• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Buckeye Purifi Eigentakt 1ET9040BA monoblock power amplifier Stereophile Measurements

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess I missed it when Purifi stated "all have been accounted for"
They didn't state that verbatim, no.
They did state that they recalled the initial batch but "one" got through (to me).

And now that that "one" has been accounted for...

But they also stated they will be double checking their logs to be absolutely sure.
 
There is an easy and obvious way to put this to bed and end the speculation, conjecture, and erase all doubt. Let's hope they choose it.
No offense, but it seems you are the only one who needs reassurance. In that case, you should email them directly and go from there.
 
This is just an amplifier so no need to obsess here from my perspective. I have one and may build another if my speaker plans require. Stereophile review not withstanding, mine is still performing as good now as it did when I bought it.

Buckeye and Purifi have been very accommodating on this recall but it is not a safety or security issue AND as @Buckeye Amps suggests, personal queries are best handled more directly.
 
Last edited:
The line level processing is typically added to a system eg in the form of as limiters and compressors. Could also be a simple soft clip as you say. An active speaker may have advanced DSP limiters that beyond preventing hard clipping is also limiting driver excursion. All that is system dependent so not something to add inside the generic amp module.

Thx Lars.

I've been led to believe from my experience with QSC and other proaudio amps, that advanced DSP isn't needed to perform the soft clipping/compression I measure in the amps.

I have three QSC amp models using AB, one using AB/H, and one G. None of them have internal DSP other than whatever circuitry is used to perform the soft clipping/compression. The AB models have been around for decades.
Every amp channel in all models has its own independent limiter with an on/off DIP switch. This includes relatively low cost, lower power 8 channel amps (Class AB 130W FTC @ 4 Ohm)

So I've figured the circuity is rather standard, easy to implement stuff, in generic type amps. Maybe not?

(I do know I've so often wished that clip protection and other routine proaudio amp features, such as clip/-10, -20dB level LEDs, delayed on, instant off, DC protect, etc,.... were in my home audio amps. Doesn't seem they can cost that much when proamps are generally much less expensive than equivalent power consumer)
 
And again...



Copied from the other thread:

I think this statement is premature and whether it covers all observations, who knows. Normally in the industry, the suspect component is returned to the manufacturer for an investigation and an 8D report is requested. Why not here too? This would clean up everything and such a case should not occur again in the future. That would be a win-win for everyone involved.
Btw. from my point of view, the topic of ribbon cable close to loudspeaker cable was also not sufficiently considered/investigated.
This is why a properly conducted RC analysis is all the more important.
Purifi admitted to being the origin. That's why I said what I did.

I've worked in high tech manufacturing for nearly 30 years. PCBA manufacturers are often root cause for issues. It's a tough business and even the best EOL tests can release escapees. Thus the phrase, "continuous improvement is a process, not an event."
 
No offense, but it seems you are the only one who needs reassurance. In that case, you should email them directly and go from there.
He has been reassured by Moderation for his lack of reading comprehension and overly aggressive comments. Making unfounded claims and negative assumptions without a speck of evidence. He won’t be back. ;)
 
No offense, but it seems you are the only one who needs reassurance. In that case, you should email them directly and go from there.

If Purifi wants to maintain their reputation they will offer full disclosure without requiring users to request the Defective 9040 serial numbers. Keeping defective 9040 serial numbers private will maintain a cloud over the product. Buckeye trying to make a customer rethink their desire for full disclosure is obviously NOT helpful.
 
If Purifi wants to maintain their reputation they will offer full disclosure without requiring users to request the Defective 9040 serial numbers. Keeping defective 9040 serial numbers private will maintain a cloud over the product. Buckeye trying to make a customer rethink their desire for full disclosure is obviously NOT helpful.

It is possible Purifi’s reputation could take a hit given how the internet is, but I would suggest that you could be overstating the matter here.
 
Thx Lars.

I've been led to believe from my experience with QSC and other proaudio amps, that advanced DSP isn't needed to perform the soft clipping/compression I measure in the amps.

I have three QSC amp models using AB, one using AB/H, and one G. None of them have internal DSP other than whatever circuitry is used to perform the soft clipping/compression. The AB models have been around for decades.
Every amp channel in all models has its own independent limiter with an on/off DIP switch. This includes relatively low cost, lower power 8 channel amps (Class AB 130W FTC @ 4 Ohm)

So I've figured the circuity is rather standard, easy to implement stuff, in generic type amps. Maybe not?

(I do know I've so often wished that clip protection and other routine proaudio amp features, such as clip/-10, -20dB level LEDs, delayed on, instant off, DC protect, etc,.... were in my home audio amps. Doesn't seem they can cost that much when proamps are generally much less expensive than equivalent power consumer)
It's evident that adding this feature isn't costly. This leads me to my own speculative conclusion that residential amplifiers likely omit it simply because manufacturers prefer not to reveal that their popular amplifiers might frequently experience clipping. And I’m not specifically referring to the one mentioned in this thread but speaking more generally.
 
It is possible Purifi’s reputation could take a hit given how the internet is, but I would suggest that you could be overstating the matter here.

Anything is possible. However, I will not consider a Purifi 9040 purchase until the defective serial numbers are publicly released. I don't see anything wrong with customers wanting full disclosure. We can do it politely.

When Denon changed the DAC chipset in the Denon 4700 after the ASR review, customer pressure finally required them to release which AVR serial numbers were impacted. In my view, companies should be upfront when issues occur. Full disclosure is always helpful. Nothing improves a relationship more than openness.
 
If Purifi wants to maintain their reputation they will offer full disclosure without requiring users to request the Defective 9040 serial numbers. Keeping defective 9040 serial numbers private will maintain a cloud over the product. Buckeye trying to make a customer rethink their desire for full disclosure is obviously NOT helpful.
Reach out to Purifi directly, which is what Lars and myself have both said now.

If Ford had a part issue needing a recall that involved 10,000 vehicles but they were able to intercept, say, 7,500 of those affected vehicles, why would they include those VIN numbers in a database to check against? They send out letters and set up a database to check your VIN # against BUT only for those who are affected (unaccounted for VIN #'s). Those 7,500's that never made it into customer hands are not in play and meaningless to customers worried about the issue.

What seems to be happening in some peoples minds is akin to someone owning (example) a 2014 Ford F-150 and demanding that a list of all VIN #'s be released for a recall that only affects 2018-2020 Ford F-150's.

Again, if someone is worried, reach out to your OEM or directly to Purifi. Pretty simple.
 
Anything is possible. However, I will not consider a Purifi 9040 purchase until the defective serial numbers are publicly released. I don't see anything wrong with customers wanting full disclosure. We can do it politely.

When Denon changed the DAC chipset in the Denon 4700 after the ASR review, customer pressure finally required them to release which AVR serial numbers were impacted. In my view, companies should be upfront when issues occur. Full disclosure is always helpful. Nothing improves a relationship more than openness.
They released the AVR Serial #....they didn't release the DAC chipset serial # for customers to open up their amps and check themselves.
Your argument is that the serial #'s of the DAC's affected should have been put out to the public for people to check themselves rather than trust Denon that they were being honest about what serial # range of their COMPLETED AVR's were affected.
 
But in case of those 1ET9040BA modules, all the indication is to a small series o few products, right? So why not to disclose? As usual, the car analogy hobbles again. Not every end user is able to check the parameters himself. And, as we can see, not every OEM assembler either. Which is a bit worse case.
 
But in case of those 1ET9040BA modules, all the indication is to a small series o few products, right? So why not to disclose? As usual, the car analogy hobbles again.
Because all indication is just one was not accounted for. Again, if they shipped out 100 modules from that production run and received 99 of them back (verified, checked against a log), what's the point?

I am focused on the small mishap that allowed that one module to slip through for me to use. I share the blame.

If someone is worried there might be more (even after Purifi double checks after the holidays), they can reach out directly. Pretty simple.
 
Reach out to Purifi directly, which is what Lars and myself have both said now.

If Ford had a part issue needing a recall that involved 10,000 vehicles but they were able to intercept, say, 7,500 of those affected vehicles, why would they include those VIN numbers in a database to check against? They send out letters and set up a database to check your VIN # against BUT only for those who are affected (unaccounted for VIN #'s). Those 7,500's that never made it into customer hands are not in play and meaningless to customers worried about the issue.

What seems to be happening in some peoples minds is akin to someone owning (example) a 2014 Ford F-150 and demanding that a list of all VIN #'s be released for a recall that only affects 2018-2020 Ford F-150's.

Again, if someone is worried, reach out to your OEM or directly to Purifi. Pretty simple.

Dylan,
It sounds like you may have not had much experience with auto recalls? By law the manufacturer reports the recalls to NHTSA. This allows any person to check on recalls, not just the original owner.

If in fact the group of Purifi 9040 modules with defect are small, it's pretty easy to release a range of serial numbers (without listing every individual number). The module number is not the same as the serial number of the product, so the VIN argument doesn't make sense either. This is a simple request. Why a manufacturer who installs Purifi modules would think it's important to push against such a customer request is a bit worrisome.
 
Totally agreed. This fishbowl has a huge magnification lense on it.
Sometimes I need to remind myself that some people just have nothing better to do.

It reminds me of the "Twittergate" epsidoe from Parks and Rec.
 
Dylan,
It sounds like you may have not had much experience with auto recalls? By law the manufacturer reports the recalls to NHTSA. This allows any person to check on recalls, not just the original owner.

If in fact the group of Purifi 9040 modules with defect are small, it's pretty easy to release a range of serial numbers (without listing every individual number). The module number is not the same as the serial number of the product, so the VIN argument doesn't make sense either. This is a simple request. Why a manufacturer who installs Purifi modules would think it's important to push against such a customer request is a bit worrisome.
Perhaps you read me wrong or I did not come across correctly. I know how auto recalls work. Anyone can go to a database and check, sure. But only those VIN's affected are in the Database and only those VIN's affected (or, if wanting broad range coverage those with the same year range) are contacted directly (usually mail).

Sure, someone who is not included in the recall range can check the database. Just like anyone can contact Purifi and ask if they would like. No one is stopping you.
 
Why a manufacturer who installs Purifi modules would think it's important to push against such a customer request is a bit worrisome.
I am literally telling anyone who wants to that they can contact Purifi (or myself) directly.
Sorry that I see a public database consisting of (at this point) 1 serial # useless since we already know where that 1 module ended up.

But if that means you won't be buying any 9040 amps, oh well. You can't please everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom