D
drBill
New member
Thanks aus!!! That got it! A while back I had to reset my cookies for some sort of browser mess and lost it. Appreciate it!!!
bp
bp
- Status
C
chance
Well-known member
UPDATE
I was just notified that our gear is at the port in China waiting to be loaded on the boat.
On another note, I was just notified that 54 of the mic pres failed their quality control tests. These pres are manufactured in groups of one hundred. Because 54 failed, they are pulling the whole group of 100 just to be sure. (maybe these were made on a Monday or Friday) They are shipping only 900 out of the 1000 pc order and will ship the rest at their expense in about 2 weeks. I don't know when the boat will shove off, but they say this trip to the port of LA will be about 14 days. The broker will keep me informed but it won't be much longer.
I was just notified that our gear is at the port in China waiting to be loaded on the boat.
On another note, I was just notified that 54 of the mic pres failed their quality control tests. These pres are manufactured in groups of one hundred. Because 54 failed, they are pulling the whole group of 100 just to be sure. (maybe these were made on a Monday or Friday) They are shipping only 900 out of the 1000 pc order and will ship the rest at their expense in about 2 weeks. I don't know when the boat will shove off, but they say this trip to the port of LA will be about 14 days. The broker will keep me informed but it won't be much longer.
B
bigtom
New member
I"m so excited
Thanks Chance
Thanks Chance
R
rimmic
New member
Thanx fo the update.
antichef
pornk rock
Yay!!! (not that they failed, but that they run tests that are capable of failing
)
C
chance
Well-known member
Yay!!! (not that they failed, but that they run tests that are capable of failing
Excellent point. It's kind of reassuring that there is some QC. Better there than here.
crazydoc
Master Baiter
By air, I hope.
C
chris carter
New member
Good to know they are catching mistakes. I wonder what the threshold is? I ordered two 81s and the first thing I'm going to do is mult a signal through both to see how closely they match.
dgatwood
is out. Leave a message.
I wonder what they could possibly have done to cause half of them to fail... other than switching the 110/220 switch the wrong way, that is.
Usually failure rates above a couple of percent are caused by a design flaw, albeit often a minor, stupid one that requires more careful handling during assembly. About the only times I've heard of initial failure rates even remotely that high, it has been caused by a component too close to the edge of a PCB getting knocked loose during assembly.
That said, I could also believe it was a flawed connector design leading to a hand assembly mistake (mixing up the input and output of an EQ section because they didn't key them differently, plugging in a cable backwards because it isn't keyed correctly, putting the 220V fuse in the 110V side because it isn't marked clearly, and so on). All fairly minor design mistakes leading to assembly mistakes, in other words.
That said, if it is caused by a premature component failure, that usually suggests a manufacturing flaw (e.g. using a capacitor that isn't rated for the needed voltage/heat, using a diode whose breakdown voltage is too low, installing a batch of capacitors backwards, etc.). It could also be caused by a design flaw, though---putting an electrolytic capacitor where it comes into contact with a transformer (leading to drying out of the electrolyte and rapid component failure), putting a silicon chip in a location where the main board gets torqued when inserting and removing connectors, (leading to the chip breaking loose), etc.
I'd love to get a hold of the FA on those 54 units and find out how they failed. If it is caused by a premature component failure, a thermal expansion problem, etc., it might give us a good idea what sorts of problems we should be watching out for in the future with these things.
Of course, it could also be a non-catastrophic failure---doesn't meet the specified bandpass requirements or whatever---in which case it is probably just the normal quality variation of Chinese transformers. Here's hoping it is that.
Usually failure rates above a couple of percent are caused by a design flaw, albeit often a minor, stupid one that requires more careful handling during assembly. About the only times I've heard of initial failure rates even remotely that high, it has been caused by a component too close to the edge of a PCB getting knocked loose during assembly.
That said, I could also believe it was a flawed connector design leading to a hand assembly mistake (mixing up the input and output of an EQ section because they didn't key them differently, plugging in a cable backwards because it isn't keyed correctly, putting the 220V fuse in the 110V side because it isn't marked clearly, and so on). All fairly minor design mistakes leading to assembly mistakes, in other words.
That said, if it is caused by a premature component failure, that usually suggests a manufacturing flaw (e.g. using a capacitor that isn't rated for the needed voltage/heat, using a diode whose breakdown voltage is too low, installing a batch of capacitors backwards, etc.). It could also be caused by a design flaw, though---putting an electrolytic capacitor where it comes into contact with a transformer (leading to drying out of the electrolyte and rapid component failure), putting a silicon chip in a location where the main board gets torqued when inserting and removing connectors, (leading to the chip breaking loose), etc.
I'd love to get a hold of the FA on those 54 units and find out how they failed. If it is caused by a premature component failure, a thermal expansion problem, etc., it might give us a good idea what sorts of problems we should be watching out for in the future with these things.
Of course, it could also be a non-catastrophic failure---doesn't meet the specified bandpass requirements or whatever---in which case it is probably just the normal quality variation of Chinese transformers. Here's hoping it is that.
nuemes
Be Here Now
While you're waiting for your preamps & mics to arrive...
Here's a happy little tune to pass the time
www.myspace.com/cariboubarbi
Here's a happy little tune to pass the time
www.myspace.com/cariboubarbi
B
BobbyBalow
Guest
Wow I'm so excited!
Chance and Randy you guys are amazing people! I'm so glad that there are genuinely honest and kind people out there! Sometimes you forget that fact when people break into your car and tear it apart or steal your wallet.
Thank you so much!
Chance and Randy you guys are amazing people! I'm so glad that there are genuinely honest and kind people out there! Sometimes you forget that fact when people break into your car and tear it apart or steal your wallet.
Thank you so much!
R
redddog
New member
I wonder what they could possibly have done to cause half of them to fail... other than switching the 110/220 switch the wrong way, that is.
Usually failure rates above a couple of percent are caused by a design flaw, albeit often a minor, stupid one that requires more careful handling during assembly. About the only times I've heard of initial failure rates even remotely that high, it has been caused by a component too close to the edge of a PCB getting knocked loose during assembly.
That said, I could also believe it was a flawed connector design leading to a hand assembly mistake (mixing up the input and output of an EQ section because they didn't key them differently, plugging in a cable backwards because it isn't keyed correctly, putting the 220V fuse in the 110V side because it isn't marked clearly, and so on). All fairly minor design mistakes leading to assembly mistakes, in other words.
That said, if it is caused by a premature component failure, that usually suggests a manufacturing flaw (e.g. using a capacitor that isn't rated for the needed voltage/heat, using a diode whose breakdown voltage is too low, installing a batch of capacitors backwards, etc.). It could also be caused by a design flaw, though---putting an electrolytic capacitor where it comes into contact with a transformer (leading to drying out of the electrolyte and rapid component failure), putting a silicon chip in a location where the main board gets torqued when inserting and removing connectors, (leading to the chip breaking loose), etc.
I'd love to get a hold of the FA on those 54 units and find out how they failed. If it is caused by a premature component failure, a thermal expansion problem, etc., it might give us a good idea what sorts of problems we should be watching out for in the future with these things.
Of course, it could also be a non-catastrophic failure---doesn't meet the specified bandpass requirements or whatever---in which case it is probably just the normal quality variation of Chinese transformers. Here's hoping it is that.
Damn. I was just gonna say that.
P
P. Glaser
New member
Or they could have just hired a new guy that day...I wonder what they could possibly have done to cause half of them to fail... other than switching the 110/220 switch the wrong way, that is.
Usually failure rates above a couple of percent are caused by a design flaw, albeit often a minor, stupid one that requires more careful handling during assembly. About the only times I've heard of initial failure rates even remotely that high, it has been caused by a component too close to the edge of a PCB getting knocked loose during assembly.
That said, I could also believe it was a flawed connector design leading to a hand assembly mistake (mixing up the input and output of an EQ section because they didn't key them differently, plugging in a cable backwards because it isn't keyed correctly, putting the 220V fuse in the 110V side because it isn't marked clearly, and so on). All fairly minor design mistakes leading to assembly mistakes, in other words.
That said, if it is caused by a premature component failure, that usually suggests a manufacturing flaw (e.g. using a capacitor that isn't rated for the needed voltage/heat, using a diode whose breakdown voltage is too low, installing a batch of capacitors backwards, etc.). It could also be caused by a design flaw, though---putting an electrolytic capacitor where it comes into contact with a transformer (leading to drying out of the electrolyte and rapid component failure), putting a silicon chip in a location where the main board gets torqued when inserting and removing connectors, (leading to the chip breaking loose), etc.
I'd love to get a hold of the FA on those 54 units and find out how they failed. If it is caused by a premature component failure, a thermal expansion problem, etc., it might give us a good idea what sorts of problems we should be watching out for in the future with these things.
Of course, it could also be a non-catastrophic failure---doesn't meet the specified bandpass requirements or whatever---in which case it is probably just the normal quality variation of Chinese transformers. Here's hoping it is that.
B
BobbyBalow
Guest
I wonder what they could possibly have done to cause half of them to fail... other than switching the 110/220 switch the wrong way, that is.
Usually failure rates above a couple of percent are caused by a design flaw, albeit often a minor, stupid one that requires more careful handling during assembly. About the only times I've heard of initial failure rates even remotely that high, it has been caused by a component too close to the edge of a PCB getting knocked loose during assembly.
That said, I could also believe it was a flawed connector design leading to a hand assembly mistake (mixing up the input and output of an EQ section because they didn't key them differently, plugging in a cable backwards because it isn't keyed correctly, putting the 220V fuse in the 110V side because it isn't marked clearly, and so on). All fairly minor design mistakes leading to assembly mistakes, in other words.
That said, if it is caused by a premature component failure, that usually suggests a manufacturing flaw (e.g. using a capacitor that isn't rated for the needed voltage/heat, using a diode whose breakdown voltage is too low, installing a batch of capacitors backwards, etc.). It could also be caused by a design flaw, though---putting an electrolytic capacitor where it comes into contact with a transformer (leading to drying out of the electrolyte and rapid component failure), putting a silicon chip in a location where the main board gets torqued when inserting and removing connectors, (leading to the chip breaking loose), etc.
I'd love to get a hold of the FA on those 54 units and find out how they failed. If it is caused by a premature component failure, a thermal expansion problem, etc., it might give us a good idea what sorts of problems we should be watching out for in the future with these things.
Of course, it could also be a non-catastrophic failure---doesn't meet the specified bandpass requirements or whatever---in which case it is probably just the normal quality variation of Chinese transformers. Here's hoping it is that.
Wow... that's the nerdiest stream of consciousness I've heard in a long time...
D
drBill
New member
I wonder what they could possibly have done to cause half of them to fail... other than switching the 110/220 switch the wrong way, that is.
Usually failure rates above a couple of percent are caused by a design flaw, albeit often a minor, stupid one that requires more careful handling during assembly. About the only times I've heard of initial failure rates even remotely that high, it has been caused by a component too close to the edge of a PCB getting knocked loose during assembly.
That said, I could also believe it was a flawed connector design leading to a hand assembly mistake (mixing up the input and output of an EQ section because they didn't key them differently, plugging in a cable backwards because it isn't keyed correctly, putting the 220V fuse in the 110V side because it isn't marked clearly, and so on). All fairly minor design mistakes leading to assembly mistakes, in other words.
That said, if it is caused by a premature component failure, that usually suggests a manufacturing flaw (e.g. using a capacitor that isn't rated for the needed voltage/heat, using a diode whose breakdown voltage is too low, installing a batch of capacitors backwards, etc.). It could also be caused by a design flaw, though---putting an electrolytic capacitor where it comes into contact with a transformer (leading to drying out of the electrolyte and rapid component failure), putting a silicon chip in a location where the main board gets torqued when inserting and removing connectors, (leading to the chip breaking loose), etc.
I'd love to get a hold of the FA on those 54 units and find out how they failed. If it is caused by a premature component failure, a thermal expansion problem, etc., it might give us a good idea what sorts of problems we should be watching out for in the future with these things.
Of course, it could also be a non-catastrophic failure---doesn't meet the specified bandpass requirements or whatever---in which case it is probably just the normal quality variation of Chinese transformers. Here's hoping it is that.
Or the finish could have been off, or the guy with the screwdriver could have slipped, or they could have been stuffed with the components for AH's units
D) or maybe the skiploader rammed them into a wall or maybe even they forgot to check the other 900........
What's the use of speculating???
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
Or the finish could have been off, or the guy with the screwdriver could have slipped, or they could have been stuffed with the components for AH's units
What's the use of speculating???
The internet is full of people who think out loud; I'm just glad dgatwood does it so much more intelligently than most.
What's the use of complaining about speculating???
D
drBill
New member
Good point.However, speculation causes some to become anxious. We have enough of that without adding to the fray.....
I'd rather speculate about who to vote for......
mshilarious
Banned
However, speculation causes some to become anxious. We have enough of that without adding to the fray.....
I'd rather speculate about who to vote for......
Well, the obvious implication is that there is an undetected error rate in the other batches. If you have a 54% failure rate in one batch, such that you pull that batch for more testing, how do you know there is a 54% failure rate without already having tested all 100 units?
And have all the other 900 units been tested with a 0% failure rate?
More likely, all batches were sampled for detailed testing, whereas hopefully all units were given basic testing. And the one batch probably had 5/9 of a sample fail some more involved test, so they decided to test the whole batch.
The nature of the fault would indicate the level of concern that a small error rate lurks in the other batches . . .
D
drBill
New member
Or....that the Chinese predicted they would be done with the whole batch in time for the shipment and only finished 900 - and needed an important "reason" for a delay. Or, that they sold 100 of OUR units to another buyer who needed them asap, and now have to make us another 100.
Now, if we start seeing a lot of failures in our "received" units, then there's something to talk and speculate about, but at this point it's all random speculation, and really, I don't see the point. But hey, that's just me. Everyone feel free to speculate your brains out.....
Cheers,
bp
C
chance
Well-known member
When they finished production, they sent me the paperwork for my broker to arrange shipping. Unfortunately a memo from their QC lab to my rep was recieved late.
- Status