My Problem With Inexpensive Electronics

[MRC01]

I've owned 2 Miele dishwashers, and have relatives and friends who own them as well. We all agree that these dishwashers do an incredibly good job of cleaning dishes. Reviews of these machine say the same thing. I have no idea why yours wasn't doing the job, but one report of a poor result is hardly proof that the entire brand is overpriced junk. ...

I agree one sample doesn't make a trend, which is why I didn't arrive at my "junk" judgment until the first vacuum also had numerous problems. Though we did get 1 good Miele appliance, which led to the 1 for 3 record I mentioned above.
Your mileage may vary, and obviously does.

 

[Katji]

So it goes, people want to buy cheap.

And people want to be able to afford things/goods.

For example, electricity generators and power tools that enable them to do economic activity, to maintain themselves [and their families.]
For example anything.
And, that is one major factor in how China developed.

 

[tvih]

I certainly like devices built for longevity. But it doesn't correlates with price particularly much, because even with expensive devices there's cheapskating, lack of support, or in general so called planned obsolescence. I would still be using my Oneplus 2 phone from 2015 or 2016 if not a worn out battery that they stopped making like a year after release. Great support indeed. My current phone is basically equivalent in performance and features and does all I need for the foreseeable future, which only shows the Oneplus would've still been fine as well.

In some device types admittedly ultimate longevity isn't very meaningful since they will just end up outliving their usefulness due to the rapid march of technology, as others have pointed out. But there's middle ground to be found in such cases. And of course if making the device have good longevity doesn't come with a massive cost, why not make it so anyway, as the durable components likely won't tax the environment any more than the cheap ones? But I guess we all know the answer to that.

 

[Cbdb2]

I've owned several Topping products. None of them have had any reliability issues. But, they are very inexpensive. I know going in that they probably won't be ten year items. If I get a couple years out of them I'm very satisfied...they really are close to disposable items. I don't have a problem with that.

And it's worth noting that spending more is by no means any assurance of reliability. I've owned more expensive items that crapped out within a couple years.

So you don't have a problem with landfills filling up?

 

[Cbdb2]

The problem is that technology MAKES items disposable. Anyone up for a state of the art cassette deck? How about using a state of the art Dolby Surround AV receiver for your Atmos system? How about a picture tube TV? Or if you want to leave audio, how about buying a brand new car with a carburetor instead of fuel injection, no air bags or accident avoidance tech or bluetooth? It is certainly possible that these items could be made more cheaply (although not always), but you'd at best find a limited or non existent market.

As for people wanting to buy 'cheap' products, it almost seems like blaming the victim. Without getting too political, discretionary income has decreased for the majority while increasing for a small minority.

Then why do I see a flood of "vintage" audio electronics (not just turntables) on eBay etc. selling for ridicoulus prices? Lots of it is junk. And theres even speakers that were designed 60 years ago.

AR3a speakers - electronics - by owner

Mint Acoustic Research AR3a Improved vintage stereo speakers in teak. mint condition. Made in England 1972 25” tall 14”Wide 12” deep

vancouver.craigslist.org

 

[Anton S]

Then why do I see a flood of "vintage" audio electronics (not just turntables) on eBay etc. selling for ridicoulus prices? Lots of it is junk. And theres even speakers that were designed 60 years ago.

AR3a speakers - electronics - by owner

Mint Acoustic Research AR3a Improved vintage stereo speakers in teak. mint condition. Made in England 1972 25” tall 14”Wide 12” deep

vancouver.craigslist.org

One man's junk is another's gem. Some vintage audio equipment was junk when new, and it's now just older junk, but most gear was built with reliability and serviceability in mind. Many dealers back then maintained their own service departments that had to fix the stuff if/when it broke, so these were priorities for those dealers. I have several pieces of gear that are 20+ years old, and a few that are 40+. They worked and sounded great back then, and they still do, despite the ubiquitous use of - oh, NO! - many much-maligned electrolytic capacitors, none of which was ever replaced with more "transparent" caps. Failed caps - few and far between - were always replaced with equivalent parts.

A few of my vintage components have required service over the years, but repairs were generally simple and reasonably inexpensive because of the way they were designed built. I was able to perform many of the repairs myself, and only considered replacing failed components when newer gear offered genuine, audible performance gains or enhanced capabilities, which really haven't come along very often. (I'm talking strictly about audio gear. Video technology has advanced so rapidly over the last decade that replacement has become preferable to repair for most, including me.)

 

[tvih]

So you don't have a problem with landfills filling up?

Electronics can be partially recycled. But also for example Topping makes small products with not so many components. There's plenty of "overengineered" expensive stuff out there that if it breaks it's like five Topping products' worth of junk.

 

[EJ3]

Electronics can be partially recycled. But also for example Topping makes small products with not so many components. There's plenty of "overengineered" expensive stuff out there that if it breaks it's like five Topping products' worth of junk.

If you buy stuff that is quality (like my NAD 2200's (SINAD through the LAB inputs is 95 (see AMIRM'S review here of one of mine NAD 2200 Vintage Amp Review) and is easily repaired, then it doesn't have to go to the land fill at all (even if it is 35 or so years old):

Zoomed:

And signal to noise ratio:

Conclusions
Nice to see innovation like this from equipment that is over 30 years old! Shame on manufacturers that produce amplifiers for much less power, more distortion and higher prices these days. No, you don't get a fancy case here and sheet metal is strictly budget category. But you are not going to sit on the amp. The guts are where it matters and NAD 2200 delivers.

NOTE: the output relay on stock 2200 gets corroded and fails over time. There are videos and DIY threads on how to upgrade the relay there to fix the problem. The unit tested here has that fix. Other than that, there are not reports of many other reliability issues even though NAD products are often said to be less reliable than other brands.

 

[Doodski]

Other than that, there are not reports of many other reliability issues even though NAD products are often said to be less reliable than other brands.

I provided NAD warranty service for some years and never noticed anything unusual about the service rate for NAD gear. It was mostly CD lasers and fried output transistors from people that bought too small of a amp. We never had that much to service actually and that was in a city of ~1,000,000 with close ties to a big box dealer that wanted a service depot to send NAD repairs to. Without hard numbers I would not listen to rumors and stuff about NAD service rates.

 

[EJ3]

I provided NAD warranty service for some years and never noticed anything unusual about the service rate for NAD gear. It was mostly CD lasers and fried output transistors from people that bought too small of a amp. We never had that much to service actually and that was in a city of ~1,000,000 with close ties to a big box dealer that wanted a service depot to send NAD repairs to. Without hard numbers I would not listen to rumors and stuff about NAD service rates.

The quote is AMIRM's text in his review of one of my NAD 2200 Triplets serviced by Peter William at QuirkAudio in Berkley, Calif. (SINAD 95 put's it at the bottom of the BLUE (highest) section of the updated rating system. I guess that my choice of AMP's back then wasn't too bad, they were quite good back then & they are still pretty darn good.

 

[tvih]

If you buy stuff that is quality (like my NAD 2200's (SINAD through the LAB inputs is 95 (see AMIRM'S review here of one of mine NAD 2200 Vintage Amp Review) and is easily repaired, then it doesn't have to go to the land fill at all (even if it is 35 or so years old):

Sure, but there's not enough quality vintage gear for everyone (since certainly not all vintage gear is quality). And equally serviceable new quality offerings, where they exist, are bound to be way above Topping price ranges and thus not really in the contention for people with smaller budgets.