Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Everything Sub.
User avatar
MRNUTTY
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 2:54 pm

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by MRNUTTY » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:30 pm

@gametime, Moog did answer this thread http://forum.moogmusic.com/viewtopic.ph ... 30#p145271

@Toom, when you said "for the second time", did you mean contacted their service dept, or had a faulty filter knob? Also, where do you get $100? What matter is the cost of components, number of layers, and size of card. Note about size, cost depends on how well the design fits in standard PCB panel sizes. If there is a lot of waste because the PCB dimension doesn't fit well into the standard size; there's a lot of waste. Someone can do a cost analysis, or wait for Moogs quote if they wish to pursue that avenue.

@anyone else reading this far:
I don't agree to changing the terms of the agreement after the equipment was sold. I would like to see what Moog can do for folks with a problem within the agreement. So far the claim is that they have fixed those units that were brought to their attention.

I'm a little fuzzy on the part where Moog claims infant mortality failure of the pot wipers, yet we're how long into general availablity, and it's suddenly become an issue? And folks are damning everything before SN 5.5K? This doesn't fit into my experience. There should be a range of unit SN's where a certain date code of pots were installed - not every unit with a plastic pot in every unit. It doesn't make any sense. And you can't dictate a change in terms of agreement based on inconsistant facts.

I am in favor of an offer of a revised board for cost for those who feel they can't live with it as originally designed.
VoyagerEB, Minitaur, LittlePhattyII, 4xSlimPhatty, Sub37, MF[2x101,2x102,103,104M,105,105B,105M,2x107,108M], 3xCP251, XV351, MP201;

Tons of Behringer System 55 clone modules, working on fixes for their design misses. Good fun!

Toom
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 4:38 pm

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by Toom » Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:29 pm

@MRNUTTY

I had an issue with the pot when I first received my unit. I contacted MOOG and got the filter replaced. It worked fine for a few months and it just RECENTLY started exhibiting the same issues as the original faulty pot. So I contacted MOOG about getting a revised board and have not heard from them yet. But yeah, I'm currently playing a synth that has a faulty filter cutoff pot for the second time. Willing to pay for the revised board if I have to. I got the ~$100USD from one of the users that posted earlier saying he bought one of those boards.

ChiLam
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 6:56 pm

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by ChiLam » Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:50 pm

Yes - it was me who bought a revised board for about 800 NOK. That included tax and shipping to Europe so you can guestimate a rough US price fr that. My original plastic shafted pot is still showing no signs of any problem and I have had it since Feb.

@Toom - I suggest giving Andy another mail or call. I think he gets a lot of mail and the odd one gets missed from time to time. I'm pretty sure he will help you out. :wink:

XAXAU
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:33 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by XAXAU » Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:54 pm

I've owned a slim phatty which had lousy pots and minitaur, sub phatty & sub 37 also has frail, wobbly pots. After touching voyagers and moogerfoogers these synths feel like toys that will break if you touch them.

I don't understand why a serious synth maker would use these inferior parts. It's like Porsche would make an affordable smart car out of plastic. Please go back to making quality gear.

My Sub 37 goes out on the market tomorrow while the dollar is strong and the demand is high. A voyager rme for me I think!

Toom
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 4:38 pm

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by Toom » Sun Aug 02, 2015 6:12 pm

@ChiLam Will do!

@XAXAU I might agree with you, but you can't beat how powerful the Sub 37 is considering its price. They only knob that is outrageously wobbly is the filter pot. The other ones could be better but they're not as noticeably bad.

User avatar
MRNUTTY
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 2:54 pm

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by MRNUTTY » Sun Aug 02, 2015 6:50 pm

@Toom, I understand now. This is an instance that makes me wonder if they have root caused the real problem. If they had, you wouldn't have had a second failure. Although, it still might be the way you play the knob exacerbates the issue; who knows! But from their description of 'early life failure', I'm not convinced that's the case.

@XAXAU, if you compare the cost of the Moogerfoogers, and Voyagers to the other synths. I think you'll find you're paying a Hefty premium for those sturdy pots.
VoyagerEB, Minitaur, LittlePhattyII, 4xSlimPhatty, Sub37, MF[2x101,2x102,103,104M,105,105B,105M,2x107,108M], 3xCP251, XV351, MP201;

Tons of Behringer System 55 clone modules, working on fixes for their design misses. Good fun!

Blackout
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:19 am

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by Blackout » Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:12 pm

MRNUTTY wrote: I don't agree to changing the terms of the agreement after the equipment was sold. I would like to see what Moog can do for folks with a problem within the agreement. So far the claim is that they have fixed those units that were brought to their attention.
i think here is the point MRNUTTY. if Moog had just continued on changing the Faulty Filter Plastic Pot (FFPP) into the future until warranties expire, and just sticking to this, you could say its just isolated cases of a small minority and bring up "terms of the agreement".

But when they actually start swapping out the FFPP for a metal one in their manufacturing, indeed re-designing a whole PCB so that the PROBLEM is fixed for the future this is a clear admission BY MOOG of an issue from either their design or manufacture. In this case, it seems a mis-calculation from someone on the design table who thought that putting an extra wide/large knob on a SMD plastic pot (that just happens to be the most used knob as well) will be just fine and dandy. But as it turns out, that was a bad design decision.

according to MOOG there is only less than 1% (60 or so) only? users who have a problem. Do you seriously think this is all that will show up? Do you think MOOG has gone to the trouble and significant COST of re-designing and producing a whole new PCB and changing the manufacture process, just for 60 or so users? come on. Obviously they know this is a bigger problem. This is just the tip of the iceberg, and they know it. And this is why they have revised. And they dont want this figure to bite them on the ass rising forever into the future. they have put a stop to it at least from serial 5800.

So in this case, all bets are off in regards to sticking to the "agreement".

User avatar
Bald Eagle
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 11:25 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by Bald Eagle » Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:58 pm

I bought my Sub37 in September 2014 SN 12xx. I give the filter knob what I would say is a medium amount of use/abuse and have not experienced and problems yet. However, with the warranty nearing its end I'm a bit concerned.

I just want to be assured that if/when it fails I can can it repaired in a timely manner at a reasonable cost. And by timely I don't mean shipping it off and waiting a month for service. Being a known issue Moog should be prepared to handle failed units in a priority manner.

User avatar
MRNUTTY
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 2:54 pm

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by MRNUTTY » Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:37 pm

@blackout,
according to MOOG there is only less than 1% (60 or so) only? users who have a problem. Do you seriously think this is all that will show up? Do you think MOOG has gone to the trouble and significant COST of re-designing and producing a whole new PCB and changing the manufacture process, just for 60 or so users? come on. Obviously they know this is a bigger problem. This is just the tip of the iceberg, and they know it. And this is why they have revised. And they dont want this figure to bite them on the ass rising forever into the future. they have put a stop to it at least from serial 5800.
I think you're making it out to be more sinister than it is. They have only seen a small percentage failures. They identified a LATENT defect in the component. With latent defects after a certain amount of time, if the unit hasn't failed, it won't fail. They are repairing all the failed units. This is standard operating procedure in handling hardware designs issues. You NEVER swap the field for every product you shipped based on a very small percentage failures unless there is a danger to the customer; like a fire, or death. It just isn't done, anywhere. However, they went further than most, they addressed a this new problem @ SN5800 by over-designing it based on their repair history putting in a metal pot - which mind you neither of us have access to, and are not equipped to comment on it.

This thread has gone off it's rails in a very negative way. Moog has had their say, and it's not being taken seriously, and I doubt I am either. I don't see any point in this thread anymore.
VoyagerEB, Minitaur, LittlePhattyII, 4xSlimPhatty, Sub37, MF[2x101,2x102,103,104M,105,105B,105M,2x107,108M], 3xCP251, XV351, MP201;

Tons of Behringer System 55 clone modules, working on fixes for their design misses. Good fun!

Blackout
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:19 am

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by Blackout » Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:03 am

MRNUTTY wrote:@blackout,

I think you're making it out to be more sinister than it is. They have only seen a small percentage failures. They identified a LATENT defect in the component. With latent defects after a certain amount of time, if the unit hasn't failed, it won't fail. They are repairing all the failed units. This is standard operating procedure in handling hardware designs issues. You NEVER swap the field for every product you shipped based on a very small percentage failures unless there is a danger to the customer; like a fire, or death. It just isn't done, anywhere. However, they went further than most, they addressed a this new problem @ SN5800 by over-designing it based on their repair history putting in a metal pot - which mind you neither of us have access to, and are not equipped to comment on it.

This thread has gone off it's rails in a very negative way. Moog has had their say, and it's not being taken seriously, and I doubt I am either. I don't see any point in this thread anymore.
hi MRNUTTY, i think MOOG is the best synth company in the free world. I have a heap of Moog gear, i wear their T-shirts proudly out to gigs! i convinced and helped my local university to buy a Sub37 to help teach students about synthesis. I am the biggest fan of the Sub37! Take a look at some of my other posts, i rave about the Sub37. I dont think there was anything sinister in anyones motives at all. To be honest, you sound like you work for Moog or something from some of your posts. Actually im fairly confident that MOOG will come to the party for us here on this one. i dont believe that i ever insisted that MOOG should field swap every product they shipped? i agree thats not a reasonable option. All im suggesting is that MOOG repair the FFPP's that roll in past the warranty period on this one. And most importantly, fix them with the REVISED PCB (ie Metal pot) not just with another plastic filter pot. Thats all.

You seem to think the suggestion is bending the rules of the universe or something....defying the "terms of the agreement". I think we should just sit back now and see what MOOG decides in the coming weeks and months as this issue continues to escalate and this threads size increases more and more due to more owners having this problem. after all, MOOG make the warranty rules not us.

Cheers,
Blackout

pb21
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by pb21 » Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:34 am

A long thread but remember Moog want your sub to work for a lifetime too, irrespective of the pot failing, its their company their name and now the work force out the company they have even more reason for it to succeed. So I am not going to worry about the pot or the warranty as I am sure they are decent folk and go to the ends of the earth to assist if a fault developed.

pb21
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by pb21 » Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:35 am

that should have said: "work force own the company"

User avatar
MRNUTTY
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 2:54 pm

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by MRNUTTY » Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:15 am

@blackout, I apologize if all my previous comments appeared to be directed to you; they were not. As the two most vocal participants in the thread, I selected you and your comment, to respond to everyone. Whilst posting messages on board like this is quite common, the level of interaction, and accuracy of intent is rather low compared to a face to face, or even a phone conversation. Taking all that into consideration, I believe there is probably very little we actually disagree on, and I'll prefer to chalk the apparent friction up to poor communications.

So, I'll summarize my views without regard to who they may be in response to.
1) I think there was a hardware problem, not anticipated by the design group. Being a long time hardware designer, I'm well aware off what can and can't be forseen in advance of product introduction.
2) it takes a lot of data to decide to make a significant hardware design change and take it to production. Every change introduces the possibility on new problem occuring.
3) From the data that Moog has released to the public, the current issue with the filter knob is well under control. And their response so far is perfectly reasonable with respect to others in the industry.
4) It's always possible there are secondary effects, that remain unconsidered, and unreleased to the public. Moog will make their move if and when these reach a certain limit only Moog managment knows.
5) For those asking to have their boards swapped before they fail, a program to make the replacement board available for a cost is not unreasonable. If you do have a problem whether it's in warrantee or not, call the service department. They may have a better answer for you than waiting for them to post on this board. If they don't well.... it's their company, they gotta make payroll.
VoyagerEB, Minitaur, LittlePhattyII, 4xSlimPhatty, Sub37, MF[2x101,2x102,103,104M,105,105B,105M,2x107,108M], 3xCP251, XV351, MP201;

Tons of Behringer System 55 clone modules, working on fixes for their design misses. Good fun!

Gametime
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:16 pm

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by Gametime » Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:43 am

For me its simpel : lifetime warranty for the filter knob ( if someting go wrong they need to replace it with the newer board ! FREE OF CHARGE !

Otherwise i send my sub 37 back to moog for the replacement before the warranty expires , and trust me i will keep send it back until they changed the board & the filter knob with a metal one.

For me there are no other options and moog need to do this for the customers !

( you can reply to my post if you want but i am dead serious )
Are instrument lost value beacause of moog not because of us , they know the problem is bigger otherwise they dont create a new board for just 0,9 % !

@moog please answer this and not with a small message for everbody !

Blackout
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:19 am

Re: Sub 37 Filter Cutoff: First Batch vs. Revised Batch

Post by Blackout » Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:29 am

MRNUTTY wrote:Whilst posting messages on board like this is quite common, the level of interaction, and accuracy of intent is rather low compared to a face to face, or even a phone conversation. Taking all that into consideration, I believe there is probably very little we actually disagree on, and I'll prefer to chalk the apparent friction up to poor communications.
heya MRNUTTY. Thanks for your post my friend, and i apologize too. youre right we are mostly on the same page. i value your opinion. it sounds like it comes from years of experience also.

i think the majority of what is important has been said on this thread that needs to be said. Now its just MOOG that hopefully reads it through and makes a valued judgement on how to proceed.

Of course, the more that Sub37 owners demand action, like Gametime's post above, the more likely we are going to see the right result!

Cheers,
Blackout

Post Reply