Bee wrote:
Reverend_roger wrote:
Dennis wrote:
SteveH wrote:
Neaco wrote:
...You get what you pay for...
...the old 'get what you pay for' clause will surely be
applied?
ie. a =A3200 widescreen could reasonably be expected to expire
after a couple of years, whereas a =A3800 set should be expected
to last longer....
...There is little correlation between how long stuff lasts and
the
price. You pay for the brand name on most expensive things...
the components are the same....
I take it you have no experience of tv repair, otherwise you would
not make nonsensical statements like that. So , by your reasoning,
a 1200 pound set has the same longevity as a sub-200 pound
supermarket special? Care to show any examples to support that
assertion?? Whilst it is true that at component level, there
exists
some overlap, circuit design and how those components are used,
is more important, and is another matter ...cheapo no-name sets
are NOT "the same" as most other name brand sets, except on
occasion in , say, some 14" models (JVC used some ONWA
chassis in their 14" low end models, for example).


You are making the assertion that the models from established names
performs
better (and lasts longer) than the no-name or little-known named ones

because of circuit designs, i.e. of different use/configuration of
(some)
components.

That is generally true, yes. Price also influences -you tend to get
what you pay for. Fewer corners seem to be cut in the more expensive
brand-name sets and they as such tend to perform better. Not always,
but in the majority of cases I have seen working in repair.

A better design demands a premium, which may be =A31000 more.
You implied that a circuit design is an intellectual property, and, a

superior intellect demands a premium. This is the essence of your
contention, reverend_roger.

I think you have read this into my words, nowhere did I mention
intellectual property. read on...

Why is it that a small unknown company (in one country) is unable to
design
a circuit superior than one from an established company (may be of
another
country with a different salary pay structure)?

There is absolutely, undeniably, positively, irrefutably no reason at
all.
It's bunkum.

The answer is quite simple- Economics and cost cutting. Put simply,
many of those low end sets seem to be built down to a price not up to a
standard. Of course, good design is not exclusive to anybody, but you
just won't normally find that in low end sets since it is not an
important factor in their manufacturing. They could include design
refinements (for example in the areas mentioned in next paragraph) if
they wanted to i am sure, but when you are making a product to market
at lowest possible cost, that doesn't generally happ=E8n.

I find that in many such sets, corners (and hence costs) seem to be
cut most in the audio, power supply/regulation and scanning circuits.


Reverend_roger, you have been unable to think freely, unable to break
free
from the traditional, 'conventional wisdom' that "better design
therefore
more expensive", or maybe, you are an exceptional member of the
unthinking
masses befuddled by big names.

Thank you, that's the nicest thing anybody's said to me all day!

This is of course nonsense: an intelligent
circuit design does not cost money.

Making a proprietary design, researching , testing, refining it,
however, costs money (and takes time). Insetad of that, many low end
sets simply use one turkish or chinese chassis design and slap on a
name. Or maybe you think names like BlueSky, durabrand, technosound,
sogo, SEG etc. make their own designs? how little you know....OEM -ing
is probably far cheaper than designing one from scratch.

-Ben

Make up your mind. You have now shifted from poor design to inferior
manufacturing standards. "Cut corners" is what you are now singing.

Every manufacturer befitted to survive in the intensely competitive world of
electronic goods will scour the earth to find the lowest price for a
component. Solid state components last forever. Transformers and
condensers (nowadays also solid state) change parameters over time (minimal
in solid state components) initially but remain stable thereafter.
Mechanical components like switches (worn out through abrasion) may
conceivably be the Achilles heels of the electronic equipment. The error or
deviation from the Mean Time Before Failure of these is so large that it is
a pot luck to pick one consignment of components than another that this
measurement is meaningless, and hugely overrated. These considerations
apply to all whether big name or no name manufacturer. All are in the same
boat. Cutting corner in the selection of components is meaningless.

Television is a mature product. The design is standard. Any refinement, if
indeed desired (different manufacturer have different perception) by the
consumers, will be implemented as a priority. The alterations virtually
cost nothing. When one implementation is warmly received by the public,
every other manufacturers follow suit. Unlike computer software, there is
no secret proprietary circuit design (there are too many equally good ways
to accomplish the same task). Research? Whatever the new fashion of
outward cosmetic is, yes; otherwise, no. A flatter screen, a shorter tube,
a more brilliant phosphorus... or whatever else (I'm referring to a radical
change of direction here) have all been done and finished with. The money
is now on solid state panels.

TV sets are graded by functionality not by how big the name at the front is.
All sets of the same grade perform almost indistinguishably, the basic
parameters being the same. Even picture quality, though looks different
from different sets (only when placed side by side), is designed in by the
manufacturer whose view may differ from yours or from other manufacturers.

Cutting corners is a vague vernacular. The off hand treatment of Turkish or
Chinese chassis exposed your prejudice, not evidence in support of your
argument. Why has JVC taken an unknown manufacturer for the innards of its
14" model?

All electronic equipment nowadays are remarkably reliable and should last
forever (the critical components being minerals in sand) save a replacement
of mechanical parts. If the equipment works without fault in the first
couple of months, if not in the first hour, then there should not be any
problem from then on. Well....until the time comes when an 'upgrade' is too
tempting to be ignored.


Bee
--
[I have found my Shangri-La in ntlworld.]


wrote in message
oups.com...

Bee wrote:
Reverend_roger wrote:
Dennis wrote:
SteveH wrote:
Neaco wrote:
...You get what you pay for...
...the old 'get what you pay for' clause will surely be
applied?
ie. a £200 widescreen could reasonably be expected to expire
after a couple of years, whereas a £800 set should be expected
to last longer....
...There is little correlation between how long stuff lasts and
the
price. You pay for the brand name on most expensive things...
the components are the same....
I take it you have no experience of tv repair, otherwise you would
not make nonsensical statements like that. So , by your reasoning,
a 1200 pound set has the same longevity as a sub-200 pound
supermarket special? Care to show any examples to support that
assertion?? Whilst it is true that at component level, there
exists
some overlap, circuit design and how those components are used,
is more important, and is another matter ...cheapo no-name sets
are NOT "the same" as most other name brand sets, except on
occasion in , say, some 14" models (JVC used some ONWA
chassis in their 14" low end models, for example).


You are making the assertion that the models from established names
performs
better (and lasts longer) than the no-name or little-known named ones

because of circuit designs, i.e. of different use/configuration of
(some)
components.

That is generally true, yes. Price also influences -you tend to get
what you pay for. Fewer corners seem to be cut in the more expensive
brand-name sets and they as such tend to perform better. Not always,
but in the majority of cases I have seen working in repair.

A better design demands a premium, which may be £1000 more.
You implied that a circuit design is an intellectual property, and, a

superior intellect demands a premium. This is the essence of your
contention, reverend_roger.

I think you have read this into my words, nowhere did I mention
intellectual property. read on...

Why is it that a small unknown company (in one country) is unable to
design
a circuit superior than one from an established company (may be of
another
country with a different salary pay structure)?

There is absolutely, undeniably, positively, irrefutably no reason at
all.
It's bunkum.

The answer is quite simple- Economics and cost cutting. Put simply,
many of those low end sets seem to be built down to a price not up to a
standard. Of course, good design is not exclusive to anybody, but you
just won't normally find that in low end sets since it is not an
important factor in their manufacturing. They could include design
refinements (for example in the areas mentioned in next paragraph) if
they wanted to i am sure, but when you are making a product to market
at lowest possible cost, that doesn't generally happèn.

I find that in many such sets, corners (and hence costs) seem to be
cut most in the audio, power supply/regulation and scanning circuits.


Reverend_roger, you have been unable to think freely, unable to break
free
from the traditional, 'conventional wisdom' that "better design
therefore
more expensive", or maybe, you are an exceptional member of the
unthinking
masses befuddled by big names.

Thank you, that's the nicest thing anybody's said to me all day!

This is of course nonsense: an intelligent
circuit design does not cost money.

Making a proprietary design, researching , testing, refining it,
however, costs money (and takes time). Insetad of that, many low end
sets simply use one turkish or chinese chassis design and slap on a
name. Or maybe you think names like BlueSky, durabrand, technosound,
sogo, SEG etc. make their own designs? how little you know....OEM -ing
is probably far cheaper than designing one from scratch.

-Ben

In sci.electronics.repair Bee wrote:
Make up your mind. You have now shifted from poor design to inferior
manufacturing standards. "Cut corners" is what you are now singing.

They go hand-in-hand in most cheap stuff.

component. Solid state components last forever. Transformers and

They don't.

condensers (nowadays also solid state) change parameters over time (minimal

Nowadays??? Electrolytics still have fluids, and transformers never
changed design in a major way.

in solid state components) initially but remain stable thereafter.

They won't. Electrolytics dry out, faster so in a poorly designed
apparatus. Also cheaper electrolytics will have less tolerance for avuse
or even for use.

apply to all whether big name or no name manufacturer. All are in the same
boat. Cutting corner in the selection of components is meaningless.

Admittedly, Philips made a mistake buying cheap power switches from
Stelvio that don't last too long and can cause spectacular shorts, but
the really cheap brands do this all the time as well.

Television is a mature product. The design is standard. Any refinement, if
indeed desired (different manufacturer have different perception) by the
consumers, will be implemented as a priority. The alterations virtually
cost nothing. When one implementation is warmly received by the public,
every other manufacturers follow suit. Unlike computer software, there is
no secret proprietary circuit design (there are too many equally good ways
to accomplish the same task). Research? Whatever the new fashion of
outward cosmetic is, yes; otherwise, no. A flatter screen, a shorter tube,
a more brilliant phosphorus... or whatever else (I'm referring to a radical
change of direction here) have all been done and finished with. The money
is now on solid state panels.

I agree with you that there is not too much new development in
traditional TV design, but your lack of understandig the aspects of
different technical designs and implementations of those designs, do
indicate you don't have a relevant electronical background. You should
gain some more experience in the design AND repair business before
judging technical stuff from a consumer point of view. Otherwise you're
better off juding stuff only by the features and price, as most
consumer magazines have traditionally done and still do.

Cutting corners is a vague vernacular. The off hand treatment of Turkish or
Chinese chassis exposed your prejudice, not evidence in support of your
argument. Why has JVC taken an unknown manufacturer for the innards of its
14" model?

Because it is cheap. Nowadays it seems every 4:3 JVC TV-set is made by
Vestel of Turkey. They can only afford to manufacture more expensive
models themselves, nowadays. Statistically, Onwa sets have always been
more vulnerable to defects (anyone remember the 2 small caps in
virtually every related design (not only Onwa but also a few more
standard designs that are virtually the same) that always loose capacity
after a few years and cause damage through overvoltage?). I do see
Vestel chassis with various defects as well. A friend bought a 28"
Vestel JVC set, of which the power supply crapped out after only a few
weeks. It was replaced under warrantee, so I have not analysed the
defect, but chances are that costs were cut a bit too much.

All electronic equipment nowadays are remarkably reliable and should last
forever (the critical components being minerals in sand) save a replacement
of mechanical parts. If the equipment works without fault in the first
couple of months, if not in the first hour, then there should not be any
problem from then on. Well....until the time comes when an 'upgrade' is too
tempting to be ignored.

This was true for most solid state equipment from the eighties and
nineties, except maybe some really cheap stuff (*). It is not anymore.
Main cause: demand from the public for cheap stuff. You can't expect
premium and long lasting performance for low cost.

(*) Yes, even Philips made a crappy design in the early nineties (G90B
chassis), and this was French, not even Turkish :-P


Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

You have just illuminated my point! Philips had a poorly design chassis
some time ago. JVC is promoting itself but using a model from a little
known manufacturer. Big names do not guarantee quality or differ little
from the small guys. Consumers are doped and are willing to pay over the
odds for the big names.

Good point. You mentioned the leakage of electrolytic condensers due to poor
design. Now we are back to the quality of circuit design. I hope you agree
with me, as reverend_roger has, that good circuit design has no exclusivity.
The example you cited is simply sheer incompetence, sadly it can inflicts
big names as well as small, expensive models as well as cheapos. So, it
follows, and I hope you also agree with me, that these days given a good
design, an inexpensive TV is just as reliable and long lasting as an
expensive model .

Bee
--
[I have found my Shangri-La in ntlworld.]


wrote in message
...
In sci.electronics.repair Bee wrote:
Make up your mind. You have now shifted from poor design to inferior
manufacturing standards. "Cut corners" is what you are now singing.

They go hand-in-hand in most cheap stuff.

component. Solid state components last forever. Transformers and

They don't.

condensers (nowadays also solid state) change parameters over time
(minimal

Nowadays??? Electrolytics still have fluids, and transformers never
changed design in a major way.

in solid state components) initially but remain stable thereafter.

They won't. Electrolytics dry out, faster so in a poorly designed
apparatus. Also cheaper electrolytics will have less tolerance for avuse
or even for use.

apply to all whether big name or no name manufacturer. All are in the
same
boat. Cutting corner in the selection of components is meaningless.

Admittedly, Philips made a mistake buying cheap power switches from
Stelvio that don't last too long and can cause spectacular shorts, but
the really cheap brands do this all the time as well.

Television is a mature product. The design is standard. Any refinement,
if
indeed desired (different manufacturer have different perception) by the
consumers, will be implemented as a priority. The alterations virtually
cost nothing. When one implementation is warmly received by the public,
every other manufacturers follow suit. Unlike computer software, there
is
no secret proprietary circuit design (there are too many equally good
ways
to accomplish the same task). Research? Whatever the new fashion of
outward cosmetic is, yes; otherwise, no. A flatter screen, a shorter
tube,
a more brilliant phosphorus... or whatever else (I'm referring to a
radical
change of direction here) have all been done and finished with. The
money
is now on solid state panels.

I agree with you that there is not too much new development in
traditional TV design, but your lack of understandig the aspects of
different technical designs and implementations of those designs, do
indicate you don't have a relevant electronical background. You should
gain some more experience in the design AND repair business before
judging technical stuff from a consumer point of view. Otherwise you're
better off juding stuff only by the features and price, as most
consumer magazines have traditionally done and still do.

Cutting corners is a vague vernacular. The off hand treatment of Turkish
or
Chinese chassis exposed your prejudice, not evidence in support of your
argument. Why has JVC taken an unknown manufacturer for the innards of
its
14" model?

Because it is cheap. Nowadays it seems every 4:3 JVC TV-set is made by
Vestel of Turkey. They can only afford to manufacture more expensive
models themselves, nowadays. Statistically, Onwa sets have always been
more vulnerable to defects (anyone remember the 2 small caps in
virtually every related design (not only Onwa but also a few more
standard designs that are virtually the same) that always loose capacity
after a few years and cause damage through overvoltage?). I do see
Vestel chassis with various defects as well. A friend bought a 28"
Vestel JVC set, of which the power supply crapped out after only a few
weeks. It was replaced under warrantee, so I have not analysed the
defect, but chances are that costs were cut a bit too much.

All electronic equipment nowadays are remarkably reliable and should last
forever (the critical components being minerals in sand) save a
replacement
of mechanical parts. If the equipment works without fault in the first
couple of months, if not in the first hour, then there should not be any
problem from then on. Well....until the time comes when an 'upgrade' is
too
tempting to be ignored.

This was true for most solid state equipment from the eighties and
nineties, except maybe some really cheap stuff (*). It is not anymore.
Main cause: demand from the public for cheap stuff. You can't expect
premium and long lasting performance for low cost.

(*) Yes, even Philips made a crappy design in the early nineties (G90B
chassis), and this was French, not even Turkish :-P


Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

In sci.electronics.repair Bee wrote:
You have just illuminated my point! Philips had a poorly design chassis
some time ago. JVC is promoting itself but using a model from a little

Exactly 1, yes, and then the trouble with the power switches. This goes
only to show that even large manufacturers (who are forced to cut cost!)
make this mistake. No-name brands, however, do it all the time. About
the power switches: after Philips discovered this problem, they used
another brand. About the Onwa capacitors: if they ever discovered this
problem, it took them 5 to 10 years. By that time the industry standard
for power supply design was alltogether different, so they never
redesigned the thing or selected better quality electrolytics. Instead,
the just abandoned the design in favour of another standard application
note.

known manufacturer. Big names do not guarantee quality or differ little
from the small guys. Consumers are doped and are willing to pay over the
odds for the big names.

That's not what I said. Although large manufacturers are under great
pressure by people who want something but don't want to pay for it, they
still can throw more money and experience at the design, choice of
components and manufacturing.

Good point. You mentioned the leakage of electrolytic condensers due to poor
design. Now we are back to the quality of circuit design. I hope you agree

And the quality of components (given the poor design, a good capacitor
would have lasted much longer). Two other examples: The Vestel 11AK16
chassis blowing Philips TDA8351 IC's rather often, while the same IC
lasts much longer in a Philips TV. This is mostly attributed to lack of
experience in design. Luckily they did abandon this design after a short
while. In favour of the design used in the next example ;-)

Next example: The Vestel 11AK19 chassis blowing the Philips E/W output
stage. This is contributed to a poorly made E/W correction coil, of
which the turns can short after some usage. No design problem here, only
cutting costs.

Note that the semiconductors used were exactly the same, illustrating
the point that while the exact same key components are used, this does
_not_ mean automatically that the same overall quality is achieved.

with me, as reverend_roger has, that good circuit design has no exclusivity.
The example you cited is simply sheer incompetence, sadly it can inflicts

While the Onwa design was consistently incompetent, the components used
could have lasted a few years longer if they had been of better quality.

big names as well as small, expensive models as well as cheapos. So, it
follows, and I hope you also agree with me, that these days given a good
design, an inexpensive TV is just as reliable and long lasting as an
expensive model .

Nope. You are jumping to conclusions, missing my point. Because of
cheep-ass people, larger brands have indeed lost quality, but are mostly
still better than no-name stuff. A good illustration is the JVC example.
First, they decided there is no profit in making 14" sets anymore, so
they use Onwa chassis. Any repairman can tell you they do indeed have a
higher faillure rate. Now they decide, there is no profit in making 4:3
sets anymore, so they let Vestel make them. Quality goes down here as
well. So, if a set can be made more cheaply, thus increasing profit for
JVC, why not let Vestel make all of them? That's because despite
everything, people expect some amount of new techniques and quality in
a still expensive TV set. See my point?

About another name brand: In a Grundig technical publication of the
early eighties, they stated that they purposely overrated every
component by at least 50% and created a good airflow in their new TV
chassis series. Indeed, I have a 1983 Grundig TV set here, still playing
as new with only a few minor repairs needed over the years.

Having typed all this, I notice you ignored some of my comments and
questions, and conclude you indeed have no background in electronics,
making this discussion rather abstract and not as usefull.as one would
hope.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

No, I'm not an electronic engineer or repair technician. In fact my work is
far removed from technology. Something I cherish even more is to be able to
think for myself rationally and clearly, unencumbered by orthodoxy. My
interest in electronics started in my teens. In those days, I built my
audio amplifiers using vacuum valves. (See, I'm still using "condensers"
instead of "capacitors". g) The book I mentioned earlier in electronics
was an eye opener showing me the mysteries and delights in circuit designs.
The book is probably forgotten by most now though at the time, end of 70's,
it was very popular. The author later took the chair at MIT. There was
rumour of a 2nd edition in the Practical Electronics in the 90's, but it
never materialised.

Thanks for the history, but that only revealed the poor quality in design
where the other components could not stand the strain and eventually failed.
Yes, I do remember reading something like that in the Wireless World. This
must be 20 years ago. Or, was it a Mullard/Ferguson chassis? Anyway, I
have come to the conclusion, actually about the same time, that big names
meant nothing. Poor design is time and again the villain, and provided that
is controlled, as, for example, in TV where the design is now mature, an
electronic equipment from a small company can be as good as, if not better
than, one from a big one. Not accepting this fact is sticking the head into
sand, and giving away good money at the same time.

Bee.
--
[I have found my Shangri-La in ntlworld.]


wrote in message
...
In sci.electronics.repair Bee wrote:
You have just illuminated my point! Philips had a poorly design chassis
some time ago. JVC is promoting itself but using a model from a little

Exactly 1, yes, and then the trouble with the power switches. This goes
only to show that even large manufacturers (who are forced to cut cost!)
make this mistake. No-name brands, however, do it all the time. About
the power switches: after Philips discovered this problem, they used
another brand. About the Onwa capacitors: if they ever discovered this
problem, it took them 5 to 10 years. By that time the industry standard
for power supply design was alltogether different, so they never
redesigned the thing or selected better quality electrolytics. Instead,
the just abandoned the design in favour of another standard application
note.

known manufacturer. Big names do not guarantee quality or differ little
from the small guys. Consumers are doped and are willing to pay over the
odds for the big names.

That's not what I said. Although large manufacturers are under great
pressure by people who want something but don't want to pay for it, they
still can throw more money and experience at the design, choice of
components and manufacturing.

Good point. You mentioned the leakage of electrolytic condensers due to
poor
design. Now we are back to the quality of circuit design. I hope you
agree

And the quality of components (given the poor design, a good capacitor
would have lasted much longer). Two other examples: The Vestel 11AK16
chassis blowing Philips TDA8351 IC's rather often, while the same IC
lasts much longer in a Philips TV. This is mostly attributed to lack of
experience in design. Luckily they did abandon this design after a short
while. In favour of the design used in the next example ;-)

Next example: The Vestel 11AK19 chassis blowing the Philips E/W output
stage. This is contributed to a poorly made E/W correction coil, of
which the turns can short after some usage. No design problem here, only
cutting costs.

Note that the semiconductors used were exactly the same, illustrating
the point that while the exact same key components are used, this does
_not_ mean automatically that the same overall quality is achieved.

with me, as reverend_roger has, that good circuit design has no
exclusivity.
The example you cited is simply sheer incompetence, sadly it can inflicts

While the Onwa design was consistently incompetent, the components used
could have lasted a few years longer if they had been of better quality.

big names as well as small, expensive models as well as cheapos. So, it
follows, and I hope you also agree with me, that these days given a good
design, an inexpensive TV is just as reliable and long lasting as an
expensive model .

Nope. You are jumping to conclusions, missing my point. Because of
cheep-ass people, larger brands have indeed lost quality, but are mostly
still better than no-name stuff. A good illustration is the JVC example.
First, they decided there is no profit in making 14" sets anymore, so
they use Onwa chassis. Any repairman can tell you they do indeed have a
higher faillure rate. Now they decide, there is no profit in making 4:3
sets anymore, so they let Vestel make them. Quality goes down here as
well. So, if a set can be made more cheaply, thus increasing profit for
JVC, why not let Vestel make all of them? That's because despite
everything, people expect some amount of new techniques and quality in
a still expensive TV set. See my point?

About another name brand: In a Grundig technical publication of the
early eighties, they stated that they purposely overrated every
component by at least 50% and created a good airflow in their new TV
chassis series. Indeed, I have a 1983 Grundig TV set here, still playing
as new with only a few minor repairs needed over the years.

Having typed all this, I notice you ignored some of my comments and
questions, and conclude you indeed have no background in electronics,
making this discussion rather abstract and not as usefull.as one would
hope.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

Bee wrote:

Thanks for the history, but that only revealed the poor quality in design
where the other components could not stand the strain and eventually failed.
Yes, I do remember reading something like that in the Wireless World. This
must be 20 years ago. Or, was it a Mullard/Ferguson chassis? Anyway, I
have come to the conclusion, actually about the same time, that big names
meant nothing. Poor design is time and again the villain, and provided that
is controlled, as, for example, in TV where the design is now mature, an
electronic equipment from a small company can be as good as, if not better
than, one from a big one. Not accepting this fact is sticking the head into
sand, and giving away good money at the same time.

We're not comparing small with big companies.

We're comparing a factory that produces low-grade, disposable TVs for a
variety of manufacturers to one who produces a quality product.
--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300
VW Golf GL Cabrio - Alfa 75 TS - VW Passat 1.8T 20V SE - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

wrote:
Although large manufacturers are under great
pressure by people who want something but don't want to pay for it, they
still can throw more money and experience at the design, choice of
components and manufacturing.


But in general they don't. They may spend a bit more on life/etc testing
of new designs, but they are much more interested in getting the product
into production and sales ASAP. Before you claim again that I and others
don't understand electronics, I'd point out that I've spent decades in
high volume (2M/Annum) international electronics design, for some of
the world's majors. The pressure on manufacturers is to produce for
today, not tomorrow. No manufacturer can afford to produce total crap if
he wants the next order. However, the standards will be reduced to the
lowest which the market will bear! Big brands are normally little better
than cheap/no brands in terms of product quality/life for these bottom
end commodity products which are now old/obsolete technology. Spares are
a thing of the past with modern production efficiencies, cost precludes
repair. The production life of a custom TV/Video control microprocessor
is generally less than 12 months. Are you prepared to stock unique
spares for 10 years? If it doesn't work scrap it! In general, when you
buy a, say, Sony TV, you may buy a slightly better picture quality
because of the unique CRT design, but the rest of the semiconductor
electronics is more or less bog standard together with the rest of the
industry and may well be lacking in software originating teletext
features, compared with a cheapo Goodmans! You may also be amazed at the
number of spare components stuck on under the pcb to make it work,
because the design didn't when it hit production! All manufacturers
switch component sources to the cheapest available. The low cost Chinese
manufacturers are now very good in most cases at producing a reliable
product in the TV market. If you look at the number of failures on a
production % basis you will likely find that they are better than most
big brand names which actually have no sales volume! If you are
referring to CD players, then, yes, there is a difference between cheap
units and more expensive units for head life, but this is purely a
temporary phenomena, whilst the quality is improved in order to get the
next order. I don't buy major brand named electronics products in
general, because the selling price is determined by how many suckers can
be parted from their money for a pile of frequently expensively marketed
crap and I view TV styling as something for sheep. I regard Bose as
perhaps the most superb example of marketing over product performance!

I won't start on electrolytics/psus, as this would take all night,
except to say that good psu design is now so standard that a poor psu
is purely a QA failure.

Regards
Capitol

Capitol wrote:

The low cost Chinese
manufacturers are now very good in most cases at producing a reliable
product in the TV market. If you look at the number of failures on a
production % basis you will likely find that they are better than most
big brand names which actually have no sales volume!

As someone who used to make a living out of selling consumer electrical
goods, I can tell you that cheap goods have a _significantly_ higher
returns rate than a good-quality branded product (note, I don't just say
branded, as a lot of the big brands do 'budget' ranges which are just
rebadged cheap brands).
--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300
VW Golf GL Cabrio - Alfa 75 TS - VW Passat 1.8T 20V SE - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

"SteveH" wrote in message
...
| Capitol wrote:
|
| The low cost Chinese
| manufacturers are now very good in most cases at producing a reliable
| product in the TV market. If you look at the number of failures on a
| production % basis you will likely find that they are better than most
| big brand names which actually have no sales volume!
|
| As someone who used to make a living out of selling consumer electrical
| goods, I can tell you that cheap goods have a _significantly_ higher
| returns rate than a good-quality branded product (note, I don't just say
| branded, as a lot of the big brands do 'budget' ranges which are just
| rebadged cheap brands).

The Wal-Mart factor?

N

Capitol wrote:
wrote:
Although large manufacturers are under great
pressure by people who want something but don't want to pay for it,
they
still can throw more money and experience at the design, choice of
components and manufacturing.


But in general they don't. They may spend a bit more on life/etc
testing
of new designs, but they are much more interested in getting the
product
into production and sales ASAP. Before you claim again that I and
others
don't understand electronics, I'd point out that I've spent decades
in
high volume (2M/Annum) international electronics design, for some of

the world's majors.

design of televisions? electronics design is a wide field you know....

(snip)
Big brands are normally little better
than cheap/no brands in terms of product quality/life for these
bottom
end commodity products which are now old/obsolete technology.

That seems like a very sweeping statement and one I find to be totally
inaccurate with regard to TVs. You get what you pay for. Low price
nearly always means low end.

Spares are
a thing of the past with modern production efficiencies, cost
precludes
repair. The production life of a custom TV/Video control
microprocessor
is generally less than 12 months. Are you prepared to stock unique
spares for 10 years? If it doesn't work scrap it!

ecologically unsustainable and irresponsible consumerist attitude.
Those landfills will come back to haunt us one day in the
not-too-distant future....

In general, when you
buy a, say, Sony TV, you may buy a slightly better picture quality
because of the unique CRT design, but the rest of the semiconductor
electronics is more or less bog standard together with the rest of
the
industry

another imprecise, sweeping statement. Are you referring to componts
used, the circuit design, or both, ? what exactly is "the rest of the
industry"?

and may well be lacking in software originating teletext
features, compared with a cheapo Goodmans! You may also be amazed at
the
number of spare components stuck on under the pcb to make it work,
because the design didn't when it hit production! All manufacturers
switch component sources to the cheapest available. The low cost
Chinese
manufacturers are now very good in most cases at producing a reliable

product in the TV market.

ROFL. utterly wrong - again. Do you seriously believe what you are
coming out with? have you ever stepped into a workshop or opened these
"wonderful" low end sets for repair?

If you look at the number of failures on a
production % basis you will likely find that they are better than
most
big brand names which actually have no sales volume! If you are
referring to CD players, then, yes, there is a difference between
cheap
units and more expensive units for head life, but this is purely a
temporary phenomena, whilst the quality is improved in order to get
the
next order.

So, how do they pull that one off, a "temporary difference phenomenon??

I don't buy major brand named electronics products in
general, because the selling price is determined by how many suckers
can
be parted from their money for a pile of frequently expensively
marketed
crap and I view TV styling as something for sheep. I regard Bose as

perhaps the most superb example of marketing over product
performance!

Televisions were the original subject of this thread. CD and VCRs are
another thing entirely....You are lumping together many aspects of
Audio visual electronics, and as a result, jumping to erroneous
conclusions.

I won't start on electrolytics/psus, as this would take all night,
except to say that good psu design is now so standard that a poor psu
is purely a QA failure.

examples?
-Ben

In sci.electronics.repair Bee wrote:
Thanks for the history, but that only revealed the poor quality in design
where the other components could not stand the strain and eventually failed.

I clearly stated in which cases not the design but _only_ the quality of
components was to blame (11AK19), and in which cases both were to blame
(ONWA). In the third case (11AK16) it was indeed just a poor design.

Yes, I do remember reading something like that in the Wireless World. This
must be 20 years ago. Or, was it a Mullard/Ferguson chassis? Anyway, I
have come to the conclusion, actually about the same time, that big names
meant nothing. Poor design is time and again the villain, and provided that
is controlled, as, for example, in TV where the design is now mature, an
electronic equipment from a small company can be as good as, if not better
than, one from a big one. Not accepting this fact is sticking the head into
sand, and giving away good money at the same time.

The fact: equipment from a small company can be as good or better than
that of a large company. I agree 150%. I do not regard budget
manufacturers as Onwa or Vestel as small companies (they aren't), just
as budget ones. Repair history seems to agree with that fact. Of course
name brands have managed various screw-ups as well, but they do not tend
to make that a habit. I appreciate you sharing your background. Some of
the facts I see every day may be hard to judge from your angle, but you
do at least have all the basic knowledge.

Having said this, I do like repairing Onwa TV sets with the mentioned
capacitor trouble. It is a pretty standard repair and actually makes the
set more reliable than it ever was out of the factory. Mounting quality
105 degrees electrolytics in such a manner that they are as far from
heat sources as possible will solve large part of the unreliability
issue. Some other blown components need to be replaced, but nothing
special there most of the time.

Also, something that should not be overlooked: overall quality is going
down in all brands (including the name brands) as far as I can tell.
This is only because of cutting cost. This has been very apparent the
last few years, especially in VCRs since mechanisms are even more prone
to premature faillure. After having cut every possible cost, every
manufacturer (Philips being the last in 2002) sourced out their VCR
production to no-name brands. Before that, the level of reliability was
already down so far, that for most brands you could not notice the
difference.

Thinking about everything we both wrote, I tend to say, maybe it is not
the difference between name brands and no-name brands anymore after all.
It's the difference between budget and non-budget equipment. Competition
might not always be a good thing. Of course this difference did start
some time ago with people believing things made more cheaply could
perform equally well as the then usual more expensive equipment.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.