Cloning transformers - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Tubes / Valves

Tubes / Valves All about our sweet vacuum tubes :) Threads about Musical Instrument Amps of all kinds should be in the Instruments & Amps forum

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 30th May 2008, 05:39 PM   #21
diyAudio Member
 
MQracing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally posted by Bandersnatch


::: I am looking forward to seeing heyboer re-partnumber their reproductions... HTS-265 for example.:::

I have been in touch with Heyboer several times over the last six to eight weeks---- and as recently as perhaps two weeks ago.

The principals of this firm have assured me that they do not have an interest in copying our transformer designs or building replicas of our designs. One of the principals explained to me that they now feel that they were deceived----- that they were approached by an individual claiming he needed some transformers built to restore some amps and that the originals were no longer available. As a service to this individual Heyboer apparently wound him some transformers.

Once they were apprised of our existence and that the part number in question is an active part number of ours--- and that the individual who they did the work for was using their good graces to extract his own revenges (due to a personal beef which the individual holds apparently)---- they assured me that they wanted no part of or continued participation in such a schema.

:::Your skill at creating the urban legend that you are in sole control over anything associated with the Peerless OPT's is to be commended.:::

this comment makes me laugh. When I purchased Peerless™ it was not a guy named URBAN LEGEND who signed the check to make the purchase. Nor did the funds come out of an account called the PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Of course I own and control Peerless exclusively--- within the confines of the laws which govern businesses and commerce.

I was not making a monetary gift to the sellers of Peerless I was purchasing the company, it's goodwill, it's trademarks, it's design archives, and etc. And, yes, Dougie---- that does confer control over those assets to me exclusively.

Get over it.


:::You've gone and harassed Heyboer for knowing what goes into those unobtainium Altec cans, haven't you?::::

Funny--- where you listening in on our conversations? Actually my interactions with the principals of Heyboer have been pretty friendly. To the extent that Aldan was kind enough to turn me on to a good resource for some difficult to find terminals that we needed. And, of course, I thanked him and invited him to call upon me if I could ever be of assistance.

and the reference to "unobtanium Altec cans"--- sorry Peerless never used Altec cans--- the packaging materials and designs are all Peerless proper part numbers and in the Peerless archives.


:::Speaking of details, I find the practice of selling Ni striping as an improvement, whilst at the same time neglecting to disclose that it has been left out of your S271A an interesting paradox.::::

That's a switch--- I seem to recall that at another point in time you were alleging that the nickel pinstripe was yet another part of my grand conspiracy to dupe the world and become rich and famous.

As regards the 271's---- which "issue" are you referring to? Have you seen the master blueprint and can you account for the engineering changes that may have been incorporated into this design over the years?

Doug--- I don't owe you any explanation of how we build our Peerless transformers--- because we own the designs and we have the freedom to make changes or improvements in the design without first getting your clearances or approvals.

And to my knowledge you have never been a direct customer of ours--- though I have noted that you do like to purchase our Peerless produced transformers off of ebay when they become available. I've always found it slightly perverse that you would recommend and encourage others to buy "clones" of our transformers while you are scooping up and bidding on transformers that we have made since acquiring Peerless in 1989. So I suppose that despite all the malignant blustering you really do have some confidence in us and our products.

Here is a friendly heads up Dougie. The S-240-A's that you were
outbid on on ebay about 8 weeks ago--- before dropping out, you had already bid the price up above the costs of simply ordering a new pair from us directly. At that same time we had these on sale for $150 each.


MSL
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2008, 06:34 PM   #22
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Couple things Mike,
You find my acquiring engineering samples perverse? Since there is a single( and uncooperative ) source of the blueprints, how else should it be done?

I don't recall bidding on any S240's and certainly none wound by you, I have one original already and I only need one to unwind. Second the S258 is the only one I have two of, and that is because I was nearly given one of them. I do have two of yours, the 16446( 2? ), and I'll be taking them apart too, unless you'd care offer some reason why I shouldn't.

quote--Of course I own and control Peerless exclusively--- within the confines of the laws which govern businesses and commerce.


Of course you realize that does not in any way cover the details of the designs themselves? Given your behaviour and claims I do have to wonder...

As to the rest of your claims surrounding Heyboer and those output's designs I have had them extract, I can only classify them as fantasy, forged by yourself to continue with this Urban Legend you have created.

I never said you didn't buy something from Altec, what I said was that what you bought cannot possibly be all you've claimed it to be, specifically you do not have exclusive rights to the designs. That is about it. Give it a rest man, if there was ever some use of the name in commerce, I'd of course refer to it as a trademark held by your wife. Of course that requires no mention of you or your TX company.

Sorry I mis-spoke on the Altec cans, the can stickers say Peerless is a part of Altec...didn't you say that is who you paid for your 'P'? It is the same sort of idea that I'd use to refer to my Mercury Sable as a Ford. Semantics more or less.

Either way, I have no interest in extracting any revenge upon you. Get a grip, and behave; quit making up stories. It will be a hole lot more productive for both of us.
cheers,
Douglas
__________________
the Tnuctipun will return
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2008, 09:19 PM   #23
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Wow, I see that in my absence, a strawman was constructed and burned in my honor

Quote:
Originally posted by MQracing
Notice that you are calling them Dynaco™ (which is a registered trademark) and that we do NOT brand any of our products with the Dynaco namesake. This appears to be a confusion on your part. Even though I have previously explicitly stated this earlier in this thread.
I'm not selling them -- and there is nothing wrong with referring to a product by name. In fact, in casual use, you have said more than once that you can make parts from Dynaco designs. Nobody will hold that against you.

Quote:
Originally posted by MQracing
The only thing that I am asking for is that our trademarks and brand names be respected and not misappropiated or abused by others.

The practice of consciously misusing brand names to get a free ride or advantage in the marketplace off of the goodwill of the legitimate trademark (i.e., brand name) owner is just simply theft. And the goods so denoted are in fact counterfeits by definition.
This is completely valid -- nobody should attempt to market a transformer while (ab)using the Peerless name.

But I see the concern here is over a DIYer making copies (for personal use) from a 50 year old Peerless transformer that he legitimately acquired. Chances are, he would have been an annoying customer, asking for nickel laminations and all sorts of weird taps -- you should be grateful to have dodged that bullet

And, now, we aren't even talking about Peerless transformers, but an Acrosound transformer!

Quote:
Originally posted by MQracing
If your brave, very brave---- try marketing an audio transformer with the Monster name attached to it.
Very true, but we aren't trying to buy/sell counterfeit transformers, but suitable replacement parts like you yourself sell. Monster has another advantage -- a huge portfolio of design patents -- they sue any manufacturers who make cables with connectors that even slightly resemble theirs (Cheap, Plastic, etc.). Over time, this practice will probably cost them customers.

Quote:
Originally posted by MQracing
And independently of all the legal issues and legal protections for trademark owners---- there is a moreso overriding concern that I believe we should be evaluating---- and that is----
...
I won't quote this as it resembles a straw man, and it is separate from my point -- That providing vintage substitutes and reproductions is an important and necessary service. This is something that you and others do presently. It is equally legitimate if done by reverse engineering, or from a blueprint.

It would be unfortunate to see anyone making new Magnequest clones, or Electra-Print clones, or illegal Aikido preamps etc... not that there would be much market for something so blatant. The devices in question were built 50 years ago, and thousands exist to be done-with as the owners please. It is amazing, and perhaps unfortunate, that there aren't more copied "generics" available at this time.

If I want to build a triode Williamson running 18dB of global negative feedback, my "new" options are Sowter, or possibly a Peerless S-265. If I only have $300 to spend, but do have a shorted Stancor A8054, wouldn't it be better for me to reverse-engineer it and have two copies made? Or, to request a Williamson from a textbook design? Or, am I not entitled to build a triode Williamson because I cannot afford an existing $6-700 pair of transformers?
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2008, 12:08 AM   #24
diyAudio Member
 
MQracing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally posted by jon_010101
To Petera --

:::: if it is true that the Hammond performed better than Acrosound as Bandersnatch says, then Edcor might be an even cheaper and better option.::::


Hey.... I'm really happy for you and dougie.... seems like you could find a new home at edcor!!!

Actually I respect Edcor. And I mean that sincerely. They design and build their own products without ripping off any other companies or riding on any other companies coattails. I'll always respect that.

And compared to the cost of knockoffs.... you could probably save yourself a heck of a bundle of money if you went with Edcor.

Heck--- the cost of shipping the first donor tranney to a chop shop will actually go a long ways toward purchasing one of the two Edcors that you would need for a stereo amp---- then, add in the accrued savings from having some person slave over a teardown (which are notorious for their errors anyway) and you could be well on your way to the necessary savings for the cost of a second edcor.

So---- here I think you have your answer--- a great transformer (from your quoted source) for $62 and change each. (for both the CXPP50-8-3.4K and CXPP60-8-10K).

Both of you should be rejoicing!!!

Dougie liked the Hammonds better than the Acrosound TO-330's--- and you've quoted a solid endorsement of the Edcor's which appears to better the Hammonds performance wise.

I'm happy to see that perhaps you have found an alternative to the consideration of counterfeits of other companies products.


And from what I read Edcor will consider doing customs so you can get all the primary taps you want---- and they should be able to do custom designs for you since they have in-house design capability.


msl
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2008, 12:36 AM   #25
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
--And compared to the cost of your knockoffs (lil birdie talked to me).... you could have saved yourself a heck of a bundle of money if you had went with Edcor right away.

hi again Mike, just in case you have not figured it out yet, it isn't about money. With the potential proceeds of selling the S271S I found, I could have bought what ever OPT I wanted. What I wanted was to know what is inside.

What sort of pricing has your 'lil bird' given you? Have you called Heyboer, claiming to be a friend of mine, given license to discuss my designs again? So what if it is more expensive than an Edcor, it is certainly less expensive than one of yours by at least a factor of two, and more likely three...



--Heck--- the cost of shipping the first donor tranney to a chop shop will actually go a long ways toward purchasing one of the two Edcors that you would need for a stereo amp---- then, add in the accrued savings from having some person slave over a teardown (which are notorious for their errors anyway) and you could be well on your way to the necessary savings for the cost of the second edcor.

same as above..., but your claim now about errors seems to be a reflection of your own attempts. I'll find your post on the subject when I have time to look. It's not something you've entirely ignored either, specially when your archive turns out to be missing some of the designs. I understand your motivation...if it isn't done by you it is wrong....good luck there, and thanks.



--I'm happy to see that perhaps you have found an ethical alternative to purchasing counterfeits of other companies designs.

You really need to get of this counterfeit/knock-off thing. It is illetigitimate/unethical since it is not you is not a supportable position. The designs are and have been public domain since the first one wound up in a customers hand before you were born. Just because nobody had to go to the trouble and expense of getting it has nothing to do with it. The 'tm' and naming thing is enforceable and likely has been, and I have no wish to encroach upon it.

Give it a rest, or give me a call if you'd care to...I forgive you, and I'll listen respectfully.
cheers,
Douglas
__________________
the Tnuctipun will return
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2008, 01:17 AM   #26
diyAudio Member
 
MQracing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally posted by Bandersnatch
[B]--


:::So what if it is more expensive than an Edcor, it is certainly less expensive than one of yours by at least a factor of two, and more likely three...:::


:::It's not something you've entirely ignored either, specially when your archive turns out to be missing some of the designs.:::


:::You really need to get of this counterfeit/knock-off thing. It is illetigitimate/unethical since it is not you is not a supportable position.:::


Regarding the first passage quoted above. Funny that you can put a price tag on a product of ours that is not even offered retail in the US. The particular product that you are most likely referring to has principally been made as special editions for several of our overseas customers--- and I dare say that our bill of materials that goes into those special editions far exceeds the knockoff cost numbers I've seen you banty about. But you get what you pay for. Of course if we wanted to build to a price point as opposed to a performance level we could. But that is not my style for these products. And our genuine Peerless products deserve this high level of craft and build quality.

Your mention of our archives--- I don't recall ever seeing you at our archives? So how you could fathom a statement about the completeness of our archives---- or even know it's size (how many designs for instance it holds or how many supporting docs are embodied in the archives)---- this is just more malignant blustering on your part.

Now counterfeit---- sorry you don't like the term that describes your activities---- perhaps the following etymology might assist your understanding of the term.


****Middle English countrefet, from Anglo-French cuntrefeit, from past participle of cuntrefere, contrefaire to imitate, from cuntre- + faire to make, from Latin facere****


A counterfeit is simply an unauthorized copy, knock-off, or clone of something.

For example--- perhaps an example will help---- many diy'ers are active in the community and publish construction articles and schematics--- generally you will see that they wish to restrict the benefit of their work to non-commercial uses--- but according to the logic that you and some others have offered--- such a request is itself not legitimate IF the schematic or article does not enjoy patent protection.

So--- suppose we have folks who build clone boards for different projects authored by say Peter Millet or say John Broskie. Suppose it to be a dead balls copy or clone of the work of one of these two ndividuals--- no patent here--- are you saying that this behaviour would be acceptable and not have any ethical dimensions to it?

I'm more than willing to say that if you rip-off or convert Millet's or Broskie's work to something other than they have granted permissioin to---- that in fact your ripping them off. If you build unauthorized circuit boards with embodying their designs---- yes--- I am more than willing to call that a counterfeit product.

And this mention of age---- that if X is older than Y---- which appears to be completely arbitrary and capricious---- since it does not take into account whether or not that part is still an active part in the market---- nor does it consider whether the author\designer of that product still makes his living off of his work (whether purchased or generated by himself).

What age criteria would you propose for a product or schematic to be deemed in the "public domain" even if it is contrary to the author's intent or wishes?

also consider--- and actually Broskie has written about this on his own board--- how much heartache the cloners bring back on the original designers---- from dissatisfied customers borne by the
counterfeiter who then demand that Broskie "right the wrongs" or hold Broskie responsible--- dig up and read Broskie's post on this. Very illuminating as well as disheartening.

It's people like Millet, Broskie, Tubelab and many others who make worthwhile contributions---- should these contributions then be fari game for any counterfeiter to exploit for their own gain? Should it be allowed here on the diyaudio forums?

Once you start burning these contributors and allowing the counterfeiters free reign---- how long do you suppose they might continue to create, share and publish?

counterfeiting goods is bad audio karma.


MSL
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2008, 01:46 AM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
MQracing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
msl wrote:

-And compared to the cost of your knockoffs (lil birdie talked to me).... you could have saved yourself a heck of a bundle of money if you had went with Edcor right away.


and Dougie responded:

hi again Mike, just in case you have not figured it out yet, it isn't about money. With the potential proceeds of selling the S271S I found, I could have bought what ever OPT I wanted. What I wanted was to know what is inside.


************************************************** ****

just out of curiosity--- since you've stated that the Hammond 1650R is better than the Acrosound TO-330 (which itself enjoys an immense performance reputation in many circles)--- and since Jon suggests that the Edcors are superb performers----- perhaps even better than the Hammonds and, since, your stated interest (quote above) is pedagogical in nature---

then I'm curious when you might be tearing down some Hammonds and reverse engineering them and then moving on to the Edcor line and cloning them as well--- or at least tearing them down so that you can document their construction for eternitity. Heck--- with such high praise by yourself and Jon---- these two brands should be at the top of your tear-down list it seems.

Or is your interest (as seemingly demonstrated over a long period of time) only extend to counterfeiting Peerless transformers since I own those designs?

MSL
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2008, 11:18 AM   #28
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Mike,
Just in case you have not noticed, you don't own the designs. It does bear repeating...you don't own the designs. An original copy of some of them, but that is where it stops.

As to tearing down a Hammond, I can call them and buy what ever I want from them, same as Edcor. What happens when I call the number listed for you? Now since I wished to do that first experiment with a modified Peerless design...who in the hell are you to attempt control over something that is not controlable, that being the design itself?

Again with this urban legend creation...give it a break, it isn't real.

As to fathoming the depth of your archive...well, I'll just have to say it like you did, 'a lil birdie told me'. And as well to note you haven't denied it either.
cheers,
Douglas
__________________
the Tnuctipun will return
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2008, 11:41 AM   #29
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
Bas Horneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Blog Entries: 18
I have split these post from from the cloning an hf-60 thread.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2008, 03:48 PM   #30
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
From Mike:Heck--- with such high praise by yourself and Jon---- these two brands should be at the top of your tear-down list it seems.


That would be the case if current production, modified to spec were not available. Either way, go and write your set of rules, create your legends on what you own...

Your definition of counterfeit is missing a few critica bits too. Nothing I have used has been represented as authentic, or even offered for sale.

What I have is an output that is wound with a coil that matches the engineering sample I provided. What sort of protection would prevent me from writing that I have had this done, and from what source? I don't expect an answer, for there is none that would do anything but confirm my point...

The sonics are not altered by the stamp applied to the covers. The sonics are dependant on construction. Getting this information is not as impossible as you'd have us believe. The details taken from an actual wind are far more complete than any print could be, especially given that it was common practice to neglect and omit details.
cheers,
Douglas
__________________
the Tnuctipun will return
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How come noone is cloning McIntosh? JZatopa Solid State 44 19th February 2010 12:06 AM
Cloning a HF-60 petera77 Tubes / Valves 19 5th June 2008 10:50 AM
Anyone try cloning Kharmas? polkymon Multi-Way 27 26th June 2006 02:44 PM
Cloning a Loudspeaker red Multi-Way 6 12th April 2005 07:14 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:23 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2