BEC ...question , please

[Duke Spinner]

weren't you testing the PD-5 VH at one point ..??

i wondered what the final result was .............[:^)]

[BEC]

The PD-5VH is a K-55V and it is the K-55X. All exactly the same driver. Some K-55Vs made around 1980 are slightly different in that they have a 2-piece phase plug.

Bob Crites

[Hardhead]

One difference--an important one to me--is that the K-55-V's were individually tested and handpicked by Klipsch for frequency response and consistency. The ones that didn't pass were sent back to Atlas to remain PD-5VH's. I assume the K-55-X's are similarly tested and the failures returned.

[BS Button]

One difference--an important one to me--is that the K-55-V's were individually tested and handpicked by Klipsch for frequency response and consistency. The ones that didn't pass were sent back to Atlas to remain PD-5VH's. I assume the K-55-X's are similarly tested and the failures returned.

I can't imagine that to be the case. So in effect, Atlas told Klipsch..."you serve as our quality control department and we can produce junk: it's your responsibility to sort your way through it". Imagine that sort of quality process or supplier manufacturer relationship. Maybe Klipsch did test and reject some, but I don't think any manufacturer would knowingly produce in that manner.

[michael hurd]

I don't know about the relationship that Klipsch and Atlas had, but they did overbuy the tweeters from EV, the T-35, and sent back the ones that did not meet their specifications.

[Deang]

Yep, anything that went over 12kHz got sent back.

[TheEvan]

That was standard operating procedure for most American manufacturers, at least the quality ones, in that era. It took awhile for Drucker's quality revolution that had swept Japan to start making an impact on these shores.

[colterphoto1]

One difference--an important one to me--is that the K-55-V's were individually tested and handpicked by Klipsch for frequency response and consistency. The ones that didn't pass were sent back to Atlas to remain PD-5VH's. I assume the K-55-X's are similarly tested and the failures returned.

IF that is the case with the K55's (I think it's well documented and accepted as fact with the K77), then what would be statistically important for us to know would be what percentage was rejected by Klipsch. I get the feeling that most Klipschers think that Paul 'hand picked' each one and accepted a very slim percentage. The truth (because no vendor would put up with a tremendous number of returns constantly) is probably that a slim percentage was rejected for being out of spec.

Just spoke with Trey, those units are tested by quality control people at Atlas, the acceptable ones are sent to Klipsch, then they are checked again at Klipsch. So we really have no way on knowing what percentage of units coming directly from Atlas would have met Klipsches spec or not. They dont send the out of spec ones to Klipsch in the first place! How's that for an answer!

Michael

[Trey Cannon]

OK,

Here is how it works...we set tolerances on the parts we buy.

With this driver it think it is +/- 2db from our standard curve. If you were to get the driver from Atlas the tolerance can be as much as +/- 3db or more.

Therefore, you can use the Atlas driver but understand you may be out of tolerances.

We still "spot check" from time.

[BS Button]

That was standard operating procedure for most American manufacturers, at least the quality ones, in that era. It took awhile for Drucker's quality revolution that had swept Japan to start making an impact on these shores.

I thought the dudes name was "Deming": the American that we kicked out, went to Japan and revolutionized quality, as we know it.

[jheis]

Yup: Dr. W. Edwards Deming.

http://www.lii.net/deming.html

James

[colterphoto1]

yup, remember that guy from IU school of business class Operations and Production. Deming was responsible for most of modern day inventory and production management techniques. He's most of the reason why the Japanese killed the US auto industry in the 70's.

[hwatkins]

Since we are talking Demming, I thought I would throw in my two cents. Most of the following is sole the opinion of the authur.

Demming went to Japan to 'discover' their secrets of efficent, inexpensive quality production. He brought back his empirical analysis which eventually became 'Total Quality Management' - it became the darling of Harvard and kin and was the tactic being taught to a whole generation of new business leaders. Demming's only real business success was as a writer regarding quality assurance and his focus was an extension of Bell labs statistical work in the 1940s.

It was clear from initial implementations that efficiency and expense goals could be met. What many American business discovered in this process was that their quality standards were being met - they were simply lower standards than the Japanese. Demming always held that the quality control issue was more cultural than practiced and that we needed to introduce habits that eventually created the culture.

A few pieces of reality creep in - we do have more respect for the concept that quality is in the process. Unfortunately, many large businesses have adopted the concept of human resources being little different than any other resouce (an out come of a focus on the expense structure). We have lost sight of equally supporting each of the three primary business issues - the shareholder, the customer and the employee - we often seem to focus on the shareholder and the customer with too little time spent on the employee. However, we have become the most productive business force in the world. I guess you get the good with the bad.

What we have is a plan put into play by a group of 'minders' - much of corporate CEOs are not entreprenural, they are simply 'minding' the shop. We reward them as if they are entreprenural and we have created a hugh workforce ambition to be come the 'minder'. That is something I do not find attractive, especially as I watch these 'minders' do some of the most outlandish things in the name of quality and profit.

Sorry about the long message - this is something that I could spend lots of time discussing over a bottle of Jack Daniels. Any offers?.....

[BS Button]

We can talk about Kaizen, TQM, True North principles, SPC, Six Sigma, but ISO takes the cake as being one of the most useless items of all, because it allows for poor quality as long as you monitor and document your process. "Change your process, DUH!" The culture of the Japanese worker has become more Americanized, but the two will always be different. In America, it's all about "me, me, me", true teamwork is extremely difficult to accomplish.

Comments?

[BS Button]

That was standard operating procedure for most American manufacturers, at least the quality ones, in that era. It took awhile for Drucker's quality revolution that had swept Japan to start making an impact on these shores.

Yes, Drucker was another one.

[boom3]

My company went through the ISO Cert process about 6 years ago. Since we do (in part) avionics, our existing QA structure was pretty good and ISO was necesary to document that fact since we needed the ISO to get contracts, particularly in Europe and the Pacific Rim. People now realize that ISO doesn't guarentee quality (it was never meant to) and in certain parts of the world the cert is meaningless due to cert process corruption.The on-coming initative is called Capability Maturity Model Integration. CMMI started as a way to gain control of software progarmmers and benchmark the capabilities of various software houses, relative to each other. It is now being touted as a way to benchmark every kind of manufacturering and service. Even (drum please) disaster relief. I'm entering the training pipeline for CMMI, so it will be interesting to see how it is adopted by non-software concerns.

[Tom Adams]

"Sorry about the long message - this is something that I could spend lots of time discussing over a bottle of Jack Daniels. Any offers?....."

I'll take you up on that! []

Oh and you guys left out "Lean Manufacturing" (or initiatives). And let's not forget to include folks like Ken Blanchard!

I agree Mr. Watkins - we focus less & less on the people component of the equation. My company (as much as I love it) is fraught with all these flavor of the month initiatives. Do they do any good? Sometimes. But most of the time we step over dollars to pick up nickles.

We've got a Lean Six Sigma team comprised of 6 people. My wife (financial controller with a specialty in cost accounting) figures those six folks cost the company in salary and benefits probably close to $600K a year. Yet their charter is to identify and implement solutions that will save the company $500K per year. My wife says, "Why don't they just lay them off and there's your savings!" I LMAO when she said that.

Tom

[BS Button]

OK now, how about those PD5VH's?

[BS Button]

"Sorry about the long message - this is something that I could spend lots of time discussing over a bottle of Jack Daniels. Any offers?....."

I'll take you up on that! []

Oh and you guys left out "Lean Manufacturing" (or initiatives). And let's not forget to include folks like Ken Blanchard!

I agree Mr. Watkins - we focus less & less on the people component of the equation. My company (as much as I love it) is fraught with all these flavor of the month initiatives. Do they do any good? Sometimes. But most of the time we step over dollars to pick up nickles.

We've got a Lean Six Sigma team comprised of 6 people. My wife (financial controller with a specialty in cost accounting) figures those six folks cost the company in salary and benefits probably close to $600K a year. Yet their charter is to identify and implement solutions that will save the company $500K per year. My wife says, "Why don't they just lay them off and there's your savings!" I LMAO when she said that.

Tom

Engineering, Sales/Marketing and Manufacturing are the non-dependents.