An Unfortunate but Timely Update: Still No Response From CITECH / HiFi ROSE Management
I had hoped I would not need to post this update.
On September 14, I sent the correspondence reproduced below directly to multiple CITECH/HiFi ROSE corporate addresses and specifically addressed it to Kim Dae-young, Representative Director / CEO of CITECH Co., Ltd.
The email was not a routine customer-service complaint. It raised specific questions about HiFi ROSE’s U.S. distribution transition, dealer coordination, warranty and repair procedures, the RW800 launch, RS130 reliability concerns, quality control, software testing, customer communication, and—most importantly—the measurable results of HiFi ROSE’s own previously announced commitment to “Strengthening Stability, Quality and Support.”
I asked ten specific questions.
I received no acknowledgment.
On September 18, I followed up. I made clear that I did not expect all ten questions to be researched and answered immediately. I asked for something considerably simpler: acknowledgment that the correspondence had reached senior management, identification of who was taking responsibility for responding, and a reasonable timeframe for receiving substantive answers.
As of today, I still have received no response.
And now the timing could hardly be more unfortunate.
While I am waiting for CITECH/HiFi ROSE management to answer questions specifically concerning software quality, testing, reliability and accountability, we are now seeing owners reporting serious problems following the latest HiFi ROSE update.
There is currently a thread on this forum from RS151 owners and rs130 owners describing severe system bugs and analogue-input failures following an update. Other owners can read those reports and determine the seriousness for themselves.
I want to be careful and fair here.
I do not have HiFi ROSE’s internal data, and I am not claiming that every unit is affected, that the update is damaging hardware, or that these reports establish a product-wide defect. HiFi ROSE should investigate the reports and explain their scope and cause.
But the appearance of serious post-update problems makes the questions I sent to CITECH management even more relevant.
This is precisely why I asked what measurable improvements resulted from HiFi ROSE’s previous commitment to strengthen software verification, quality control, stability and customer support.
Customers were previously told that HiFi ROSE would improve testing and verification, provide clearer communication when problems occur, strengthen after-sales support, and improve transparency.
So where are the measurable results?
This is becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss as a collection of unrelated customer complaints.
My concern is about the process:
Announce.
Release.
Problems emerge.
Customers report them.
HiFi ROSE responds that improvements are being made.
Customers wait.
Another problem emerges.
That cycle needs to stop.
The RW800 situation was not really about a $179 accessory. It demonstrated what happens when something is announced before the purchasing process and dealer network appear to have been fully coordinated.
The U.S. distribution transition was not simply about changing distributors. It raised questions about whether inventory, parts, dealer communication, warranty procedures and customer-support responsibilities were sufficiently established before the transition became effective.
The RS130 reports are not, by themselves, proof of a systemic hardware defect. But repeated significant failures reported by owners justify asking whether HiFi ROSE has identified common failure mechanisms and what it is doing about them.
And now reported problems following a software update raise the same fundamental question on the software side:
What is happening inside HiFi ROSE’s quality-control and release-validation process?
That is why my September 14 email did not ask for another apology.
It did not ask HiFi ROSE to thank me for my patience.
And it did not ask for another assurance that the company is “working diligently,” “strengthening communication,” or “refining internal workflows.”
I asked for accountability, measurable actions and results.
There is another aspect of this that I find particularly disappointing.
HiFi ROSE has repeatedly stated publicly that it intends to improve communication and responsiveness. Yet when a longtime customer sends a detailed, professional escalation directly to CITECH management raising exactly those issues, four days can pass without even an acknowledgment.
I subsequently sent a follow-up asking merely for confirmation that senior management had received it.
Still nothing.
That silence speaks louder than another carefully worded statement about improving communication.
I have given CITECH/HiFi ROSE until September 22 to acknowledge my correspondence and provide an expected timeframe for a substantive response. I believe that is more than reasonable.
I will continue to be fair about this.
If Mr. Kim or CITECH/HiFi ROSE management responds substantively, I will post that update here and give the company appropriate credit.
If HiFi ROSE identifies the cause of the newly reported software problems, corrects them promptly, communicates transparently with affected owners, and demonstrates that its testing procedures are being improved, I will give them credit for that as well.
But I am no longer prepared to judge HiFi ROSE by what it says it intends to do.
I am judging the company by what it actually does.
I own and genuinely like HiFi ROSE hardware. I want this company to succeed. That is exactly why this is so frustrating.
Premium products require more than impressive industrial design and excellent sound quality.
They require reliable software.
They require effective quality control.
They require competent distribution.
They require responsive support.
They require accountability when something goes wrong.
And above all, they require customers to have confidence that the manufacturer standing behind a multi-thousand-dollar product will still stand behind them after the sale.
At this point, HiFi ROSE does not need to make another promise.
It needs to demonstrate that its promises mean something.
For transparency, I am reproducing below my September 18 follow-up and my original September 14 correspondence to CITECH/HiFi ROSE management so that everyone can read exactly what I asked and judge the company’s response—or lack of one—for themselves.
Update: Since posting the above, I have continued reviewing the official Rose OS 5.11.07 update thread. This does not appear to be limited to the single RS151 report I referenced above.
Separate owners are now reporting similar VU-meter behavior following the update on the RS130, RS151, RS250 and RS250A. One RS151 owner is additionally reporting reproducible loss of analogue/AUX audio requiring a reboot.
I want to maintain the same qualification I made above: these customer reports do not establish that every unit is affected, that hardware is being damaged, or that all of these symptoms necessarily have the same underlying cause. HiFi ROSE is in the best position to determine that.
However, reports of substantially similar behavior across multiple models make the quality-control question increasingly important.
What regression testing was performed across supported HiFi ROSE models before Rose OS 5.11.07 was released?
And if HiFi ROSE has now confirmed these issues, customers should be told promptly what is affected, whether they should install the update, whether a rollback is available, and when corrective software can be expected.
This is exactly the kind of transparency and timely communication contemplated by HiFi ROSE’s earlier “Strengthening Stability, Quality and Support” commitment.
I hope HiFi ROSE will address this directly.
— Duffer
Date: September 18, 2026 at 8:24:12 PM EDT
To: ir@citech.kr, rose_service@citech.kr, hifirose@naver.com, khj94@citech.kr
Cc: America_CS HIFIROSE cs@hifirose.com, Sales sales@hifirose.com
Subject: Re: Executive Escalation: HiFi ROSE U.S. Operations, Customer Support and Failure to Execute
Dear Mr. Kim and HiFi ROSE Management,
I am following up on my September 14 email below, which was sent to multiple CITECH/HiFi ROSE corporate addresses and specifically requested a substantive response from senior management.
Four days have now passed, and I have received no acknowledgment or response.
Given that a central issue raised in my email was HiFi ROSE’s repeated commitment to improve customer communication, responsiveness, accountability and follow-through, the absence of even an acknowledgment is disappointing—although, candidly, it is not surprising.
My original email did not raise a routine technical-support question. It raised specific concerns regarding the management of HiFi ROSE’s U.S. operations, dealer coordination, warranty and service procedures, the RW800 promotion, product reliability concerns, and the measurable results of HiFi ROSE’s previously announced commitments to strengthen stability, quality and support.
I also asked ten specific questions. None has been answered.
I am not asking that all ten questions be researched and answered immediately. I am asking for the basic professional courtesy of acknowledging the escalation, confirming that it has reached Mr. Kim or an appropriate member of CITECH senior management, and providing a reasonable timeframe for a substantive response.
This situation unfortunately illustrates the larger concern I have been raising: HiFi ROSE is very willing to state that communication and customer support will improve, but customers ultimately have to judge the company by what actually happens afterward.
Promises of improved responsiveness followed by silence do not build confidence.
Please confirm receipt of my September 14 correspondence and advise who within CITECH/HiFi ROSE senior management is taking responsibility for responding to the issues and questions raised.
I would appreciate that acknowledgment and an expected response.
Date: September 14, 2026 at 4:57:14 AM EDT
To: ir@citech.kr, rose_service@citech.kr, hifirose@naver.com, khj94@citech.kr
Cc: America_CS HIFIROSE cs@hifirose.com, Sales sales@hifirose.com
Subject: Executive Escalation: HiFi ROSE U.S. Operations, Customer Support and Failure to Execute
FOR THE ATTENTION OF:
Kim Dae-young
Representative Director / CEO
CITECH Co., Ltd. / HiFi ROSEDear Mr. Kim and HiFi ROSE Management,
I am writing directly to CITECH and HiFi ROSE senior management because I believe the issues surrounding HiFi ROSE’s U.S. operations have progressed beyond an ordinary customer-service matter.
I am a longtime HiFi ROSE customer, an early U.S. adopter of the brand, an RS130 owner, and the founder/moderator of an active HiFi ROSE RS130 owners’ community. I genuinely like HiFi ROSE’s products and have spent considerable time advocating for the brand.
That makes what I am about to say particularly disappointing.
I have lost substantial confidence in HiFi ROSE’s ability to execute on the commitments it makes to its customers.
The recurring problem is no longer simply communication. It is a pattern of announcing initiatives and making commitments before the processes necessary to fulfill them appear to be in place, followed by explanations, apologies, and additional promises of future improvement after customers encounter problems.
The recent transition of U.S. distribution from MoFi Distribution to HiFi ROSE USA is an excellent example.
HiFi ROSE publicly announced that beginning August 1, HiFi ROSE USA would assume responsibility for U.S. sales and operations. Yet after that transition was announced, customers subsequently learned that inventory, repair parts and other materials still required transfer; dealer information was still being updated; responsibilities between organizations remained unclear; and customers were left trying to determine whom to contact for sales, warranty and support matters.
Those are not minor details associated with a transition. They are fundamental components of operating a distribution and support organization and, in my opinion, should have been established before the transition was publicly implemented.
The RW800 launch then provided an extraordinarily clear example of the same problem.
HiFi ROSE announced a U.S. retail price of $249 and a promotional price of $179 for existing HiFi ROSE owners.
I wanted to purchase one.
That should have been simple.
Instead, after following HiFi ROSE’s own instructions, I contacted authorized U.S. dealers who did not appear to have a clearly established procedure for honoring the $179 promotion. I then contacted HiFi ROSE USA and was told that it does not sell directly to consumers and that its operation primarily serves dealers and partners.
I therefore found myself moving between HiFi ROSE, HiFi ROSE USA and authorized dealers simply trying to determine how to purchase a product at the promotional price HiFi ROSE itself had announced.
After more than 30 days of unnecessary effort, I ultimately canceled my RW800 purchase.
This is not fundamentally an RW800 problem. It is an execution problem.
HiFi ROSE has now publicly acknowledged on its own community forum that the RW800 purchasing procedure, participating dealers and ownership-verification process should have been coordinated and communicated properly. I appreciate that acknowledgment.
However, I subsequently received another email telling me that HiFi ROSE is “working diligently,” “actively refining our internal workflows,” “strengthening dealer communications,” “updating our service and promotional procedures,” and “building a solid foundation.”
Respectfully, I have heard enough descriptions of what HiFi ROSE intends to improve.
I am asking what HiFi ROSE has actually done.
This concern also extends beyond the U.S. transition.
Years ago, I received a written commitment from HiFi ROSE regarding an I²S-related update. I have followed up repeatedly, yet that commitment remains unresolved. The HiFi ROSE community contains other examples of customers asking about previously announced features, fixes and commitments that have remained outstanding for extended periods.
More recently, RS130 owners have reported serious hardware failures. One owner has described repeated failures involving a unit that reportedly failed when new, underwent major board repairs and subsequently failed again. Another owner recently reported a click/no-boot/blank-screen condition and a potentially significant repair expense. I have personally experienced a complete display failure with my own RS130 that resulted in replacement of the unit.
I want to be very precise here: I am not asserting that these individual reports establish a systemic RS130 design or manufacturing defect. Without HiFi ROSE’s internal failure-rate and engineering data, customers cannot responsibly reach that conclusion.
But multiple significant failures unquestionably justify questions about reliability, root-cause analysis, component revisions, warranty protection and what HiFi ROSE is doing to protect customers purchasing premium-priced equipment.
HiFi ROSE previously published a statement titled “Strengthening Stability, Quality and Support,” containing specific commitments concerning stronger pre-shipment inspection, improved after-sales support, better partner support, clearer customer communication, improved response times and greater transparency.
Those were appropriate commitments.
Customers now deserve to know the measurable results.
Accordingly, I am requesting that CITECH/HiFi ROSE management provide substantive answers to the following:
What specific corrective actions have now been completed regarding the U.S. distribution transition?
What items remain outstanding, and what are the expected completion dates?
Who has direct operational responsibility for HiFi ROSE USA and U.S. customer support?
What is the definitive U.S. warranty and repair process, including responsibility for products originally sold through MoFi Distribution?
What response-time standards have been established for U.S. customer inquiries?
Have authorized U.S. dealers been formally briefed regarding current promotions and support procedures?
What is the definitive procedure for an existing HiFi ROSE owner to purchase an RW800 for the advertised $179 promotional price?
What measurable quality-control improvements resulted from HiFi ROSE’s previously announced “Strengthening Stability, Quality and Support” initiative?
Has HiFi ROSE analyzed the recurring RS130 failures being reported by customers to determine whether common components or failure mechanisms are involved?
When HiFi ROSE identifies repeated failures of a premium product, what criteria are used to determine whether replacement or warranty extension is appropriate rather than another repair?
I am intentionally sending this message to multiple publicly identified CITECH/HiFi ROSE corporate addresses because I would like it brought directly to the attention of Mr. Kim and the management team responsible for the HiFi ROSE business.
I am not seeking another apology.
I am not asking to be thanked for my patience.
And I am not looking for another statement telling me that HiFi ROSE is “working diligently” to improve.
I am asking for accountability, measurable actions and results.
HiFi ROSE produces innovative products that compete in the premium audio market. Premium hardware, however, requires premium support. Customers spending thousands of dollars on this equipment must have confidence not only in the product they are purchasing today, but also in the organization that will stand behind that product tomorrow.
I want HiFi ROSE to succeed. I would much rather be telling other owners that the company recognized these problems and corrected them than continuing to document examples of promises followed by inadequate execution.
But confidence cannot be restored through another promise.
It will be restored by performance.
I respectfully request that this message be provided directly to Mr. Kim and that I receive a substantive response addressing the specific questions above.