What?!
If this
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
is not a BIB then what is it?While I'm certainly on the side of free use of the concept, I don't see how this is any different from other cabs called BIBs. Same principles.
They even tell us straight out on the site that it's a BIB.
If it's any consolation to the naysayers, I don't think business is going very well. Their speakers are monstrously expensive for what they are, in a country that is traditionally pretty technologically conservative/cautious.
Last edited:
What?!
If thisAn externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.is not a BIB then what is it?
While I'm certainly on the side of free use of the concept, I don't see how this is any different from other cabs called BIBs. Same principles.
They even tell us straight out on the site that it's a BIB.
If it's any consolation to the naysayers, I don't think business is going very well. Their speakers are monstrously expensive for what they are, in a country that is traditionally pretty technologically conservative/cautious.
Or perhaps it could be described the other way around, i.e. to quote the title of TC's original project post " TQWT ? Bigger is Better"
IINM this was before he actually retired from the commercial millwork trade to embark full time as speaker manufacturer.
One of the larger threads on this forum is devoted to this subject, and includes frequent references to one of the sources of inspirations for Terry and a lot of us - i.e. "Those Fostex Craft Handbooks"
Point here being that Kurt's site includes the following text:
and
...
What?!
If this is not a BIB then what is it?
I don't think that is an accurate respresentation of the exact internals.
dave
Mark and Dave,
Read this.
Wagner
I am not talking about the BIB. Also take a look at a couple of the other designs.
Martin
Martin,
That one is one of Scott's double mouth horns and the other you are likely to refer, Strauss, to is related to the microTower, both of which require a commercial licence from you to build commercially. Hence our understanding that he had bought a licence from you.
I am having him contact you directly to get that straightened out.
dave
Martin,
I think Scott worked on these designs with Kurt (if my memory is correct), they'll have the details and timeline. Given that I paid Scotts licence fee in 2009, surely he's subsequently at liberty to offer his work to other parties. likely the designs you've referred to are covered. You might email Kurt to sell him your Mathcad and seek a future licencing arrangement. He may be receptive despite your initial criticism of his site/business.
I've got the emails relating to me making a licences payment (Paypal) and you sending me the login and password info (Sept/Oct 2009). You might recall, I paid a fee for 3 licences (Markaudio, Scott and Bob). From my memory, buying these licences came about from Scott using Mathcad to checkout his calculations on the Pensil 12 box design.
I'm happy for anyone to use the Pensil designs (DIY or commercial) providing its used with the designated Markaudio driver. Given that the Pensil 12's have been in circulation for some time; And I've paid you for mine and Scott licences, I assume the Pensil's use is up to me.
For other box designs that use your Mathcad and apply Markaudio drivers, I'm on record on previous posts encouraging concerned parties to contact you for licencing arrangements.
Mark.
Last edited:
Scott's licence doesn't cover any manufacturer of his designs... they need to get their own.
As it turns out, only a prototype of Wagner has been built and none have been sold.
A 3rd party manufacturer selling Pensils would require his own licence.
dave
Dave,
I want Martin to answer this. Let him speak for himself. What you describe is not the arrangement I agreed with Martin in 2009.
Mark.
Last edited:
To get an answer from Martin you will need to email him directly, he won't answer here.
The arrangement Scott & i have been working under is that any designs done using MJK for a 3rd party require the 3rd party to purchase a 1-time commercial licence (as opposed to an annual one) to legitamize the for profit builds of the designs we have done (Scott designs, i draw).
If Martin gave you a non-standard licence i am not privy to that.
dave
The arrangement Scott & i have been working under is that any designs done using MJK for a 3rd party require the 3rd party to purchase a 1-time commercial licence (as opposed to an annual one) to legitamize the for profit builds of the designs we have done (Scott designs, i draw).
If Martin gave you a non-standard licence i am not privy to that.
dave
Attachments
To get an answer from Martin you will need to email him directly, he won't answer here.
The arrangement Scott & i have been working under is that any designs done using MJK for a 3rd party require the 3rd party to purchase a 1-time commercial licence (as opposed to an annual one) to legitamize the for profit builds of the designs we have done (Scott designs, i draw).
If Martin gave you a non-standard licence i am not privy to that.
dave
Dave,
I paid for mine, Scotts and Bob's licences on a "commercial" basis, one business to another and not on the terms you describe. Martin and I know each other's emails. We'll no doubt sort it out in time.
My hope is that Martin and I can clarify our 2009 licencing terms and publicise them to help avoid future confusion.
In the meantime, I refer all other parties who've built Pensils on a commercial basis to my previous post.
Mark.
Last edited:
That's going to be one hell of a long horn!
That's really funny. 20 Internets for you, squeak.
a Gordian knot, if you will
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Gordian not
Well I didn't. I ran away and became a finish carpenter for RBs. People like MJK who stood up in the ill wind of our greedy time have my complete admiration and gratitude, as does any other willing contributor here. Hopefully I can offer up some tidbit that will move another enthusiast's learning curve along. We can only start from where we are.
Well I didn't. I ran away and became a finish carpenter for RBs. People like MJK who stood up in the ill wind of our greedy time have my complete admiration and gratitude, as does any other willing contributor here. Hopefully I can offer up some tidbit that will move another enthusiast's learning curve along. We can only start from where we are.
The sad end result is that GM and MJK are unhappy and MJK has stopped contributing (GM too?). And all they wanted to do was to help us diy'ers build speakers based on their knowledge and expertise. All it appears to take is a couple of guys trying to make a profit on it without their consent. Diy'ers lose.
Does this mean that as far as anyone on DIY Audio is concerned, anyone producing a TQWT speaker is thieving the intellectual property of the BiB?
I find that a bit of a stretch, unless you could prove that they used the spreadsheets available to derive their driver placement, taper length, mouth area and then did no tweaking by ear or modification of the design.
I know for a fact that well before TC was selling BiB's there was a limited manufacture builder in Australia selling TQWT's commercially, (as of course were Castle in the UK).
What exactly makes a TQWT a BiB. What variation from the published mathcad specs makes a TQWT no longer a BiB?
I find that a bit of a stretch, unless you could prove that they used the spreadsheets available to derive their driver placement, taper length, mouth area and then did no tweaking by ear or modification of the design.
I know for a fact that well before TC was selling BiB's there was a limited manufacture builder in Australia selling TQWT's commercially, (as of course were Castle in the UK).
What exactly makes a TQWT a BiB. What variation from the published mathcad specs makes a TQWT no longer a BiB?
Let prima donnas be prima donnas. One of the hard-won lessons of my life is that being intelligent and knowledgeable has no bearing on a person being sensible or reasonable.
Now, I don't know what MJK has been subjected to on this board, but if it's stuff like the above that instigated his response, even over time, it seems a bit like overreacting and having too tender feelings.
People treating him like a saint, seem to forget the fact that he is also commercial, and that that is probably what it's really all about. Whether it be pocket money or more doesn't matter.
It's not like the future of our hobby hinges around one guy, that wouldn't be healthy anyway. Great speakers were build before MJK, and great speakers will continue to be built, with or without the mathcad sheets.
Last edited:
It's a good thing Terry isn't around to see his name involved in this nonsense - the whole nomenclature of "BiB" originated from his project and article posted on John Melhuish's SingleDriver Website - his "BiB" was nothing more that a TQWT on steroids, if you will. IINM, its own commercial lifespan was short-lived as the particular Fostex driver that he originally intended to use was discontinued by the manufacturer, and he ultimately followed up with a smaller enclosure - the Abby (itself essentially a variation on simple Voigt pipe) that used two Fostex drivers still in production at the time ( FE166E and FF165K) . Then of course there were the BEN (Big ENough?) single and double front mouth BLH - also based on prior art - from the Nagaoka school.
Neither the BiB, or to the best of my knowledge any of Cain & Cain, or their successor Lovecraft designs were engineered with MJK's mathcad worksheets, although they could no doubt be modeled with, and presumably improved upon with them.
IINM, Jeff (Godzilla) was a major benefactor to the DIY community with his now sadly missed BIB site - his name certainly belongs to the short list of folks that should be torqued up about the commercialization of this particular design.
But I think the over-arching issue here is the lack of acknowledgement and payment of licensing fees for commercial manufacturing on any scale of any loudspeaker enclosure clearly designed with the use of Martin's worksheets. (the "clearly" part being perhaps not always so easy to prove?)
In any case, it seems to me that there's not much grey area there - every commercial manufacturer building enclosures designed with those programs (even by 3rd parties such as Scott, Bob Brines, etc.) must have their own separate commercial license. Only Martin can decide which/ when special considerations might be appropriate - but should such circumstances arise, would it not also be his responsibility to disclose that?
hence the Gordian knot
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.