Buckeye Purifi Eigentakt 1ET9040BA monoblock power amplifier Stereophile Measurements

[SSS]

I think there's some cultural or habit problems here.
What was the norm for decades was to open an amp and see this QC sticker with the little boxes checked and signed.And I'm talking cheap ones too,in the $1k-$2k range.
And the smaller the company,the more they bragged about this kind of personal attention,etc,you know the works.

Finding out that this is not the norm these days and only few samples are tested at a sampling fashion may come as a shock,specially to older folks.
On top of that at this age and time we expect high quality testing with gear like AP,etc (I don't know what the "etc" is but ok) and reporting about from highly skilled operators.

Well,the above comes with a price,as thermals,looks,etc,everything else in life.
Yes,even me,the most superficial user in here must admit that.And it's a good thing sometimes.
If a design is cost-oriented as its main quality every corner (apart from safety ones) can be cut.And folks should expect that.

I am not sure that a nontechnical audio gear buyer will expect that a unit will not meet the advertised spcecs. At the case Purifi and BuckEye independend of price each unit sold must meet the specs. Of course the question who was guilty, the provider of the OEM modules or BuckEye who installed them. My understanding is that either Purifi must test every module for meeting the specs and either BuckEye will accept these test results as suffient and skips own incoming inspection tests for testing only then the finished amplifier. For me the last person touched the finished amplifier is responsible for testing it against the specs. Every unit of course. With todays mesurement setups it is easy and does not cost too much time which may add up to the selling price. And yes, I am oldschool expecting consistent quality. But it seems to be easy making money with to buy ready made modules, put it into a box and sell it with a high upmark. Even hi-priced brands do that now.

 

[Holmz]

I think he found a problem, I'm not convinced he found the same problem as Buckeye. Boxem have mentioned this also.

Say "Hello!" to boXem Arthur series, Hypex and Purifi based power amplifiers

@boXem Hello Fred, on your website I noticed some errors in the Description and Product details of the Arthur 4216/E1. In the Description: "In the Arthur 4216/E1, the amplification stage can deliver up to 375 W in 8 Ω and 1050 W in 2 Ω." doesn't seem right. In the Product details the Reference...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I think you need to read what march actually wrote.

Sounds the same, as they mentioned a (trim) pot on the MA site.

@Holmz lives in the same town as Alan. I live 5 hours north of them both. I auditioned an early version of Alan’s Sointuva speakers in my house. Alan has a problem with the way he communicates online, which I tried to help him with but ultimately it wasn’t worth my time. His products are well engineered but some people have experienced issues with after sales service.

^that sums it up^

Ah - you must be married or have a boat?
(I can do it in 4 hours with the Mrs and puppy not in the car.)
But it is 5 hours with any stop or traffic.

It’s sort of cool down here this week… We have a friend arriving in a few hours, on the bus from Freo.

My MA speaker purchase went downhill.
I wanted a set with some myrtle and I supplied the Myrtle plank, and wanted the crossovers to be external.
I bought an Octo DAC-8 to use, but...

That's why companies hide the engineers in sunless,distant rooms.Interaction with other people does never work

Seriously now,of all people engineers should be the ones to value expertise on each subject.
And marketing is one of the most important,one can never have enough of it.

Looks like @mcdn and I both observed the same thing and offered to help.
But one can only lead a horse to water.

 

[Holmz]

I am not sure that a nontechnical audio gear buyer will expect that a unit will not meet the advertised spcecs. At the case Purifi and BuckEye independend of price each unit sold must meet the specs. Of course the question who was guilty, the provider of the OEM modules or BuckEye who installed them. My understanding is that either Purifi must test every module for meeting the specs and either BuckEye will accept these test results as suffient and skips own incoming inspection tests for testing only then the finished amplifier. For me the last person touched the finished amplifier is responsible for testing it against the specs. Every unit of course. With todays mesurement setups it is easy and does not cost too much time which may add up to the selling price. And yes, I am oldschool expecting consistent quality. But it seems to be easy making money with to buy ready made modules, put it into a box and sell it with a high upmark. Even hi-priced brands do that now.

It is possible that the idea of preproduction parts to use them to vent out the manufacturing details.
And then the R&D (which is more little “r” and little the “D” should also not be too onerous, so maybe it is little “d”)... gets sorted out before production kicks into high gear.

 

[Sokel]

I agree. I'm not sure why a low volume manufacturer would consider it anything onerous to run a product through a presumably automated test sequence. Probably take all of 10 minutes.

Ok,let's say that a low-volume,low-cost assembler fixes a rig consisting of an E1DA,couple of loads and Mutitone Analyzer which can run tests in sequence or REW with a script,etc to test its amps.
Remember,we're talking low cost.
And the community finds out that rig.Would you believe that we,the spoiled AP ones would consider it as legit?
My crystal ball shows epic rants.Even if some use this kind of gear,we all anticipate Amir and the ones with no less than a 555b to test and feel ok.

 

[mcdn]

Ok,let's say that a low-volume,low-cost assembler fixes a rig consisting of an E1DA,couple of loads and Mutitone Analyzer which can run tests in sequence or REW with a script,etc to test its amps.
Remember,we're talking low cost.
And the community finds out that rig.Would you believe that we,the spoiled AP ones would consider it as legit?
My crystal ball shows epic rants.Even if some use this kind of gear,we all anticipate Amir and the ones with no less than a 555b to test and feel ok.

If the test protocol is clear I think we’d love it! Except @pma who is never happy with anyone else’s tests and @restorer-john who is harder to please than the average Queenslander.

 

[Sokel]

If the test protocol is clear I think we’d love it! Except @pma who is never happy with anyone else’s tests and @restorer-john who is harder to please than the average Queenslander.

I would be happy as well personally!
At least it would be tested,that's the thing!And more so,I could test it and directly compare it with my results,cause owning such a rig is not a cost burden.

But look around,even JA's tests are underlooked these days,which his experience costs a thousand APs.
I think is sad.

 

[Holmz]

I agree. I'm not sure why a low volume manufacturer would consider it anything onerous to run a product through a presumably automated test sequence. Probably take all of 10 minutes.

I suppose that we would have to ask one of them.

It may not seem onerous, but when one is already working many hours per day, it is not likely that things will be jumping onto the bench and testing themselves.

 

[SSS]

I suppose that we would have to ask one of them.

It may not seem onerous, but when one is already working many hours per day, it is not likely that things will be jumping onto the bench and testing themselves.

Right, it must be done. And asking the BA and others how and what they test prior to shipment would be interesting. Maybe these manufacturers can do it here since they read the ASR postings.

 

[restorer-john]

Right, it must be done. And asking the BA and others how and what they test prior to shipment would be interesting. Maybe these manufacturers can do it here since they read the ASR postings.

You need to consider what is involved. The sequence and the masks need to be set. The pass/fail limits determined from a representative sample group and the time to connect, run, enter data, confirm and disconnect all add up to a lot of time.

Time is money.

Here's a sample for a Schiit amplifier in one their published APX reports:

 

[KSTR]

Wouldn't most if not all of that be an automated routine on the AP?

The automation is not the problem. The problem is what exactly you want to test and how you want to set the pass/fail limits. See @restorer-john 's answer.

I've used audio analyzers (mostly AP) to implement factory test procedures on active speaker amplifier backpanels. This is a considerable effort to get it right.

 

[pma]

If the test protocol is clear I think we’d love it! Except @pma who is never happy with anyone else’s tests and @restorer-john who is harder to please than the average Queenslander.

I am quite happy with JA tests in Stereophile. I am not very happy with Amir's amplifier tests here at ASR. I am fine with his DAC tests. So please next, no more misinformation.
P.S.: and I am quite happy to reply to qualified posts, not the ones like this.

 

[Mort]

Didnt seem to end well in this instance.

Are you kidding? This is the best thing ever to happen to Buckeye.

 

[SSS]

You need to consider what is involved. The sequence and the masks need to be set. The pass/fail limits determined from a representative sample group and the time to connect, run, enter data, confirm and disconnect all add up to a lot of time.

Time is money.

Here's a sample for a Schiit amplifier in one their published APX reports:

View attachment 417154

This test seems to be pretty thorough. Of course one must design the test and its reference values. It had be done anyway in order to get the true data for advertising and the datasheet. It is not necessary to have many amplifier samples for this. If there was a high random difference between the same amplifier model then the design is anyway a bad one. Good designed amplifiers do not differ much. I talk above semiconductor ones. At tube amps without negative feedback this may be different and is a totally different story when so called boutique amps., There I saw schematics with stupid circuits and also good clever ones.

 

[KSTR]

Fair enough, but surely a manufacturer would have a very good idea of what to test? Also surely they know what the expected performance should be? if they don't I would be concerned.

Well it depends. Some amp manufacturers see themselves as assemblers of modules and do not neccessarily have the means (gear, knowledge and manpower) for a full blown test, only short functional test.

 

[restorer-john]

Even then low cost QuantAsylum does automation

I've got one here. You need to run a bunch of iterations of multiple examples and let the software grab data and then create its own mask with pass/fail limits you must adjust. And that's just for one test parameter and one test.

As @KSTR said, it's a whole lotta work. Not for me, I restore, repair and test vintage gear, one piece at a time.

 

[mcdn]

I am quite happy with JA tests in Stereophile. I am not very happy with Amir's amplifier tests here at ASR. I am fine with his DAC tests. So please next, no more misinformation.
P.S.: and I am quite happy to reply to qualified posts, not the ones like this.

@pma I was making a joke, obviously I offended you, sorry that was not my intention.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

someone opens an amp any more than you sending replacement input boards to customers to install themselves.

It is an option I allow instead of sending an amplifier back for me to fix only if the customer is comfortable and told what is involved.

I would not want any of my customers opening up their amps without first reaching out to me if something is wrong.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

Has Purifi notified you of the defective serial numbers which you have then checked against the amps you have sent out?

It is impossible for a customer to reach out if, as in this case, it is impossible to know if something is wrong without checking the numbers first.

Yes. I already answered your PM directly on if your amps were affected.

Purifi is also (as Lars mentioned) going to double check their logs to be absolutely sure.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

I am not concerned about my amps in particular but rather the 9040 as a whole. As I said, this issue tends to taint the gene pool. Down the road should I wish to buy a few more or wish to sell, I will have to deal with the issue. Again, I have yet to hear a compelling reason for not releasing the serial range publicly. You have always been honest and upfront but sadly I have learned through the years that it is always easier to sleep if one trusts but verifies.

But you (or anyone else) won't have to deal with this issue as all have been accounted for. I really don't have anything more to say on the matter because it has been handled now.

There isn't some big conspiracy going on.

 

[goryu]

But you (or anyone else) won't have to deal with this issue as all have been accounted for. ....

I guess I missed it when Purifi stated "all have been accounted for"...Again, big believer in trust but verify.

There isn't some big conspiracy going on.

This. Exactly why the serial number range should be released.

Thanks for your input.