would in stores, can still get mired in an almost cultish following -- but ours (since it's been named here) is a stable, long-term product, and certainly we don't engage in the sort of emotional subscription you're referring to. We like to think we're offering solid, ongoing value and solid support.

The cultish behavior that I was referring to was actually the customers, who can get carried away at times.

But, if you're calling the Swans a "stable, long-term product" -- how long have you been distributing them? If I recall, av123.com originally distributed them, and then I did not see the Swans on the market for about a year. It's nice that your company carries them, and I'm all for more choices in the market, but even four years is not a lengthy history or legacy.

[kexodusc]

Gotta agree with Wooch,here. I foolishly bought some M3Ti's from Axiom (see my review from December on this site). I was only looking for a set of speakers for my dining room upstairs, but I broke the cardinal rule of audio equipment: DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!!! Listen to them for yourself. They aren't bad, but I could have done better buying from a local retailer.

Certainly, one should expect that a confident and reliable distributor/retailer would have both the confidence and the integrity to provide a money back guarantee, without the direct deterrent that shipping costs are.
If one's budget for speakers was $500, and the on-line retail speakers didn't live up to expectations, after 60-80 dollars extra spent for return shipping, the poor person's new budget is now only $420. It's more than reasonable to think that the extra expense and reduced budget would make anyone think twice about returning speakers.

Finally, the idea of online retailers selling at huge discounts is often over embellished. Prices are set by any business to maximize revenues, and generally are a function of market demand. Eliminating the middle man, in this case local retailers, and any secondary "mark-ups" that may be applied to a product does not impact this equation at all. Rather it eliminates the need for profit sharing between the manufacturer and the distributors/retailers. Hardly an "added value" for consumers.
Though I have no doubt that some internet-direct products are full value for the money, buying internet-direct is considerably riskier.

[psonic]

generally speaking, when you look through the online reviews of online speakers such as axiom nohr swan rocket, etc. you find great, glowing reviews, you also find that the speakers are run by a receiver 9/10 times and in a home theater setup. So everything is relative in this game, those who listen to music through a receiver may not care about listening to the best, musical speakers out there in hifi shops, they probably just want a good value. I can bet you there's very very few who are running a good $400+ cd player and $800+ separates or integrated amp with internet speakers. Why? You can't compare them next to the best...all you have to go on is online talk, mostly by entry level home theater guys who run a receiver for music, and did not audition the top speakers as a measuring stick. I could see going to another owners for an in home audition, but at these prices you can get some great standmounts and very good used or demo towers. No offense to the home theater guys, but they have different demands than a musical speaker. For example, the $995 Monitor Audio Silver 6b was just as boomy down low as a Paradigm monitor 7. It would probably be fantastic in home theater, but with my reference CDs they were untolerable after a few minutes of hearing box resonances and loose booming bass - nothing close to musical.

Nich, I also like the sound of the Totems, as I just finished extensive auditioning. If you like them you should audition Dynaudio Audience 62 and possibly Vienna acoustics bach, they are very similar to the Totems in quality of sound at around $1k new, but much less on audiogon. For less money, Kef Q5 and Energy C5 were very good as well. The C5 can be had online for less than the Axiom m60! And you can go audition it! I just bought a pair of Dynaudio 60 floorstanders for $600! There are deals out there on the "known" top speakers that have a quality of sound rivaling those Totems!

Take your time with this...

[46minaudio]

I reckon Ill throw my 2 cents..Some may remember the Norh days 2 years ago..They were hyped to be the best speaker ever..ANything negitive said about them was countered with the word troll..The words they blow B&M speaker A away,B&M speaker a is not in the same league,and all grades of other crap..I always ?ed these coments and was acused as being a troll...So I bought a pair of 4.0s and compared them to my lowly B&M studio 20v2s.I prefered the 20s.There was none of this blown away..If one visits the internet direct formuns most of these coments that compare Internet direct speaker A to B&M speaker A are not even in the same room.Even worst I have read where they were compared months apart...When reading these reviews one really needs to ask the reviewer if they were compared in the same room at the same time driven by the same amp.Anything else should be taken with a grain of salt..FWIW I still have the 4.0s and dont plan on getting rid of them.They are a fine speaker ,sound great for the price ,and fit the decor of a room perfect.The words blownaway were all hype IMO though..The looks of some of these internet direct products look fantastic second to none for the price paid...

[Jon Lane]

And the operative word there {regarding freight charges] is "occasionally" and the fact that the shipping charges are part of the equation most other times, then it constitutes a higher hurdle for the consumer if they decide to return something, versus the typical return policies at B&M stores.

The alternative is for the Internet brand to offer free freight both ways -- an open invitation to be a speaker lending library -- and an indicator of excess margins, wouldn't you agree? Of course I offer the occasional freight guarantee, after the prospective buyer and I have taken the time to get to know one another and go over his expectations in detail. And yes, we take back nil. Even with free return freight. With our slim margins and high value, it's the only sensible route.

Well your decades of experience do not correspond to how the dealers in my area operate. All of the dealers where I shopped encouraged me to take the speakers home. I simply lined the trunk of my car and loaded the demo units off their showroom floor. After doing my home comparisons, I simply returned them to the dealers. No boxing, no unpacking, no upfront charges.

I won't challenge your experience but I'll ask how sensible it is for a B&M dealer, already stretched to the limit by expenses, to line your trunk with his property, unprotected (and probably uninsured while in your possession) in the hope you'll not leave town. I've owned B&M for years and I went the extra mile then as I do now, but I would never risk my property like that...so how frequent is that policy?

To me, the greater task is having to PURCHASE the speakers up front just to get a listen to them. That entails risk, and if the customer's willing to do that for potentially greater reward, then it's their choice. But, it's hardly the win-win situation that you portray.

Not a win-win in the sense of an absolutely hassle-free demo. There is no such thing, B&M or otherwise. But our track record absolutely speaks for itself.

The cultish behavior that I was referring to was actually the customers, who can get carried away at times.

Absolutely.

But, if you're calling the Swans a "stable, long-term product" -- how long have you been distributing them? If I recall, av123.com originally distributed them, and then I did not see the Swans on the market for about a year. It's nice that your company carries them, and I'm all for more choices in the market, but even four years is not a lengthy history or legacy.

Actually Swan is a proven brand in a volatile marketplace, and one of the direct-channel pioneers. My relationship with our manufacturer (some $100M large) goes back to 1996 and I was part of the design team in 1999. Your concerns are valid but in this case, let us calm your fears.

Jon Lane
The Audio Insider.com

[TinHere]

Another thing to consider is if internet direct companies didn't deliver on their promises of value/performance, they would be glutted with b stock as the result of returns, and couldn't survive due to lost profit margins. It's a pretty cut and dry thing. Deliver or go out of business. Those that make it have done so by the words of satisfied customers that would be buyers can give any import they wish.

BTW it's great to see a member of the internet direct community posting here. Thanks for your input Jon, it helps class up the joint.

[Jon Lane]

You're more than welcome, TinHear.

I see you're out on the Island. That reminds me of all the many dealerships I've visited in the greater NYC area between 1995 and 1999 -- some of the very best there are and I have fond memories.

But the irony of the Internet-direct business model is that the major online speaker brands...are all still here! On the other hand, I can't begin to count the numbers of my friends who've closed their B&M doors (I did myself in 1992, well before the carnage...)

Frankly, while so many out there are struggling, we're growing. I think there must be something to this...

[TinHere]

You're more than welcome, TinHear.

I see you're out on the Island. That reminds me of all the many dealerships I've visited in the greater NYC area between 1995 and 1999 -- some of the very best there are and I have fond memories.

But the irony of the Internet-direct business model is that the major online speaker brands...are all still here! On the other hand, I can't begin to count the numbers of my friends who've closed their B&M doors (I did myself in 1992, well before the carnage...)

Frankly, while so many out there are struggling, we're growing. I think there must be something to this...

It's good not to be part of the carnage. Glad to hear you made it out in time.

It's all time and numbers as more people "experience" the delta and enjoy the possibilities offered by the companies that do it right. The flow certainly seems to be headed toward the internet direct companies. It seems on the forums there are basically two groups of people, b&m users, and used to be b&m users. The used to be b&m users have made their desicion to change based on experience, and b&m users are obviously happy enough with their experience not to try another way. The growing number of satisfied end users of the "internet model" bodes well for their future.

[Bryan]

Just to clarify an earlier post: While nOrh isn't the best nor greatest out there (truth be told there is no such thing) a lot of the bashing of the company was because of where the speakers were made (Thailand) and their looks. Not because of their sound.

All internet only/factory direct companies take a risk. One unrectified complaint can mean tens of thousands of dollars of lost revenue. To most of their credit they will bend over backwards to make things right. (SVS is a prime example of this, often openly troubleshooting a problem with a customer.) They can't afford bad press. That is part of their upside. Part of their downside is you can't stop by at any old Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal-Mart, etc. and listen to them.

[Woochifer]

The alternative is for the Internet brand to offer free freight both ways -- an open invitation to be a speaker lending library -- and an indicator of excess margins, wouldn't you agree? Of course I offer the occasional freight guarantee, after the prospective buyer and I have taken the time to get to know one another and go over his expectations in detail. And yes, we take back nil. Even with free return freight. With our slim margins and high value, it's the only sensible route.

What you're illustrating is a dilemma as to who assumes the risk. Obviously, as a businessman, you would like to limit your own exposure, but by doing so, the risk with the two-way shipping charges gets transferred to the customer. In this scenario, it's up to the customer as to whether the reward is worth the upfront expense, as it is yours in determining which customers to offer the free return freight. But, given that you mention virtually zero returns, then why not extend the two-way shipping offer to all customers given that it would represent practically zero risk for your company?

I won't challenge your experience but I'll ask how sensible it is for a B&M dealer, already stretched to the limit by expenses, to line your trunk with his property, unprotected (and probably uninsured while in your possession) in the hope you'll not leave town. I've owned B&M for years and I went the extra mile then as I do now, but I would never risk my property like that...so how frequent is that policy?

It's pretty easy for a B&M retailer to minimize their own risk by simply drafting a credit card preauthorization, and when the customer brings the demo unit back, the store hands back that preauthorization slip. Again, no upfront investment (with internet direct purchases, a simple demo means that the credit card is charged, sometimes before the unit even ships, and for revolving credit customers, the interest charges accrue in the meantime). EVERY specialty audio retailer in my area encourages customers to borrow their demo units, but none of them just lend equipment out without some form of collateral. The scenario that you're referring to is one that I haven't seen.

Actually Swan is a proven brand in a volatile marketplace, and one of the direct-channel pioneers. My relationship with our manufacturer (some $100M large) goes back to 1996 and I was part of the design team in 1999. Your concerns are valid but in this case, let us calm your fears.

Jon Lane
The Audio Insider.com

Now I'm getting confused. I thought that av123.com was the Swan distributor until, for whatever reason, they quit selling the Swans. Then I didn't see anything on boards or banner ads about the Swans for almost a year, until people started mentioning that Audio Insider was the place to go for people interested in the speakers. If Audio Insider has been distributing the Swans since 1999 (again, I don't know if you have or not, so this is not an accusation), then I'd say great to have that kind of continuity. But, if it turned out that av123 quit selling the Swans and Audio Insider picked up the brand later on, then there indeed was a transitional period where customers were in limbo. It's good that you're promoting the brand and its stability, but if that scenario's true, then it will take time to prove Swan's long-term viability to potential customers. Even a long established brand like Mission disappeared from the U.S. market when their distribution relationship with Denon ended. Even though Mission's slowly trickling back into U.S. stores, a lot of their customers were left in the dark during the transition.

[TinHere]

Now I'm getting confused. I thought that av123.com was the Swan distributor until, for whatever reason, they quit selling the Swans. Then I didn't see anything on boards or banner ads about the Swans for almost a year, until people started mentioning that Audio Insider was the place to go for people interested in the speakers. If Audio Insider has been distributing the Swans since 1999 (again, I don't know if you have or not, so this is not an accusation), then I'd say great to have that kind of continuity. But, if it turned out that av123 quit selling the Swans and Audio Insider picked up the brand later on, then there indeed was a transitional period where customers were in limbo. .

I'm sure Jon can talk to exactly when the change happened, but I sure didn't read of any complaints about AV123 not backing up any products they sold or people left in limbo.

[Nich]

Well my search is finally over. I finally ordered the Axiom M60ti and I won't be returning these. Next to the B&W Nautilus 803 this was the best speakers that I auditioned. Lows; Mids and Highs are very clear. Not as bright as what people said. I had a chance to auditioned the Rockets RS750's few days before I ordered the M60ti and I thought it was too laid back for my taste. I gotta admit that the Rockets had an awesome fit and finish but you wont see these at my house. Too bad Rockets only offer two finishes. At the end of the day the M60ti is the clear winner over the RS750's. I've had these M60ti for a week now and I can't stop listening to it.

It was great experience with Axiom; Great customer service and Awesome products. I will be getting more speakers from them to complete my HT.

[TinHere]

Well my search is finally over. I finally ordered the Axiom M60ti and I won't be returning these. Next to the B&W Nautilus 803 this was the best speakers that I auditioned. Lows; Mids and Highs are very clear. Not as bright as what people said. I had a chance to auditioned the Rockets RS750's few days before I ordered the M60ti and I thought it was too laid back for my taste. I gotta admit that the Rockets had an awesome fit and finish but you wont see these at my house. Too bad Rockets only offer two finishes. At the end of the day the M60ti is the clear winner over the RS750's. I've had these M60ti for a week now and I can't stop listening to it.

It was great experience with Axiom; Great customer service and Awesome products. I will be getting more speakers from them to complete my HT.

It's always a good thing when personal preference and products get connected. I guess we can chaulk up another among the ranks of happy internet direct consumers. Enjoy your Axioms.

[Jon Lane]

I'm sure Jon can talk to exactly when the change happened, but I sure didn't read of any complaints about AV123 not backing up any products they sold or people left in limbo.

Precisely. No Swan customers have ever been left aside, either under my watch or, to my knowledge, under AV123's. I think that's a record the rest of the industry can respect. There are literally scores of speaker brands on the market, and the costs of traditional marketing and distribution is intense. They don't all make it...

[Jon Lane]

What you're illustrating is a dilemma as to who assumes the risk. Obviously, as a businessman, you would like to limit your own exposure, but by doing so, the risk with the two-way shipping charges gets transferred to the customer. In this scenario, it's up to the customer as to whether the reward is worth the upfront expense, as it is yours in determining which customers to offer the free return freight. But, given that you mention virtually zero returns, then why not extend the two-way shipping offer to all customers given that it would represent practically zero risk for your company?

Like I said, offering to cover free freight, cross-country, on hundreds of pounds of premium, low-margin products is an open invitation for abuse. We ask our customers to share in our business model, and those that do realize huge savings. Were we to change to offer free freight across the board, obviously costs would rise, with you the paying customer ponying up the costs to cover all those who "buy" something, use it (or abuse it) for 29 days, and then start the cycle all over again. Plus a free-freight scenerio is no different than a B&M that offers free unlimited demos (which in this day and age of profitable custom installation dealers who work for a living and failing boutiques who can't get by selling $1000 cables with 70% margins is uncommon.) Both methods simply invite abuse, and both methods therefore cost huge amounts. Believe me, if it made sense for our customers we'd do it. It doesn't, anymore than 50% B&M margins do, IMHO.

Let's try asking how many other industries offer free unlimited product use at the dealer's risk -- Internet or not; it doesn't matter -- without passing along those costs? Do we want to return to the days of $1000/pr satellites (1990 dollars) or do we prefer $1000/pr complete floorstanding models (2004 dollars)? More importantly, how much overhead in the B&M model is already passed along to you, the (possibly) buying customer? With our business model that overhead is a tiny fraction...and we pass along the savings.

It's pretty easy for a B&M retailer to minimize their own risk by simply drafting a credit card preauthorization, and when the customer brings the demo unit back, the store hands back that preauthorization slip. Again, no upfront investment (with internet direct purchases, a simple demo means that the credit card is charged, sometimes before the unit even ships, and for revolving credit customers, the interest charges accrue in the meantime). EVERY specialty audio retailer in my area encourages customers to borrow their demo units, but none of them just lend equipment out without some form of collateral. The scenario that you're referring to is one that I haven't seen.

Remember that they still have to pass along the wear on all those demos as an ongoing expense, whereas we offer them for sale as immediate B stock (at a rate of well under 1 in 100 sales, making the total expense contribution just about moot.) They also pass along the costs of product with an average of 50% margin, while our system has none because we sell direct.

Now I'm getting confused. I thought that av123.com was the Swan distributor until, for whatever reason, they quit selling the Swans. Then I didn't see anything on boards or banner ads about the Swans for almost a year, until people started mentioning that Audio Insider was the place to go for people interested in the speakers. If Audio Insider has been distributing the Swans since 1999 (again, I don't know if you have or not, so this is not an accusation), then I'd say great to have that kind of continuity. But, if it turned out that av123 quit selling the Swans and Audio Insider picked up the brand later on, then there indeed was a transitional period where customers were in limbo. It's good that you're promoting the brand and its stability, but if that scenario's true, then it will take time to prove Swan's long-term viability to potential customers. Even a long established brand like Mission disappeared from the U.S. market when their distribution relationship with Denon ended. Even though Mission's slowly trickling back into U.S. stores, a lot of their customers were left in the dark during the transition.

Swan has maintained a presence in the US continuously since the mid-nineties. And they too are able to switch distributorships, which they did. Put another way, not one customer has ever been left aside by Swan International, and all models are either in ongoing production, or if not, still have the complete backing of Swan to this day. It's a record we're proud of.

[Woochifer]

Like I said, offering to cover free freight, cross-country, on hundreds of pounds of premium, low-margin products is an open invitation for abuse. We ask our customers to share in our business model, and those that do realize huge savings. Were we to change to offer free freight across the board, obviously costs would rise, with you the paying customer ponying up the costs to cover all those who "buy" something, use it (or abuse it) for 29 days, and then start the cycle all over again.

I think you're missing my point. By not extending the two-way shipping costs to all customers, you're basically building the business model around shifting more of the upfront costs and risks to the customer. It's that simple. It allows you to lower the cost of the product, but it is a higher risk to the customer for that potential reward. This type of risk to the customer is not there with a lot of B&M stores, because the customer does not assume any upfront costs, aside from a credit preauthorization to cover the dealer against any damages or losses.

By saying that offering two-way shipping to customers is an "open invitation to abuse" basically undermines what you've asserted about the almost zero return rate on your products. If returns are not an issue, then making a two-way shipping offer would also not be an issue. It's a cost to you ONLY if the customers choose to exercise the privilege, and a near zero return rate should equate to a near zero return shipping cost. But, by saying that two-way shipping would raise business costs and create all sorts of problems, then you're basically acknowledging that the return shipping costs for customers in fact could very well represent a cost barrier that impedes customers from returning speakers that they purchased and are not completely satisfied with. This is very different than borrowing a pair of speakers from a store for evaluation purposes with no expenses directly incurred by the customer.

Plus a free-freight scenerio is no different than a B&M that offers free unlimited demos (which in this day and age of profitable custom installation dealers who work for a living and failing boutiques who can't get by selling $1000 cables with 70% margins is uncommon.) Both methods simply invite abuse, and both methods therefore cost huge amounts. Believe me, if it made sense for our customers we'd do it. It doesn't, anymore than 50% B&M margins do, IMHO.

Let's try asking how many other industries offer free unlimited product use at the dealer's risk -- Internet or not; it doesn't matter -- without passing along those costs? Do we want to return to the days of $1000/pr satellites (1990 dollars) or do we prefer $1000/pr complete floorstanding models (2004 dollars)? More importantly, how much overhead in the B&M model is already passed along to you, the (possibly) buying customer? With our business model that overhead is a tiny fraction...and we pass along the savings.

There's no such thing as a "free unlimited demo", and no store that I've visited has free unlimited demos. Whenever I borrow a demo unit from a local dealer, I have to agree to return it by a certain date. If not, then my credit preauthorization gets processed, and I've effectively bought what I borrowed. IMO, that's a fair exchange where risk is assumed by both parties, so how's this an invitation to abuse? And I still have the option of just listening to and trying out a unit at the dealer's demo room. It's nice that you're not passing along a lot of your overhead to your customers, but if they want to compare your products to others, particularly other internet-direct brands, then it's the customers that are assuming their own upfront and irrecoverable direct costs for that privilege. It would be like having to buy a car directly from the factory just for the privilege of test driving.

Remember that they still have to pass along the wear on all those demos as an ongoing expense, whereas we offer them for sale as immediate B stock (at a rate of well under 1 in 100 sales, making the total expense contribution just about moot.) They also pass along the costs of product with an average of 50% margin, while our system has none because we sell direct.

How's the wear a cost, when all they do is later discount the demos and sell them open box? And given that the demo units are rarely priced at 50% off (which is the margin that you're claiming), the store still maintains some margin on the item.

Your system has NO margins? How do you sustain a business without maintaining any margin on what you sell?

[TinHere]

Wooch,

Someone has to pay for shipping. It could be built into the price charged as a fixed expense [free shipping], or the buyer can pay. If "free shipping" was offered, people would be setting up a system for their party, returning them, and the rest of us would be paying. In a world where nobody would take advantage of "free shipping" and everyone who placed an order was a serious buyer [maybe the case now] based on reported return rates it could work. The problem is it would be an invitation to people with no intention of keeping them to have them sent to their home. Probably an addicted group of persons who just "need a new listen" fix and dang, these guys deliver. It wouldn't require evil intent to want to give these products a listen at in your home at no cost. Hmmmm....sounds like a cheap hobby... and that's why it sounds like it wouldn't work for the audio industry. Gotta pay to play a home game.