The dreaded 'looks like electrical or mechanical internal head fault' on my 9890

[Wayne Fox]

I think the piezo heads are much more difficult to build.  I do believe they offer a slight advantage in dot placement and size consistency, but I'm not sure that advantage offers any visible difference.  After having used Canon printers for a year or so and then going back to Epson, I personally feel the epson printers are sharper and offer a slightly better quality ... but then I admit it's probably like the CD vs vinyl debate where some claim they can hear the difference, but I know I can't and I don't think many can. Both brands print very high quality work, and even the HP which I feel has some challenges in some colors still produces stellar output.

One challenge to epson heads is the density of the nozzles ... 360 nozzles in a linear inch which is double the density of a couple generations ago.  I would assume this makes the heads even more delicate and sensitive.  the only reason I mention this is the newest Epson printers (p10000 and p20000)  they have moved from a 360dpi based design to a 300 dpi based design. Guessing it was more about speed since the channels are 800 nozzles wide so about 2.66 inches ... so laying down a  lot of ink on each pass. It will be interesting to see if allowing that slight amount of extra space offers any advantage in head wear and tear as well as missing nozzles, and if they might eventually migrate that down into the other printers. This would be similar to what they did with the 11880 ... introduced new head technology that migrated down to the 24 and 44" machines.

[Mark D Segal]

Wayne, when you mention your use of Canon printers I assume you are talking about the models prior to the new Pro-1000 and Pro-2000/4000 (the latter just being marketed very recently with the same head and inkset as the Pro-1000). Even under a 7X loupe I and several savvy colleagues failed to see any difference of sharpness/definition between an Epson 4900, Epson SCP-800 and Canon Pro-1000, when all three are printed at highest quality, unidirectional, native resolution of the printheads.

[JeanMichel]

I pretty much experienced the same problem with a 7890. I read all I could find on the issue, watched videos and so on, spoke with Epson, got a quote for repairing and probable head replacement which added up to close to the price of a P6000. Spoke with a very helpful Epson maintenance person at the Profusion show in Toronto. Ended up buying a P6000. I am seriously considering buying the extended warranty before the end of the first year of ownership.
Jean-Michel

[NeilPrintArt]

Thanks to everyone who has replied and offered support. Unfortunately I can report that after trying everything and after having the BK channel filled with Cone PiezoFlush for 3 days there is no improvement. In fact it is worse, as predicated by some, the missing nozzle patten has expanded into adjacent rows. I have resigned myself to the idea that the head is gone. I could try cleaning the dampers as has been suggested but I have a queue of client work backing up and time is a big issue,

My options are therefore...
1. Buy a new machine - the P9000 is quoted by local Epson supplier at approx $8000 - before a full set of carts
2. Get a head replacement from the local authorized technician - about $3000. With a very limited warranty
3. Replace the head myself. I found a supplier in Germany who will ship to South Africa. A new head and a new damper unit plus shipping cost about $1115 plus whatever customs are going to hit me with. Then I have a technician - not 'authorised' but who works on epsons - who is going to charge me $100 to come in and help me do the fitting and who has the service program to sync new head.

Doing it myself is a gamble of course. There is no warranty and I have seen horror stories  about people who have done it themselves and ended up with blown motherboards or heads that have been 'rejected' by the machine. So holding thumbs. 

The 9890 looks to me like a solidly built machine. My thinking is that with a new head and new dampers I should hopefully get another 3 years out the machine. I did already have the 'cleaning unit' (pump cap assembly) replaced by authorised tech about 18 months ago.

Thanks again

[deanwork]

I know it is a hard decision and one I will face myself eventually. A great printer working perfectly except for one nozzle going bad. That is our eventual fate.

If you are not going to try a head replacement, I would try one thing before you have it hauled away. You have nothing to loose. If you are not going to try replacing the damper unit yourself, try taking off the head cover and finding a way to remove the black ink line and try to force the flush fluid into the lines with a syringe that you can buy at a drug store, hopefully on both sides of the damper unit. If there is something blocking that line you might get lucky.

I hope that the new series Epsons will have improved head durability but it will probably be a couple of years before we know that.

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Pro/SeriesSureColorP20000/Overview.do?UseCookie=yes

Good luck man,

I feel for you.

John

[Royce Howland]

Yeah, a lot of us feel for you Neil. Epson heads took a nose dive in longevity with the introduction of whatever is particular to the design of the core tech shared by the 11880, x900's and x890's. It might even have happened sometime into the run of those models. Our 11880's used to be rock solid in every way but are now going through heads like they're the consumable Canon variety -- new heads fail much faster than old ones. Perhaps something in the manufacturing slipped, and the highest levels of tolerance and quality required by the design are no longer being met by production. Who knows.

We have ordered our first SureColor. We're skipping the 4-digit series, and starting with a P10000, to get our feet wet with what promises to be the first radical move in head design for Epson in a long time. Fingers crossed that it's a significant improvement.

Good luck whichever route you go...

[deanwork]

Royce, would you please keep me updated on your results with the new P 10K ? Like you I am really hoping this new series will be back to the future for the Epson heads.

I'm super interested in the grayscale rendition with QTR or other rips as well.

 If it is anything like the original 10K with their big super durable heads (that lasted me over 10 years with 0 clogs ever and no changing of the waste tank in that whole period of time,) then I'm in. Looks like maybe Canon has screwed up their print permanence at just the time Epson caught up. If Epson has done it than I'll never have to bring up the old CF10K again :-).

For those people who have only been printing with Epson printers for 8-10 years, it is NOT an unfortunate characteristic of Piezo heads that they 1. have to die in 3 years, Or that they can't easily be replaced. The Roland Hi Fi large format printers used Epson piezo heads and not only were those printers super clean running but the end user could easily pop out the heads and replace them himself, in less than 15 minutes with no rank settings and all that BS. That is all totally unnecessary and designed to keep US out.

John

Yeah, a lot of us feel for you Neil. Epson heads took a nose dive in longevity with the introduction of whatever is particular to the design of the core tech shared by the 11880, x900's and x890's. It might even have happened sometime into the run of those models. Our 11880's used to be rock solid in every way but are now going through heads like they're the consumable Canon variety -- new heads fail much faster than old ones. Perhaps something in the manufacturing slipped, and the highest levels of tolerance and quality required by the design are no longer being met by production. Who knows.

We have ordered our first SureColor. We're skipping the 4-digit series, and starting with a P10000, to get our feet wet with what promises to be the first radical move in head design for Epson in a long time. Fingers crossed that it's a significant improvement.

Good luck whichever route you go...

[Mark D Segal]

Looks like maybe Canon has screwed up their print permanence at just the time Epson caught up.

John

What makes you think this?

[deanwork]

 Canon had published "preliminary" tests of the Lucia Pro inks on their website, but have since taken them off. Mark at Aardenburg had referred to the results published as perplexing, and noticeably worse than the original Lucia Ex set. Wilhelm has no info posted on these inks yet, and Aardenburg is just beginning to test them.

All I know is what he posted on his site. We are going to have to wait and see, but it doesn't seem encouraging.

From Aardenburg Imaging:

"Epson has claimed 2x improvement in light fade resistance for its newly reformulated Ultrachrome ink sets on select Epson media. “Years on display” life expectancy scores greater than 200 years are also being claimed for select Epson media when used in combination with the new inks. "

"Canon is making far more modest claims for print longevity, citing only internal studies using Canon Platinum Pro paper (PT-201) and Canon Photo Paper Pro luster paper (LU-101) with the new Pro-1000 printer and the new LUCIA PRO-11 ink set. The Platinum pro is rated at 60 years light fastness while the Luster is rated at 45 years light fade resistance. Canon has not disclosed it’s test methodology or failure criteria, but Canon’s claim is surprisingly more conservative than Epson’s 200 year figures, so we are keen here at Aardenburg Imaging to run some tightly controlled light fade testing of our own with with the new generation of Canon and Epson Inks on various media."

end of Aardenburg quote

It is possible that these Canon internal tests were not done behind glass which wouldn't be a very flattering thing to publish, and which could account for these low figures. They didn't say. You would think they would release complete tests on the Lucia Pro inks when the printers were released, as Epson and Hp have done. There is no reference to anything regarding longevity of these inks now.

john

What makes you think this?

[Mark D Segal]

Puzzling. I agree we need some respectable third-party testing using consistent methodology with published criteria.

[Paul2660]

If you want to watch the process of a head replacement take a look at Eric G's video. Goes through the entire process. Eric's original post on his 7900 which I think still holds the record on this site for both views and posts also holds a ton of info.




It's more than I would want to tackle myself.

Paul C

[deanwork]

Yea, definitely not a good idea for most of us, as you can easily do more harm than good. But a lot of people with electronics experience could do it.

Thanks for posting that video. I've replaced them in the past but I wouldn't do it with the new ones. It's a shame it is so complicated and tedious.

If you want to watch the process of a head replacement take a look at Eric G's video. Goes through the entire process. Eric's original post on his 7900 which I think still holds the record on this site for both views and posts also holds a ton of info.




It's more than I would want to tackle myself.

Paul C

[Wayne Fox]

Wayne, when you mention your use of Canon printers I assume you are talking about the models prior to the new Pro-1000 and Pro-2000/4000 (the latter just being marketed very recently with the same head and inkset as the Pro-1000). Even under a 7X loupe I and several savvy colleagues failed to see any difference of sharpness/definition between an Epson 4900, Epson SCP-800 and Canon Pro-1000, when all three are printed at highest quality, unidirectional, native resolution of the printheads.

It's all about being old and stuck in a rut

I believe Epson's technology originally was more suited to finely controlled dot placement and thus the early leader in high quality printing. While canon printers did OK,  it took canon until the ipfx300 series to eliminate the tail and control the dot placement, size and shape accurately enough to be competitive with Epson. but even the pifx100 series produced good work, although I had enough issues with the blacks I went back to Epson.

On paper I also get suckered in to the specifications, Canon printers are 300 dpi with a max resolution of 2400x1200, and a single dot size of 4 picoliter.  That's 2.88 million possible locations to place a dot when the image.  The epson is 360 dpi with max resolution of 2880x1440, and has variable dot technology with the smallest being 3.5 picoliters.  that's 4.14 million possible locations.  And I can print at 720 dpi max, instead of 600 dpi max taking advantage of some of that.

Sounds impressive, right?  well, no.  I freely admit that if you have to get a loop out to look for the difference there isn't any point of looking any further.  And Epson themselves just shot that all down with their p10000 and p20000 printers which are 300dpi based devices (and probably the precursor for the next generation of 24 and 44" printers in a few years).

Canon is making great printers , but I doubt I'll try them again for a variety of reasons, first being completely satisfied with the Epsons, having very little issues with clogging or extra ink usage (my 5 year old 9900 has only had 1 maintenance tank replaced since I installed it, so very little ink to keep the nozzles clear). 

And I did compare myself to those trying to defend vinyl over digital music even though I know that most (including myself) could never tell the difference in a test, (it all sounds pretty good to me.)

[NeilPrintArt]

Many thanks to everyone who has offered advice and commiserations following my original post.
I thought I would report back on the current situation. The head on my 9890 failed after 3 years. Replacing the machine is not currently an option and to get the authorised techs to supply and fit was almost half of a new machine. So I decided to replace the head myself. My thinking being that if I can get another 3 years out of the new head I might then be in a position to look at the P10000 or even the P20000. As has been opined many times on this forum and elsewhere, my belief is that the heads on the x890 and x900 are prone to failure. I am hoping that the new design of the P10000 is a step ‘back to the future’ as someone else posted. Exhibit A would be my much abused 7 year old 9800 which just won’t quit. Still giving me a perfect nozzle check with the original head after thousands of prints and 3 location moves and several different inks.
The decision to do the job myself is not entirely without regret and if there was any way I could have afforded the authorised techs in hindsight I might well have got them to do it.
Ordered a new head (and figured to do the damper unit at the same time) which arrived no problem. Spoke to a freelance technician who assured me he had done the procedure many times. Got hold of the serviceprog.exe and field repair guide and service manual and watched Eric Gulbransen’s amazing video couple of times. On the day of course the tech guy sent one of his minnows who swore to me that me had done this ‘many times’. It quickly became apparent that in fact was not true. Turns out he had only worked on 9700’s before “but the 9890 is basically the same”. . Not a good moment. Long story short – after forcing the ‘technician’ to follow the steps in Eric’s video we got the job done. Not a thrilling experience and not a particularly recommended way to spend the day!
But I did learn a lot about The Machine. The only structural difference I could see between my 9890 and Eric’s 9900 is that in Eric’s video there are 2 ground wires that run from the board to the side of the carriage. In my 9890 one of those wires runs instead to a plate in the assembly that hold the ink lines. We also had a situation when we disconnected the ink lines from the damper, yellow ink start leaking out where the cartridges plug into the lines at the back of the ink bay. Am guessing that the valve which seals the ink lines at that point didn’t close properly?
Another note is it has taken me several days and apparently endless cleaning and printing to get a good nozzle check with the new head. My heart was in my stomach when after all that I wasn’t able to get a good check. Generally the gaps have been moving around (which I usually take as a good sign) and today is almost perfect with only one missing nozzle so hopefully it’s just been the new head settling in and air in the lines etc. But the whole episode has consumed a huge amount of pigment ($$$).
To anyone thinking of attempting the head change yourself I would say proceed with caution, the potential for disaster is fairly high, but most people with some electrical or mechanical skill should be able to do it. Watch Eric’s video right through a couple times before, have a friend with a steady hand to help, don’t drink lots of coffee beforehand and make sure to make a note of the head rank id BEFORE you install it .

[NeilPrintArt]

Perfect nozzle check this morning!! It's taken four days since the new head was installed and buckets of ink but I finally have my printer back. Now the question is if I need to write all new media profiles? I use an i1 and iProfiler. In theory a new head and new damper unit should be identical in spec and therefore new profiles not needed? Will do some tests see if I can see a difference. But am thrilled to report that it appears I was successful in replacing the head and damper unit in my 9890.     

[Farmer]

Your head should be fine tuned with a head rank ID.  Even when one is supplied, an Epson tech would linearise the printer at the firmware level.  Since you won't have done that, I would certainly linearise your own profiles.

[Mark D Segal]

Congrats Neil, that's great!

I agree with Phil, but would also suggest as you have the profiling kit, why not make some new custom profiles. Not that much work and one more variable at hand to optimize your output - after all that effort.

[Garnick]

I pretty much experienced the same problem with a 7890. I read all I could find on the issue, watched videos and so on, spoke with Epson, got a quote for repairing and probable head replacement which added up to close to the price of a P6000. Spoke with a very helpful Epson maintenance person at the Profusion show in Toronto. Ended up buying a P6000. I am seriously considering buying the extended warranty before the end of the first year of ownership.
Jean-Michel

Hi Jean,
I had the same issues as the OP back at the start of the year with the 9900.  In my case it was the green nozzle and it simply would not respond to any of the recommended procedures for dealing with the situation.  In February I found an excellent technician who has taught many of the Epson techs when he worked for Epson.  An excellent example of serendipity, since he lives about a 20 minute drive from my business in the GTA.  He replaced the print head and showed me a couple of little tricks that I hadn't come across on this site, even in Eric's thread.  Total cost $2,250.00 CDN.  Unfortunately, since this building has recently been sold and my business has been slowly dwindling I am now looking at moving the business to my home.  Since I have no room for the 9900 and would also dread the idea of moving it, I will be selling that printer and likely downsizing to a P6000, as I believe it will fill my needs as well as whatever amount of business I continue to do.  Now to your situation Jean.  Before I took possession of the 9900 six years ago I had already set up a log to record any possible 9900 issues, since I had read every post I could find on this forum concerning the "new" printers at that time.  At the end of the first year I extended the warranty and the same at the end of the second year, so in all a 3 year warranty.  Not an inexpensive investment at $1,050 CDN per year, but worth every penny, as it helped me sleep at night, knowing that any issues with the 9900 were the responsibility someone else.  There were several issues during the first year, including new print head and cleaning station, as well as other problems.  Some of these issues were repeated in the second year, none of which were due to negligence on my part, since the printer was and has always been very well taken care of.  During the third warranty year and since, the printer has performed very well until the green nozzle decided to crap out early this year.  So in my opinion the extended warranty is a must, and if I do take possession of a P6000 I shall be extending the warranty on it as well, regardless of its first warranty year performance.  In my business I always considered the expensive of the extended warranty an insurance policy, and a necessary part of doing business.  I believe one can extend the warranty on the newer printers for a maximum of one year only, but I would most definitely suggest you take advantage of it. 

Sorry to be so wordy, but I thought perhaps a bit of background info might be useful in this case. 

Gary