advertisement


MDAC First Listen (part 00101000)

Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnW said:
Richard,

Thank you - its at least a "Guiding light" :) before this basic Poll I had no idea about the split... its about 85% for the FWC.

Still, 15% against the FWC is surprising....
Click to expand...

John, I had not looked at this poll, since I had already made my position clear. I thought there might be five or so of us problem people in total, so I was very surprised to see 15% mentioned. However, only 49 out of the approx. 200 have responded so far, and I very much doubt that this is a representative sample- those with a real problem are likely to be the ones to answer immediately. In fact only six people have voted ‘No”, so there is a grand total of seven of us so far.

We really can’t be the tail wagging the dog; to me, given what you have told us about miniDSP, the FWC has to be the way forward. I will be very happy to negotiate with any Fusion/Toy owner when the FWC is in production, or even before.

Incidentally, anybody who for whatever reason is finding the total cost of the project too much, even though it's incredibly cheap for what you will get out of it, now has an easy out.
 
Bob, I have to say - you're an incredibly decent chap. Your posts are a shining example of the community spirit needed to succeed in a community driven agile development project, and all the eventualities that tend to occur with these affairs.

Consider my cap well and truly doffed in your general direction.
 
mike9876 said:
That's right it's not 100% fair and the reason why I will refuse to pay their loss. They decided to buy a shell for £370 and if they can't sell it it's nothing to do with me. I didn't force anybody to buy the shells and when they bought the shell it was not my business and now the move to FSC comes along I don't see why I should pay for their mistakes, what they do with the shells is still not my business.
Click to expand...

The fact is unless these shells accommodate a new board they are worthless doorstops that cost them £370 on the promise that they would be getting a DAC fitted inside them. To leave these guys high-and-dry and £370 out of pocket would be no different to John pulling the plug on the entire project and refusing to refund monies already paid.

To insist that John himself covers the loss is likely to have the following effects:

1) John is out of pocket to the extent that the entire project is in jeapardy. Why should he be out of pocket as he's done nothing wrong other than come up with a better solution that will benefit all of us but makes these shells redundant?

2) In order to avoid taking the financial hit, John is forced to give every one of us a severely compromised design given its now apparent potential.

Those of us who have working MDACs can sell them on. Those of us with MDAC L2/L3/Premium Toy/Fusion DACs may make a small profit over the cost of the FWC.

John has done the maths. We get FWC at cost + £65 to cover the cost of refunding the dud MDACs. Alternatively he could be less transparent and say he would honour the cost of the duds but add £100 to the cost of the FWC to give him some margin.

This is a crowd-funded project. That means we fund the development and material costs on account in order to generate the requisite cashflow. In return we get a world class product for peanuts.

When/if the Lakewest MDAC2 goes into full production we end up with something worth probably twice (or more) what we paid for it.

I suggest that the hissy-fitters think carefully about throwing away with such a potential and virtually risk-free investment. If you really don't want the DAC at the end you could be in pocket to the tune of several hundred quid should you choose to sell it.

I won't be selling mine.
 
Sibbers said:
Bob, I have to say - you're an incredibly decent chap. Your posts are a shining example of the community spirit needed to succeed in a community driven agile development project, and all the eventualities that tend to occur with these affairs.

Consider my cap well and truly doffed in your general direction.
Click to expand...

+1.
 
JohnW said:
Richard,

Thank you - its at least a "Guiding light" :) before this basic Poll I had no idea about the split... its about 85% for the FWC.

Still, 15% against the FWC is surprising....
Click to expand...


I suspect some may have voted me,me,me, several times :mad:
 
Putting up a poll in this forum does only ask the active, mostly pro FWC members. Of course the result will be absolutely biased. And even more so does the way how the question is formulated. There is a „No“ and a „Maybe“, formulated such, that I feel very uncomfortable voting for „No“.

If there has to be a vote, then every member should be asked individually in a neutral way.

As for how the project is evolving, I’m very happy for John and how he is setting up the cooperation with miniDSP! After all his work, it’s absolutely legit and reasonable that he wants to capitalize on his design.

But what happens now is, two separate projects get mixed up:

The MDAC2 was intended to be manufactured in Czech and build by John in his new Lab, which he upgraded for a small production run. PCB production and testing would have happened in an exclusive way by John himself. Every project member gets a one if it’s kind no-compromise MDAC upgrade.

Things changed, somehow there are compromises with the MDAC case, and without a proper comparison of both units built (Fusion DAC and MDAC2), not even a first listening of the design, SQ gets hyped up.

As it stands now, the MDAC2 is dead, instead the PCBs will be manufactured under miniDSP, additional software will be developed by miniDSP, digital PCB will the designed by miniDSP, assembly will be done under miniDSP. John is promising to overlook the process and UPGRADE some commercially produced units for us.

From my point of view, MDAC2 and Fusion DAC should be handled separately. Finish one project as promoted here: http://mdac2.referata.com and here: http://www.lakewestaudio.com/

Then see how the MDAC2 design and the experience of developing it can be used for a business model and a possible cooperation with miniDSP.

I’d be much more honored to have a unique PCB upgrade for a very limited group of people and have helped to make it real, than getting a modified commercial product.

After all, having to fund an other project (Fusion DAC), which sells for a high price when finished, is not okay. I’d say if there is additional money needed to develop a commercial product, then it is the responsibility of John and how he is able to negotiate with partners. We are at the point, where we helped John design a unique PCB by trusting in his skills, knowledge and endurance to go as fare as we are now. Further enhancements to this work, have to the treaded as a new project, letting everyone choose to support it or stay with what the original MDAC2 project brought to life.

Technology is ever evolving and in a year, an even better DAC will be made, or John has new enhancements, or you name it. If there will be no clear cut and a proper finish of the MDAC2 project, this spiral is going on endlessly.
 
NuTron said:
Putting up a poll in this forum does only ask the active, mostly pro FWC members. Of course the result will be absolutely biased. And even more so does the way how the question is formulated. There is a „No“ and a „Maybe“, formulated such, that I feel very uncomfortable voting for „No“.

If there has to be a vote, then every member should be asked individually in a neutral way.

As for how the project is evolving, I’m very happy for John and how he is setting up the cooperation with miniDSP! After all his work, it’s absolutely legit and reasonable that he wants to capitalize on his design.

But what happens now is, two separate projects get mixed up:

The MDAC2 was intended to be manufactured in Czech and build by John in his new Lab, which he upgraded for a small production run. PCB production and testing would have happened in an exclusive way by John himself. Every project member gets a one if it’s kind no-compromise MDAC upgrade.

Things changed, somehow there are compromises with the MDAC case, and without a proper comparison of both units built (Fusion DAC and MDAC2), not even a first listening of the design, SQ gets hyped up.

As it stands now, the MDAC2 is dead, instead the PCBs will be manufactured under miniDSP, additional software will be developed by miniDSP, digital PCB will the designed by miniDSP, assembly will be done under miniDSP. John is promising to overlook the process and UPGRADE some commercially produced units for us.

From my point of view, MDAC2 and Fusion DAC should be handled separately. Finish one project as promoted here: http://mdac2.referata.com and here: http://www.lakewestaudio.com/

Then see how the MDAC2 design and the experience of developing it can be used for a business model and a possible cooperation with miniDSP.

I’d be much more honored to have a unique PCB upgrade for a very limited group of people and have helped to make it real, than getting a modified commercial product.

After all, having to fund an other project (Fusion DAC), which sells for a high price when finished, is not okay. I’d say if there is additional money needed to develop a commercial product, then it is the responsibility of John and how he is able to negotiate with partners. We are at the point, where we helped John design a unique PCB by trusting in his skills, knowledge and endurance to go as fare as we are now. Further enhancements to this work, have to the treaded as a new project, letting everyone choose to support it or stay with what the original MDAC2 project brought to life.

Technology is ever evolving and in a year, an even better DAC will be made, or John has new enhancements, or you name it. If there will be no clear cut and a proper finish of the MDAC2 project, this spiral is going on endlessly.
Click to expand...

Don't you see that the subsequent production run raises the value of your investment in the crowd-funded project? Future proofing is already built into a design that is years ahead of the competition.
 
NuTron said:
Putting up a poll in this forum does only ask the active, mostly pro FWC members. Of course the result will be absolutely biased. And even more so does the way how the question is formulated. There is a „No“ and a „Maybe“, formulated such, that I feel very uncomfortable voting for „No“.

If there has to be a vote, then every member should be asked individually in a neutral way.

As for how the project is evolving, I’m very happy for John and how he is setting up the cooperation with miniDSP! After all his work, it’s absolutely legit and reasonable that he wants to capitalize on his design.

But what happens now is, two separate projects get mixed up:

The MDAC2 was intended to be manufactured in Czech and build by John in his new Lab, which he upgraded for a small production run. PCB production and testing would have happened in an exclusive way by John himself. Every project member gets a one if it’s kind no-compromise MDAC upgrade.

Things changed, somehow there are compromises with the MDAC case, and without a proper comparison of both units built (Fusion DAC and MDAC2), not even a first listening of the design, SQ gets hyped up.

As it stands now, the MDAC2 is dead, instead the PCBs will be manufactured under miniDSP, additional software will be developed by miniDSP, digital PCB will the designed by miniDSP, assembly will be done under miniDSP. John is promising to overlook the process and UPGRADE some commercially produced units for us.

From my point of view, MDAC2 and Fusion DAC should be handled separately. Finish one project as promoted here: http://mdac2.referata.com and here: http://www.lakewestaudio.com/

Then see how the MDAC2 design and the experience of developing it can be used for a business model and a possible cooperation with miniDSP.

I’d be much more honored to have a unique PCB upgrade for a very limited group of people and have helped to make it real, than getting a modified commercial product.

After all, having to fund an other project (Fusion DAC), which sells for a high price when finished, is not okay. I’d say if there is additional money needed to develop a commercial product, then it is the responsibility of John and how he is able to negotiate with partners. We are at the point, where we helped John design a unique PCB by trusting in his skills, knowledge and endurance to go as fare as we are now. Further enhancements to this work, have to the treaded as a new project, letting everyone choose to support it or stay with what the original MDAC2 project brought to life.

Technology is ever evolving and in a year, an even better DAC will be made, or John has new enhancements, or you name it. If there will be no clear cut and a proper finish of the MDAC2 project, this spiral is going on endlessly.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree with you!
How can you be unsatisfied with getting en even better DAC with better software support is beyond me.
The FWC DAC we get will still be unique compared to the commercial product.
 
The finish line is in sight and it looks even better than I imagined. It seems a little odd to me that anyone would see a better destination and then want to ignore it in an agile project of this type.
 
misterdog said:
I suspect some may have voted me,me,me, several times :mad:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the nice remarks, people, but it's simply being realistic.

As for the me,me,me argument, it might bring my 7 (since raised to 8) down to 2. I don't think this is very likely, but either way, is this significant?
 
Steven Toy said:
The fact is unless these shells accommodate a new board they are worthless doorstops that cost them £370 on the promise that they would be getting a DAC fitted inside them. To leave these guys high-and-dry and £370 out of pocket would be no different to John pulling the plug on the entire project and refusing to refund monies already paid.

To insist that John himself covers the loss is likely to have the following effects:

1) John is out of pocket to the extent that the entire project is in jeapardy. Why should he be out of pocket as he's done nothing wrong other than come up with a better solution that will benefit all of us but makes these shells redundant?

2) In order to avoid taking the financial hit, John is forced to give every one of us a severely compromised design given its now apparent potential.

Those of us who have working MDACs can sell them on. Those of us with MDAC L2/L3/Premium Toy/Fusion DACs may make a small profit over the cost of the FWC.

John has done the maths. We get FWC at cost + £65 to cover the cost of refunding the dud MDACs. Alternatively he could be less transparent and say he would honour the cost of the duds but add £100 to the cost of the FWC to give him some margin.

This is a crowd-funded project. That means we fund the development and material costs on account in order to generate the requisite cashflow. In return we get a world class product for peanuts.

When/if the Lakewest MDAC2 goes into full production we end up with something worth probably twice (or more) what we paid for it.

I suggest that the hissy-fitters think carefully about throwing away with such a potential and virtually risk-free investment. If you really don't want the DAC at the end you could be in pocket to the tune of several hundred quid should you choose to sell it.

I won't be selling mine.
Click to expand...


Steven, calling people hissy fitters is totally unnecessary and rude. Some people have genuine and valid concerns, different circumstances and requirements to yourself.

Now, we have more information from John about where this could be going which has allayed my major concerns. As I said earlier the miniDSP is a very good thing AFAIAC, and makes the project far more likely to reach its potential (ie development after initial release) in a reasonable time frame.

Now I know the time frame for the initial release is not going to be affected I am again more comfortable with the development. I am also lucky that I am in a position to bear the cost and work around the form factor issue.

However some people may not be in this position and expect what they initially signed up for, so please give them some respect.

As I said earlier, I think an email should go out to everyone canvassing opinion.
 
BE718 said:
Steven, calling people hissy fitters is totally unnecessary and rude. Some people have genuine and valid concerns, different circumstances and requirements to yourself.

Now, we have more information from John about where this could be going which has allayed my major concerns. As I said earlier the miniDSP is a very good thing AFAIAC, and makes the project far more likely to reach its potential (ie development after initial release) in a reasonable time frame.

Now I know the time frame for the initial release is not going to be affected I am again more comfortable with the development. I am also lucky that I am in a position to bear the cost and work around the form factor issue.

However some people may not be in this position and expect what they initially signed up for, so please give them some respect.

As I said earlier, I think an email should go out to everyone canvassing opinion.
Click to expand...

I like to call a spade a spade and in this respect you and I are very much alike as you know very well!

I genuinely believe that it is a knee-jerk reaction in some quarters and some of the sob-stories utterly laughable, ie. more than slightly disingenuous. . .


John has stated that he will find some way to accommodate those in genuine difficulty. I don't think there are that many of those.

I just hope that logic prevails over emotion on this.
 
John is bending over backwards here and given what the commercial version is likely to cost this really should be a no brainer.
 
Agile = disorganised chaos in my industry, this is slick! I take your point, but this is an iterative project and changes occur. There may not be sprints, or post it notes peeling themselves off whiteboards but, well I'm not sure what else to call it. In a future post you will call it ad-hoc, so let's go with that :)
 
Steven Toy said:
I like to call a spade a spade and in this respect you and I are very much alike as you know very well!

I genuinely believe that it is a knee-jerk reaction in some quarters and some of the sob-stories utterly laughable, ie. more than slightly disingenuous. . .


John has stated that he will find some way to accommodate those in genuine difficulty. I don't think there are that many of those.

I just hope that logic prevails over emotion on this.
Click to expand...

What was it you were saying in the other thread about arrogance?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top