That's pretty sad. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because it is a 9 year old receiver, but still, he should have this information available. I would have been pissed if I spent a couple hundred to have the cap replaced and later found that a free firmware upgrade would have fixed it.

 

The firmware update didn't solve the problem! Only thing HK has to say is to take it to a local service center. No way I'm going to pay someone to troubleshoot my receiver. The documentation explicitly states that the upgrade ensures memory settings are not lost. Guess I'll be replacing the capacitor (again) after all. HK no longer sells the part, so I'll be using a Digikey part only with twice the capacity (since an equivalent 0.047 mF cap didn't work). The upgrade interface had two buttons--a "CPU upgrade" button and a "DSP Upgrade" button. However, the installation instructions said to perform the CPU upgrade and didn't mention anything about the DSP upgrade. Maybe I'll give that a try, but I'm not optimistic.

 

HK doesn't seem to have a clue. Most recently then said the settings are being stored on a capacitor, then they said the memory is stored on a "network capacitor". I'm hoping to speak with someone with more technical knowledge on the subject. They have not been able to explain why the receiver does not retain its settings, even though they are apparently being stored in non-volatile memory (EEPROM).

 

HK doesn't seem to have a clue. Most recently then said the settings are being stored on a capacitor, then they said the memory is stored on a "network capacitor". I'm hoping to speak with someone with more technical knowledge on the subject. They have not been able to explain why the receiver does not retain its settings, even though they are apparently being stored in non-volatile memory (EEPROM).

Sounds like a support person with an active imagination to me. Very creative, perhaps they should patent this new technology.

 

Sounds like a support person with an active imagination to me. Very creative, perhaps they should patent this new technology.

Haha. I actually just received a response from an HK engineer and got the answer I was looking for. He said the EEPROM is erased then written to upon a power failure, and that the cap is bleeding off too quickly so that the microcontroller does not have time to complete its write cycle (exactly my theory). He said to give the 0.1F cap a try and let him know the outcome. Finally someone that knows what they are talking about.

 

Haha. I actually just received a response from an HK engineer and got the answer I was looking for. He said the EEPROM is erased then written to upon a power failure, and that the cap is bleeding off too quickly so that the microcontroller does not have time to complete its write cycle (exactly my theory). He said to give the 0.1F cap a try and let him know the outcome. Finally someone that knows what they are talking about.

That sounds exactly like double the capacitor value which is what I said many posts ago!

 

That sounds exactly like double the capacitor value which is what I said many posts ago!

Yes, you said that in your first post. I was just reiterating the point. The engineer isn't the one that said to use the 0.1F, I said I was going to use it and he agreed it was a good idea. We'll see what happens.

 

Just replaced the 0.047F cap with a 0.1F cap and the receiver now retains memory (as anticipated).

 

Awesome fix. Well done.

FWIW, I've had several experiences with various companies where the first attempt met a stone wall but later attempts were a big success. It comes down to the person you actually contact. Some are great, some not so much. Don't even waste your time with the dead enders. Just try again later.

The take home message is, if at first you don't succeed ....