[Nick77]

         Developing modifications or upgrades for a product is a time consuming process (to do it right)                                                                 

While i am not one to just tinker on my own, i have found following a time tested diy thread very benificial. I recently took a stock phono pre to a much higher level sonically for miminal investment.

[woodsyi]

I don't see how any company can control what a consumer decides to do after a product has been sold.  If I thought a Sony boombox was crap and smashed it to smithereens, what can Sony do?  They can refuse to replace/repair it because I violated their warranty conditions.  I would think that's all any company can do -- refuse warranty for violation of terms.  I would assume smashing it with a hammer or modding the innards would void the warranty with the manufacturer.  I don't think any company should be upset or prevent a third party to mod their product.  If the company thinks a mod is undercutting their profit, why wouldn't they do the same mod from the beginning and raise the price accordingly.  It is always a business decision to design and manufacturer a product to a price point.  If there is a concern that a third party modding can hurt the company, redesign it to include such mods from the first place and charge more.  There has to be a point where modding becomes unnecessary.  But is that the optimum model for business, i.e. profit margin?  If that is not the case and you have made decisions in circuit design and parts used to bring forth a product with the best QPR at maximum profit margin, I would say encourage third party mods.  Modders need a unit to mod after all.  Wouldn't that be a win win situation for both the manufacturer and the modder?

I would like to elaborate on what I said on the other thread.

Unless you really have a cost-no-object project, I think a designer has to think in terms of QPR at a specific target.  Some would be a near maxed out circuit design that would not be worth modding.  Think of this as polishing a turd situation.  Some, however, would have potential for significant gain because the circuit design is good and only inferior parts or certain sections limit the audio quality.   One has to assume that the original manufacturer knows the potential but chose to implement certain parts to maximize profit.  You make more money by selling more at slightly less margin then selling a few at full margin.  Typically there would be more buyers in a lower priced martket then higher although sometimes this can be inverted as you pile up 0's in the price.  The OEM can also offer several lines to capture different markets.  At some point though, the OEM has to draw the line because time, effort and expensive parts needed to make an elite version is not worth the potential gain of limited buyers. 

This is where there is room for professional modders.  The mod often cost more than the cost of the OE but it can produce great result because there is that kind of potential in the original circuit.  To me, it seems counter productive for the OEM to ban modding.  I think the OEM benefits from modded products.  Just like plain house in a rich neighborhood is worth more than a comparable house in a cheaper neighborhood, the stock gear hold value more if their is a souped up version that is acclaimed.   You get more press and more people buy it to try their hand at souping it up. 

That's my 2 cents.

[JohnR]

I'd agree with woodsyi. I mean, the engineer doesn't like people touching his design - OK I can understand that he might feel that way, but considering the need to meet pricepoints, inability to produce customized units, and so on, I don't think that's an attitude to carry through into the marketplace. Unless there's a concern about IP - but I don't think there is, we aren't talking about anyone appropriating the circuit design, just changing the physical unit that comes off the production line.

Rega was mentioned above - there is practically an industry devoted to modifications to Rega arms. I have one, even. Time and again you see it said that the basic design of the (low end) Rega arms is so good that it's worth the effort and cost of the "mods" for them. Apparently Roy Gandy did say that his arms should not (or did not need to) be modified - I'm glad nobody listened.

The downside of "mods" is the uncertain provenance. If you have a unit modded, then what is it? In the case of the Rega arms, it's an "Origin Live modified RB250" (or whatever). You can tell to some extent what it is by looking at it, if you know them. With electronic units, you can't. So, maybe the way for "modders" to establish credibility is to "rebrand" the units. Rather than just opening them up and doing something inside. I suppose it would be nice if they had the blessing of the original manufacturer, but I don't see how it makes any practical difference.

I think some concerns about modding are the audiophile consumer's fault. Because some mods seem to deliver an exceptional performance, people then seem prepared to throw money at practically anything - and to anybody. I imagine we've all seen examples of "modding gone wrong." Some also seem to want to "design" the mods, without any real understanding of what the various parts do. So some caution is warranted... the "rebranding" idea would help here.

[JohnR]

There are certain "mods" that seem to be okay with most manufacturers. Tube rolling is accepted and almost anticipated. Why is changing an integral part of a circuit such as a tube okay, but changing a coupling capacitor warranty voiding? Is it because anyone is able to plug and unplug a tube and soldering is a skill that everyone doesn't have? What about op-amp swapping?

Well, I think it's up to the manufacturer to decide the terms of their warranty, since they are after all assuming the obligation to replace or repair a unit for a certain period of time after purchase. Since tubes are a consumable, it's reasonable that replacing them would not void warranty. Same with fuses. However if you do something silly, like put a nail in the fuse holder or a KT88 in a 6L6 socket, then I'd say it's reasonable they would refuse warranty repair.

Soldered components, on the other hand, are not consumables. Production-ready equipment has been tested to be built in a certain way and perform in a certain way. That's what they test for, that's all they can guarantee. It doesn't matter how good anyone's soldering skills are, if the unit is changed from the way it was designed, the warranty should be void.

[Uptown Audio]

...Production-ready equipment has been tested to be built in a certain way and perform in a certain way. That's what they test for, that's all they can guarantee. It doesn't matter how good anyone's soldering skills are, if the unit is changed from the way it was designed, the warranty should be void.

That's why they call it a mfr's warranty, not a modder's warranty. The mfr's only liability can be their own labor and materials as it was when it left their factory. That's not only reasonable, it's perfectly logical. It's also been the industry standard and even the legal view for years. Why argue with what we know to be true and fair? If you want to stick your own hands into something, accept your own responsibility for it. 
-Bill

[JLM]

I like Oppo's approach, just offer the factory souped up version as an option. 

Several speaker companies do the same with ribbon tweeter, upgraded crossover parts, and/or finish options.

Less R&D, plus the factory warranty = better value.

[rollo]

  Eliminating options for the buyer is self defeating IMO. If it were me I would rethink, the decision. Sales are sales and a cult following never hurt any Manf.
 

charles
SMA