Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Weepypostman
0
Feb 9, 2015
The more I research about these headphones, the more concerned I get about build quality...
tommydadog
177
Feb 9, 2015
Weepypostmanthat's probably because you're researching for all the bad stuff about them rather than the good?
Weepypostman
0
Feb 10, 2015
tommydadogProbably lol
Oktyabr
79
Feb 10, 2015
WeepypostmanI've said this before in this thread (and elsewhere). This isn't an issue in build quality, it's an issue with quality control. EVERY mass produced product has a few jinky units come off the assembly line. I don't care who you are, Sennheiser, Beyer, Hifiman, Audeze, etc... no one makes a perfect product every single time. Quality control (QC) is the department responsible for testing each unit and making sure the flawed ones don't get packed and shipped. Like manufacturing, QC is not 100% perfect all the time either. Sometimes a unit slips by that shouldn't have. The percentage of flawed units with this model is crazy low, something like 45 reports out of thousands that have been shipped. The BIG difference is that this is a highly publicized, concentrated release of a model that has never been sold before. The Q701 has been reported as having a similar problem with some units. Is this new or big news? Not really. The Philips X2 has had owners post about an imbalance between the channels in some units and "poor glue job" by others. Think Sennheiser sells 1000 HD600's in any given week? Think none of them ever get returned or shipped back under warranty? They do, you just aren't reading about it.
RShack
180
Feb 10, 2015
OktyabrUm, no... the percentage of bad units that slipped out AKG's door for this particular item is *not* crazy low... it's actually remarkably high for current QA methods... this ain't the 1950's anymore...
tommydadog
177
Feb 10, 2015
RShackYou consider 2.5% high? cause I don't.
gravatos
39
Feb 10, 2015
RShackSo how do you suppose they lower that percentage? As it is a slight rattle so should they have someone wear every single pair and do a frequency sweep or something? as that just seems silly to me.
Oktyabr
79
Feb 11, 2015
RShackThese weren't manufactured according to any current methods, why would you think QC would be any different? I have a sneaky feeling AKG really didn't expect these to sell in such a large quantity so quickly and with people having paid for them and demanding that they be shipped, like yesterday, do you suppose there is perhaps the chance that QC slipped up a bit? Read the updates? These are being made and shipped to the USA for drops and distribution as quickly as possible. What if the headphone flunked? Think they built all 5000 or whatever ahead of time?
tommydadog
177
Feb 11, 2015
Oktyabrlol they were pretty much sold before they were made.
djfluffkins
157
Feb 11, 2015
OktyabrWhat probably happened is they provided Massdrop with some prices given certain MOQs (minimum order quantity) with certain contingencies on additional runs if they went higher. You're right, they probably just built some, expecting a certain amount of sales and then scrambled for more. Massdrop probably did another batch after seeing the popularity but did it on their own dime up front.
That being said, there were also comments about issues with containers at ports, I can say that my friends who manufacture things in China are having troubles getting their products in a timely manner.
radiohead_s1
6
Feb 12, 2015
Oktyabrwhat a great response.. kudos
RShack
180
Feb 12, 2015
tommydadogIn this day and age... for a mass produced product... yes, that's very high... modern methods normally beat that by a mile, even for items that are much more complex than this is...
RShack
180
Feb 13, 2015
gravatosTo lower the percentage, they have to ID how the problem got created. The idea of just testing them after the fact is a band-aid, not a fix. That's just verifying a problem after you already created it over and over again. You have to get the people on the line to help you figure out how the problem happened in the first place, that's the only way to stop it.
The difference here is the difference between Detroits old QA process vs. how the Japanese improved on that by using Deming's methods. The Japanese would have every autoworker empowered to stop the assembly line if he saw a problem, so they wouldn't make a bunch of cars that had that problem. They'd fix the problem right then and there, and then restart the line. Meanwhile, GM would prohibit every autoworker from stopping the line because they wanted to produce a zillion cars per day... so, they'd make 5000 cars with the exact same problem, and then they'd have to go find them all and fix them after they were made..
PRODUCTS YOU MAY LIKE
Trending Posts in Audiophile