Wiardgroup

Hi Wiardos,

I really agonized about posting anything on this issue. It's a very
delicate subject and there's no way for anyone to take a position on
it without stomping someone's toe. But I decided that the season was
ripe for controversy… 

Saggitarius season that is.....

Some of our most celebrated toe-stompers are natives of the Archer:
Frank Zappa,  Ludwig Van Beethoven, Jimi Hendrix, Woody Allen ,
Richard Pryor (RIP) and our own Professor Grant Richter on Wednesday,
14 December. 
    Controversy makes me uncomfortable (I'm NOT a saggitarian) as it
does many folks. And the anonymity of the web does indeed engender
some especially mean-spirited discourse. To this, there has been (as
could be expected)  a backlash in which we are encouraged to follow my
Aunt Doris' advice that if you don't have something nice to say, don't
say anything at all. I  honestly do agree that it's a good idea to
think twice (even thrice) before exploring the negative aspects of a
subject publicly but …..
   The debate among conflicting ideas is the (IMHO) the best reason to
have a forum and if we devolve into a uniformly positive pep club for
every aspect of analog synthesis then Mike might as well just put a
static tribute site to modulars and  save us all this typing.

     Before I begin I want to sate for the record that I miss John
`Konkuro' Mitchell and invoke his ghost in this venture…

     Grant just came right out and said it. There are differences
among the `manufacturers' of modern analog modulars . Some of these
differences are significant and qualitative. This principle is often
rejoined with the `to each his own' bromide, I believe this is mostly
due to the fact  that there is no meaningful response to it. So I'm
going to forge ahead with my 2-cents anyway. 
         In the interest of fairness, I'm going to refrain from naming
names but all of these accounts are based on my own real-life experiences.

         I have ordered modules from `Maker-A'. Maker-A's terms were
that I would pay half of the purchase cost on order and remit the
balance on receipt. I  received exactly what I ordered within a week
of the advertised lead time of 6 weeks, and paid Maker-A promptly
thereafter.

         I once ordered a module from Maker-Z. Maker-Z's terms were
virtually identical to Maker-A's. I did not get my module on time.
After 8  weeks I sent a polite email request for an expected ship
date. I  got a terse response with a date 4-weeks hence in response.
After 5 weeks had passed  I sent another identical email request for
an updated expected ship date. I received no response. After another
week I started calling the maker by phone and leaving messages. I want
to stress at this point in the story that I am a DIYer and as a
result, I am unusually well acquainted with the problems of  a cottage
industry electronics business. ie: supplier indifference, PCB
manufacturing errors etc. The phone messages I was leaving were not
angry rants , threats or even passive aggressive whining. I expressed
my acquaintance with the vagaries of the industry and politely
requested a factual explanation for the delay with assurances that I
was not mad. On the fourth call I did finally get through to Maker-Z
who told me that he was on another call and asked to call me back. I
never got a call back.  Now I was mad. After another two weeks I sent
an email canceling my order and requested a refund of my deposit. I
got another terse email apologizing for the failure to return my call,
another delivery date, (two weeks hence-the total is up to 15 weeks
now) and a statement that it was `policy' not to issue refunds in
cases of late delivery. In response I sent  a registered letter citing
the sections of the UCC (3&7 btw) that cover  nonperformance in an
interstate commercial transaction and repeated my demand for a
refund.7 days after that letter was received by the maker, the module
showed up at my house. I emailed  maker-Z to acknowledge the safe
arrival of the package and  stated that I considered our transaction
complete. I added that I would never contemplate  the purchase of
anything from him again. He sent me a long email chiding  me for not
understanding and that I was small-minded in dealing with his work as
a mere business transaction and that I did not understand that he was
an artisan making a  handmade artifact , a custom Maserati , so to
speak and that things like commerce and schedules were irrelevant in
this realm. I did not respond.
        I'm looking at this lofty artifact as I type this message. It
is in no way superior to Maker-A's module. It is no way superior to
modules that I own that were produced in a factory and sold from
distributor stock. It is in no way distinguished from the modules that
were delivered on time with no prompting or aggravation from me. This
ephemeral quality of `artisan-origin' is nothing more than an excuse
for a bad production plan and furthermore, this module cost me more
than it's worth in time and aggravation if I value my efforts at
minimum wage. 

      Now let's move on to Maker-X. Maker-X took an order from me 14
months ago. He asked for the full price in advance and explained that
this was required to finance the material purchases. It was in a sense
a `subscription'. If enough buyers could not be found, we agreed that
my payment would be returned.  The lead time was estimated "at least 8
weeks" . For the record, I fully expected to wait three times that
long. A long and colorful string of private and public explanations
for the delay is all I have so far. In response to my complaints, he
recommended that I could sell my `future-module' to other customers
who were more content to wait. This is within spitting-distance of
trading on analog module futures!
     
      Ok, folks. I  realize that this how the cookie crumbles and I'm
intimately aware that these makers are building these modules in
whatever scant time they can scavenge from their survival gigs. I
don't even mind lead-times measured in years…hell!! I've been working
on one of my own electroniums since February of 2003. 

            But one fact emerges in my  view with stark clarity. Some
analog makers are doing speculative, subscription-based, ventures and
others manufacture products that they build and send to you. It's bad
business to consider the two, equivalent.

      There is a Dilbert strip in which Dilbert finds the perfect
chair  for his living room on the floor of a furniture store. When he
is at the checkout register with his credit card still in his hand .
The salesgirl is ringing up the purchase and eyeing him suspiciously.
He asks `the forbidden question'….he asks if he is buying the chair
that he just sat in. The salesgirl screams in agony and shouts words
to the effect of " Why is it taking you customers so long to realize
that we don't sell chairs here! We sell the warm feeling that someday
, maybe, a chair will be delivered to you . We sell the satisfaction
of knowing that you have purchased a chair"…. something like that….

     MY point is that , makers who publish  defined lead times and 
demonstrate proof that those lead-times were published in good faith
deserve to be distinguished from those who don't .  Some `companies'
that advertise commercial modules today wouldn't  even qualify for an
AH `good-trader'  rating . 

          Specific to Wiard, Grant has always delivered my orders
within a few days of his promised ship date. In all fairness, Doepfer
and Blacet have performed even better. And when any of these makers
anticipated any delay, their efforts to notify me  and negotiate terms
were almost embarrassingly diligent.

        I realize that my Aunt Doris will disapprove of my expressing
this opinion but  I think Grant  has earned a squirt of righteous
indignation in this matter. Grants warnings may be a little sour it's
true, but there are some REAL lemons out there that I have tasted with
my own mouth calling them 'sour' is simply telling the truth.

        I take no issue with folks who wade into these treacherous
waters and choose to navigate them without complaint. More power to
them!  The one point I make is that the community is badly served by
discourse that maintains a pretense that all makers out there perform
at comparable, or even acceptable, levels of competence.

       It think Grant simply got tired of hearing it and based on my
own experiences I, for one, think he is one of the top-shelf makers
who has earned a morsel of a snit about this.

-doc