• 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.
Auto recalls are typically based upon a safety issue, not sub-performance. There are no meaningful, actionable laws or guidelines on that.

One could trot out the dated consumer protection BS, but that's been handily side stepped in court often enough so as to be effectively nonexistant.
 
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.
I think what you are witnessing is recreational outrage, something far too many people are addicted to, and problematic as it drowns out voices needing real help.
 
Whatever dude…
Maybe you need to go back review some of the dog pile posts and me calling for some calm.

Mistakes happen and they are being rectified.
Don’t make me to the target of why the devices did not perform… Mr “I’m Grumpy”.
Sure mistakes were made and rectified.
Yet you still seem to be piling on Buckeye Audio.

He was here. He commented early on that the Stereophile's measurements didn't match his internal measurements and was going to wait.
I had to stop reading the thread after 11 or so pages and then jumped to the end after it came out that the offending component was from Purify and nothing he did wrong.

But that hasn't stopped you from being critical of BA.

I mean its your right to opine or bee-itch, but you're kicking a dead horse mate.

That's my gripe w you.
 
Sorry I went for a kip.

It really sounds like you are trying to rescue yourself, or justify your High IT expert wage, by making the problem seem more complex than it actually is.

In what way is an automobile comparable with a March Audio Amplifier?

Last time I checked high cost audio equipment does not get its labels rubbed off either within the warranty period or after it is sold on so that's the death of one of your other straw men unless the product gets stolen and someone takes out its VIN(s) with an angle grinder.

What's that... Two buffer boards. Two Amplifier Boards and perhaps Two PSU's, possibly one. Those are your major high value components. I guess they will come with manufacturer serial numbers. SHA256 them together and you have a label for the box for the things that matter.

I do apologize for coming up with an IT adjacent solution to your problem.

Elsewhere I am


years old and would have been the person who gave you the production data from the test equipment I designed and installed running against XT clones under TurboPascal to lose in your dirtybase. No the manufacturing company did not make cars but they banged out more product per day than we are talking about here.

I appear to have tooted.

It really sounds like you are trying to rescue yourself, or justify your High IT expert wage, by making the problem seem more complex than it actually is.
Geez dude... what do you do for a living?
(What's a kip? I'm going to assume a light meal... but for all I know it could be a nooner. )

The point is that at best the company will track the parts used in a lot of products and then if errors come back and they can trace it to a batch of bad components they can identify the units and then go back thru the supply chain forward to the consumer so that they can alert the consumer. Just getting the data and details can be a pain and requires good vendor/supplier management and relations.
 
VIN numbers aren't released for recalls, they're in a database you check against. I guess Purifi could stick an input box on their website and people can input a serial number to check against but since they're all accounted for the only answer to the query will be no you don't have one. Be any easy input box to add doesn't even need a binary answer, just no and no.
 
I think what you are witnessing is recreational outrage, something far too many people are addicted to, and problematic as it drowns out voices needing real help.

Actually, what you are seeing is Buckeye unintentionally inviting others to speak up if they wanted the defective 9040 serial numbers posted. Once he told the previous poster that since he was the only one interested he should go ask Purifi - that was my cue that Dylan didn't understand more than one person was interested in the the defective serial numbers. There is never just one defective module. That's a pipe dream.

It's also a bad reflection on Purifi when they have manufacturers who openly try to dissuade prospective customers from being fully informed. If I was Buckeye in this case I would say nothing at all or post the data if I had it. I certainly wouldn't argue with people online that it shouldn't be released except by Purifi. At least this experience intelligently reduces the number of amp builders I plan to recommend.
 
You are absolutely correct. No testing would capture every possible problem. Especially the sort of testing you would expect at manufacture. I expect it will be quite limited compared to something you might do in product development. The point which I made earlier is that Buckeye didn't do any testing of this amp. It showed multiple issues. Not just the IMD, also the shutting down at low powers and the discrepancy with the input impedance measuring 8k instead of the specified 50k. Testing the occasional unit, which he says is his policy, doesn't work because he hasnt tested enough units to know statisticaly what the typical problems are for this module.

Purifi has said the IMD issue occurred only close to clipping. 50 watts aint close to clipping, so we have a discrepancy here. Purifis, Buckeyes, no idea.
You're making an assumption that isn't based in fact.
IIRC somewhere there is a thread or threads where Dylan talks about the testing he has done.

You claim it shows multiple issues.
There are two things you have to remember.

1) Stereophile agreed to do a retest if BA send them a new set for review. (Not sure if its the monoblocks or the single unit w separate channels inside one box)
[BA is planning to do this.]

2) All products are a tradeoff. Looking at speakers... the design of the cabinet. Vented or sealed. Passive or Active XO. Choice of drivers. Cabinet material... even the quality of the capacitors, resistors in the XO. Everything has a cost and there are design factors. (Even type of material used inside the cabinet and the amount of bracing.)

So to say that BA didn't test their product is wrong.
That they ignored flaws... I don't know.

I mean, and no offense to BA... his cases are not works of art. Just functional.
Sort of like Geshelli cases on their dacs...
 
Sounds good!
A number of years ago, I read a really great article about how many large retail stores were beginning to "fire customers" for a few select reasons. One such retatiler was Macy's. The main reason they parted ways with folks was too many unreasonable returns.

Interestingly, one of the lesser reasons was a sort of 'reverse customer service.' Some clients were such a PITA that it was better to let them go than to keep them.

That said, maybe there's a third group that are better to avoid from the beginning.

Just a thought.
 
Purifi admitted to being the origin.
But as you can see, this is no longer enough. Questions are now arising on a wide variety of channels. This can only be countered with transparency and a clean methodology. That's why I mentioned the 8D report, which highlights all the weak points in the chain and aims to prevent any recurrence. As long as an RCA has not been carried out, it cannot be ruled out that other products from the past may also be affected.
If this is not done properly, I can see major damage coming to some brands. Manufacturers who build the Purifi design under license will be less affected by this.
I hope those involved are aware of the consequences.
 
What's not lost on me is a majority of those piling on are ones who have either already not cared for our amps for a long time (before this issue) or who think certain other brands that charge significantly more for the same sound are of course superior no matter what.

So if it seems like I'm not taking some of you serious in here (and those of you should know who you are).....if the shoe fits.

As for my actual past, current, and future customer base, my openness and commitment to stand behind my products has not changed, for better or worse. I've already responded to a few inquiries on 9040 owners if their amps are affected. I've also sold more 9040s since all of thise has unfolded.
 
It sounded from the wording on Alan’s site that they found the problem and “rectified” it.
(That seems like it sort of deserves a bonus point.)
...
Bonus point indeed!
 
Actually, what you are seeing is Buckeye unintentionally inviting others to speak up if they wanted the defective 9040 serial numbers posted. Once he told the previous poster that since he was the only one interested he should go ask Purifi - that was my cue that Dylan didn't understand more than one person was interested in the the defective serial numbers. There is never just one defective module. That's a pipe dream.

It's also a bad reflection on Purifi when they have manufacturers who openly try to dissuade prospective customers from being fully informed. If I was the Buckeye in this case I would say nothing at all or post the data if I had it. I certainly wouldn't argue with people online that it shouldn't be released except by Purifi. At least this experience intelligently reduces the number of amp builders I plan to recommend.
Uhm...
You do realize that the faulty part was made by Purifi.
From BA's perspective, they only had one defective card so how would he know about how many other cards were defective.

So the issue of releasing the card information should go back to Purifi...
It could also be that as a manufacturer Purifi did share information w him but he's not sure if it should be shared publicly.

Just saying...
 
Let’s all dial back the snark and underhanded insults. Some are teetering on the razors edge. Keep this conversation civil, respectful and productive.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. ;)
 
He has said he didn't test this particular amp.
He has said he only tests occasional units.
It did have multiple issues as described.
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.
I took it to mean that you were saying he didn't test his amps.

And yes, that would make sense.
In hindsight he would probably test any amp he sends out for review just to be safe.
Of course... were it not for the bad purifi board there wouldn't be an issue, now would there?

Before we say BA amps have issues... lets see what Stereophile says when they retest it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom