Soekris R2R dac Head's up....

[cab]

If you are a purchaser of the Soekris R2R dac, rev 1, see this thread on DiyAudio:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digi...cs-comparisons-other-stuff-5.html#post5110663

Wherein Soekris admits that the rev 1 failed to live up to the original claims made in the sales ad ("reference quality dac (that) I believe that the sound quality will be the absolute best, better than any Delta Sigma DAC, in class with discrete DAC's from totaldac and msb technology.")

"We all agreed that the stock rev1 was not perfect, but it was really also a test engine for the core R-2R technology, it's not really fair comparing with that one.... "

Original purchasers of the rev 1 dac boards purchased them assuming, based on the initial sales pitch, that they were finished, tested, functions as advertised, products. Only afterwards did Soekris Engineering admit they were beta tests boards with design issues and did not live up to his initial claims. He has refused to offer any refunds, credits, etc. despite a classic bait and switch.

I am putting together a case to file with the Danish equivalent of the Better Business Bureau, Consumerombudsman.dk. If you were a victim of Soekris Engineering's dishonest business practices, contact me.

[PeterSt]

Hi,

 

To me this comes across as a bit strange. Thus, many people buy the thing, almost more than that think it is super, and now in aftermath you are going to file a claim ?

I will admit that I did not follow the thread on DIY after the split with the thread about the filtering (which a. looked odd (indeed) that it had to happen but b. was a nice and smart feature that it could happen to begin with) but until that moment people were only happy.

Mind you, DIY people seem always to be happy (DIY is a hobby within a hobby).

 

What might have gone wrong here from the start is that the DAC seemed to be an open thing as DIY is intended, while soon it appeared a commercial product which ... in the end turned towards DIY again (the filtering).

 

Let me know where I see it all wrong. But IMO Soekris is just a guy who provided an R2R DAC for a super low price with ladder specs which could not be true and which were reasoned out in the thread itself, and people kept on being happy and motivated others to buy. In my view, when you keep this up and your ombudsman etc. would be so unsmart to give you right, this hobby is over and past very soon.

 

Maybe I should not interfere; I can't read what's behind this link anyway because something is wrong with it (keeps on refreshing with an "not secure" message).

 

Peter

[cab]

The original rev 1 dac was advertised as a "reference quality dac" with "sound quality will be the absolute best, better than any Delta Sigma DAC, in class with discrete DAC's from totaldac and msb technology."

It was sold as a commercial product by a company with a web site, online web stores, etc.

After the dac was released, people started finding bugs and design flaws. For example, there were pops and clicks between tracks, there was a lot of distortion on the Vref signal, etc. All of these flaws were admitted by Soekris. Instead of offering refunds, trade, credit, etc., he told people to fix it themselves and called those who complained "whiners".

Remember: it wasn't advertised as a beta test board, it was advertised as a reference quality dac with the absolute best sound quality. It wasn't as advertised, by his own admission, as he recently came out and said this about it when asked how his dac compares to other dacs:

"We all agreed that the stock rev1 was not perfect, but it was really also a test engine for the core R-2R technology, it's not really fair comparing with that one.... "

 

He admits it was a test bed and was flawed and can't be compared to other dacs. Again, see his original ad- not what he claimed when he first advertised it.
 

[soekris]

Not again, now he is making noise here after his bashing got booted from diyaudio.com, sorry to expose everybody here for that....

 

He purchased four pcs rev1 dam1021-01 DIY DAC boards in Jan 2015. In Sept 2016 he emailed and asked to return the units for a full refund, as he "was overwhelmed", which I of course couldn't do, those were pretty old boards, the dam1021 was then at rev 4.... Instead I offered to update them for $25 per board, but he declined that.

 

The dam1021 started life as a test bench for my R-2R Sign Magnitude DAC Technology, it turned out to be great so I decided to offer them to the DIY community at a pretty low cost. Over time it got improved, like all new products, with suggestions for hardware modifications and free firmware updates.

[cab]

I bet you are sorry and you should be for ripping people off with your false and misleading advertising.

I emailed you and stated clearly that they weren't as advertised. You replied that it was a DIY product and I should fix them myself. Yes, I said I was overwhelmed. DIY doesn't mean fix it yourself!

I did not ask to return them. I asked for a credit on the purchase of the new version or that you repair them. Yes, you offered to repair them- for $100 and postage!

Show me where your original sales ad for the rev 1 says it was a "test bench". It doesn't, rather, it calls it a "reference quality dac" with "sound quality will be the absolute best, better than any Delta Sigma DAC, in class with discrete DAC's from totaldac and msb technology."

You admit it was flawed and can't be compared to other dacs with this comment:

"We all agreed that the stock rev1 was not perfect, but it was really also a test engine for the core R-2R technology, it's not really fair comparing with that one.... "

"Really a test engine", not a reference quality dac. You should have made that clear up front instead of misleading people into thinking it was a finished, professional product. If you had any integrity you would have done the right thing and offered to repair them without charge. Instead you insult and spread more lies. All over $100. Pretty short sighted in light of all the time you are wasting hopping around all the internet forums lying to people. Would have been far simpler to just repair them and have a satisfied customer.

 

[4est]

On 6/19/2017 at 4:53 PM, cab said:

If you are a purchaser of the Soekris R2R dac, rev 1, see this thread on DiyAudio:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digi...cs-comparisons-other-stuff-5.html#post5110663

Wherein Soekris admits that the rev 1 failed to live up to the original claims made in the sales ad ("reference quality dac (that) I believe that the sound quality will be the absolute best, better than any Delta Sigma DAC, in class with discrete DAC's from totaldac and msb technology.")

"We all agreed that the stock rev1 was not perfect, but it was really also a test engine for the core R-2R technology, it's not really fair comparing with that one.... "

Original purchasers of the rev 1 dac boards purchased them assuming, based on the initial sales pitch, that they were finished, tested, functions as advertised, products. Only afterwards did Soekris Engineering admit they were beta tests boards with design issues and did not live up to his initial claims. He has refused to offer any refunds, credits, etc. despite a classic bait and switch.

I am putting together a case to file with the Danish equivalent of the Better Business Bureau, Consumerombudsman.dk. If you were a victim of Soekris Engineering's dishonest business practices, contact me.

 

You could always just purchase a Less Loss DAC for 5k. I have a rev1 or 2, and didn't like that I had to mod mine either. It's DIY and you take your chances. Personally, $25 a pop is cheap! I wish I'd taken a deal like that. I spent that much or more just in parts.

 

I must say that this griping seems bush league for the peanuts these cost.

[cab]

It's the principle. If he had been honest up front and advertised it as a test bed it was, rather than a "reference quality dac" with "sound quality will be the absolute best, better than any Delta Sigma DAC, in class with discrete DAC's from totaldac and msb technology.", I wouldn't have said a word. By his own admission, it wasn't as advertised. All I asked for was a repair or credit. Instead, he was insulting. In the US we say "the customer is always right". Maybe peanuts to you but the original cost of 4 boards was over $1000US. Not peanuts to me.

[cab]

I would like to update this thread with the following news: Soekris Engineering has agreed to update the boards and return them at their expense. I will post again after I receive them back and report on the experience.

[wushuliu]

Wow, for once I have some sympathy for cab. When Rev1 was released a lot of early adopters were quick to pooh pooh any criticisms (but the measurements are great, blah blah). Amazingly, in a rare case of comity both subjective and objective feedback was used to improve with diy mods. Soekris incorporated changes over time and people noted how much better it sounded. One of the reasons I try to diy when possible, a little bit less tribalism and more focus on experimentation.

[mmerrill99]

12 minutes ago, wushuliu said:

When Rev1 was released a lot of early adopters were quick to pooh pooh any criticisms (but the measurements are great, blah blah).

I wonder does this qualify for an entry in the "what can be heard but not measured" thread?

[cab]

4 hours ago, mmerrill99 said:

I wonder does this qualify for an entry in the "what can be heard but not measured" thread?

The issues were identified through measurements.

 

[mmerrill99]

16 minutes ago, cab said:

The issues were identified through measurements.

 

But not the initial measurements which "proved" that the DAC was perfect, right? And these measurements are where most objectivists stop & declare that there's "no there, there" - they have no appetite for any further testing - why would they, the measurements tell them it's fine

 

I was being somewhat facetious in suggesting that it could be posted on that thread as it is just a troll thread with the keyword "undisputed" in there 

[mmerrill99]

The other aspect of the Soekris measurements prior to the Vref modification - did they show any sign of signals that, if improved, would be considered audible? In other words were any improvements initially dismissed by Soekris (an engineer) as of no possible audible significance? Is this not the normal attitude encountered? The change came (& it took a long while to happen) because there were so many that reported the audible improvements of modifications to the voltage reference sections.