Hello der,
Well well this is interesting. They make some mighty big claims don't they? "We're the first to be the best" blaaaaah blaaah blaaaaaah.
Section 30 of their patent:
"I have discovered that it is possible to modulate the slopes of the carrier reference signal in proportion to the derivative of the input signal"
Between the lines: (with the use of a DSP to generate the clock and not use a self oscillating design or post filter feedback as an attempt to circumvent Mueta's patent)
Basically it looks like they went to a whole lot of effort to try and step around Mueta.
They use a DSP to create a central derivative to modulate the carrier with.
It doesn't use post filter feedback, but they didn't rule it out the possibility of it either (Mueta).
The whole thing looks overly complicated, how good can it be they give no specs or anything, though it probably sounds decent.
http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO2004073161&F=0&QPN=WO2004073161
The claims on the patent are hilarious.
Shame on them.
Regards
Well well this is interesting. They make some mighty big claims don't they? "We're the first to be the best" blaaaaah blaaah blaaaaaah.
Section 30 of their patent:
"I have discovered that it is possible to modulate the slopes of the carrier reference signal in proportion to the derivative of the input signal"
Between the lines: (with the use of a DSP to generate the clock and not use a self oscillating design or post filter feedback as an attempt to circumvent Mueta's patent)
Basically it looks like they went to a whole lot of effort to try and step around Mueta.
They use a DSP to create a central derivative to modulate the carrier with.
It doesn't use post filter feedback, but they didn't rule it out the possibility of it either (Mueta).
The whole thing looks overly complicated, how good can it be they give no specs or anything, though it probably sounds decent.
http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO2004073161&F=0&QPN=WO2004073161
The claims on the patent are hilarious.
Shame on them.
Regards
Hi,
I might have been a little hard on them, that patent got to me, they seem to keep referencing elements in the schematic that aren't shown, and showing elements that aren't referenced, very annoying.
I still think it's all to get out from under Mueta's patent though, and it is amusing to read. Clearly Mueta were the first to use the derivative of the signal as any kind of set point/reference, to not even mention them as prior art seems like an unbelievable claim to ignorance, while the unusual "disclaimer" of prior art/background in section 10 seems like an admission of guilt? aaaaaaaah well, all the same, good to know about another new amp
Regards
Chris
I might have been a little hard on them, that patent got to me, they seem to keep referencing elements in the schematic that aren't shown, and showing elements that aren't referenced, very annoying.
I still think it's all to get out from under Mueta's patent though, and it is amusing to read. Clearly Mueta were the first to use the derivative of the signal as any kind of set point/reference, to not even mention them as prior art seems like an unbelievable claim to ignorance, while the unusual "disclaimer" of prior art/background in section 10 seems like an admission of guilt? aaaaaaaah well, all the same, good to know about another new amp
Regards
Chris
Just be aware that in the high end audio world, there are shysters,and there are real, thnking, inventive people. In that world, when and if one issues a patent, many of the components needed to make that item work or operate properly are NOT in the patent. The patent is only half the story. The trick,and it can be difficult.. is to tell the difference between the real people and the ones who are full of it.
All the little innovations that are 'wisdom' are kept to the self, and never released. Distraction is also a viable and correct method of keeping thought out of people you don't need or want contemplating the subject. As a friend of mine recently said, "they think that you are nuts, over there on that forum? Good, that's the best you can hope for".
All the little innovations that are 'wisdom' are kept to the self, and never released. Distraction is also a viable and correct method of keeping thought out of people you don't need or want contemplating the subject. As a friend of mine recently said, "they think that you are nuts, over there on that forum? Good, that's the best you can hope for".
Hi,
Patents need to provide enough information so that one skilled in the arts may reproduce the invention. Since you can't patent an idea in itself, but a method to implement the idea, the embodiment, I fail to see how they were able to get that passed when so many references to the sole embodiment provided are missing. Seems like they didn't even bother to read it. When crucial information is left out, it is _left out_. Then again if the proper operation depends on this left out information, their patent could easily be stolen as an improvement to the original, or simply by claiming the original didn't work.
As far as distraction goes, providing enough misinformation to lead one down the wrong path can't be used with patents or they'll wind up with a useless patent that doesn't protect their invention. That can only be used in place of a patent. You can see on their website the level of information provided about the workings of this amp is zero. I don't think they want to be advertising "We've invented using the derivative as a setpoint".
In any document, certainly a legal one, when you reference anything in the text it better be there or it's meaningless, like in the example (1a.) I've attached to further clarify my point.
Anyway I'd like to know what others opinions of this amplifier are.
Regards
Chris
Patents need to provide enough information so that one skilled in the arts may reproduce the invention. Since you can't patent an idea in itself, but a method to implement the idea, the embodiment, I fail to see how they were able to get that passed when so many references to the sole embodiment provided are missing. Seems like they didn't even bother to read it. When crucial information is left out, it is _left out_. Then again if the proper operation depends on this left out information, their patent could easily be stolen as an improvement to the original, or simply by claiming the original didn't work.
As far as distraction goes, providing enough misinformation to lead one down the wrong path can't be used with patents or they'll wind up with a useless patent that doesn't protect their invention. That can only be used in place of a patent. You can see on their website the level of information provided about the workings of this amp is zero. I don't think they want to be advertising "We've invented using the derivative as a setpoint".
In any document, certainly a legal one, when you reference anything in the text it better be there or it's meaningless, like in the example (1a.) I've attached to further clarify my point.
Anyway I'd like to know what others opinions of this amplifier are.
Regards
Chris
That could indeed be dangerous since anyone else who comes up with the same idea might then
1.) just use it if he feels to do so and
2.) get a patent for it (even worse).
IMO there are enough known methods nowadays to build good sounding class-d amps. Halcro's idea might get some slight improvement.
The main problem with class-d amps is to build a good one in PRACTICE because the switching devices are far from the desired ideal (becoming an attractive market recently this is improving however) and also because switching amps are an "EMC-hell".
I do not doubt however, that the Halcro people are capable of building a decent class-d amp, even though their "exclusive detail improvement" might only play a minor role in achieving this.
Regards
Charles
Sure, slight improvement, but to what? In the patent they discussed old amps with no feedback, not Mueta or anything like it. I notice Tripath and Mueta are unmentioned.
I agree. I also think their patent has a few good ideas, I'm not sure they invented them though. It doesn't claim to be novel, in fact it seems to warn against it.
I would think they likely do have a fine product, comparable to other decent class d's, for all their added complexity.
Regards
chris
"many of the components needed to make that item work or operate properly are NOT in the patent. "
I can't comment on the degree of innovation of the design, my electronics knowledge is limited. This statement, however, is not likely to be accurate. To obtain a patent (something with which I am familiar) one is obligated to disclose best mode.
Halcro would have two options in light of the patent. License it(the Muetta patent I believe was refered to) if the patent holder was agreeable. Or invent around the patent. This is the beauty of the patent system, IMO.
SteveA
I can't comment on the degree of innovation of the design, my electronics knowledge is limited. This statement, however, is not likely to be accurate. To obtain a patent (something with which I am familiar) one is obligated to disclose best mode.
Halcro would have two options in light of the patent. License it(the Muetta patent I believe was refered to) if the patent holder was agreeable. Or invent around the patent. This is the beauty of the patent system, IMO.
SteveA
Hello Sherrif,
..The bigger they are..
No really, I take it you've read the patent and have come to the same conclusion as I have?
Also, would you happen to have an inside scoope as to when Mueta will release anything? They're a little behind schedule now.
Hey, I've read the Mueta patent and I don't think Halcro would stand a chance in court if they decided to go that way with it.
I think they should have named them as prior art and tried to pass it off as an improvement.
Halcro's disclaimer about being novel and prior art in section 10 almost seems like an admission of guilt.
That's just what I concluded from reading it though and I could be wrong.
Regards,
Chris
..The bigger they are..
No really, I take it you've read the patent and have come to the same conclusion as I have?
Also, would you happen to have an inside scoope as to when Mueta will release anything? They're a little behind schedule now.
Hey, I've read the Mueta patent and I don't think Halcro would stand a chance in court if they decided to go that way with it.
I think they should have named them as prior art and tried to pass it off as an improvement.
Halcro's disclaimer about being novel and prior art in section 10 almost seems like an admission of guilt.
That's just what I concluded from reading it though and I could be wrong.
Regards,
Chris
What ever happened to Mueta
Hi Chris,
The last time i went to see Rene, was about 6 months ago.....
I listened to the amp that they had put together (not the IC version), but in very poor surroundings.
At this time they had 2nd cut samples of the chip but were having trouble as the chips did not match the simulations by a long shot and essentially did not work.....
I should see what the they are up to now - suspiciously quiet though......
I have had UcD400;s for a while now and am delighted with their sonic performance. In my view these amplifiers humble the ICEpower modules.
What do you make of the Nphysics offering? www.nphysics.com.
Cheers
Sheriff
Hi Chris,
The last time i went to see Rene, was about 6 months ago.....
I listened to the amp that they had put together (not the IC version), but in very poor surroundings.
At this time they had 2nd cut samples of the chip but were having trouble as the chips did not match the simulations by a long shot and essentially did not work.....
I should see what the they are up to now - suspiciously quiet though......
I have had UcD400;s for a while now and am delighted with their sonic performance. In my view these amplifiers humble the ICEpower modules.
What do you make of the Nphysics offering? www.nphysics.com.
Cheers
Sheriff
Hi,
Yeh I sort of figured they were having problems with it. They wanted the IC to protect their IP though, maybe bring Rene the link to this patent
Thanks for the nphysics link! I hadn't seen that one before.
I think the specs they provide on it are very impressive. "N-Class" bugs me... it's still class d. Have you got a copy of their white paper??
I'll have to spend more time with their patent, it's certainly different. It sounds like it is another one of those amps DIY'rs will never see though... unless ..someone... naaaah.
Best regards,
Chris
Yeh I sort of figured they were having problems with it. They wanted the IC to protect their IP though, maybe bring Rene the link to this patent
Thanks for the nphysics link! I hadn't seen that one before.
I think the specs they provide on it are very impressive. "N-Class" bugs me... it's still class d. Have you got a copy of their white paper??
I'll have to spend more time with their patent, it's certainly different. It sounds like it is another one of those amps DIY'rs will never see though... unless ..someone... naaaah.
Best regards,
Chris
Jan-Peter said:
Hi Jan-Peter,
I'll try.
Mueta uses the derivative of the audio signal as a reference/setpoint of the amplifier in order to control the capacitor current and therefore the voltage over it. This produces an amplifier which works by modulating the slope of the input waveform in a kind of predictive fashion, instead of just using the amplitude of it.
Halcro, uses the derivative of the audio signal as a reference/setpoint of the amplifier in order to control the "output". This produces an amplifier which works by modulating the slope of the input waveform in a kind of predictive fashion, instead of just using the amplitude of it.
Mueta derives the first derivative in an analog fashion, Halcro uses a "positive" _and_ "negative" derivative, which to me means it is simply a central derivative derived numerically via DSP. So they phase shift it accordingly so that it can work as desired, all the same, it is the derivative of the input, used as the reference/setpoint .... plain and simple.
Aside from that, the rest of Halcro's claims are laughable, that is, nothing new at all.
Let's face it, Halcro's offering comes too far behind Mueta to be able to claim joint discovery of using the derivative of the input signal in this fashion, and there is _no_ way they could have studied recent class d history and not know of them.
So in my view, Halcro's patent is simply an attempt at evading Mueta's patent. What's your opinion of it? I can certainly be wrong.
With all that said and done, I'm sure what they have, in the end product, is very likely to be a nice sounding amplifier.
Regards,
Chris
PS. If I remember right, even one of Karsten Nielsen's papers (which he must have studied having tested IcePower) mentions some of Mueta's work.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.