mrfeedback said:S
It sounds like you have good experience in the patents world - I understand that Behringer ripped a Mackie design including pcb artwork complete with original Mackie logos on the pcb.
Any idea of the outcome there, and can relate some ofthe infringements, costs and outcomes of the cases that you were involved in ?.
I'm unfamiliar with that case, sorry. If you'll excuse me for doing so, may I give you the SY Primer on Patents? If all this is too obvious and familiar to you, please excuse me. And the above disclaimer applies: I'm not an attorney.
1. A patent is a license to sue, no more and no less. In exchange for telling the world everything about your invention in enough detail for anyone in your field to duplicate it, you have the right to sue anyone who makes/uses your invention without your permission for a period of time (normally 20 years).
2. Suing is damned expensive. If you're a small guy and the guy ripping you off is a big guy, your chances of prevailing are about equal to that of hitting the lottery.
3. In litigation, the lawyers always win.
If you want to have specifics about my own experiences or just discuss things, feel free to email me.
Skippy,
To quote Grahame,
I reckon most people would not hold the same view of tubes if the visuals were boring, and if SS gear can sound better, then tubes ought to be consigned to museums because of thermal, energy and reliability/endurance issues.
I admire the the intellect behing the Pass amplifiers, and the ones I heard were very pleasing sonically, but again the energy efficiency issues deter me, and I am not willing to compromise on that important factor.
I did not set out to be provocative, and gave some of my view points and some of my experiences.
I suspect that some tube users are locked into a nostalgia trip - I much prefer modern sound reproduction when done correctly.
I also realize that tube electronics do give a particular sonic character that can be very pleasing, but I still do not regard this as the sonic truth.
Eric.
Yes, I am aware of that and is why I wroteNo, it was " the attraction to valves" which would tend to make most of our responses a matter of personal taste and preference.
Threads evolve around here, and whilst probably to most of us tube amplifiers are intrinsically visually fascinating, to my mind that is a criteria of little importance wrt sonics, and the sexiest looking tube stages on earth still will not sway me if the sound does not please.Sort of an extension of Grahams first post here - about much of the appeal of tube gear is the visuals.
To my mind visuals do not matter a hoot, but the sound does, and tube gear is not by definition good, and the same with SS.
To quote Grahame,
Quite apart from the sound, I think tube equipment is way more interesting to look at than solid state stuff. Anyway, what I was thinking of is... would tube stuff have as great a following if all tubes were in metal cans instead of glass, therefore you could not look inside them and see what is happening when they are going. Being such good entertainment for the eyes as well as the ears gives them an extra facet of attraction but I wonder how many people would have taken an interest in them if they weren't so great to stare into when they are going?
I reckon most people would not hold the same view of tubes if the visuals were boring, and if SS gear can sound better, then tubes ought to be consigned to museums because of thermal, energy and reliability/endurance issues.
I admire the the intellect behing the Pass amplifiers, and the ones I heard were very pleasing sonically, but again the energy efficiency issues deter me, and I am not willing to compromise on that important factor.
I did not set out to be provocative, and gave some of my view points and some of my experiences.
I suspect that some tube users are locked into a nostalgia trip - I much prefer modern sound reproduction when done correctly.
I also realize that tube electronics do give a particular sonic character that can be very pleasing, but I still do not regard this as the sonic truth.
Eric.
SY said:
1. A patent is a license to sue, no more and no less. In exchange for telling the world everything about your invention in enough detail for anyone in your field to duplicate it, you have the right to sue anyone who makes/uses your invention without your permission for a period of time (normally 20 years).
Yup, fully understanding of those points.
You mean that if you are the criminal, then if you have suitable lawyers, then you can do what you like.2. Suing is damned expensive. If you're a small guy and the guy ripping you off is a big guy, your chances of prevailing are about equal to that of hitting the lottery.
Yeah, ain't that the truth - I think I recall Dame Edna describing lawyers as being lower than a snakes armpit....3. In litigation, the lawyers always win.
If you want to have specifics about my own experiences or just discuss things, feel free to email me.
Yes, thankyou.
It will take a day or so, and I'll get back to you - I am interested to hear more of your knowledge.
Eric.
You mean that if you are the criminal, then if you have suitable lawyers, then you can do what you like.
What's more important is having a bigger pot of money. It doesn't take Clarence Darrow (sorry, US reference!) to tie up and drain the other side with endless discovery, depositions, and the necessity of hiring exorbitantly expensive expert witnesses.
Bas Horneman said:3 gunshots?
Hello Bas,
I'll bet you are good at cryptic crosswords!
No just reiterating that if your ears are at all important or useful to you. then stay away from 136dB levels - 0.7sec exposure is enough to cause permanent damage.
Sound pressure is sound pressure is sound pressure regardless of black arts practised in its production/reproduction
7N7
Bas Horneman said:Hi 7N7,
The part I like is the fact that if damage has been done..you cant fix it...like glasses can sometimes for your eyes.
Cheers,
Bas
Yes ; now I wish I had spent my life wearing ear=plugs; It was easy to swagger about playing electric guitar.....
7N7
Bas,
If I were you, I'd keep quiet about that, at least while you file your world patent
Cheers,
When the sound is to loud to my liking ...I usually chew up my admission tickit and stick it up my ears...
If I were you, I'd keep quiet about that, at least while you file your world patent
Cheers,
Hi John,
I guess you won't steal my patent or at least use it because for you it is to late?
By the way..a few iterations down the line and my amp is now good enough that I can listen to a classical CD on my amp without whinging! in fact I am very happy with the way it is working now. The final change that made an inordinate change was biasing the heater supply up for my driver. Actually that was not the only thing. I measured the voltage on the 6n1p....was 5,6volts so I wired it up to my filament transformer that was meant only for the upper tube of the mu-follower. And voila..
Cheers,
Bas
Did I tell you that I also added a 1uF auricap to couple the driver to output tube? I read Allan Kimmel again..and he said that a bigger than usual cap is needed in order for the low impedance to be coupled to the next stage...
I guess you won't steal my patent or at least use it because for you it is to late?
By the way..a few iterations down the line and my amp is now good enough that I can listen to a classical CD on my amp without whinging! in fact I am very happy with the way it is working now. The final change that made an inordinate change was biasing the heater supply up for my driver. Actually that was not the only thing. I measured the voltage on the 6n1p....was 5,6volts so I wired it up to my filament transformer that was meant only for the upper tube of the mu-follower. And voila..
Cheers,
Bas
Did I tell you that I also added a 1uF auricap to couple the driver to output tube? I read Allan Kimmel again..and he said that a bigger than usual cap is needed in order for the low impedance to be coupled to the next stage...
COUPLING.
Hi,
Was there an audible difference?
Cheers,
Hi,
Did I tell you that I also added a 1uF auricap to couple the driver to output tube? I read Allan Kimmel again..and he said that a bigger than usual cap is needed in order for the low impedance to be coupled to the next stage...
Was there an audible difference?
Cheers,
so I wired it up to my filament transformer that was meant only for the upper tube of the mu-follower. And voila..
Come to think of it ...the improvement in sound is probably mostly because the driver just got a filament transformer that was not coupled to the rectifier tube and output tube..and not so much that it was biased upwardly...
To summarize...don't know really wat it was..but I'll tell you this..from now on a key thing like the driver is getting it's very own little filament transformer in future amps.
In fact the improvement is so great that I was thinking of creating a new post on the subject. I mean...it is just a IDH tube it should hardly matter how you power the filament?? Why on earth would the HT and filament winding apparantly influence each other THAT much.. I have found other reports that corroborate what I've heard..
Source : http://home.kimo.com.tw/ax_hifi/preamp_supply.htm
Why do we separate the filament supply?
If the filament and high voltage source shares a same power supply transformer, the filament and high voltage would interfere each other. If we could separate both supplies, we could improve the clarity of the sound.
With our actual experience, if we have a separate supply transformer for filament, we would have more transparency, purer, more separation, lower harshness, higher density and wider bandwidth, especially the size and shape of instruments are clearer and solid, with space between instruments and the front-back-left-right of the soundstage clearly defined. This is hardly achievable by even the expensive amplifier. So, adding in a separate filament supply transformer is very beneficial to the sound, this is rarely available in "OEM" amplifiers.
Source : http://home.kimo.com.tw/ax_hifi/preamp_supply.htm
Bas Horneman said:With our actual experience, if we have a separate supply transformer for filament, we would have more transparency, purer, more separation, lower harshness, higher density and wider bandwidth, especially the size and shape of instruments are clearer and solid, with space between instruments and the front-back-left-right of the soundstage clearly defined. This is hardly achievable by even the expensive amplifier.
Bas, c'mon - this is nonsense. The "size and shape of the instruments"???
The filament supply is just a tap on the HV supply winding. Are you suggesting there is coupling back through the rectifier, and filters?
HEATER SUPPLY.
Hi,
While I agree, they don't say why that would be...
IMO, the xformer windings can exhibit some inductive and capacitive coupling if not done properly.
I've alway used separate filament xformers with excellent results on driver and preamp stages.
Cheers,
Hi,
If the filament and high voltage source shares a same power supply transformer, the filament and high voltage would interfere each other. If we could separate both supplies, we could improve the clarity of the sound.
While I agree, they don't say why that would be...
IMO, the xformer windings can exhibit some inductive and capacitive coupling if not done properly.
I've alway used separate filament xformers with excellent results on driver and preamp stages.
Cheers,
Bas, c'mon - this is nonsense. The "size and shape of the instruments"???
I agree with the SPIRIT of the text not word for word. Remember theire native tongue is not english.
In my own words...larger soundstage..more separation...but above all a certain rightness I can't explain. ..now I don't want to get in to "Aural Matrix" territory because then Brett won't answer any of my questions anymore
Why it works? Dunno
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
- Home
- Amplifiers
- Tubes / Valves
- The attraction of vacuum tubes / valves.