theAnonymous1 said:
Interesting....
I also noticed that the rather young looking Dr. Jason Rhode is now President and CEO of Cirrus. Having moved up just this month from Mixed Signal.
Hmmmm.....
Oh, BTW. I contacted Cirrus yesterday about the Tripath deal. Doubt they will get back to me, they seem to be closed lipped about the whole thing.
Diogenio,
I think you are spot on about Tripath and the dynamics of why they failed. But I also think a bit off on why those dynamics were allowed to persist. Tripath was in business for a fair number of years, they fully understood what their cost structures were and shame on them if they did not understand where the market demanded their prices had to be. I must assume they knew. Yet in all that time they did not correct. In fact, in all that time they only produced two single die parts. I think we understand why they failed but I think it should also be understood that this failure was in no way inevitable. Some of this can surely be laid at the feet of their management. It is not all a case of big bad larger companies crushing the little guy. In fact Silicon valley is rife with tales of well run smaller companies creating innovative technology and absolutely knocking the socks off of the big guys. Had Tripath been a better run company this could have been the case for them as well. They were in the class-D game early with the best technology and had an opportunity to dominate. But they obviously made bad decisions and failed to capitilize on their advantages.
As to Panomaniac's comment on Cirrus being tight lipped about the deal, I think it is obvious why. According to posts elsewhere on the web Cirrus was observed to have won the YTripath IP at auction earlier this month. But there is no indication anywhere that the deal has actually closed yet. Until such time as the transaction closes (and there can't be a 100% guarantee that it will) it would be completely irresponsible of Cirrus to comment on it. When and if the deal is closed, I would assume that Cirrus would be obligated by law to disclose a purchase of this magnitude.
I think you are spot on about Tripath and the dynamics of why they failed. But I also think a bit off on why those dynamics were allowed to persist. Tripath was in business for a fair number of years, they fully understood what their cost structures were and shame on them if they did not understand where the market demanded their prices had to be. I must assume they knew. Yet in all that time they did not correct. In fact, in all that time they only produced two single die parts. I think we understand why they failed but I think it should also be understood that this failure was in no way inevitable. Some of this can surely be laid at the feet of their management. It is not all a case of big bad larger companies crushing the little guy. In fact Silicon valley is rife with tales of well run smaller companies creating innovative technology and absolutely knocking the socks off of the big guys. Had Tripath been a better run company this could have been the case for them as well. They were in the class-D game early with the best technology and had an opportunity to dominate. But they obviously made bad decisions and failed to capitilize on their advantages.
As to Panomaniac's comment on Cirrus being tight lipped about the deal, I think it is obvious why. According to posts elsewhere on the web Cirrus was observed to have won the YTripath IP at auction earlier this month. But there is no indication anywhere that the deal has actually closed yet. Until such time as the transaction closes (and there can't be a 100% guarantee that it will) it would be completely irresponsible of Cirrus to comment on it. When and if the deal is closed, I would assume that Cirrus would be obligated by law to disclose a purchase of this magnitude.
Well, I have a butt load of worthless Tripath shares (TRPH.PK -->$.0005/share as of today) and still have another large lot of Cirrus Logic Shares (CRUS -> $7.44/Shr as of today).
Anyway, I jokingly mentioned Cirrus as a potential buyer of Tripath a few months back, but I am surprised it really seems to be happening...
So it looks like I may continue having a vested interest in Tripath indirectly...of course a good product doesn't alway yield big bucks,
But one thing for sure, Cirrus got a monster deal with the purchase of Tripath assets.
Anyway, I jokingly mentioned Cirrus as a potential buyer of Tripath a few months back, but I am surprised it really seems to be happening...
So it looks like I may continue having a vested interest in Tripath indirectly...of course a good product doesn't alway yield big bucks,
But one thing for sure, Cirrus got a monster deal with the purchase of Tripath assets.
Steve:
Very good comments and observation. Well, marketing projections are just that...projections. Many things can occur between valid market research and reality when it comes time to belly up to the bar.
Tripath might have performed flawed research in either the market demand, their cost of production, or possibly both. They also could have performed excellent research, but suddenly found that the market landscape changed dramatically...possibly the result of a major player introducing a new component, or at a much lower than expected selling price, etc. etc. "Let's save a penny," said JVC, Pioneer, etc...
I've always thought that to succeed in the risky and high-paced silicon environment, one needs to have an excellent product, very accurate market and production research, stellar management and workforce, and the biggest component...LUCK (ok...call it "timing" for the non-superstitious). Luck alone will not ensure success, but neither will all of the other elements, as the marketplace is full of top-notch companies, some of which will fail no matter what they do.
Tripath would probably make a good case study for graduate business classes. When all the information is laid out, it is often easy to see where they might have gone wrong. Hindsight is 20-20. I agree that they probably should have done something much earlier on. Wright was not brought aboard until 2002, and by then Tripath was probably already in the terminally ill stages. How much blood can one lose? If they had sold or licensed this technology from the start...rather than attempting to manufacture and control it themselves, the Tripath principals would have been sitting on many, many millions of $$...with much less headache, I'd bet.
For those with an interest on how small, hightech firms do the dance with mega-corporations...ultimately trying to get bought out, read "High Stakes, No Prisoners" by Fergueson. His tiny firm developed the "Front Page" web design software that Microsoft now owns.
Apparently Mr. Tripath did not read this book...
Dennis Lusis, MBA
San Diego, CA
Very good comments and observation. Well, marketing projections are just that...projections. Many things can occur between valid market research and reality when it comes time to belly up to the bar.
Tripath might have performed flawed research in either the market demand, their cost of production, or possibly both. They also could have performed excellent research, but suddenly found that the market landscape changed dramatically...possibly the result of a major player introducing a new component, or at a much lower than expected selling price, etc. etc. "Let's save a penny," said JVC, Pioneer, etc...
I've always thought that to succeed in the risky and high-paced silicon environment, one needs to have an excellent product, very accurate market and production research, stellar management and workforce, and the biggest component...LUCK (ok...call it "timing" for the non-superstitious). Luck alone will not ensure success, but neither will all of the other elements, as the marketplace is full of top-notch companies, some of which will fail no matter what they do.
Tripath would probably make a good case study for graduate business classes. When all the information is laid out, it is often easy to see where they might have gone wrong. Hindsight is 20-20. I agree that they probably should have done something much earlier on. Wright was not brought aboard until 2002, and by then Tripath was probably already in the terminally ill stages. How much blood can one lose? If they had sold or licensed this technology from the start...rather than attempting to manufacture and control it themselves, the Tripath principals would have been sitting on many, many millions of $$...with much less headache, I'd bet.
For those with an interest on how small, hightech firms do the dance with mega-corporations...ultimately trying to get bought out, read "High Stakes, No Prisoners" by Fergueson. His tiny firm developed the "Front Page" web design software that Microsoft now owns.
Apparently Mr. Tripath did not read this book...
Dennis Lusis, MBA
San Diego, CA
IMHO, Tripath was in the wrong market segment. It's hard to compete on price with classD for amps < 50W. Class AB amps cost $.5 per channel of 25W or so. Chokes and low ESR caps for classD cost more than that, leaving nothing for the IC.
One may argue "but what about savings in power supply?"
Manufacturers of TV don't care much about power supply. A few more watts don't bother them when they already have hundreds of watts around.
Then there are EMI issues of classD that they don't have with class AB.
One may argue "but what about savings in power supply?"
Manufacturers of TV don't care much about power supply. A few more watts don't bother them when they already have hundreds of watts around.
Then there are EMI issues of classD that they don't have with class AB.
I believe an other reason why they didn`t become popular among consumer product manufacturers is that they were not so suitable for complex loads because of the absence of post-filter feedback.
By the way, is there any alternative for the audiophile community that could replace the Tripath chips?
By the way, is there any alternative for the audiophile community that could replace the Tripath chips?
If my memory servers me right then they had their webpage (with a lot of sales babble !!!) up for years even before having any product they could sell. The only one so far, that I know of, who could get along making bald promises and delayed products is Bill Gates. But for small companies such things are not good business practice.
something different:
Many times it isn't the performance of a product that detremines its commercial success. Very often it is a question of the right product at the right time. They were maybe a little early (i.e. before the wide acceptance that class-d has nowadays) and "the fuel was used up" before the class-d business really took off.
And yes, there are those amps with better load-independance than Tripath, although it won't have been rocket-science to adapt them for post-filter feedback.
Regards
Charles
something different:
Many times it isn't the performance of a product that detremines its commercial success. Very often it is a question of the right product at the right time. They were maybe a little early (i.e. before the wide acceptance that class-d has nowadays) and "the fuel was used up" before the class-d business really took off.
And yes, there are those amps with better load-independance than Tripath, although it won't have been rocket-science to adapt them for post-filter feedback.
Regards
Charles
I well remember, their AN-1 CLASS-T DIGITAL AUDIO AMPLIFIER TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW A Technical White Paper Revised: April 12, 1999. Even my very first class D amp, that i've built in the 1999 too, gave much better THD figures, then "FFT of Class - D PWM Amplifier" from page #2 AN1! So, the phrase: "Traditional Class-D amplifiers are unable to achieve this level of performance. Their fundamental underlying technology is self-limiting and, as a result, Class-D amplifiers will never be able to approach the sound fidelity of a Class-T amplifier." is a classical marketing BS. 
Tripath Advancements
This thread keeps wanting to go elsewhere. For some reason, it appears that a few individuals are determined to invalidate the technical claims made by Tripath Technology. It is commonly accepted that marketing claims are often exaggerated in an effort to sell products; however, keep in mind that Tripath's competitors all do the same thing. Zero sum game, eh?
While this is not an appropriate forum to debate Tripath's technical claims, as a veteran electrical engineer (30+ years experience), I do not find them to be far fetched or gross distortions of the truth. Tripath DID bring considerable innovation to the switch-mode amplifier domain, and they were granted numerous patents to support their claims. I found that Tripath's US Patent #6,362,683 was elegant in its sheer simplicity. Read it here: http://www.uspto.gov/patft/
The debate can go on ad nauseum about how good or bad Tripath amplifiers sound, or how their technical claims are all BS. So be it, each person has a right to an opinion...but please dont tell others that their hearing is invalid, or that they cannot discern a quality musical presentation from a poor one! I tend to believe that dogmatic opinions are usually fueled by overheated emotions, rather than a careful assessment of all relevant elements.
I happen to like the Tripath sound...a lot. It reminds me of my beloved tube amplifiers in the midrange. While the top end is a bit steely by comparison, one needs to look at the big picture and be a bit forgiving...NO amplifier, at least ones that I've heard, are perfect in ALL respects. These are pretty amazing little chips, and at the price point it is a no-brainer.
Sad to see them go...
Dennis Lusis, MBA
San Diego, CA
This thread keeps wanting to go elsewhere. For some reason, it appears that a few individuals are determined to invalidate the technical claims made by Tripath Technology. It is commonly accepted that marketing claims are often exaggerated in an effort to sell products; however, keep in mind that Tripath's competitors all do the same thing. Zero sum game, eh?
While this is not an appropriate forum to debate Tripath's technical claims, as a veteran electrical engineer (30+ years experience), I do not find them to be far fetched or gross distortions of the truth. Tripath DID bring considerable innovation to the switch-mode amplifier domain, and they were granted numerous patents to support their claims. I found that Tripath's US Patent #6,362,683 was elegant in its sheer simplicity. Read it here: http://www.uspto.gov/patft/
The debate can go on ad nauseum about how good or bad Tripath amplifiers sound, or how their technical claims are all BS. So be it, each person has a right to an opinion...but please dont tell others that their hearing is invalid, or that they cannot discern a quality musical presentation from a poor one! I tend to believe that dogmatic opinions are usually fueled by overheated emotions, rather than a careful assessment of all relevant elements.
I happen to like the Tripath sound...a lot. It reminds me of my beloved tube amplifiers in the midrange. While the top end is a bit steely by comparison, one needs to look at the big picture and be a bit forgiving...NO amplifier, at least ones that I've heard, are perfect in ALL respects. These are pretty amazing little chips, and at the price point it is a no-brainer.
Sad to see them go...
Dennis Lusis, MBA
San Diego, CA
Here, Here Diogenio. I couldn't agree more.
And I also like the Tripath sound quite a bit. My heavily modified Dynaco Stereo 70 is now gathering dust in favor of listening to a tweaked Trends TA-10.1 in my home office. At the levels I listen, the little Tripath simply sounds better to my ears.
And I also like the Tripath sound quite a bit. My heavily modified Dynaco Stereo 70 is now gathering dust in favor of listening to a tweaked Trends TA-10.1 in my home office. At the levels I listen, the little Tripath simply sounds better to my ears.
You beat me to it, Dennis!
_________
Yawn.....
That's been beat to death on this forum over the years, as if Tripath were the only tech company to ever do this.
The Monday morning quarterback - armchair general stuff is fun, but I'm more interested in the future.
If Cirrus Logic does turn out to be the new owner of the Tripath I.P., what will they do with it? That's harder to speculate on.
Let's hope that they continue production and development of the chips. After all, isn't why they bought it?
As Brian says, only time will tell. But hope springs eternal!
_________
Yawn.....
That's been beat to death on this forum over the years, as if Tripath were the only tech company to ever do this.
The Monday morning quarterback - armchair general stuff is fun, but I'm more interested in the future.
If Cirrus Logic does turn out to be the new owner of the Tripath I.P., what will they do with it? That's harder to speculate on.
Let's hope that they continue production and development of the chips. After all, isn't why they bought it?As Brian says, only time will tell. But hope springs eternal!
v-bro said:
IF Cirrus acquired Tripath's assets, IP, etc. and wanted to make a profit they would have to get some large companies to start using their products instead of a competing company's product. They certainly cannot rely on the "audiophile" market alone. To get some large companies to use your product it usually has to have some advantage over the competing product. Usually they look for cost first. Tied into that is what packages the IC is available in, how many external components are needed, how easy it is to design around it, how easy it is to control it, reliability, efficiency, radiated emissions, radiated immunity, etc.
Cirrus Logic
I have designed Class-D amps for years. I really liked the TA2022 chip but we went with an ICE250A instead as we could buy an amp ready made for the same price as using the Tripath device. Lately what has stopped me from using Tripath is that I was unsure if they would continue to be available.
I am an OEM designer with Cirrus DSPs and CODECs. Considering Cirrus has taken forever to get a Class-D chip sample in my hand, it will be interesting to see which of the Tripath products they will start to make and in what sort of form.
Dan
I have designed Class-D amps for years. I really liked the TA2022 chip but we went with an ICE250A instead as we could buy an amp ready made for the same price as using the Tripath device. Lately what has stopped me from using Tripath is that I was unsure if they would continue to be available.
I am an OEM designer with Cirrus DSPs and CODECs. Considering Cirrus has taken forever to get a Class-D chip sample in my hand, it will be interesting to see which of the Tripath products they will start to make and in what sort of form.
Dan
Tripath is not yet dead. Not until September 20. Here is the last filing to SEC:
"On August 8, 2007, Tripath Technology, Inc. (the "Company") filed a Disclosure Statement and proposed Plan of Reorganization in its voluntary chapter 11 bankruptcy case, Case No. 076-50358, pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division (the "Court"), located at 280 South First Street, San Jose, California. The Disclosure Statement and Plan were filed pursuant to Section 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. Sec. 1121, et seq.) and a hearing on the Disclosure Statement is scheduled for September 20, 2007. If the Disclosure Statement is approved by the Court, the creditors of the Company will be asked to vote on acceptance of the Plan. Among many other provisions, the proposed Plan provides that all existing shares of stock, including warrants, options and all other forms of equity interest in the Company will be canceled upon the effective date of the Plan, and that equity interest holders will receive nothing in exchange. Complete copies of the filed Disclosure Statement and proposed Plan are available from the Court clerk's office at United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division ,280 South First Street, San Jose, California, on line for a fee through PACER at www.canb.uscourts.gov or upon written request for free to Perkins Coie LLP, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, WA 98101, ATTN: Mary Lou Maag, or mlmaag at perkinscoie dot com "
"On August 8, 2007, Tripath Technology, Inc. (the "Company") filed a Disclosure Statement and proposed Plan of Reorganization in its voluntary chapter 11 bankruptcy case, Case No. 076-50358, pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division (the "Court"), located at 280 South First Street, San Jose, California. The Disclosure Statement and Plan were filed pursuant to Section 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. Sec. 1121, et seq.) and a hearing on the Disclosure Statement is scheduled for September 20, 2007. If the Disclosure Statement is approved by the Court, the creditors of the Company will be asked to vote on acceptance of the Plan. Among many other provisions, the proposed Plan provides that all existing shares of stock, including warrants, options and all other forms of equity interest in the Company will be canceled upon the effective date of the Plan, and that equity interest holders will receive nothing in exchange. Complete copies of the filed Disclosure Statement and proposed Plan are available from the Court clerk's office at United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division ,280 South First Street, San Jose, California, on line for a fee through PACER at www.canb.uscourts.gov or upon written request for free to Perkins Coie LLP, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, WA 98101, ATTN: Mary Lou Maag, or mlmaag at perkinscoie dot com "
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.