Nord User Forum

Great documentation! Thank you!

pablomastodon wrote:Speaking generally, it can sometimes happen that a person who lives in a remote location has an issue which may perhaps be more easily dealt with by DIY operation. In a situation in which the underlying problem is related to shipping damage, packing and shipping the instrument back to a warehouse for exchange in favor of another instrument being shipped out to the customer may easily result in yet another case of shipping damage. I don't know the specifics of this case, and agree that having an end user swap out a lower chassis is extreme, but perhaps there were circumstances in this case which caused this to be the best move.

However, I disagree with the underlying premise that shipping damage is covered under warranty. Shipping damage SHOULD be covered by the shipping company. When someone receives an instrument with shipping damage, it should be photographed and reported and a shipping damage claim should be made. Because the retail dealer is the entity which contracted for the shipping services, the retail dealer should be responsible for making that claim for damages. Too often these things happen, but because the customer is so excited to be receiving a new instrument that the packing materials are overlooked and discarded, making it difficult to impossible to sustain a claim for shipping damages.

By definition, a warranty protects the consumer against defects in materials or workmanship. If you're at a gig and a poorly secured lighting truss comes crashing down on your instrument, the Nord warranty will not cover repairs. Shipping damage should be compensated by the shipper.

Bless, Pablo

Fully agree, "warranty" here should not necessarily mean the manufacturers' but any form of customer protection (including all steps and parties involved form purchase to delivery)

I didn't know the shipping damage would be the primary discussion topic of this post; I'm sorry to have caused so much speculation!

maxpiano wrote:Just a doubt, sorry but I have to ask: why didn't you opt for a full replacement, being the damage due to shipping and so under warranty, while this DYI solution probably makes the same (warranty) invalid?

Schorsch wrote:If it was a brand new one I wonder why not go for an exchange, since you would loose any further warranty if you do such a replacement by yourself.

pablomastodon wrote:Speaking generally, it can sometimes happen that a person who lives in a remote location has an issue which may perhaps be more easily dealt with by DIY operation. In a situation in which the underlying problem is related to shipping damage, packing and shipping the instrument back to a warehouse for exchange in favor of another instrument being shipped out to the customer may easily result in yet another case of shipping damage.

I'm in North America and I purchased a new NG on Reverb.com from a seller in Europe. After lengthy discussion, we decided it would be best to ship replacement parts to minimize money sucked into the aether.

• If we ship the damaged NG home and send a new NG, we will have spent money and carbon emissions for transport of three (3) trans-Atlantic full-weight NG shipments
• The original box was damaged which put the original NG at risk of further damage on its return trip. Reboxing or double boxing is very expensive for boxes this size
• There's no guarantee shipping a new NG will arrive undamaged
• Shipping lightweight replacement parts is cheaper and far less likely to be damaged during long transportation

After we decided on the plan, the process began with me doing a partial teardown of the damaged NG to determine any and all parts that were damaged. The seller ordered all replacement parts from Clavia and shipped them to me free of charge.

pablomastodon wrote:However, I disagree with the underlying premise that shipping damage is covered under warranty. Shipping damage SHOULD be covered by the shipping company... Because the retail dealer is the entity which contracted for the shipping services, the retail dealer should be responsible for making that claim for damages.

This is right. The seller paid the package handler for shipping insurance and so the seller is responsible for filing the claim and the handler is responsible for reimbursing the sender for the damages. The seller is using my original photos of the damage to make a claim and is seeking reimbursement from the handler.

maxpiano wrote: Unfortunately from a warranty claim perspective some pictures by themselves prove nothing, you may damage an electronic device by ESD (for example) and no picture will prove you didn't...

As per Clavia's website, warranty is provided through your distributor. In this case, the seller assured me my warranty is not voided by doing the repair. He says, "not that Nord needs a warranty anyway, they build them so nice," and I agree, but I'm happy the seller will still honour a potential warranty claim in the future.

I will add that the seller was very cooperative in finding a resolution that worked well for me. For sake of transparency and due to the high cost of this particular item, I involved Reverb.com support in the discussion early. A full refund was offered to me, but for reasons listed above, I don't think it was my best choice. Reverb.com support was extremely helpful even though no intervention was necessary. This is not my first Reverb.com purchase and I would not hesitate to buy using their platform again.

How much discount did you get for having done that yourself? I would have asked some decent %... You did the sellers job anyway....

The problem seems to be in this case: It was fun to him, wasn't it? Like being allowed to play with something you usually are not allowed to play with... Right? Why else label every image with comments in such a beautiful way?

Quai34 wrote:How much discount did you get for having done that yourself? I would have asked some decent %... You did the sellers job anyway....

I was really only thinking about the best possible outcome for everyone involved. I was happy with the amount I paid and only asked for replacement parts so my NG is as-described in the original ad. Like I said in my previous post, there was high risk that this unit would be damaged more sending it back and risk that a new shipment could get damaged similarly. Reverb did step in and give me a small credit when everything was over.

FZiegler wrote:It was fun to him, wasn't it? Like being allowed to play with something you usually are not allowed to play with... Right? Why else label every image with comments in such a beautiful way?

That's right. I saw an opportunity to learn something new. And because the information was not already available elsewhere, I took the time to document carefully so others could gain from my experience.

Thanks, honey! (but please don't take that the wrong way!)

And a very impressive debut for a new forum member as well!
Welcome to the forum!

Bless, Pablo

Quite interesting for me ist, that the top of the Chassis is more or less empty so it seems it would have been possible to use a chassis like in the NP4, except the bit higher keybed. I thought that there would be parts of the mechanics as even the Kaway keyboards have this shape.

Thanks for posting this

Beginner wrote:...the top of the Chassis is more or less empty so it seems it would have been possible to use a chassis like in the NP4, except the bit higher keybed. I thought that there would be parts of the mechanics as even the Kaway keyboards have this shape.

There are two large PCBs mounted on the top behind the front panel. These PCB add functionality to all of the knobs, buttons, and LCD on the face of the NG.