·
As a 15-year homeowner, 10-year landlord and recent purchaser of two dishwashers, two refrigerators, a freezer and a washer and dryer, I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit. The article reflects classic confirmation bias. If you're in the business of buying and selling and scrapping used appliances, you're going to see the stuff that people are getting rid of. This is the sort of thing that will convince you that everyone is "using thinner paint" when the reality is it's damn-near impossible to buy anything other than shows-every-fingerprint stainless steel. You're going to see an awful lot of bullshit top-loading washing machines because you have to be a mouth-breathing moron to not score a $150 rebate on a water-saving front-loader (got my first one in '96). And you're going to see the cheap-shit Haier appliances because - "and this is true" to quote John Oliver - you can get pretty much every Kenmore, Whirlpool, Bosch or Maytag part on Amazon Prime. Yes. You see appliances from 50 years ago. You don't see a lot of them, though. As to "screws vs. glue" I hate to say it, but a self-tapping screw scores the galvanizing on your sheet steel and leads to rust which is apparently the #1 concern of cheap-shit appliance recyclers in Hawaii. I remember buying a dishwasher to replace our busted one when I was in 6th grade. To the best of my knowledge, my dad was still running it in 2008. That's 22 years - not bad. But it also cost $600... in '88. For a one-stop-above-basic GE. That's a $1300 dishwasher now and you gotta work at it to spend that kind of money. No lie - we bought a washer, a dryer, a dishwasher and a refrigerator (with icemaker) for $1900. I bought a washer-dryer combo in '96. My wife bought the same damn one in '97 before she even married her first husband. I think I paid $900 for the both of 'em. When they died on our tenants in 2011 we pretty much bought the exact same ones for $1300. And when it started screeching at me I bought a $30 pump off Amazon and spent 20 minutes fixing it. THAT is what has changed - you don't need to roll a truck and wait two weeks to fix your washing machine anymore. You look up the schematic online, point to where the bad man touched you and have salvation show up in your mailbox 48 hours later. That is a dope ass refrigerator. Yer damn skippy it's still running in 2017. Thanks to the wonders of the Internet I can tell you it's the equivalent of a $3,000 refrigerator now. What do you get for $300? Well, it's got an operating system. And no. It isn't hammer-tone, and no, it isn't painted white, and no, it isn't being "designed to rust away." It's got a ten year warranty. Yeah. There are cheap appliances out there. And yeah. They break quickly. But what cheap appliances there were in '52? They're gone, yo, as are the cheap appliances from '62, '72, '82, '92 and '02. If you're judging longevity based on what shows up at the junkyard you're going to think the world is made out of junk.
–
WanderingEng · 401 days ago · link ·
As an aside, I've had this conversation in vacuum tube communities. Are modern tubes less reliable than vintage tubes (I've had failures myself), or were bad vintage tubes thrown out sixty years ago?
–
Here's what I know about tubes: - Backintheday they were made by major electronics manufacturers like RCA, Westinghouse, Philips and the like - Major manufacturers switched from oh-shit-expensive tubes to cheap-as-dirt transistors as soon as it became an option - Russian tubes became available after the end of the Cold War because Soviet military doctrine favored vacuum tubes due to their insensitivity to clumsy production, resistance to nuclear electromagnetic pulse effects and independence from rare-earth mining concerns, fueling a resurgence of tube technology amongst those backlashing against the (then-parallel) rise of digital technology - This resurgence blossomed into its own niche community where the old Soviet and Chinese factories found customers to keep them around decades after they should have sunk into oblivion If it sounds like I'm down on tubes, it's because I am. The advantage of tube technology is it produces a rich sine distortion wave full of harmonics, much like an electric guitar. Digital distortion is square waves with few harmonics, much like every awful sound you've ever heard. HOWEVER, the larger world moved on from "pleasing distortion" because "no distortion" is much handier from any sensible perspective and fuckin' A, if I want something to sound like a Marshall stack when I push it to hard I got plugins for that. Beyond that, tubes are stupidly inefficient. They reflect a paradigm abandoned by the larger audio world pretty much as soon as MOSFETS became available. And yes, I recognize that efficiency isn't all that yadda yadda yadda but the reality is, every 3dB of increased level costs a doubling of power so if you're listening to Bach on your 3W tube amp at 70dB, it's going to take 24W to give you 10dB of headroom and that's a boat anchor like this and I hate to break it to you, but the dynamic range of a CD (which should be our benchmark, because if your vinyl can't beat a CD what's the point) is 96dB which means if you want to listen to your Bach at 70dB and you want 20dB of headroom like a normal home stereo you're looking at a 200W tube amp and those are simply not available. On the other hand, go browse QSC or Crown or any other legit amp manufacturer not concerned with Atmos and the like - you'll have a tough time finding an amp less than 200W per channel. Meanwhile those are RMS values; peak is no longer listed 'cuz it doesn't matter since you can now buy farad-grade capacitors to give you as much soak as you could possibly want. Tube amps? Tube amps the RMS is pretty much the peak because of the architecture. Yeah, tubes sound better when they distort but they'll distort a lot sooner than solid state. I know of three communities that still use tubes: Guitar geeks (audio), hi fi geeks (audio) and physicists (not audio). The guitar geeks and the hi fi geeks are choosing between vintage and former eastern block crap. The physicists are paying real money because there's no other way to do a photomultiplier tube and damn skippy if they could hop to the head of the IC line they would. More than you asked but there you go vintage tubes are better because they were used by citizens, modern tubes are crap because the only people buying them are the fringe. And better is still crap.
–
WanderingEng · 400 days ago · link ·
I agree with everything you said. Part of the Russian tube legend is that they lagged the solid state advances of the west, so their factories survived long enough to meet the latent demand once western stockpiles were gone. But that might be a remnant of the Cold War, portraying the enemy as technologically inferior. I enjoy tubes the way some people enjoy cars. My hifi is objectively inferior and more expensive than modern equipment the way a similar vintage muscle car is objectively inferior and more expensive than a modern muscle car. Also more than you asked for.
–
I can totally respect that. A great friend of mine has some Zus and some tiny riduculous little tube amp that distorts like a muther whenever he pushes it even a tiny little bit, which is usually to watch Youtube videos. Meanwhile, he's made the Woody Allen argument that all movies should be mono so the soundtrack doesn't detract from the picture all the while knowing that I make most of my money mixing 5.1 and am seriously contemplating becoming the only Atmos rig north of San Francisco. The general inferiority of Soviet equipment may/may not have been a deliberate strategy by the USSR to cause the west to underestimate domestic market gear based on sub-par export models. At the same time, the performance encouragement provided by a free market economy is not present in a command economy and absent self-driven loyalty and self-sufficient pride of workmanship, the two manufacturing paradigms do not compete fairly. I think it was Hoffman who pointed out that when the overwhelming majority of your manufacturing expertise is given over to military uses, you end up at a keen disadvantage in the consumer marketplace. It's not that a tank factory can't make frying pans. It's that a tank factory can't make frying pans most people can afford and switching over from making top of the line precision hardware to economy bakeware requires significant retooling, both spiritual and actual.
user-inactivated · 401 days ago · link ·
This comment has been deleted.
–
Maybe it's poorly written, but here's is some research from the National Association of Home Builders from 1993 and 2007, comparing average life expectancy of housing components and appliances. Note how for nearly every category in the Appliances section the lifetime decreases by one to two years on average.
–
The 1993 dishwasher listed by a trade publication has a 10-year life expectancy. The 2007 dishwasher listed by the same trade publication has a 9-year life expectancy. That's a 10% drop over 14 years, or 1.4% per year. If the argument is that a 1952 Hotpoint "used to last 50 years" than a 2017 LG should last 41. Considering it costs a third as much, I'm good with that.
–
This isn't really related to the dishwashers per se, and it is too early for me to be doing any sort of math, but if it's a 10% drop over 14 years (making it, if we for some reason assume it's a linear correlation, a 0.71% life expectancy drop per year), wouldn't that translate to a 60% drop over 65 years, where the 2017 LG would last for only two decades? Or are you assuming some other more true-to-life model of dishwasher lifetime degradation? Again, this isn't really about how good the actual appliances are, I am simply curious where the numbers came from because I can't seem to figure it out. [EDIT] Also, prices from the 1950s are a little fuzzy, but here is a reference to the first truly affordable home dishwasher, for $169.50 ($1,713.31 in 2017 dollars), and here is a 1959 $184.50 Kenmore dishwasher ($1,544.49 in 2017 dollars). When I look at the LG website, the two most popular models (judging by the sheer number of reviews) that they have cost $820 and $1120. So yes, it's cheaper, but not three times cheaper.
I agree that cheaper appliances don't last. But this thing just reeks of MLM testimonials. edit: hahahahah - and frankly, looking back at my original sentence.... IT is poorly written (and non-punctuated) drivel... That's what I get for posting so early in the morning... I think my point is - this article didn't give me the sense of real action - he doesn't seem to be encouraging us to write letters to congress, or lobby the appliance companies for change... instead, in his closing paragraph, he gives us two links to his "I'll teach you how to make a living refurbing appliances" business... it just feels like a cheap shot: "Let me complain about something that a lot of people will agree with, and then people can pay me to learn how to make some money on the interim problem instead of fixing it"