Portaflex cutting out poll

[ljazz]

Originally Posted by Jerrold Tiers

The Auto companies DO require stringent incoming quality..... ISO, etc..... they don't do this to ensure that their products are 6 sigma (since you brought it up)...... They do it because the product is SO COMPLEX, that if the parts are not extremely 'good" the outgoing (AOQL) quality level will be abysmal.

And we KNOW that the auto company outgoing quality is not 6 sigma for defects on a per vehicle basis...... there are too many warranty claims just in one city for that. My current vehicle had 3 defects.... so it blasted one defect per vehicle per million on 3 million vehicles right there.

it is likewise for the MI product. many are quite complex, although far less so than a car. And the selling prices are less, the total parts consumed in the entire are less, everything about the industry is less than automotive. if manufacturers put those demands on, they would get a lot of "no bid" responses.... But people just plain DO NOT "no bid" Ford......

THAT is why you do not see such stringent QC.... there is no way to hold the component folks to the automotive QC levels, unless you can buy an automotive qualified part.

The industry with pooled purchasing (totally impossible, of course) is barely big enough to make demands on the manufacturers. Apple in one day probably uses more parts than the MI biz in 6 months, and bass amps are a small fraction of MI.

Add to that cut-throat pricing, and what you get is "pretty good quality" at a low price. And you should be able to expect good customer service.

Jarrold, I'm not going to play anymore if you continue twisting what I say....... I never said or implied -

"they don't do this to ensure that their products are 6 sigma (since you brought it up)...... "

All I said was
"And while not completely defect free, there really are world class companies that have moved to or are approaching a 6 sigma quality level (including internally found defects)."

I mean no disrespect here, but your post has some things in it that indicate you're stuck in the 90's (or even the 80's). I won't go point by point, but I will say this -

ISO and QS were put out there to try and standardize requirements...... and believe it or not, it was cost driven..... As suppliers were going more global, and their customer bases became wider, it became very expensive to meet everyone's requirements in the ways they wanted them met...... In automotive (since you brought it up) all of the OEM's had pretty much the same requirements, but they wanted them met in different ways. And each of these customers were doing their own auditing of their suppliers. Suppliers and OE's were spending tons because of it (and make no mistake....it was being passed on to consumers). I sat on the supplier board that helped Ford pull together it's list of wants and requirements it brought to the AIAG for inclusion into QS. Ford was very clear that it was cost driven (as it usually is in any business).

In the late 90's, the automakers seriously considered dumping the whole idea. Again, cost (and questionable results) was at the center of it. They felt the standards were propegating a "status quo" mentality among the supplybase, and no real improvements were happening. Companies had the procedures, but the linkages were not clear, and it was costing everyone. The latest versions of ISO, and the TS (tech spec for auto) changed all of that. It has forced suppliers to take a process approach, define linkages, and monitor the effectiveness of it's systems. I'll tell you this much..... it was much more time consuming, and a heck of a lot more expensive trying to comply with the old standard than what it does with the new. I can tell by your posts that you're clearly not familiar with the lastest versions. I urge you to investigate them.

Your post makes it pretty clear that you're not a six sigma practitioner either. In fact, your post indicates you're stuck in the "outgoing" mentality all of us involved in US mfg were stuck in back in the 80's. In order to achieve the quality levels required, we had to stop thinking purely on outgoing quality. We had to start looking for the "hidden factory" and right those things, or we were never going to hit those ever increasing outgoing requirements. You kinda say that in your post when you say:

"They do it because the product is SO COMPLEX, that if the parts are not extremely 'good" the outgoing (AOQL) quality level will be abysmal."

But you don't measure sigma on outgoing only. It is not typically measured using only external PPM or even a final DPU, because those measures don't necessarily show the "hidden factory". Having been a quality professional for over 25 years now (man, i'm getting old), I can tell you the higher your DPMO (what your sigma should be based on), then the higher your costs, the higher your DPU, and in many cases the higher your outgoing PPM (unless you're really muscling it). I do agree that those last few defects may not be worth it, but you better make darned sure you're able to detect them before pushing them out the door.

And just to clarify, it's not as uncommon you'd think to no bid a OEM automaker (again, that is more 80's thinking). We no bid both a Toyota RFQ and a GM RFQ last month. You can only wrap so many dollar bills around each part, you know. The OE's recognize this. And things are tough in all industries today....... you have to learn to get by on single digit margins.

Listen, it all comes down to this..... having a good quality system shouldn't cost a company a whole lot to implement..... if they're doing the right things, and continually improving (again, it's continual, not continuous), then they'll see costs go down (if not, then they're probably not very committed to their systems to begin with). And you don't even need a ISO cert to do it. Improvements in effectiveness result in efficiency/productivity improvements, scrap reduction, and reduced repair/rework (in my experience safety costs are usually reduced as well) . And all of those things impact your outgoing performance. Guys like Deming and Juran taught that to the Japanese back in the fifties, and it still holds true today (I urge you to read Deming's "Out of the Crisis" and Crosby's "Quality is Free").

No one is implying the amp mfg'ers buy components that meet automotive quality levels. But things are changing..... we're finding it's cheaper in the long run to buy our components and subs from ISO certified vendors (not necessarily TS). In fact, many of the ISO cert'd vendors are able to hold their costs down and keep pricing much more consistent than their non-registered counterparts. We're seeing this in China today. And you MUST hold your suppliers to some level, whether you're ISO subscribing or not. I maintain that it is cheaper in the long run to let the ISO cert and third party auditing take care of that, instead of doing it yourself. The only other option is to do NOTHING.

And back to my original point...... and maybe a little more clearly........
It's okay for a mfg'er to have a problem. It's what they do with that problem that makes the difference. Again, after the sale CS is required, but by itself does not make up for properly containing a known problem, and doing what you can to prevent it from happening to other customers. If a company knows it has a problem, and continues to build, letting the customers sort out the good from the bad for them, then it must have some incredible margins, because that only drives the cost of each unit up. I think we'd all rather see those costs put into making the problem go away, instead of letting us sort it out for them (again, I'm not say Loud is doing this). And one more thing for clarity...... I'm not saying you have to be ISO certified or a company that subscribes to six sigma to do the right thing.

Jerrold, let's take this to PM if you wish to continue the debate. We've messed over this thread enough.

[Ric Vice]

Originally Posted by rodl2005

I wonder what wages were in '65? When one might purchase a new B-15 for,I imagine, much more than a weeks pay.
How much for a new pf500? Less than a weeks wage.
Just sayin', we get what we pay for.
& sure Ampeg should fix this 'n'all.....

Rodi 2005,
Last winter a mint B-15N(C) appeared on Ebay. The owner happened to have all the paper provenance with the amp. The original list price of a B-15N in 1964 was $355.00 U.S. (see catalog insert below). Adjusted for inflation the current price of a B-15N(C) would be $2,627.89. That's a lot of currency even today for a B-15N.

Ric

[rodl2005]

Precisely Batman. Now I dunno about you guys, but I ain't on $2.5k/week, sadly.
All I'm saying, u get what u pay for.
Also,as I stated, I think Ampeg are handling warranty issues ok, just wouldn't buy one 2nd hand

[bassguppy]

I've had my PF500 for just over a year and I can recall only 1 time the amp cut out for several seconds. I was still in the "learning curve" phase of the amp and the bass was cranked pretty up there. It hasn't cut out since using it with both an 8 and 4 ohm load.

I mainly use it now in my rehearsal rig since my SVT-7PRO just thrills me for live use.

[Jerrold Tiers]

Well, I knew this would get complex when the QC guy got involved......

My point is not to get involved with the auto folks..... Rather I wanted to point out that it takes good parts to make a good product to begin with, as in it won't happen if you have bad ones.

"Good" *may* have NOTHING to do with QC directly, but in my meaning is "a part like you want".... Might be matched mosfets, or a control that has a particular taper, or the like. Some of those things DO have a QC impact..... (matched mosfets), and some just make the user happier (pot taper).

But those things often require a certain volume order to get..... if your production is not that high, you can't get them. I recall wanting to get controls from a particular company. No could do.... for a million or so controls a year, I couldn't get past their secretary..... Their attitude was pretty much "how many million a month do you want?", and if it wasn't high enough they were not interested.

The MI biz is not big enough per bass amp company in general to get much of that special stuff....

And, it may mean also that the bass stuff gets run on a line that normally does something else, so the opportunity to optimize, 'find the hidden factory" etc, etc is minimal. Especially now, when they are usually run at contract manufacturers who are making coffeemakers right after your amps.... (OK usually not quite that bad, but......).

As for AOQL..... "output" is the goal...... good, reliable, defect-free products that people will pay for and want more of. I know that QC folks are nearly as bad as educators in using descriptions and terms used by nobody else on earth ... but truthfully, the goal is to put out a good product.

And, you STILL don't get that by inspection, you first design it that way, then buy parts that way, build it that way, and finally verify that the units ARE that way..... The words and terms vary, but the goal is still the same, or it had better be. It gets harder if you must pay for those things to be done, instead of doing them in your own factory.

Stuck in the 90s? Likely so..... It was hard enough to get the 90's concepts through skulls.....

Where this meets the PF and 7PRO cutout stuff is that with all the issues that are involved with a product, it is NECESSARY to decide whether a problem is an "all of them" or "a whole bunch of them", vs an "a few of them" type problem.

You may have to decide if the shipment needs to be 100% disassembled and fixed. Or if that is even an option, given what would have to be done (A00 and B00 7PRO, vs C00 revision units... big circuit difference). If you can handle it by warranty, that may be the cheapest way.

The rule is that a bad part on a board level assembly costs a certain amount to fix. A bad part on an assembly in a chassis cost 10x that to fix. A bad chassis in a complete packed unit costs at least 10x what it does in a chassis only. With SMT, it may be worse, as you usually toss the board.

Warranty starts to look cheap compared to a 100% fix..... at the complete packed unit level. With warranty, you only fix known bad ones.....

the cheapest fix is never to buy the bad part to begin with, so you can't put it in. Or to design so the part isn't that critical, and even the "bad" ones may work (assuming it is a tolerance issue).

[ljazz]

Originally Posted by Jerrold Tiers

Well, I knew this would get complex when the QC guy got involved......

LOL.... It's okay. Us Quality guys hear that all the time.

A part of me can't help but think there is a lot of money being left on the table. I thought the auto parts aftermarket business was bad. What a horrible business model.

Jerrold, how involved in the process design is a company like Loud?

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by ljazz

LOL.... It's okay. Us Quality guys hear that all the time.

A part of me can't help but think there is a lot of money being left on the table. I thought the auto parts aftermarket business was bad. What a horrible business model.

Jerrold, how involved in the process design is a company like Loud?

Bingo.

My last job was at a company that shipped units in the low thousands per year - so I understand outside supplier component issues when you aren't large...

...but it appear the defect rate THAT IS GETTING OUT THE DOOR from Ampeg over the last 5-10 years is way higher than anything we would have ever accepted.

[Jerrold Tiers]

Originally Posted by ljazz

Jerrold, how involved in the process design is a company like Loud?

From the little that I was involved with them 6 years ago, less than they should be..... It's almost impossible to be "involved" in the typical bid-it-out CM process.

They ran a lot of stuff through one particular CM, and probably had a decent relationship. But the involvement "over there" is minimal unless you are a major customer, and/or have done the obligatory "exchange of nominal amounts of stock" that makes you a partner. otherwise, you don't get much more than a ship date..... Maybe you can get a guy in the factory during the run, but process problems will usually be answered with "yes we fix that"..... and no actual action.

Loud, big as they have been, was fairly small potato's when it comes to filling up a CM's schedule. That means you get service as and when the CM feels like it. I was pretty sure I saw Loud being lied to, and given the run around, on some tooling issues, for instance.

It's NOTHING like dealing with your own factory where you can walk out back or across the parking lot, and be IN the factory. And where you go to meetings along with the factory folks, reporting to the same people.

[arai]

Originally Posted by bobcruz

I am fascinated by this discussion. Please keep it coming. Thanks, Bob

+1

[jeff7bass]

I firmly believe it’s protection circuitry with these amps, just as it is on GK’s MB series. The GK will shut-down for 3 seconds and automatically engage the limiter when it comes back on. It beats blowing the amp. The Ampeg flashes warning lights on and the sound will disappear for just a second. Not bad, just means you need to adjust the settings (as I have done).
One poster says he had his GAIN at 12:00 and his MASTER at 3:00. This is quite a load on the MASTER side. The GAIN stages on these amps are quite low compared to GK, Carvin, etc… and having the GAIN at 12:00 is like having it around 9:00 on other amps. Push the GAIN up to 2:00 and bring down the MASTER down to 2:00, engage the limiter and it should settle down. I found this out myself because I NEVER pushed my GAIN up past 12:00 on any other amp. With the PF, it’s almost a requirement. The sound is more “Ampeg-like” with the gain set high.
All amps have limits, some shutdown and others fry. I prefer the former.

[pfschim]

my PF500 just died totally. No 3 seconds out of action, just dead. Not useful on a gig at all. It was also not being run hard (Gain on 2 o'clock - to match the bass output with NO clipping, Master Vol on 12 noon, and the various EQ settings just pushed a touch over 12 noon).

It did start up normally an hour later, but by then the gig was long over.

I just do not see this "protection circuit" as a great feature on an amp designed to be gigged live.

My PF500 has been permanently retired from live gigs and sits at the rehearsal studio.

as far as the poll goes, the numbers show that 40% of TBers with PF500's have had cut out issues, and 30% of PF350 users on TB have had cut outs. I have no idea of how these numbers play out in the overall number of PF units sold, but within the TB sample, it is really bad.

[60bass]

Originally Posted by pfschim

my PF500 just died totally. No 3 seconds out of action, just dead. Not useful on a gig at all. It was also not being run hard (Gain on 2 o'clock - to match the bass output with NO clipping, Master Vol on 12 noon, and the various EQ settings just pushed a touch over 12 noon).

It did start up normally an hour later, but by then the gig was long over.

I just do not see this "protection circuit" as a great feature on an amp designed to be gigged live.

My PF500 has been permanently retired from live gigs and sits at the rehearsal studio.

as far as the poll goes, the numbers show that 40% of TBers with PF500's have had cut out issues, and 30% of PF350 users on TB have had cut outs. I have no idea of how these numbers play out in the overall number of PF units sold, but within the TB sample, it is really bad.

The TB PF500 owners are probably a very small percentage of total units sold. However 40% cut out is a pretty large number nonetheless. I can relate to those who have no faith anymore in their PF500's for gigging having been there before with different amps. My PF500 was purchased in 07/11 and never cut out. However I recently traded it in on a new rig not because I didn't like it or I was worried that the amp might cut out, I just found something whose tone I liked better

[afzoomie67]

I've played one, and it didn't cut out. But it was at the store..and I liked it.

[vickde]

I had a PF350 for two gigs. Classic rock band, acoustic drummer. Band really tries to keep the stage volume down. First gig I played a p with rounds, no problem. Second gig, mid way, I picked up a 57 RI with TI flats. Didn't make it half-way through the tune before it started cutting out. It went back to GC the following day. I replaced it with a used LMIII, from which I've had zero trouble since.

[rjmsteel]

Following this 1.

[Schpector]

I have owned two separate PF-500s and each has cut out more than once.

[ics1974]

still no cut outs for me but I have only had the volume no louder then 2:00 with gain at 2:00 as well. 8 ohm cab as well.

[JWP]

Have a PF500 and it has not cut out yet! Though I am thinking about going to a HArtke LH500 to see hwo dramatic the "cleaner" sound is as compared to the PF500...