Disappointing interaction with GedLee

[Ed LaFontaine]

cwujek,

Do the parts you have match either of the crossover schematics? Old (10) or new (10A)?

[kevinh]

Originally Posted by Ed LaFontaine

cwujek,

Do the parts you have match either of the crossover schematics? Old (10) or new (10A)?

According to Earl:

" He was then sent the correct schematic for his parts set."


If correct Earl behavior was fine, if cwujek was sent the new schematic he should have bought the parts for the modified xover if that is what he wanted.

Should Earl send everyone a new crossover whenever he makes a change? Shoudl al vendors do that?

[gedlee]

Originally Posted by Ed LaFontaine

cwujek,

Do the parts you have match either of the crossover schematics? Old (10) or new (10A)?

Chris would not know the answer to that since he does not have the new schematic. They do NOT match the newer crossover, but they DO match an older one.

To add more evidence to this, I discovered that I never actually sent Chris a schematic originally. I do not know where he got it, but it was not from me. From what he states in his E-mail, he got it from one of my older assembly manuals, in which case it was certainly not for his set of parts. What I sent him recently IS the correct one for his parts.

[parb]

i dont know. i out travel mr gedlee with abput 350,000 miles annually on united and another 200,000 miles on singapore airlines. I am constantly in the air, and i spend significant time in china including tier 3 and 4 cities. i assume you go to a tier 3/4 city if you are where the factories are. I am in a big corporation but i can not afford to be unreachable because of distance. Even with the chinese firewall its easy to work around for business communication as all corporations doing business in china knows, and hotels are excempted from those policies anyway.

any reasonable business can invest in a blackberry for email. the roaming charges for china is relatively low for bb (lower than iphone) and email connectivity should always be there.

it seems like a revisionist argument to say that at first this was a year old parts, then that time was dragged out because of frequent travel followed by points made that time has nothing to do with this there really is nothing wrong with what chris got.

to a casual observer (me) this transaction comes across like a sales strategy a la "pump and dump" where something is pumped pre-transaction and once money has changed hands there is little else to be expected. This is fine for many things, except of course when a new version of the same product comes out relatively closely to the transaction (keyword is relatively).

In my business i worry a lot about how i handle recent customers when i come out with new versions of a product and in general if there is no or very low cost to us we provide that functionality to recent customers (usually those who done the transaction within a year of the release data). for cases where cost would go up we usually offer recent customers the choice to purchase the additional parts/component/functionality at a steep discount (zero margin).

it seems like you could have any one of those strategies and kept a happy customer without incurring too much cost. if you make 15% profit on these parts (300-50?) then perhaps this can be offered?

"yes mr. customer we have revisioned the filter since you purchased the components".
"while i can not offer to take already purchased components, i am willing to provide you the new parts at my cost if interested, please note that i don't have huge mark-ups so its not a lot less expensive, but i would like to offer this to you as a service to my loyal customer base".

And if there is a way to re-use any of the original components maybe you don't even have to sell him all the parts?


seems like something so little can increase customer satisfaction so much.

[Ed LaFontaine]

How does one reconcile the information given in post 11 with that in post 23?

Gedlee posted:
They do NOT match the newer crossover, but they DO match an older one.

cwujek posted:

Capacitors:

2 x 15uf, I have 18uf caps - 20% difference
2 x 10uf, I have 12uf caps - 20% difference
2 x 6uf, I have 8uf caps - 33% difference
2 x 30uf, I have 30uf caps
2 x 2uf, I have 2uf caps

Resistors:

2 x 3 ohm, I have 2.2 ohm - 36% difference
2 x 2 ohm, I have 2.2 ohm - 10% difference
2 x 5 ohm, I have 4.7 ohm - 6% difference
2 x 4 ohm, I have 3.9 ohm - 2.5% difference
2 x 5 ohm, I have 5 ohm
2 x 10 ohm, I have 10 ohm

Why did the crossover change? Is it better?

Did those parts arrive with the "then current" crossover schematic included in the same shipment?

How does the system response vary between the "new" and the "old" crossover? Has there been any harm here?

[gedlee]

Parb

I think that you misunderstand. The more than 1 year delay was Chris doing not mine. It was more than 1 year after he recieved the parts that he requested the new schematic. My delay, because I was in China at the time of this request was only a few weeks. I don't have a Blackberry.

it seems like you could have any one of those strategies and kept a happy customer without incurring too much cost. if you make 15% profit on these parts (300-50?) then perhaps this can be offered?

"yes mr. customer we have revisioned the filter since you purchased the components".
"while i can not offer to take already purchased components, i am willing to provide you the new parts at my cost if interested, please note that i don't have huge mark-ups so its not a lot less expensive, but i would like to offer this to you as a service to my loyal customer base".

I basically did make this offer to him, but at any rate whether he gets the parts at my cost or with a markup, we are only talking about a $20 difference here.

Ed

Those questions have all been answered above. The crossover design has changed in the last three years maybe a half dozen times, nothing significant at all (intended to be identical, changes required by parts being obsoleted, cost reductions, etc. ) except for the change from the Nathan to the Nathan 10a, which was significant. Better? That is very hard to say.

The parts are sent from Madisound directly, not from me, and no schematic is attached. Chris said that he had a schematic and as I noted above it did not come from me. I am unclear as to how he got it.

Has there been any harm here?

In my opinion, none at all, except the harm that Chris is trying to do to me because he did not get his way.

As far as I am concerned, I am done with this. Chris made good on his threat, I explained my side. Believe who you want.

[vallickad]

Can anyone help me with the speak program key, I had purchased the audio transducers book from gedlee along with the speak program was promised free. The download is free, but it does not work without serial or key.On writing to Mr.Lee, I was told there was no key, the program will work upon download and installation, which sadly i dosent. I am in the state of William Lear's centipede.
Zacharia

[WithTarragon]

Gee, is this ever a thread that should be shut down.

This is between the OP and Geddes Inc and has nothing to do with building your own audio. It sounds like there were differences in expectations and communications, but are we really going to decide as a group about what is a fair profit margin or whether someone should use a Blackberry to answer e-mail? Having them post their e-mails (for us to decide) is a not a good idea. Not good at all ...

I am sorry that the two parties have a disagreement, but this is not for "us" to arbitrate.

Let's move on.

[bear]

"...what we have here is a failure to communicate..." - the movie Cool Hand Luke.


----------

vallickad - that would be Dr. Earl Geddes. The name GedLee is a contraction of the last names of he and his wife, both professionals in the field of acoustics who have a company with that name... I don't know anything about the download, sorry.

_-_-bear

[Salas]

Originally Posted by WithTarragon

Gee, is this ever a thread that should be shut down.

This is between the OP and Geddes Inc and has nothing to do with building your own audio. It sounds like there were differences in expectations and communications, but are we really going to decide as a group about what is a fair profit margin or whether someone should use a Blackberry to answer e-mail? Having them post their e-mails (for us to decide) is a not a good idea. Not good at all ...

I am sorry that the two parties have a disagreement, but this is not for "us" to arbitrate.

Let's move on.

Indeed