advertisement


MDAC First Listen (part 00111011)

Status
Not open for further replies.
clivem2 said:
John, with Detox funding and implementation being folded into the DAC hardware those of us who just funded Detox get nothing. I appreciate that our exposure is small vs others but that doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

Maybe I need to clarify my post alittle more, I suspect that 95% of Detox sponsors will convert there position into the more advanced Detox integrated into the DAC Advanced Clock Option 1 (There are less then a handful of Detox development sponsors who are not sponsors of the MDAC update).. Once I have a clear idea on numbers then we can decide whither its worth now manufacturing the external unit which has been superseded by the more advanced Detox decorrilation built into MDAC 1.5 / 2...

WRT to that standalone Detox the issue is the requirement to to purchase 250 CNC chassis as an MOQ. We have less detox development sponsors, and with most expected to convert to the more advanced integrated option I cannot justify the cost of financing 250 chassis that will not be used.

Awhile back we investigated manufacturing the Detox chassis in the UK via a PFM member, but the cost was in excess of GBP200 (we never received a final cost (with surface finishing etc) as it was already well over budget).

We can build Detox's without chassis (supply bare PCB), or I'm very open to suggestion's for a CNC vendor who would be interested in manufacturing say 10 pcs - with surface finishing, supplying the microscrews and knob at an affordable price (I expect all other Detox development sponsorship to be transferred to the optional Detox hardware integrated into the DAC PCB itself).

The Detox's would be built without profit, at this time the highest cost would be the CNC chassis, with the PCB with electronics around say GBP100 (this was based on the orignal 100pcs build)... PCB price would be impacted by say 20% to 40% component cost increase due to a the reduced "10 pcs order" over say a 100pcs build...
 
So John basically what you are saying is that your project management of the Detox program was so appalling that it's pretty much dead for anyone who wants a standalone unit.

Let's have a recap of where we are:

MDAC2 (1.5, FDAC whatever it's called) - 6 years down the line and not a single unit has been produced. First expected delivery date was early 2014.
VFET - 5.5 years down the line and not a single unit produced.
Detox - 5 years down the line 1 unit produced and sent to 1 person for feedback in 2015 I think (might have been 2016). Nothing else produced.

Anyone who thinks this is acceptable is living in cloud cuckoo land.
 
@John,

my Detox figures were a desperate attempt at getting things moving, I suggested there would be much cheaper options going to a smaller outfit with less overheads at the time

I have now started a new job and we have a manufacturing facility in China, in the short time I have been employed here I have had some real insight into how cheaply machining can be done in China and 250 MOQ is a decent enough number to get a lot of manufacturers interested in machining chassis, with the only real downside being shipping time back to UK, approx. 30 days by boat which is the cheapest option

You simply do not have a clue about manufacturing or you are trying to justify/hide your poor project performance by highlighting "manufacturing issues" that are simply not there if you took the time to fully investigate.
 
You do not appear to have actually read what John has written before sounding off. With a likely final take-up of 10 units, who is going to subsidise the wasted 240?

A refund to the ten fishies concerned would be more practicable.

And further abuse in response to every post simply reinforces his decision to communicate elsewhere. None of us is exactly happy - most of us appreciate that chucking everything out of the pram achieves absolutely nothing.
 
davidjt said:
And further abuse in response to every post simply reinforces his decision to communicate elsewhere. None of us is exactly happy - most of us appreciate that chucking everything out of the pram achieves absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

The LACK of criticism, I believe, is the reason we are in this god forsaken mess. Too many people seem too frightened to speak up as they thinkJohn might take the hump and stop communicating and not deliver anything.
6 years down the line and we have precisely sweet FA and while the lack of criticism continues we will continue to have sweet FA.
The only way to complete a project in a reasonable time is to have deadlines and if those deadlines pass you need revised ACHIEVABLE deadlines based on the completed work so far. On this project we have had dates plucked out of thin air time and time again.
No company contracting anyone to do work for them would ever put up with the nonsense we have had to on this project.
We have been treated appallingly and John’s lack of acknowledgement of the mess he has single handedly created is breath taking.
 
I think one reason for starting this project was to avoid many restrictions of commercial product like budget and timelines and build something what he thinks is good. Yes, it taking unexpected long time and because of that I already have system updated. But I would like to see and hear what is good audio in John view. He done few trials and change design to something very different, I hope there was a good reason for what.
 
he chose to highlight my efforts in his reply, so I was putting it in simple terms for everyone

he did didn't even provide his prices when I offered mine, so make up your own mind

he is hiding behind massive failings in so many levels its not even funny

as a £3K investor I have every right in responding to his post
 
davidjt said:
You do not appear to have actually read what John has written before sounding off. With a likely final take-up of 10 units, who is going to subsidise the wasted 240?

A refund to the ten fishies concerned would be more practicable.

And further abuse in response to every post simply reinforces his decision to communicate elsewhere. None of us is exactly happy - most of us appreciate that chucking everything out of the pram achieves absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

10 units was not relevant when I did my costings it was based upon a lot more at the time, sadly like a number of people/fanboys you have chosen to ignore the timescales and project non-development in effect here

p.s. I'd like to keep my disappointment squarely based at John, so would prefer not to get into arguments with fellow investors, so take my responses as such and don't take it too personally
 
JohnW said:
Maybe I need to clarify my post alittle more, I suspect that 95% of Detox sponsors will convert there position into the more advanced Detox integrated into the DAC Advanced Clock Option 1 (There are less then a handful of Detox development sponsors who are not sponsors of the MDAC update).. Once I have a clear idea on numbers then we can decide whither its worth now manufacturing the external unit which has been superseded by the more advanced Detox decorrilation built into MDAC 1.5 / 2...

WRT to that standalone Detox the issue is the requirement to to purchase 250 CNC chassis as an MOQ. We have less detox development sponsors, and with most expected to convert to the more advanced integrated option I cannot justify the cost of financing 250 chassis that will not be used.

Awhile back we investigated manufacturing the Detox chassis in the UK via a PFM member, but the cost was in excess of GBP200 (we never received a final cost (with surface finishing etc) as it was already well over budget).

We can build Detox's without chassis (supply bare PCB), or I'm very open to suggestion's for a CNC vendor who would be interested in manufacturing say 10 pcs - with surface finishing, supplying the microscrews and knob at an affordable price (I expect all other Detox development sponsorship to be transferred to the optional Detox hardware integrated into the DAC PCB itself).

The Detox's would be built without profit, at this time the highest cost would be the CNC chassis, with the PCB with electronics around say GBP100 (this was based on the orignal 100pcs build)... PCB price would be impacted by say 20% to 40% component cost increase due to a the reduced "10 pcs order" over say a 100pcs build...
Click to expand...

I, for one, DO/STILL want a standalone DETOX...No interest in any DAC. While I was really psyched about having a CNC chassis with isolated compartments, I would be amenable to populated AND tested PCB. Not clear to me what the cost to me (sans shipping) would be for this option?!
 
I'm in for a detox. I've always said I'd do my own case , and make the schaefner files available for anyone else who wants a simple pro built case.
 
JohnW: I'm also still in for a detox. I do not have the wherewithal to manufacture a case but I'm willing to take the gamble of someone who does being willing to sell me one. Would that be ok?
 
The current discussion of the viablity of the detox is so question-begging as to be ridiculous. It was supposed to be an easily achievable self-contained project completed in a few months and in advance of the F-dac/Mdac2. No one voted to put it to one side. No one was given the opportunity to decide whether to take it as it was (at wharever cost) or fold it into the whateverdac. No one agreed for it to be implemented in another commercial project in the meantime. Incidentally I have been making these points for years, inviting John to just get a price and damn well do it.
The most striking thing about this project is its failure to achieve anything other than an encylopeadia of excuses.If it now seems pointless- and I'm not sure that this is any more than the umpteenth evasion- then frankly John is just pissing on our backs and telling us that it is raining.
 
The original design iirc won't be as effective without the internal shielding: whether or not tin-plate shields would be feasible will depend on the pcb layout, although given room for the original partitions it seems likely. But that's a guess and would be more of a challenge to put together. A compromise needs to be reached at some point.
 
The bewildering thing about detox is that 1 was built and given to 1 person to evaluate and other than that it has never seen the light of day. Happy to be corrected if that's incorrect. I've enquired a couple of times as to the location of this elusive detox but got no response. Make of that what you wish.
 
On the MDAC1.5 / MDAC2 we use multiple Tin shielding enclosures to shield circuit sections, these shielding enclosures come in a selection of fixed sizes which needs to be considered at the PCB design stage.

MDAC2 Analogue PCB has 2, 6 or 7 of these shielding enclosures (depending on build option).

WRT the Detox, the PCB would have to be redesigned if such tin shielding enclosures where to be used.
 
Oh look another design evasion:
-There is no reason why you can't make this damn thing
-Yes there is I've just decided to introduce a new element which means I can't do it. QED.
This got old at least three years ago.
 
John Westlake - when do you now think MDAC2 will be delivered? Can you give us a list of the tasks, and estimated times for each task, which still need to be completed before product gets delivered?
Can you also give us a list of things that are complete and don't need any more work? If it makes it easier for you we can stick to items like:

Backpanel
Frontpanel
Frontpanel software
PCB's - I don't know how many individual PCB's there are so maybe worth just listing them.
Other required software
Any other items?

Personally (and I've worked in the electronic manufacturing industry for 35 years so I have more than a vague notion of what's required), I don't think there is any chance of this being delivered before Christmas.
 
I think the problem is John is working on other projects and is just not devoting any time to the MDAC1.5,2.0 or whatever it’s called these days and that is the way it’s always been and will be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top