While possibly true, they seem to downplay (ignore?) the potential that this could be a problem that repeats. It could be a one-off, or something of a process problem. Maybe they already completed a root cause analysis and really know it, but that is unclear.
A “solder mistake” is open ended and seems questionable that the one in however many they got made happened to land in the hands of the very first person outside their company to even touch one. Odds and all that seem off to me.
Full scale production? Maybe not.
You are right, a “solder mistake” is very open ended and could mean nearly anything. To me it doesn’t sound like a short or it would have manifested itself right from the start. It sound like a cold solder that shows up intermittently after temperature changes or movement.
Question is how was that component put on the board, automated or manual? RCA is necessary but I am thinking a statistical analysis of a handful of units isn’t going to show a lot yet unless it is 100%
Time will tell. These guys are supposed to be process engineers…
Edit: from the Kickstarter comments I infer that the PCBs were fabricated in an automated line (assume wave soldering) but they are still running manual testing on the boards, or didn’t test for that and it slipped through.
“we are gradually growing with our production to automation. Until then some things have to be done by hand, like the testing of the solder integrity of the (automatically) made PCBs. This will be done automatic soon, but now we missed out a very small inconsistency…”
This sort of thing happens… If I were DC, I’d wait for batch #2 to come into the ‘warehouse’. I’d have IQ2 send the serial number range. DC would pick a SN and IQ2 would walk it over within 2 hours or something. That’d give a data point on quality and ensure hes using a consumer unit. (or maybe test this first unit complete after repair, then verify the second quickly)
If I were a customer, I wouldn’t mind waiting a couple weeks for my unit while someone who’s got the tool/processes, to tell if me (to some degree) if the unit is worth keeping or not. See Limits. Users got their order and it wasn’t immediately clear if the data was crap or not.
This shows some of the problems with reviewers being supplied units directly by the manufacturers - they can be given specially selected units. Just because they sometimes get units that have problems from some manufacturers doesn’t mean they aren’t from others. Also, they may be getting specially selected units even from manufacturers that given them defective units - these really could be the best that those manufacturers have to offer.
The problem is we don’t know what manufacturers are doing this. I would be shocked if none are.
To put it another way - is every IQ2 unit that ships going forward going to have the same care and attention during manufacturing, QA, and testing as this next unit that DCR gets? They’re just going to pull another one at random and send it without extra checking?
The highly entertaining IQ² saga continues 
This assumes that they have a production run > 1. I get the impression that these are only one of a very few that they have test run through their “mass production” setup and they don’t have tens or hundreds that they could pick a random sample. One of their differentiators was they were going to have a highly repeatable process that minimized or eliminated manual tweaking of each unit.
99% chance it was automated. Everyone does all surface mount on a line, even small proto batches. It’s just too much hassle otherwise. Through-hole would be done by hand for small batches, including soldering. But on such small PCB designs I doubt there’s a lot of TH, if any.
Wave is for TH parts.
You are correct, shows how long it’s been since I’ve had any direct involvement in board assembly. Switching processes over to ROHS compliance was the last time. I doubt any through-hole parts are used and it is likely all SMT and reflow.
They did say in a comment later that the assembly is automated so not a manual assembly error but they haven’t got full automated test coverage of the PCBs so this one got through. Question is what was the specific “solder error”.
I have always argued against the concept of outsourcing board assembly without testing at the subcontractor. That’s a recipe for failure. It seems to be the faster path - but it sure isn’t. It’s a really good recipe for buying loads of non-functional products.
You get production up, you get the testing up at the same time.
(Just guessing here like most of us are at this point…)
It could very well be a small initial production batch used for validation/certification, which is not intended to be sent to customers. There is always a trade-of to delay everything because full testing is not in place yet, or accept the risk in this first small batch. I’m pretty sure this is a very common situation most companies face with the first batch and most will choose to not delay.
Have you been sent any more pedals from IQ2 yet?
Any communication from them?
Was hoping it would take them less than 14 days to get you another pair to test, but the whole project has been one delay after another!
Thanks
Just seen on DCR’s IG story that he got some more yesterday.
Let’s hope round 2 goes better
I’m eagerly awaiting some good news!
I might put an order in anyway, their terms seem pretty good.
Aussie attitude summarized in a single word.
Fair dinkum
Foreboding
And here’s the Scottish one word summary - MENTAL
