There’s been a lot of noise lately around a video I put out With Anthony Marinelli discussing the repairability of modern synthesizers. And like most things on the internet, people grabbed onto the easiest takeaway:
“SMD is the problem.”
It’s not.
That’s the convenient, headline version of the story. The real one is a lot less comfortable—and it points in a different direction entirely.
SMD Isn’t Killing Your Gear
Surface-mount design isn’t new, and it isn’t inherently unrepairable. In fact, in many contexts—especially analog circuits with reasonable component sizes—it’s perfectly serviceable. Putting my money where my mouth is, keep in mind our main product we sell online is our popular RS80017A Juno 106 voice card which is 100% SMD.
In reality, if you’re dealing with:
- 0603 components or larger
- Sensible board density
- Access to schematics
…you or your tech will probably be able to fix your gear.
Plenty of boutique and analog-focused manufacturers—think along the lines of Studio Electronics—are still producing gear that a competent technician can realistically service long-term.
So let’s kill that myth right now:
SMD doesn’t make something disposable. Lack of support does.
Vintage Gear “Lasts” for a Reason—and It’s Not Nostalgia
People love to point at vintage gear and say, “they just built things better back then.”
That’s only half true.
Really, they just didn’t have the option to lock technicians out.
Classic EPROMs, for example, were readable. You could pull data, duplicate chips, and keep a unit alive even if the original manufacturer disappeared or stopped caring.
That is not the case today.
Modern chips can be:
- Read-protected
- Encrypted
- Tied to proprietary programming environments
So when something fails, you’re not just fixing hardware—you’re dealing with access control.
And if you don’t have that access, or the access doesn’t exist anymore? Door stop. There’s that word you didn’t like again :).
The Real Bottleneck: Information and Access
Let’s talk about what actually kills repairability:
No schematics? You’re guessing.
No firmware or programming files? You’re locked out.
No part numbers or substitutes? You’re hunting ghosts.
And this one’s a sleeper issue that burns a lot of time:
Suffix-specific components
A chip labeled something like FP29138XCP_4T might not be interchangeable with FP29138XCP_4P
Same base part. Different suffix. I have experienced this wreck repair prospects many times… especially as the one you need is of course, always the one you can’t get.
Digital Failure Is Binary
Analog problems tend to degrade. Digital problems tend to stop.
When a custom MCU or DSP goes down, you don’t get “kind of working.” You get nothing.
And without:
- The exact replacement chip
- The firmware
- The programming method
.. you can’t fix it. And sure, you could get a donor unit (which may have and often does have the same issue), and potentially fix it, but your mileage may vary.
The “Invisible Failure” Problem
Here’s where things get interesting.
Modern instruments often rely on tight tolerances and software calibration.
Let’s say a precision resistor drifts slightly out of spec… not enough to fail a quick measurement but enough to break calibration.
Now your system:
- Fails a function
- Behaves inconsistently
- Doesn’t point clearly to the root cause
Without schematics or tolerance data, the technician is working blind.
And pulling SMD components just to test them? That’s not as trivial as it would be on a THT circuit board. On an SMD board, you could sure, remove the component but the chances of losing it on the way out is substantially higher.
So the unit can get written off—not because it can’t be fixed, but because the path to fixing it is obscured.
Retrofits Are Not Coming to Save You
A lot of people assume that even if something becomes unrepairable, the aftermarket will step in—just like it has for vintage gear.
That’s increasingly unlikely.
In the vintage world, we’ve seen entire ecosystems built around:
- Replacement boards
- Drop-in upgrades
- Functional modern equivalents
That works when:
- The circuits are understood
- The architecture is accessible
- The value of the instrument justifies the effort
Modern gear breaks that equation. The value-to-effort ratio simply isn’t there.
Recreating or bypassing a failed modern digital subsystem often means:
- Reverse-engineering proprietary designs
- Rebuilding complex multi-layer SMD boards
- Integrating tightly packed circuitry into spaces never designed for modification
Yes—SMD absolutely makes retrofitting harder. Not impossible, but far more intricate than the through-hole world most vintage retrofits were built around.
BUT there are exceptions. Good ones.
The Tubbutec MC-2oh2 is a great example of a modern, well-executed SMD-based retrofit. It’s elegant, functional, and adds real value.
But it works because:
- The original platform is understood
- The integration path is clear
- The demand justifies the engineering effort
That’s not the norm for modern instruments.
Don’t assume someone is going to come along later and “fix” your synth with a retrofit.
In most cases, they won’t.
“They’ll Just Send a New Board”… Until They Don’t
To be fair—modern support isn’t all bad. I want to shoutout Sequential/Oberheim and Studio electronics for having great support, even for discontinued products. That said, the reality is that we have actually received faulty “new parts” for these instruments. I appreciate the efforts none the less.
There are manufacturers today doing a solid job supporting current products. You’ll see:
- Replacement boards shipped out
- Module swaps instead of component-level repair
- Relatively fast turnaround while a product is still “active”
That’s a good thing!
But here’s the reality people need to understand: That support model is finite. It is is more finite than vintage repair, that’s for sure.
Those boards are not being produced forever. They are built in runs, stocked for a period of time, and eventually… they run out.
We’ve seen it happen. More than once.
When that stock is gone:
- There is no board
- There is no repair path
- There is no escalation
- They don’t suddenly release schematics and files
You don’t go “up a level” to component repair if there’s no documentation or parts access behind it, you just hit the wall—later than expected, but just as hard.
Early Adopters as Beta Testers
This one needs to be said plainly:
Shipping incomplete products and finishing them later is not acceptable at current new synth price points.
The Moog One is a well-known example where early adopters dealt with missing features and evolving functionality post-release.
That model might fly in software.
It does not fly when you’re selling high-end instruments that people depend on.
If you’re charging a premium:
- Ship a finished product.
- Support it like one.
Right to Repair—But for Instruments
The broader Right to Repair conversation shouldn’t stop at phones and tractors.
It absolutely applies to music gear.
Not necessarily across all pro audio gear—but instruments are different. These are long-term tools, creative investments, and in many cases, irreplaceable parts of a musician’s workflow.
At a minimum, manufacturers should be expected to:
- Provide schematics (at least to authorized service centers)
- Provide firmware and programming access
- Maintain parts availability or viable substitutes
- Establish real service infrastructure
What Manufactures Can Do To Add Value & Recourse
Let’s not pretend this is unsolvable.
A responsible manufacturer should:
- Identify known failure points
- Publish service bulletins
- Stockpile critical components
- Support service centers with tools and files
This is not cutting-edge thinking. If you really think about it, it’s the bare minimum you should expect.
A Hard Truth for Customers
Now here’s the part nobody likes hearing: You don’t get to demand a living wage for people and then refuse to pay for a technicians diagnostic time.
If a technician is working on:
- A dense SMD board
- With no schematic
- No firmware
- No support
…you are paying for skill, experience, and time spent solving a problem. Time costs money.
That doesn’t get cheaper because your synth is worth less now.
It gets harder.
And if you’re expecting:
- Flat rates
- Quick turnarounds
- Discount pricing
…you’re contributing to the same race-to-the-bottom system that makes these repairs unsustainable.
If you were one of the people saying “just buy the tools needed and get good with your skills” on the video, I hope you’re also ready to pay the people who had to spend the money on those tools and honing those skills. From my experience running 2 repair shops, typically people with SMD repair needs don’t want to pay.
The Bottom Line
SMD didn’t kill repairability.
Manufacturers choosing not to support their products did.
And until both:
- Manufacturers are held accountable, and
- Customers understand the real cost of repair
…we’re going to keep seeing the same outcome:
Expensive instruments with finite lifespans—not because they had to fail, but because no one made sure they could be fixed.
