It is angle of look, Andrew....Is nice, if you can to know, how some thing works, but some this thing think up and it is not gratis...Look at JC, how is " curl ", when people can to know details about his connections... 😉
Upupa Epops said:
Hi Pavel,
To set the record straight, there was no intention on my part to do anything untoward here, as I earlier suggested.
I originally asked Spectral for this information, and was quite happy to pay for a full service manual, or whatever, they could provide.
When requesting this, I used my electronics company name, and would have signed an NDA to cover any of their concens about disclosure to third parties.
Unfortunately for me, they wouldn't let me have any details at all, even though I had purchased this pre-amp from new via an authorised Dealer, and it was not even bought by me second-hand or 'on the cheap'.
As Andrew has just kindly pointed out, I was entitled to know how it 'worked' so I spent many weeks of my spare time in reverse engineering the circuit, merely for my own purposes in connection with my intended modifications.
Because I wished to discuss some circuit details with the late JLH, I sent him a copy of my hand-drawing of just the first stage of this pre-amp, and it transpired he kept this in his files. A couple of years later, when he was finalising his 3rd book, JLH wished to illustrate the up-and-coming use of J-Fets, dual devices, and cascodes, for low noise circuits. He wished to show a good example of this execution, and, without remembering where he had these details from, he included this diagram in his book.
Unusually, as he had done so before, JLH did not ask me to do any proof-reading on this last book, and the first I knew of this part-circuit being published was when he sent me a complimentary copy for my 'audio library'.
When I spoke to him about it, it was too late anyway, but he was rather uncomfortable about what he had done in innocence, and I was embarrassed, too. You see, maybe I am a bit old-fashioned but I do respect other peoples IP, and commented appropriately when Nelson Pass had some problems in this connection recently. Accordingly, even though I felt that Spectral had been unco-operative in the first place, I don't consider that 'two wrongs make a right', and this 'exposure' was entirely unintentional.
May I also say how much more enjoyable your recent posts have been to read when you have contacted me in this thread. I know you have some difficulty with the English language, and I certainly wouldn't criticise anyone for that as I can only manage a few words in French, apart from my native language.
However, when you add a name at the start, and a salutation with your name at the end, and perhaps a smiley or two, it makes what sometimes seems to be a very curt (and frequently rather critical 😉 ) comment much less aggressive-sounding and not so antagonistic. 🙂
For that, I am grateful.🙂 🙂
Regards,
Hi Bob,
I never said, that you make some thievery by your interest about circuit details 😉 . I know very well this smart wish to know, which make some thing so good ... 😉. And abou my English : you know, I'm autodidact, my first contact with this language was in songs Love me do and From me to you... 😉 , later with " ...I have been in you, you have been in me...", but it was too hard understand, Zappa was using plenty of slang... 😉 I was living in .... bolshevic country and way outside was closed...horrible times...Now is it OK, my daughter speak english quite perfect ( with little american stress 😉 ), she have CAE by Cambridge ESOL exams... And yet little explanation : I'm not such foul-mouth, how maybe some people think...Only sometime I'm using unnecessarily straight words.... 😎
Regards,
Pavel
I never said, that you make some thievery by your interest about circuit details 😉 . I know very well this smart wish to know, which make some thing so good ... 😉. And abou my English : you know, I'm autodidact, my first contact with this language was in songs Love me do and From me to you... 😉 , later with " ...I have been in you, you have been in me...", but it was too hard understand, Zappa was using plenty of slang... 😉 I was living in .... bolshevic country and way outside was closed...horrible times...Now is it OK, my daughter speak english quite perfect ( with little american stress 😉 ), she have CAE by Cambridge ESOL exams... And yet little explanation : I'm not such foul-mouth, how maybe some people think...Only sometime I'm using unnecessarily straight words.... 😎
Regards,
Pavel
Upupa Epops said:
Oh, yes you are !
But you are one of few who do not produce from a foul mind, Pavel.
The Spectral DMC-10 is a +25 year old design, personally i do not see how making the circuit public threatens the IP of the Spectral company. Copying such a design entails a lot more than just stuffing a board. It's a shame that designs such as the Spectral's go into oblivion.
Maybe 25 years old, Jacco, but it is nothing against tubes from the year 35', which like some guys here... 😉 25 years ago...golden age of complicated circuits..at these times designers don't make one transistor miracles... 😉
Pavel,
25 years ago i marvelled at speed, low numbers, and clean engineering, i still have the DMC-10 and DMA-100 brochures somewhere.
Shame you were on the other side of the fence then, if a turd like me gloated at Spectral's a designer as yourself would have enjoyed very much having a peek-see inside the stuff on offer at audio stores and shows.
25 years ago i marvelled at speed, low numbers, and clean engineering, i still have the DMC-10 and DMA-100 brochures somewhere.
Shame you were on the other side of the fence then, if a turd like me gloated at Spectral's a designer as yourself would have enjoyed very much having a peek-see inside the stuff on offer at audio stores and shows.
Upupa Epops said:
Hi Pavel,
We have all got a bit off topic here but it looks like we understand each other now. I didn't concern myself with your comment about "thievery", but wished to clear up what I had originally said, so there were no misunderstandings.
I certainly would not reverse engineer anything under other circumstances, but in order to carry out some modifications, and because the manufacturer had refused my request for these details, I felt quite entitled to inspect what I had paid a lot of money for, to see how it was constructed.
In spite of what jacco says here, it was clear to me that Spectral did not wish their circuit details to be made public, and even if they had not played fair with me, I still respect other peoples' wishes in a situation like this.
I have not considered any of your comments to me to be "foul-mouthed", but from what I have seen in the past they can sometimes be very abrupt, and often critical of others, and possibly because of langauge difficulties, they can appear to be unnecessarily abrasive and antagonistic.
However, as I said, if you go to the trouble to address another poster politely, and finish up with a pleasant salutation and perhaps the occasional smiley as you have done with responses to my recent comments, it makes things a lot more pleasant (at least from my viewpoint) when considering a reply.
This was intended entirely as a compliment to you, and not by way of any criticism. 🙂
Also, I was sorry to learn of your past problems, and although we have many hooligans in the UK, and our Politicians make some terrible blunders, I know that compared with people living in many other countries, we have been extremely lucky. It must have been a very hard time for you, and others still suffering from these regimes, but I am glad to see that matters have improved for you and your family recently.
Kind regards,🙂
Right on Bobken. Your pot selection parallels mine (mostly). Kieth Johnson is a brilliant engineer and I am not surprised that he does not publish his schematics.
john curl said:
Even if someone was to do something, as you say so different, it would be totally dismissed as stupid and the flames would go on ad nausieum as to how it's wrong and could not work, so what's the point?
This is one aspect where audio has not mirrored the rest of the world, there is no venue where the young upstart can make the old guard realize it has competition. Unless it enters the market place (which to my mind stifles creativity). Take any other art or technology and there is a venue for competion... Think about it.
Audio design is content to churn it's designs and sell to the people with money and big ego's, with nothing really advancing or ever trickling down. It's all a highly refined version of what's already been done.
I like to think about how all this will be viewed 100 years from now... Do we think that this is it?
So John, do you think we're at the end of the possibilities and that we're just limited by device technolgies, or are you really wondering if there is a different approach with current technology?
Are we really discussing the weather or just making chit chat? (Bill Murray)
Mike
MikeBettinger said:
Seems to me that it does not differ from other branches of industry. In the 'Golden Age' , Pavel words, everybody was sleeping with everybody. Just like the history of car making.
Mr Curl already told he'd been 'borrowing' from Mr Hansen and he has shown he lets some of the goodies of his Enzo's trickle down to the Infinity price range.
Compared to the real dynamic years in the audio world there seems to be less room for talented ones to work for the established gard, soak up their tricks, hop on to the next host untill the itch and the opportunity tells them it's time to show the consumers they discovered some new magic. And if it does it requires a big money honcho to step into the market. Just like the sports car business for instance, Spyker cars overhere seems like a fair example.
If any of you publish something that I can actually use, I would thank you. Instead, I see half-baked, half-understood circuits, and when I try to help, I get resentment in return.
For the record, we are ALWAYS evolving better circuits. Not everyone, of course, some are mostly selling by name and prestige, made years earlier, to hi-end snobs. However, there is still a number of designers who try their best to improve their designs and do so on a continual basis.
For example, I once thought that toroidal transformers were the way to go, everywhere.
Now, I use old fashioned E-I or the radically new R-core transformers. I have dozens of toroids at my warehouse that will never be used for anything audio. Why? It is because they let in too much RFI, at least for a preamp, not because I want to be different. We learn these things from experience and measurement. You could learn from our experience.
For the record, we are ALWAYS evolving better circuits. Not everyone, of course, some are mostly selling by name and prestige, made years earlier, to hi-end snobs. However, there is still a number of designers who try their best to improve their designs and do so on a continual basis.
For example, I once thought that toroidal transformers were the way to go, everywhere.
Now, I use old fashioned E-I or the radically new R-core transformers. I have dozens of toroids at my warehouse that will never be used for anything audio. Why? It is because they let in too much RFI, at least for a preamp, not because I want to be different. We learn these things from experience and measurement. You could learn from our experience.
John,
I was re-reading the older posts on this thread and your comments about posting something different struck a nerve. My response was meant to focus on the lack of any outlet for the mental energy that goes into a 30 years of learning and experimenting. (unless your brave enough to turn a passion into a business and I've been down that path once).
Pretty much, the frustration with my few attempts to participate in various threads left me feeling like I was back in high school. My frustration with the site provoked my attitude, not you.
I’m sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you. I have nothing but respect for your work and knowledge.
I’m beginning to think I’ll never master the art of internet communication.
Regards, Mike.
I was re-reading the older posts on this thread and your comments about posting something different struck a nerve. My response was meant to focus on the lack of any outlet for the mental energy that goes into a 30 years of learning and experimenting. (unless your brave enough to turn a passion into a business and I've been down that path once).
Pretty much, the frustration with my few attempts to participate in various threads left me feeling like I was back in high school. My frustration with the site provoked my attitude, not you.
I’m sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you. I have nothing but respect for your work and knowledge.
I’m beginning to think I’ll never master the art of internet communication.
Regards, Mike.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.