Modern Audio Companies: Who Provides Service Info?

This article categorizes various modern makers of audio and musical equipment in terms of their willingness to provide service info. Such info generally includes schematics, physical diagrams, partslists, and alignment instructions, which are often compiled into a "service manual". Availability of service info is especially important to modern electronics because of their high complexity and how difficult reverse-engineering is relative to vintage equipment. If a company does not make service info publicly available, their products will be harder to repair—perhaps to the point of impracticality—and one should think twice about purchasing them, in my opinion.

My list has three categories: good, mediocre, and inexcusable. "Good" companies provide service info willingly to anyone who asks, and without omissions. "Mediocre" companies either provide only the necessary info for a particular repair, or they provide service info only to technicians who are authorized (which usually means in-house or associated with distributors) or who have signed non-disclosure agreements. "Inexcusable" companies either never responded to requests, or refused to provide any info whatsoever. Note that sometimes service info can be found freely for products from "mediocre" or "inexcusable" companies, having been leaked, or released after discontinuation. Also note that even with info, modern devices are generally less practical to repair than vintage ones. As well, many repair jobs do not actually require info. I have mentioned the availability of parts from some companies, but it isn't the focus here.

When first published, my list did not say much about the quality or ultimate repairability of a company's products. In my opinion, high-quality products use—wherever possible—common parts that can be sourced from many places, and otherwise simple parts that can be easily substituted, refurbished, or re-made. Such products are also designed to be easily disassembled and repaired using a minimum of common tools. I have now shaded green the companies whose products I believe meet my standard, and who also provide service info readily. Note that I have "cheated" somewhat, listing those who make direct clones of simple vintage designs for which it doesn't matter if the company provides info, since the original info applies. These are point-to-point vacuum-tube devices, which I consider the best for easy and indefinite repair. Currently, the list is rather short, but I am continually looking for more additions, and feel free to make suggestions.

I. The Good

II. The Mediocre

III. The Inexcusable

If you represent a "mediocre" or "inexcusable" company and wish to have its name cleared, please start by either providing the information I've asked for, or otherwise proving that you now provide service info freely.

If you are a user or technician, I would like to know if you've had good experience with "mediocre" or "inexcusable" companies. It is also possible for a "good" company to turn rotten (like Roland—they were good until around 2019), so if you've had a bad experience with one of them, please let me know as well. I would also be interested in additions to the list, but require proof, such as an email chain.

Some may think that I am being unreasonable by expecting companies to share such sensitive and precious (or even dangerous) info. I have several rebuttals. To start with, I believe that service info should be provided by default with the purchase of an electronic device. This is not a revolutionary idea, having once been the status quo; before the 1980s, schematics were often included in owner's manuals, or pasted directly inside of things. Nowadays, they are virtually never found outside of a service manual (and sometimes not even there), and such manuals are rarely available to anyone but in-house or "authorized" technicians, if they exist at all. It is usually easier to find service info for a piece of equipment made before the 1980s than for anything made since then. Things are vastly more disposable now, and this is ultimately bad for everyone, but especially for users.

As well, I don't believe that the existence of authorized or factory service is a legitimate excuse for failing to provide info, firstly because I've seen many examples of botched official repairs, secondly because shipping is expensive and risky for anything larger than a pedal (and is required for those people who are not near the factory or an authorized shop, which is most people), and thirdly because it tends to exist for a short time only—typically less than 10 years from the product's introduction. If the company stops providing repairs or dissolves entirely, the product should remain repairable, or else it is junk, in my opinion.

"Protecting intellectual property" is another poor excuse, since reverse-engineering is always possible for those who care enough to copy a design, and those people are not repair technicians. To be fair, patents once protected against blatant copying of electronic innovations, but no longer mean much due to the enormous unpunished copycatting of the Chinese. These companies need to protect their secrets, right? Yet ironically, much modern audio gear is either a clone or slight variation of something vintage (typically without equal build quality), or does something that is not innovative, and which is thus relatively easy to re-engineer from scratch. In my opinion, competition should be on the basis of genuine innovation and physical quality, which includes repairability. New things should only be bought if they are actually better than the old ones, rather than because the old ones require replacement due to artificially short life. If more of today's companies offered things that were seriously well-made and perpetually repairable like vintage equipment, then not only would I buy them, but I would pay the high price. As things stand, I mostly just keep the vintage stuff and build my own to the old standard, not wishing to buy modern disposable things no matter how cheap they are.

Lastly, as for the "dangers" of providing service info, there is no real argument here, both in terms of the company and the user. A person with hardly a clue about electronics is unlikely to attempt a repair even if given service info. Yet, if someone makes a repair attempt, having the info can only help things go smoother, thereby reducing danger. Also, a manufacturer is not responsible for how the info it provides is used, so long as they provide an adequate warning and disclaimer. Likewise, the author of a book on gun repair wouldn't be liable if someone accidentally shoots themselves after failing to follow the book's instructions and warnings, so there is no danger to them. Also, who knows... perhaps having the info available will inspire the person to learn more and increase their skill, like what I experienced as a kid when working on a 1950s Webcor tape recorder with its schematic pasted right inside. But if someone does that, then eventually, they might become competent enough to fix everything they own, and then they wouldn't buy the next even shorter-lived batch of disposable junk! I suspect this is the main reason that companies withhold service info today. The good news is that we don't have to support those companies. Either buy old things and fix them, build new things to the old standards, or support the few modern companies and individuals doing this.