I'm not having a dig at Terry Cain in any way shape or form, all I'm saying is that there have been many TQWT designs around the place, before Terry Cain, independant of GM or Martin's mathcad. Suddenly it seems that anyone building a TQWT is deemed to have stolen intellectual property.
The questions remains: What makes a BiB a BiB as opposed to any other TQWT? Where does the intellectual property being defended lie? If someone modifies their design from that provided by mathcad, when does it stop being theft and become independant R&D of a non Martin licensable design?
A very similar prior art existed. That being the case, what IP can be defended?
The questions remains: What makes a BiB a BiB as opposed to any other TQWT? Where does the intellectual property being defended lie? If someone modifies their design from that provided by mathcad, when does it stop being theft and become independant R&D of a non Martin licensable design?
A very similar prior art existed. That being the case, what IP can be defended?
Voigt was granted a patent on the TQWT May 18, 1936. It has expired long ago. At question is the commercal use of:
1/ in the early part of the thread: The formula that GM came up with to spit out a BIB (which became public domain as soon as it was posted on a public forum. I think that everyone who uses it should be thankful to GM for his generosity. Any "payback" to GM, commercial or otherwise, really comes down to karmanic. I believe that good karma is important. Even thou i have never built a BIB for personal use or for resale i feel karma is important, have learned from GM's wider largess, and have, to list a few, donated him drivers, published drawings of his design's described in text, and spearheaded the donation campaign that 1st got him hi-speed internet. If you used his formula send him a CD, cash, or take him to lunch (if you get to Atlanta)
Specifically in question was Quali-Fi's non-standard "BIB". Hornresp was used to come up with this one, so GM has nothing to get riled about.
2. in the latter part: the use of MJK software to design enclosures for commercial resale. The software is Martin's intellectual property and he sets the conditions of its use. It really is a dirt cheap cost if you are actually selling speakers.
Before Martin was well enuff known to warrant him taking the time to build & maintain his own site, i worked with him to get his stuff up on the web, and hosted it on t-linespeakers.org. I don't recall how i came to learn about it before other but quickly realized how important it was going to be. It has dramatically changed the way TLs are designed and has opened up huge swaths of what i call TL-space.
I also feel privelged to have been at the nexus in time that marked the start of the modern era of TL design. I had been working with Martin for months and was just about ready to go live when i attended Augspurger's 1st presentation of his parallel model based on a different analogy, but generated the same results.
dave
First of all, I paid MJK for a commercial licence and when I offered to renew, he sent my money back. I.e., the fee is a one time deal. Early on, before Martin imposed the unlock fee, I used his worksheets to design some speakers and sold them online. I paid a piece rate for each speaker and each set of plans I sold.
OK, I am one of the good guys. Let's understand the modern mentality: Finders keepers -- losers weepers. If I can download it for free, it's mine. What this means is that if you EVER allow anything to get on the internet, you have lost control. The sensible people understand this and offer up their wares as "Donation ware". These people do it for the love of the art/hobby and hope to cover costs. This forum is one of those -- have YOU paid anything to keep this forum up?
All of my plans and everything on my personal site is copywrited. What does that mean? I hope that once I sell a set of plans that they are not given away to many others. Does it work? How can I know? What can I do it someone starts selling speakers based on my plans? NOTHING! Absolutely nothing. I can't afford a lawyer to pursue a violator. Mark Audio in the manufacture's forum had a post stating about the same for his business. Besides not being able to afford a lawsuit, one in court, the violator will demonstrate some minor deviation from the original that will void the copywrite anyway.
However -- Of all of those cases that prior art was stolen from MJK or anyone else on this site or others, exactly how many of them have actually made a profit? Let me tell you about the boutique/internet only speaker business. There is no such thing as production runs. There is no such thing as economy of scale. Your labor is essentially free. The costs of hired help will break you. At the very best, you will cover costs. Understand that it is a hobby. Personalty, I make enough to cover costs and fund the R&Don the next project. But that is without considering rent and utilities. Nobody is going to make real money by not paying for their design software. Period.
I feel for Martin. I really do. He should have understood what was going to happen and not get mad when it did.
[/rant]
Bob
OK, I am one of the good guys. Let's understand the modern mentality: Finders keepers -- losers weepers. If I can download it for free, it's mine. What this means is that if you EVER allow anything to get on the internet, you have lost control. The sensible people understand this and offer up their wares as "Donation ware". These people do it for the love of the art/hobby and hope to cover costs. This forum is one of those -- have YOU paid anything to keep this forum up?
All of my plans and everything on my personal site is copywrited. What does that mean? I hope that once I sell a set of plans that they are not given away to many others. Does it work? How can I know? What can I do it someone starts selling speakers based on my plans? NOTHING! Absolutely nothing. I can't afford a lawyer to pursue a violator. Mark Audio in the manufacture's forum had a post stating about the same for his business. Besides not being able to afford a lawsuit, one in court, the violator will demonstrate some minor deviation from the original that will void the copywrite anyway.
However -- Of all of those cases that prior art was stolen from MJK or anyone else on this site or others, exactly how many of them have actually made a profit? Let me tell you about the boutique/internet only speaker business. There is no such thing as production runs. There is no such thing as economy of scale. Your labor is essentially free. The costs of hired help will break you. At the very best, you will cover costs. Understand that it is a hobby. Personalty, I make enough to cover costs and fund the R&Don the next project. But that is without considering rent and utilities. Nobody is going to make real money by not paying for their design software. Period.
I feel for Martin. I really do. He should have understood what was going to happen and not get mad when it did.
[/rant]
Bob
At the risk an oversimplified response, I'd say the first word of the abbreviation ( i.e. "Big" - which was also included in the name of Terry's BEN horns) Is there any record of the term BiB, or the (ceiling) boundary loading of full open terminus before this project posted on John's site?
* referencing a simpler,, non folded Voigt Pipe/TQWT that appeared to morph into the commercial Abby
excellent questions all -
and Bob - IINM, you were one of the early adopters and licensees - your POV on both this issue and the general "economics of boutique speaker business" is concisely and unemotionally stated
Last edited:
I don't believe this for a second. Have you ever tried simulating a BIB with Hornresp?
Besides, the ad copy looks like it could have been copied and pasted directly from the BIB thread (which they actually link to). They use a picture of a BIB internals. This is a direct quote "The design was rediscovered in 2005 by Terry Cain, a cabinetmaker from the United States with an interest in speaker designs. This cabinet soon got its nickname BIB (Bigger is Better)..."
Sounds like a BIB to me, not some kind of variant. There's nothing in the ad copy to suggest otherwise, so it's either a BIB or it's false advertising.
In addition, it looks like it comes with an optional suprabaffle, which as you know is heavily associated with modern BIBs.
The company's self described partner has a significant history with the design, including starting the thread that started all of this, and it even says he had some influence on the product.
None of this is proof of anything but it strongly suggests that this design came about as a result of this forum and there is a good chunk of GM's IP in that thing.
Agree. This company needs to stop making excuses and pay what they owe.
Taking this a step further though, why is anyone continuing to sell products that require a license without proof that a license has been acquired? I'm not sure who is legally responsible but ethically I'd expect the person that accepted payment for a product with unlicensed features to be financially liable in the event that the customer won't pay.
This isn't a new problem and in certain cases (like this one) it can be avoided completely.
Last edited:
Very little we do doe snot have a basis in stuff done at least a half-century ago, i can only think of a couple. What has happened is that software tools allow us to explore in much greater depth the hinterland that was 1st opened up by these Pioneers.
dave
The 3D visualization is done by me, for Jeff's site and used with my permission.
I have knowledge of how Kurt's differs from a strict BIB but confidence precludes me from saying how.
And i ask, how can anyone design with hornresp without a lot of knowlwdgable extrapolation?
dave
Fair enough. But can you tell me if this difference (which is for some reason undisclosed in their ad copy) could or could not be simulated just as well with MJK's worksheets? This still sounds like an excuse to me.
You can't in a design like a BIB, which is precisely why I doubt that they used Hornresp. Why bother with Hornresp when MJK's worksheets is so easy and so accurate for BIBs.
Originally Posted by planet10
The 3D visualization is done by me, for Jeff's site and used with my permission.
I have knowledge of how Kurt's differs from a strict BIB but confidence precludes me from saying how.
why exactly would Kurt reveal that IP? - you might just as well ask Ed Schilling how he designed his Horn
No-one's disputing that Martin's worksheets aren't a blessing, or that he shouldn't be compensated for their use by commercial manufacturers, but perhaps the answer is no more insidious than that it (Hornresp) was already in their tool box and they were familiar enough with it to get it to do what they need, even if it takes longer to presumably arrive at the same results? And if that's so, without forensic investigation of their computer, how could it be proved how they got there?
I do some 2D CAD drawing from time to time, and after becoming comfortable with a mid '90s version of Autosketch which I can still get to stumble along in both my work PC and home iMac in XP, I've not been particularly motivated to learn anything more advanced. I'd rather be building speaker boxes or amps than spending time and money updating my drafting skills.
Only because they advertise VERY HEAVILY that it is a BIB. If it's not a BIB then they shouldn't say it is and post pictures of a BIB. Simple enough.
Why is this mysterious deviation from BIB only being discussed now? THEY are the ones that brought it up, and only when a licensing issue was mentioned. Sounds to me like an excuse.
It cant' be proved, I already said that. But again, why would they pay for expensive proprietary designs if they are smart enough to design their own with tools that are not even optimal for the design at hand?
This is just my opinion but it looks like they don't want to pay the license and they are making excuses. I've stated several reasons why I think that.
Of course if they have paid since this discussion started I'd change my opinion very quickly but I'm sure Dave would have mentioned it if they had paid, as he seems to be in contact with them. If they haven't paid yet, why not? Even if it can't be proved that they owe for this design, they certianly do for the double horn.
Last edited:
Martin was never talking about the BiB, though. I believe he was referring to the double-mouth horns. And the designer sub-licensed to the builder, so there's no dispute at all that a license is required. It would seem that Martin is objecting to those who sub-licensed but had thus far failed to ensure the third party was in fact licensed.
GM took the imperfect, highly specific Cain dimensions and turned it into something you can calculate for -any- driver. He added and corrected a lot of the formulas (e.g., ideal offset options, width and depth ratio needed in order to use the simple folding scheme, etc.) This represents is years of experimenting with pipe horns. A BiB built according to GM's formulas (in the spreadsheets) is really a "GM pipe horn" as opposed to a generic TQWT.
GM took the imperfect, highly specific Cain dimensions and turned it into something you can calculate for -any- driver. He added and corrected a lot of the formulas (e.g., ideal offset options, width and depth ratio needed in order to use the simple folding scheme, etc.) This represents is years of experimenting with pipe horns. A BiB built according to GM's formulas (in the spreadsheets) is really a "GM pipe horn" as opposed to a generic TQWT.
Only a prototype of the double horn was ever made andnone were sold.
so there's no dispute at all that a license is required.
Indeed, if any are sold
It was made clear that a licence was required and we were under the (false) understanding that this had been taken care of. We are now working to resolve as we speak. Kurt will get licenced or he will not proceed withmanufacture ofinfringing designs.
Scott & i are directly responsible for aconsiderable number of commercail licences, including some we were never directly involved with, and this is the 1st that feel theu the cracks.
dave
I have yet to see any hornresp sims that don't require some considerabe knowledgable extrapolation. You might as well ask why people do ML-TL sims in hornresp.
Martin's software is better in my estimation (not that i've used it, it isn't Mac friendly), but does require some considerable expense if you actually want to save a file... and why bother if you are familiar with other software.
dave
I don't think it matters if it sells or not. They are advertising it for sale. Did the designer already get paid? Or is he waiting until it sells?
I appreciate the fact that you are working to resolve this, but until it's resolved it's an issue long past due.
Last edited:
You don't need to extrapolate anything with sealed designs or horns simulated with Hornresp. It's the (relatively) small resonant enclosures that can't easily be simulated because of the wildly peaky response since you can't simulate stuffing. Without a bit of stuffing you really can't see what you are doing at all (in a BIB style box) so Hornresp is not ideal for simulating them.
I have no idea why anyone would do mltl sims with Hornresp, I certianly wouldn't encourage this when there are better tools. If you can't afford MJK's worksheets there's always Akabak.
You don't ever really need to save a file. Ever. You can save the entire worksheet as a pdf and you can also save smaller chunks of any given worksheet as pics. This allows you to save all the user inputs (there really aren't that many) and all the graphs. What else do you need?
The real cost - and the issue at hand - is the commercial license.
Last edited:
I don't make any money from the BIB. I just provided instructions on how to build them. I did this because I wanted to collect all I could about this type of speaker, build a pair and enjoy them. I did not want to keep the information to myself and in the spirit of DIY posted it to my site (I am so sorry the links are broken, I am going thru a terribly messy divorce at the moment). The rest of the site is simply an Amazon store. All of us who are interested in making an Amazon store should have one. I make about $25 - $35 per year profit but enjoy it just the same. I originally built the site to learn Search Engine Optimization. Having a site of my own helped me learn. Most of the folks purchase outdoor rock speakers to hide in their gardens. If anyone wants to build an Amazon store send me an email and I will be happy to explain how to get started.
Zilla
Zilla
- Status
- Not open for further replies.