Home | ER-101 | ER-102 | ER-301 | Wiki | Contact

Please point out any misleading statements in my product copy!

I prefer to have customer expectations low before purchase and then exceeded after delivery. The first step towards that goal is properly worded product copy and documentation that does not exaggerate or mislead. However, my interpretations are not always commonly shared. So if you see anything in any of my writings that caused you to expect more than what was delivered could you please share here. As usual, feel free to be picky but also be open to disagreement/multiple viewpoints.

I would be very grateful! :bowing_man:


I’ll go first with a question:

Grain Stretch and Clocked Stretch units. I would say that these two units implement time stretching. Is that misleading?

Nope! “Stretch” in audio instinctively relates to time. A user isn’t going to stretch dynamics or stretch eq as an example. Stretching Audio? Feels time related from the get go.

And you’ve always been very clear on the main page that the 301 is under constant development.

Curious, have you received customer kickback?

1 Like

Yes but not recently. I keep a list of “things to do when I have more emotional distance”. This was one of those things. :blush: That and I’m about to go on a documentation refresh/rampage.


That would cause you to expect less right? I’m ok with that. :laughing: jk


Yes sir👍

I think the fact that your product page for the ER-301 prominently displays a video showing off firmware 0.1.x qualifies as understated. :rofl:

I will keep an eye out when I’m in the docs and such for anything that could be construed as a potential oversell, but I think you’ve always done a good job with representing its current capabilities and including caveats.

Getting to 100% satisfaction might be an unrealistic goal with a niche product like a Eurorack module. We’ve probably all bought a module that we ended up not liking so much - not because it was a bad module or oversold, but simply because it turned out to not be a good workflow fit, or whatever.

My opinion based on what I’ve observed from forum posts is that if someone is going to be disappointed with the ER-301, it most likely won’t be due to exaggerated product copy, but more likely because:

a) they underestimated the learning curve required to get the results they wanted to get
b) they were hoping a particular feature would be higher priority in the development pipeline than it is or was


That sounds like a great idea!
And definitely one of those things that will help with customer expectations. In every respect: the functionality of the module AND expectations related to learning curve.


I’ve always been very happy with all things er301!!!
But I’ll keep an eye out. :heart:

I wonder if understatement from your side while the module is in lively use in the world combined with the work in progress disclaimer and the lack of an manual also could lead to some kind of myth around the 301 with the impression that everything one dreams of is possible and might be implemented soon. Refined documentation could then in fact clear that up and prevent from unrealistic expectations.


The basics of communication essentially mean that no matter how much you stress about something being clear, there will ALWAYS be someone who does not understand or interprets it as was intended.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think improving the documentation to improve the documentation is great. But don’t do it under the impression that you’ll be able to prevent disappointment from misunderstands. With the amount of info on the internet about the 301, the onus is on the customer as you have more than done your part.

1 Like