Well form should follow function BUT! today flash sells. Look at whats being offered in the common market as far as anything.People today assume (and we all know what that stands for) that the more dials , meters , gages and displays and wiz bang controls on anything means higher quality.I have sold several clones locally and as most ask "wheres all the controls?".The only thing that sells them is the sound , not the flash.
ron
ron
my two cents
The way I see it, Peter had no intention of building an amplifier that would trade off the appearance, design, or concept of a 47lab amplifier. In fact, Peter has said himself that he didn't even intent to trade his chip amp; it was just an investigation into the buzz surrounding monolithic amplifier design.
For those of you that have been taking issue with the topology of the Amp-1, I'd like to point you toward the following letter:
I don't think anyone would have such a problem if it had been the original acrylic amp that had made it to market, which brings us to the issue of the amp-1's cosmetic design.
Now, if you think Peter designed the case for the Amp-1 in order to rip off Sakura Systems, then there's nothing more to be said, is there? In that case, you've already made your decision.
I personally think Peter chose the design that he did because it was the best suited for his amplifier. I'm sure Junji Kimura chose the design that he did because it was the best suited for his amplifier. Sure, some gray area results from the similarity between the two. However, I don't think that there's enough gray to warrant a retraction or redesign of the Amp-1. I really don't think that the Amp-1 is going to sell because people think its a low cost knockoff of the Gaincard, and that's the real issue here, isn't it?
As far as I'm concerned, people are going to buy an Amp-1 because its a Peter Daniel amplifier.
And that's what I think about that.
--Jordan
The way I see it, Peter had no intention of building an amplifier that would trade off the appearance, design, or concept of a 47lab amplifier. In fact, Peter has said himself that he didn't even intent to trade his chip amp; it was just an investigation into the buzz surrounding monolithic amplifier design.
For those of you that have been taking issue with the topology of the Amp-1, I'd like to point you toward the following letter:
I don't think anyone would have such a problem if it had been the original acrylic amp that had made it to market, which brings us to the issue of the amp-1's cosmetic design.
Now, if you think Peter designed the case for the Amp-1 in order to rip off Sakura Systems, then there's nothing more to be said, is there? In that case, you've already made your decision.
I personally think Peter chose the design that he did because it was the best suited for his amplifier. I'm sure Junji Kimura chose the design that he did because it was the best suited for his amplifier. Sure, some gray area results from the similarity between the two. However, I don't think that there's enough gray to warrant a retraction or redesign of the Amp-1. I really don't think that the Amp-1 is going to sell because people think its a low cost knockoff of the Gaincard, and that's the real issue here, isn't it?
As far as I'm concerned, people are going to buy an Amp-1 because its a Peter Daniel amplifier.
And that's what I think about that.
--Jordan
Re: my two cents
I was a little surprised at the design strategy as well. For several Ks a pop, you are talking about high-end of the market. and the buyers would be affraid of buying into a knockoff (at that price).
If I were to design this, I would make sure that amp1 looks and feels totally different from the original gaincard. Thus to be completely free of any hint of non-originality.
JordanG said:
I was a little surprised at the design strategy as well. For several Ks a pop, you are talking about high-end of the market. and the buyers would be affraid of buying into a knockoff (at that price).
If I were to design this, I would make sure that amp1 looks and feels totally different from the original gaincard. Thus to be completely free of any hint of non-originality.
Biting the forum that feeds you.......
"Now, what was exactly "a lot of input input from members of this forum, that seemed strangely absent as well"? Everybody knows that I used Thorsten schematic as a starting point and some version of this schematic was included in a review."
I can only hope you are kidding with this statement. First of all, I was not looking for recognition for my contributions. Most of the stuff I post is old news to most serious audio designers. Many of these topics are well over a decade old and are in print and in the public domain. Second, I think some the other threads might of had more influence than the GC thread, rectifier noise, capacitor microphonics, layout and grounding, component sonics, and all the other things that are as important as the schematic. Third, you sure spend a lot of time on this forum for it not to be an influence on your design efforts. Maybe you would be better off spending the time on your own R and D and not be distracted by others opinions and experience. You have created ill will with an established competitor with the internal construction comparison photos, a bad move for a completely unestablish company. I really fear your reviewer has compromised himself, and perhaps you as well, with this controversy. I have no problem with trying to compete with a specific product, it happens in every industry. My problem is the exploitation of public forums for commercial designs, which can easily do more harm than good. Having been through introducing high products before, when the market was much easier to enter, I would think very carefully about what I put in print and find somebody with experience in marketing. I would pick my reveiwers carefully as well. I would also worry more about competitors at the lower price end with a more established presence and greating marketing skills. They are there now and there will be more for this type of product in the future. I honestly wish you luck in your endeavor. I think you are going to find that you need it, in a saturated marketplace like high end audio. I have seen excellent products with good reveiws in magazines like Stereophile crash and burn due to a lack of marketing resources and skills. If you think sonics and cosmetics alone can sell a product, I fear you are in for a rude awakening.
"Now, what was exactly "a lot of input input from members of this forum, that seemed strangely absent as well"? Everybody knows that I used Thorsten schematic as a starting point and some version of this schematic was included in a review."
I can only hope you are kidding with this statement. First of all, I was not looking for recognition for my contributions. Most of the stuff I post is old news to most serious audio designers. Many of these topics are well over a decade old and are in print and in the public domain. Second, I think some the other threads might of had more influence than the GC thread, rectifier noise, capacitor microphonics, layout and grounding, component sonics, and all the other things that are as important as the schematic. Third, you sure spend a lot of time on this forum for it not to be an influence on your design efforts. Maybe you would be better off spending the time on your own R and D and not be distracted by others opinions and experience. You have created ill will with an established competitor with the internal construction comparison photos, a bad move for a completely unestablish company. I really fear your reviewer has compromised himself, and perhaps you as well, with this controversy. I have no problem with trying to compete with a specific product, it happens in every industry. My problem is the exploitation of public forums for commercial designs, which can easily do more harm than good. Having been through introducing high products before, when the market was much easier to enter, I would think very carefully about what I put in print and find somebody with experience in marketing. I would pick my reveiwers carefully as well. I would also worry more about competitors at the lower price end with a more established presence and greating marketing skills. They are there now and there will be more for this type of product in the future. I honestly wish you luck in your endeavor. I think you are going to find that you need it, in a saturated marketplace like high end audio. I have seen excellent products with good reveiws in magazines like Stereophile crash and burn due to a lack of marketing resources and skills. If you think sonics and cosmetics alone can sell a product, I fear you are in for a rude awakening.
Re: Biting the forum that feeds you.......
Thanks for a good advice, too bad it came late.
I am not kidding.
While I learnt a lot from this forum, the structure, the layout and the rest of AMP-1' design is not influenced by a single post I've read here (except for the original schematic). I did my own R&D and shared my every step on a way. It's as simple as that. If you think otherwise, correct me.
While this amp may seem like a big business venture, it is not for me (it may be for my partner). What matters to me mostly, is pushing the limits of a design and searching for even better implementations. If the amp succeeds in a marketplace, it's fine, if not, I won't be disapaointed at all. A bit sad, maybe
Thanks for a good advice, too bad it came late.
Fred Dieckmann said:
I am not kidding.
While I learnt a lot from this forum, the structure, the layout and the rest of AMP-1' design is not influenced by a single post I've read here (except for the original schematic). I did my own R&D and shared my every step on a way. It's as simple as that. If you think otherwise, correct me.
While this amp may seem like a big business venture, it is not for me (it may be for my partner). What matters to me mostly, is pushing the limits of a design and searching for even better implementations. If the amp succeeds in a marketplace, it's fine, if not, I won't be disapaointed at all. A bit sad, maybe
Addendum to basic intellectual property rules
Even if a design, marque or image is not copyrighted, trademarked or otherwise legally protected, others may still be prevented from using it commercially since it has been associated with the owner for a long time. This is rare but has been known to happen.
One possible example of this is the big "B" shaped ribbon used by the Hudson's Bay Company. As one of the world's oldest (if not the oldest) surviving firms, it probably no longer needs to register the logo as a trademark. It may never have.
If it had offered the GC in its current form (double brick with two connecting slabs) for a number of years or decades continuously without changes, then 47 Lab might have a grandfather clause on the shape. Since they haven't, this approach is unlikely to stand up in a legal setting. Once again, check your lawyer as YMMV.
Peter, don't be scared off by the naysayers. The sharks are your best advisors now. If they are iffy, then change it. If not, don't. If you think acrylic is better anyway, why not change now. Then your unit will be superior in every way.
I hope you can prove that those who can't, complain and those who do... retire.
ensen.
Even if a design, marque or image is not copyrighted, trademarked or otherwise legally protected, others may still be prevented from using it commercially since it has been associated with the owner for a long time. This is rare but has been known to happen.
One possible example of this is the big "B" shaped ribbon used by the Hudson's Bay Company. As one of the world's oldest (if not the oldest) surviving firms, it probably no longer needs to register the logo as a trademark. It may never have.
If it had offered the GC in its current form (double brick with two connecting slabs) for a number of years or decades continuously without changes, then 47 Lab might have a grandfather clause on the shape. Since they haven't, this approach is unlikely to stand up in a legal setting. Once again, check your lawyer as YMMV.
Peter, don't be scared off by the naysayers. The sharks are your best advisors now. If they are iffy, then change it. If not, don't. If you think acrylic is better anyway, why not change now. Then your unit will be superior in every way.
I hope you can prove that those who can't, complain and those who do... retire.
ensen.Re: Re: Industrial Design
I am an Industrial Designer. We do have a reason for existing. I know that an I.D. consultant may not be in the budget as this is a garage adventure gone commercial. I applaud the commercialization but clearly Peter's skill set here mainly is in fabrication and electronics not Industrial Design. But the guy is such a multi-talented SOB that most everything he does looks good too. But the case could have used a bit of originality. The state of Audio Industrial Design is worth another thread. What is it supposed to look like? Clean unadorned boxes are NOT form follows function. If it were it would look like the crazy tube amps with things exposed, etc. It is minimalist and Modernist and that aesthetic has a history in the design of architecture, etc. Get a student designer at the Ontario College of Art to give you a hand if nothing else. But overall I wish you all the best and thanks for your contributons to this forum which has resulted in my own GC. I should talk about design tho'. Mine looks like an unadorned NAD box(yeah even more unadorned than a NAD). Pictures soon but try to stay awake when you see them.
jh6you said:
I am an Industrial Designer. We do have a reason for existing. I know that an I.D. consultant may not be in the budget as this is a garage adventure gone commercial. I applaud the commercialization but clearly Peter's skill set here mainly is in fabrication and electronics not Industrial Design. But the guy is such a multi-talented SOB that most everything he does looks good too. But the case could have used a bit of originality. The state of Audio Industrial Design is worth another thread. What is it supposed to look like? Clean unadorned boxes are NOT form follows function. If it were it would look like the crazy tube amps with things exposed, etc. It is minimalist and Modernist and that aesthetic has a history in the design of architecture, etc. Get a student designer at the Ontario College of Art to give you a hand if nothing else. But overall I wish you all the best and thanks for your contributons to this forum which has resulted in my own GC. I should talk about design tho'. Mine looks like an unadorned NAD box(yeah even more unadorned than a NAD). Pictures soon but try to stay awake when you see them.
I've been re-reading the thread and a couple of things have really bothered me.
To Peter: I'm sorry for the flak you're getting about the case. I'm an industrial designer too and sometimes I think the whole field is just a bunch of elitists who think nobody else know anything about design. For this, Peter, I apologize.
To the other designers: Peter has already said this was a design study. He wanted to know if it could be done. It was the equivalent of a class project. You have no idea what level or range his design skills are at. He could very well be designing the next enclosure to be copied and mimicked by the rest. Don't assume!
To carlosfm: You are right to say that various patents have been granted for frivolous things. But before you pass judgement, your honour, let me tell you, the USPTO is fighting my employer really hard for our patent application and so I have to assume that even the "ridiculous" patents have been argued over... a lot! It's cost our company about $60K for that last 3 years and we are still about another year out from a final decision. If 47 Lab owns any of the prior art (aka granted patents), Danielsan can have a pretty serious legal wrangle ahead. Heck, if anybody else owns a patent that might cover the work, the price of could be ownership of the overall design, the circuit, profits and even penalties just for infringement. It is best to check now before any actual sales have occurred so as to make the necessary manuevers.
ensen.
To Peter: I'm sorry for the flak you're getting about the case. I'm an industrial designer too and sometimes I think the whole field is just a bunch of elitists who think nobody else know anything about design. For this, Peter, I apologize.
To the other designers: Peter has already said this was a design study. He wanted to know if it could be done. It was the equivalent of a class project. You have no idea what level or range his design skills are at. He could very well be designing the next enclosure to be copied and mimicked by the rest. Don't assume!
To carlosfm: You are right to say that various patents have been granted for frivolous things. But before you pass judgement, your honour, let me tell you, the USPTO is fighting my employer really hard for our patent application and so I have to assume that even the "ridiculous" patents have been argued over... a lot! It's cost our company about $60K for that last 3 years and we are still about another year out from a final decision. If 47 Lab owns any of the prior art (aka granted patents), Danielsan can have a pretty serious legal wrangle ahead. Heck, if anybody else owns a patent that might cover the work, the price of could be ownership of the overall design, the circuit, profits and even penalties just for infringement. It is best to check now before any actual sales have occurred so as to make the necessary manuevers.
ensen.Come on...
Of course I care about the design, it's the most important thing.
You didn't understand, man.
I was refering to the general aspect of a car these days.
Until, say, the 40s-50s, each car was unique and immediately recognizable.
A Beetle will always be a Beetle and a Mini will always be a Mini.
If you see a car passing on the other end of the street you'll have some difficulty in recognizing if it's a Corsa, a Fiesta or a Punto.
Looking at a distace they all look the same.
You were making incorrect assumptions from what I said, because if I buy a car I really like to know what I'm buying.
You would'n whant to discuss mechanics with me, and this is not the right place.
Do you know how to tune a carb, or you were born in the "injection" age?
jh6you said:
Of course I care about the design, it's the most important thing.
You didn't understand, man.
I was refering to the general aspect of a car these days.
Until, say, the 40s-50s, each car was unique and immediately recognizable.
A Beetle will always be a Beetle and a Mini will always be a Mini.
If you see a car passing on the other end of the street you'll have some difficulty in recognizing if it's a Corsa, a Fiesta or a Punto.
Looking at a distace they all look the same.
You were making incorrect assumptions from what I said, because if I buy a car I really like to know what I'm buying.
You would'n whant to discuss mechanics with me, and this is not the right place.
Do you know how to tune a carb, or you were born in the "injection" age?
carlosfm said:
Carlos
I think that the most important thing in audio is the sound quality
and the 2nd one is the cosmetic design, and then others follow.
Here is my point. Peter Daniel's amplifier should remind me (or us)
of Peter Daniel, not others, and of course it should provide a nice
look.
You would'n whant to discuss mechanics with me, ...
No, I don't want to discuss mechanics with you in this thread.
JH
purplepeople said:I've been re-reading the thread and a couple of things have really bothered me.
To Peter: I'm sorry for the flak you're getting about the case. I'm an industrial designer too and sometimes I think the whole field is just a bunch of elitists who think nobody else know anything about design. For this, Peter, I apologize.
To the other designers: Peter has already said this was a design study. He wanted to know if it could be done. It was the equivalent of a class project. You have no idea what level or range his design skills are at. He could very well be designing the next enclosure to be copied and mimicked by the rest. Don't assume!
To carlosfm: You are right to say that various patents have been granted for frivolous things. But before you pass judgement, your honour, let me tell you, the USPTO is fighting my employer really hard for our patent application and so I have to assume that even the "ridiculous" patents have been argued over... a lot! It's cost our company about $60K for that last 3 years and we are still about another year out from a final decision. If 47 Lab owns any of the prior art (aka granted patents), Danielsan can have a pretty serious legal wrangle ahead. Heck, if anybody else owns a patent that might cover the work, the price of could be ownership of the overall design, the circuit, profits and even penalties just for infringement. It is best to check now before any actual sales have occurred so as to make the necessary manuevers.
Don't apologize for me you *****.
Sitting in front of me is the march 2002 copy of HiFi News. n it is a group test of phono stages including the Camelot Technologies Lancelot Pro.
This evil device is dainty, black, has white graphics on the front panel, has an outboard power supply and has a chassis comprised of 2 black boxes with a space in between, linked only by the front and rear panels. (which incedentaly is praised in the review as being sound engineering practice)
Being a phono stage it uses a different circuit topology to the gaincard but it's quite obviously just a cheap attempt at cashing in.
GIVE ME A BREAK
Peters amp looks nothing like a gaincard any more than Coplands kind of taller than you feel is ideal silver fronted valve power amps with silver knobs on each side of the front look like AudioNotes kinda taller than you feel is ideal black fronted valve power amps with brass knobs on either side of the front.
The styling cues are different, the finishes are different, the topology is different, the feet are different, the main chip is also different IIRC. He's done his own componentry testing over a long period of time. They aint the same amps and neither of them is trying to be.
Let it rest huh?
drew
This evil device is dainty, black, has white graphics on the front panel, has an outboard power supply and has a chassis comprised of 2 black boxes with a space in between, linked only by the front and rear panels. (which incedentaly is praised in the review as being sound engineering practice)
Being a phono stage it uses a different circuit topology to the gaincard but it's quite obviously just a cheap attempt at cashing in.
GIVE ME A BREAK
Peters amp looks nothing like a gaincard any more than Coplands kind of taller than you feel is ideal silver fronted valve power amps with silver knobs on each side of the front look like AudioNotes kinda taller than you feel is ideal black fronted valve power amps with brass knobs on either side of the front.
The styling cues are different, the finishes are different, the topology is different, the feet are different, the main chip is also different IIRC. He's done his own componentry testing over a long period of time. They aint the same amps and neither of them is trying to be.
Let it rest huh?
drew
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.