adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Err. You are familiar with the detox? The product which is apparently complete but still not delivered?
Now try again. Why no guarantee on delivery of that?
MDAC First Listen (part 00110111)
- Thread starter BigDog
- Start date
- Status
Now try again. Why no guarantee on delivery of that?
I arrive late Wednesday 17th and leave early Sunday. so will be at the show Friday and Saturday.
Thursday is only for trade visitors.
killie99
pfm Member
I was referring to MDAC2 as that's the product we are waiting on and all originally signed up for. Detox is a bonus/distraction depending on your point of view but it's not the primary reason we're in this project.
Gavinder007
pfm Member
Hi John and everyone,
It's been a long time since I last posted on the thead due to many commitments and additional family members
. I've tried to follow how its been going as best I could, but seem to have lost pace with the development over the last 12 months or so. The last few days I've managed to sit down and jog back through to see where we are at, and it seems I've missed quite a lot.
My last point of reference before this week John had made the decision to no longer develope using the original mdac case due to its constrictive size. I think I am now up to speed but correct me if I'm wrong:-
The Mdac2 project with the full size housing and internal PSU is going to be the Fdac, which may have tube/solid stage or both.
There is a usb isolation module, this is the Detox.
It now seems there is an Mdac2 in the works to be completed before the Fdac, to use the board design from the Fdac but in the Mdac case but with a new external psu. I have the option to transfer my pledge to this and then get a 50% discount on the funding for the Fdac.
Now I have a few questions:
Is the Detox needed for the Fdac project or is it to be part of the internals of the dac? If so have i missed out on this or can I still plege my funding?
If I stay with Fdac project what is the likey time frame? bearing in mind I'm in no hurry and allowing for John to work his magic.
What are the final overall costs for both projects? i.e. Mdac 2 pledge + Board + psu, and same for fdac. there was talk of import fees too at one point.
Am I behind in any other funding? I see you require an additional pledge for machinery. Is this for the Fdac too?
Also I have paid my funding pledge for the Mdac2/Fdac L2 £400, but I've never seen my user name on any of the funding lists.
Sorry for this and not keeping up to date, hopefully I will be able to stay with the project now.
Gavin
It's been a long time since I last posted on the thead due to many commitments and additional family members
. I've tried to follow how its been going as best I could, but seem to have lost pace with the development over the last 12 months or so. The last few days I've managed to sit down and jog back through to see where we are at, and it seems I've missed quite a lot.My last point of reference before this week John had made the decision to no longer develope using the original mdac case due to its constrictive size. I think I am now up to speed but correct me if I'm wrong:-
The Mdac2 project with the full size housing and internal PSU is going to be the Fdac, which may have tube/solid stage or both.
There is a usb isolation module, this is the Detox.
It now seems there is an Mdac2 in the works to be completed before the Fdac, to use the board design from the Fdac but in the Mdac case but with a new external psu. I have the option to transfer my pledge to this and then get a 50% discount on the funding for the Fdac.
Now I have a few questions:
Is the Detox needed for the Fdac project or is it to be part of the internals of the dac? If so have i missed out on this or can I still plege my funding?
If I stay with Fdac project what is the likey time frame? bearing in mind I'm in no hurry and allowing for John to work his magic.
What are the final overall costs for both projects? i.e. Mdac 2 pledge + Board + psu, and same for fdac. there was talk of import fees too at one point.
Am I behind in any other funding? I see you require an additional pledge for machinery. Is this for the Fdac too?
Also I have paid my funding pledge for the Mdac2/Fdac L2 £400, but I've never seen my user name on any of the funding lists.
Sorry for this and not keeping up to date, hopefully I will be able to stay with the project now.
Gavin
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
You are quite correct. I will therefore be at the show on Friday.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
but the detox is going to be produced first (before the mdac2; if anything is ever produced) It was a proof of concept, and what it appears to have proven is ....
Simon Chick
Member
I have been doing my fortnightly thread catch up. I am only in for the Detox, but it seems to me that everything is being over-complicated and that selling price issues are being confused with capital requirements.
The selling prices of the Detox etc have been defined, even if not yet quantified.
John has a cash flow problem because as the story has unfolded he has found that it is better to buy his own mini production line instead of getting production done for him on the other side of the world. Fair enough, pity he didn't spot it earlier, but the reasoning seems impeccable.
So now he needs to fund that capital investment.
So he needs to make a cash call again, as a further up front installment on the final price. Unwelcome of course, but it is just a case of pay now instead of later, not a change in the pricing principles.
So please just bite the bullet, grasp the nettle, nail your colours to the mast, mix your metaphors and then, if you cannot get the necessary funding at Munich, make the necessary cash call so we can move on, instead of debating complicated schemes which will likely come to nothing.
The selling prices of the Detox etc have been defined, even if not yet quantified.
John has a cash flow problem because as the story has unfolded he has found that it is better to buy his own mini production line instead of getting production done for him on the other side of the world. Fair enough, pity he didn't spot it earlier, but the reasoning seems impeccable.
So now he needs to fund that capital investment.
So he needs to make a cash call again, as a further up front installment on the final price. Unwelcome of course, but it is just a case of pay now instead of later, not a change in the pricing principles.
So please just bite the bullet, grasp the nettle, nail your colours to the mast, mix your metaphors and then, if you cannot get the necessary funding at Munich, make the necessary cash call so we can move on, instead of debating complicated schemes which will likely come to nothing.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
i can't see any reason why the contribution paid by anyone who does not want to contribute for a steamer module should be any more than a pro rata share of the p&p costs. Othewise it seems to me to be a clear breach of the agreement to supply these products at cost.
Now if there is an option to actually have a product built by a third party, that's a different matter, because it would reflect actual cost and might have some added benefit.
In any event how about taking money in return for a commitment, a real one, to deliver by a date? I'm sure there would be others who would prefer only to pay an additional amount in return from some greater degree of commitment and focus on timescales.
Surely the mdac2 design is supposed to be complete? And perhaps actually nearly complete?
iansr
pfm Member
The streamer prepayment doesn't attract me because it doesn't work with my system. Personally I think it would be better for John to simply offer a discount of X% of any additional funding payment that anyone now cares to make, with a
cap on the potential funding payment. That way everyone could choose to support the P&P machine to the extent they were comfortable with and be rewarded proportionately.
That aside, if people are going to get pedantic, I feel I should respond to this:
"i can't see any reason why the contribution paid by anyone who does not want to contribute for a steamer module should be any more than a pro rata share of the p&p costs. Othewise it seems to me to be a clear breach of the agreement to supply these products at cost."
That is not a contract breach because John's "at cost" offer was intended to be and was understood to be based on outsourced production. In-house production was not envisaged at the time and so is not covered by the original agreement. The parties are therefore at liberty to vary the terms of the original agreement to cater for new circumstances. As I understand it, John is still prepared to honour the outsourced price and so is not breaching his agreement.
Please let that be the end of that type of discussion. I'm sure nobody wants to see this thread bogged down in the finer points of contract law . . . .
cap on the potential funding payment. That way everyone could choose to support the P&P machine to the extent they were comfortable with and be rewarded proportionately.
That aside, if people are going to get pedantic, I feel I should respond to this:
"i can't see any reason why the contribution paid by anyone who does not want to contribute for a steamer module should be any more than a pro rata share of the p&p costs. Othewise it seems to me to be a clear breach of the agreement to supply these products at cost."
That is not a contract breach because John's "at cost" offer was intended to be and was understood to be based on outsourced production. In-house production was not envisaged at the time and so is not covered by the original agreement. The parties are therefore at liberty to vary the terms of the original agreement to cater for new circumstances. As I understand it, John is still prepared to honour the outsourced price and so is not breaching his agreement.
Please let that be the end of that type of discussion. I'm sure nobody wants to see this thread bogged down in the finer points of contract law . . . .
Given that you have been away a fortnight, you did well grasshopper in summarizing what condition our condiition is in.
At this point make the need for a PnP a given for the completion of all PFM projects currently in the chute. Determine how much cash is needed and how much money that is per subscriber.
I for one would be more than willing to cough up the balance on the DETOX IF that meant a "cast in stone" delivery date.
timola
pfm Member
fred sonnen
pfm Member
There may be a few of us who will use the MDAC2 as a intermediate step to the TDAC. Perhaps they want just a good DAC until THE ONE is available ;-)
I am one of these. I can imagine supporting the P&P. But not with a pcb I don't need. So perhaps it is better to distribute the cost of the P&P machine to several MDAC2 components.
Just my 5c
Greetings
F.S.
I am one of these. I can imagine supporting the P&P. But not with a pcb I don't need. So perhaps it is better to distribute the cost of the P&P machine to several MDAC2 components.
Just my 5c
Greetings
F.S.
Audiophiles are somewhat like conscious alcoholics: they sincerely believe that they quit right after the next bottle!
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Well no although frankly I thought I was putting it politely. But in substance I don't disagree with your proposal.
My main point is that I do not particularly see why anyone should have to buy another non-existent product (see my posts to that effect about the Detox in March 2016) in order to fund another set of rather vague aspirations. So far completed and delivered products=0. The rest is noise.
As there seems to be a huge number of John's supporters, it only makes sense they cough up the dough for the production line.
Most of 'm are seem to have enough money anyway, and hey, they have the fullest trust John's gonna pay them back as soon as possible once production starts rolling.
Problems solved.
Let's get the money in.
Most of 'm are seem to have enough money anyway, and hey, they have the fullest trust John's gonna pay them back as soon as possible once production starts rolling.
Problems solved.
Let's get the money in.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
As long as it doesn't solve the problem of how to make a profit out of "at cost" production, I'm with you.
I don't see a (huge) majority or anything like of supporters looking to pay for John's company's tooling. Just the usual vocal ones who took us down the FDAC route.
John needs to be looking for third party investment if he is looking for tooling and production/manufacturing structuring of his company and not expect us to be funding such expenditure.
AMEN TO THAT!!!!
- Status