Thanks.
That is a very good post.
Best wishes
Reodor
I ask again, what level of THD-20+N did you actually achieve? If you don't at least tell us the number, your bold claims will be dismissed, and will have been a waste of our time.
Bob
Been there Bob, I was the default clearing house for the next audio revolution and there were a few.
Why don't you apply for a patent first? After applying you are protected and you don't have to provide all the details at that point, just enough to disclose the basics of the invention such as a schematic and brief description. And in the US if you patent an invention yourself the patent examiner has to assist you and write one claim for you that you didn't think of yourself. Overall, if you want to protect such a valuable circuit probably the best way is to patent.
On the other hand, the alternative would appear to be trade secret protection, which can be hard to keep secret if someone wants to spend enough time and effort to reverse engineer a physical device.
However, from what you have posted so far it sounds like what you have at this point are simulations and not a physical amplifier with measured performance?
A provisional application is relatively cheap but in the end full international protection is very expensive.
That's true, although it's not too hard to DIY the whole thing in the US. Of course, it's really only worth doing if the invention is worth the investment. At least with DIY the investment is low. Most patents are filed by hopeful inventors, but end up being worthless. Even with a useful invention, few amplifier designers get rich. It's not a particularly hot market for super low distortion amplifiers. Probably not what most audiophiles are looking for. One might sell a few to recording studios and mastering rooms, but they buy according to their ears, not specs.
And think about such mundane things as, "will I be able to get this fixed if it breaks?"
Haven't heard of too many studios going full blown esoterica unless its old-school effects processors that simply don't exist anywhere else. Which is like buying a rare instrument and should be treated as such.
Haven't heard of too many studios going full blown esoterica unless its old-school effects processors that simply don't exist anywhere else. Which is like buying a rare instrument and should be treated as such.
I'm sure that the worse snake oil salesman is more believable than any fairy tails of the one and only Norwegian guy who speaks exactly the same Language as Google's translator.
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with a good portion of hubris though.
Besides the costs of getting a wide covering patent one would need to be financially stable enough just in case, some of the bigger players will unscrupulously steamroll the small guy if they know he/she can't sustain financially through a legal process and thus end up loosing the patent dispute.
I think maybe the best option for a small player is to just publish the idea and make the world know it, after that it is in the open domain and can't be patented by anyone else and maybe ones name will earn a place in the hall of fame.
Reodor why not publish at least a simplified conceptual schematics of your utopian amplifier, or if that's too much then preferably explain with words what kind of circuitry you are using without giving out too much details, after all bold statements aren't looked upon with obliged eyes.
Besides the costs of getting a wide covering patent one would need to be financially stable enough just in case, some of the bigger players will unscrupulously steamroll the small guy if they know he/she can't sustain financially through a legal process and thus end up loosing the patent dispute.
I think maybe the best option for a small player is to just publish the idea and make the world know it, after that it is in the open domain and can't be patented by anyone else and maybe ones name will earn a place in the hall of fame.
Reodor why not publish at least a simplified conceptual schematics of your utopian amplifier, or if that's too much then preferably explain with words what kind of circuitry you are using without giving out too much details, after all bold statements aren't looked upon with obliged eyes.
.. or just some credible measurement results with full disclosure of the measurement protocol and set-up. It is one thing to have such an amp, it's another thing to be able to measure those numbers.
Of course, if you just pull numbers out of a hat, it gets a lot easier
I think Bob's comment was spot-on ;-)
Jan
Of course, if you just pull numbers out of a hat, it gets a lot easier
I think Bob's comment was spot-on ;-)
Jan
Reodor,
One asks why you are here if you wish only to hint at Utopia but never describe how you attained it? Do you want admiration for miracle results from clever people here, yet hidden from view?
It comes back to this: Publish and achieve fame, or manufacture and make profit. There is no other option. Perhaps a view of NP; he does both, a nice combination.
HD
Hi All
Thanks for the response and the suggestions.
I have to think about it, maybe I could send the schematic or the simulation files to someone I could trust.
Would that be ok?
Reodor
It would also be nice if your performance results were fully specified as to BW, gain, source impedance, etc. As I said before specifying a PA from a shorted input is maybe a nice number but is essentially useless.
Hi All
Thanks for the response and the suggestions.
I have to think about it, maybe I could send the schematic or the simulation files to someone I could trust.
Would that be ok?
Reodor
So this is just a simulation? No actual hardware?
Jan
I think the best way to sort this out is to start by keeping it simple and just find out in broad-brush terms what is being claimed in terms of performance, whether it is simulation-based or measurement-based, and generally what approach is being used. None of these should make one uncomfortable about IP issues.
For example:
What level of THD-20 is being claimed at what power level into 8 ohms?
What kind of an output stage is being used? MOSFET? BJT? How many pairs?
Is any form of output stage error correction being used? No details needed.
Is ordinary Miller compensation being used, or is something like TPC or TMC being used. No details needed.
Is it a VFA or a CFA?
What input-referred noise level is being claimed, in nV/rt Hz?
Are these results based on simulation, or on measurements of a prototype?
For me, that's all we need to get the ball rolling toward some understanding and useful disocurse.
Cheers,
Bob
Hi All
Thanks for the response and the suggestions.
I have to think about it, maybe I could send the schematic or the simulation files to someone I could trust.
Would that be ok?
Reodor
Send it to me. .. circuit topology without values. But enough circuit detail to understand the patentable area. NDA if you like.
THx-RNMarsh
A proper prior art search would take 100's of hours and then you are likely to miss something anyway.
Depends a lot on how broadly the claims are written. Less chance for problems with narrower claims. Both broad and narrow claims can be included so as to help assure at least some claims will stand in case others don't.
On the other hand, there are lots of amplifier related patents. It is an area that has been exploited by inventors for a very long time. The chances of finding a new broadly applicable invention in that area is pretty small. Finding niche inventions that have not been described before and that patent examiners don't think are obvious to a skilled practitioner in the arts can be surprisingly easy. Largely so because the examiners are not necessarily very good at knowing what would be obvious. But, better to have a possibly questionable patent than none at all, as it puts most of the burden of proof on anyone wanting to challenge it.
Of course, having a patent is not the end of the story. If you get one you should enforce it relentlessly or it can lose force.
One fairly popular alternative to patents in the electronics area is to use multilayer PCBs, tiny SMT parts, and to obscure component markings on individual components such as ICs (sandpaper works). Makes reverse engineering much more difficult. So does the presence of essential firmware.