It is within normal copyright regulations, per the nation under question or other national equivalents. The reference you make is regarding reproduction for commercial publication, not fair use 'private' (which means 'non-commercial') study, research or criticism.
You don't seem to be familiar with standard usage & citation practice. I work in academia & if somebody tried to slap that kind of closed shop on a field, the entire thing would grind to a standstill. I'd also point out that even if you did try to attempt to apply it for some [very] peculiar reason or other, & somehow got the regulations changed, you can't do so retrospectively.
You don't seem to be familiar with standard usage & citation practice. I work in academia & if somebody tried to slap that kind of closed shop on a field, the entire thing would grind to a standstill. I'd also point out that even if you did try to attempt to apply it for some [very] peculiar reason or other, & somehow got the regulations changed, you can't do so retrospectively.
For reference (this is US, since the AES is essentially a US institution for administrative purposes, but most nations have approximate equivalents):
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
In particular, see the following:
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
In particular, see the following:
I won't continue to hijack bmsuiite's thread after this post.
The journal can state whatever they want, but it does not trump the law. I think the statement below is correct about getting legal advice, if anyone is actually worried. But since they aren't going to suffer any damages if you post a small portion under fair use to a forum, there isn't much recourse for the author or the journal to do anything. If you violated the law and used some portion of the article in a for-profit book, then they could sue for damages.
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Edit: Scottmoose's last two posts didn't show up before I posted, so I probably repeated some of what he linked.
The journal can state whatever they want, but it does not trump the law. I think the statement below is correct about getting legal advice, if anyone is actually worried. But since they aren't going to suffer any damages if you post a small portion under fair use to a forum, there isn't much recourse for the author or the journal to do anything. If you violated the law and used some portion of the article in a for-profit book, then they could sue for damages.
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Edit: Scottmoose's last two posts didn't show up before I posted, so I probably repeated some of what he linked.
I am an AES member. Mamny of the papers i have seen i have also downloaded freely from the author. I have posted and quoted much fromthe Aes for 25 years or soon, if one is not comfortble posting at least bits of their papers are probably moreworried about the paper than the AES.
I gave away some 30 years of journals. Some of those might have been in Scott’s Charity Shop but since he is on the othr side of the Atlantic, likely someone elses.
dave
I gave away some 30 years of journals. Some of those might have been in Scott’s Charity Shop but since he is on the othr side of the Atlantic, likely someone elses.
dave
To the original question...not all based on personal use, but I read all of the forums, go to many DIY events per year, and talk to a lot of people.
The SB Acoustics ceramic (coated aluminum) driver are some of the best-for-the-money midranges out there.
The Satori Textreme and Purifi drivers are quite pricey but very good from a sound-quality perspective. I think there are many other great sounding drivers that don't get as much attention as the Textreme and Purifi simply because the Textreme and Purifi drivers are the "new" thing, even though they really aren't that "new" anymore. Scan-speak revelator midrange seem to be "old news".
The SB Acoustics ceramic (coated aluminum) driver are some of the best-for-the-money midranges out there.
The Satori Textreme and Purifi drivers are quite pricey but very good from a sound-quality perspective. I think there are many other great sounding drivers that don't get as much attention as the Textreme and Purifi simply because the Textreme and Purifi drivers are the "new" thing, even though they really aren't that "new" anymore. Scan-speak revelator midrange seem to be "old news".
Alas, I no longer have copies of stuff I was associated with or even stuff I wrote myself cos several HD crashes.
May be legal but da AES Schuz Staffel take a different view and I'm already on their RADAR. It might be legal but they can still ex-communicate or worse if you are an AES member.
Hmmm. As I'm no longer a member, someone could send me a copy and I could distribute without fear. 😊 Foreigners with German accents wearing trench coats would be pretty obvious in Cooktown where my beach is.
ALL the times I've presented papers at the AES and ALL the people I personally know who have done so had to sign da "rights belong to the AES upon publication" and more restrictive stuff.
You're probably OK if you don't need a favour from the AES. I'm a professional beach bum so can't afford AES membership. The last time(s) I presented a paper, da Reichmarshall waived my membership fee but lectured me on distribution.
There's a (probably mythical) story that all PDF copies of AES stuff are secretly marked so they can trace leaks.
Last edited:
A4eaudio: "Also, the author doesn't ALWAYS retain the rights because he may agree that the rights belong to the journal upon publication. But that is rare."
kgrlee: "ALL the times I've presented papers at the AES and ALL the people I personally know who have done so had to sign da "rights belong to the AES upon publication" and more restrictive stuff."
I was speaking of academic journals in general, not specifically AES.
kgrlee: "ALL the times I've presented papers at the AES and ALL the people I personally know who have done so had to sign da "rights belong to the AES upon publication" and more restrictive stuff."
I was speaking of academic journals in general, not specifically AES.
What a load of tosh (not a personal comment I hasten to add). It's almost 0200 here, but FWIW:
I've been there: I had to re-type my entire masters thesis after my HDD crashed in the midst of a backup (shades of irony). Fortunately it was complete & I had hard copy.
I've no bones in this, don't know anybody involved, nor do I care, but speaking in general terms, a publisher cannot decide what 'their view' on copyright law is. They have to accept it, end of. If they don't like standard citation / quotation & try to prevent it, they are on very shaky legal ground for a start, and as far as academia is concerned, they have no business being in it if they pursue that end, since they are actively working against the expansion of knowledge, which is the purpose of publishing journals.
Meaning what, and what can they do? I can picture the scene: 'You: the plain person! You legally quoted a 40 year old article following normal fair use practice we are obliged to operate under, like everybody else! How dare you do such a thing! We shall -er...'
Ex-communicate? Or worse? What on Earth does that mean? Cancel your membership for doing nothing at all wrong (which would be a very dodgy position to place themselves in)? Be still my heart. It's an organisation of voluntary paying members, not the Stasi. And even if we accept this apparently sinister situation at face value, since you're no longer a member, this alleged 'radar' business is a mite irrelevant anyway, n'est-ce pas?
That's fairly normal practice for most journal articles -they don't want the author suddenly publishing it in another 'rival' journal two months later -or visa versa for that matter as it's a waste of everyone's time & resources, especially when working in relatively narrow fields. The author is perfectly free to use select sections of their own material however: they are not obliged to have a brain-drain.
If you need 'favours' from them, then something is very badly wrong with the entire field. I'm sorry, but I do not accept the editorial team of the AES Journal think they are above ordinary fair use copyright citation or quotation -not only would that be a completely unsupportable stance in light of the legal conditions we are all obliged to operate within (see above), it would be fundamentally ridiculous since the purpose of a journal is the advancement of knowledge, not to reduce it by attempting to prevent all but a select handful ever learning a sentence of the content.
Neither can I: I've spent the past 6 1/2 years trying to live on an average of £462 per month (gross). Academia does not pay, sadly.
Quite -if you present or publish a paper, that is the place you've chosen for distribution for it in entirety. That doesn't mean you can't quote from it.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It's not all that unusual for publishers to do something like that with new material if entire books, journals etc. are being distributed on torrent / whatever sites, since that is very much breaking copyright law. Quoting a couple of sentences & a graph from a published article, with proper citation, very definitely does not come under that heading, as you can see from the above. 😉
Last edited:
I can't recall exactly but it was ATC, Volt or maybe a Morel dome data sheet that described the use of dual spiders or surrounds on the dome midrange to reduce the rocking mode of a dome with a single suspension element.
From the www.madisound.com website description of the Volt 3" dome they hint at it as coil stability. The Volt dome was reviewed by Voicecoil magazine a while back. I may have read it there.
" The dome and surround are critically doped for smoothness and consistency of response, a second, rear surround maintains coil stability. "
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/midrange/volt-vm753e-3-dome-midrange-horn-loaded-8-ohm/
Sorry, I don't have an example of a dome midrange that I know for sure has a single suspension. I suspect some of the more shallow designs like the Scan Speak Discovery just don't have room for a second suspension part. If it did I would think the marketing folks would be calling it out.
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...speak-discovery-d7608/9200-10-3-dome-midrange
Last edited:
Give me (for starters) a break -I was last posting at 0200 BST and I'll have to go down to my old institution to get access to past AES material I don't have. 23 minutes in the small hours is asking a bit much, don't you think? 😉
Re crossovers -same as anything, I'd suggest: those which achieve the desired frequency / power / phase response & provide the desired control over stopband modes. Not all hard domes / cones are created equal or require handling in the same way after all. It's not a dome, but John Krutke had the right idea (now there's a surprise...) with his L18 project. Since the sadly-discontinued (why, Seas? Only one of the best drivers you made 🙁 ) H1142 midbass didn't let go until about 7KHz & he was crossing asymmetric LR4 at 2KHz, below the amplified HD3 peaking courtesy of that bell mode, and it had a pretty decent motor on it anyway, no special measures required, beyond shaping the response to the target curve, which he did with a total of 3 components.
Something a bit nastier like one of the cast magnesium Excel units with their lower breakup modes I personally approach either with lower & steeper filters; possibly something like LR6 or type II Chebyshev to get below that HD3 distortion amplification, and / or a high impedance bottomless parallel blocker LC notch in series with the driver centred on the main mode & preventing that distortion amplification in the first place. To each their own, obviously, but I tend to prefer that anyway given the potential advantages with polar matching, power-response etc. Harder to do with drivers that have secondary / smaller peaks below the main resonance, but presumably we're talking about high quality examples of drivers rather than mediocre ones. Same applies to midranges of course, just higher up the range. And tweeters for that matter. 😉
Re crossovers -same as anything, I'd suggest: those which achieve the desired frequency / power / phase response & provide the desired control over stopband modes. Not all hard domes / cones are created equal or require handling in the same way after all. It's not a dome, but John Krutke had the right idea (now there's a surprise...) with his L18 project. Since the sadly-discontinued (why, Seas? Only one of the best drivers you made 🙁 ) H1142 midbass didn't let go until about 7KHz & he was crossing asymmetric LR4 at 2KHz, below the amplified HD3 peaking courtesy of that bell mode, and it had a pretty decent motor on it anyway, no special measures required, beyond shaping the response to the target curve, which he did with a total of 3 components.
Something a bit nastier like one of the cast magnesium Excel units with their lower breakup modes I personally approach either with lower & steeper filters; possibly something like LR6 or type II Chebyshev to get below that HD3 distortion amplification, and / or a high impedance bottomless parallel blocker LC notch in series with the driver centred on the main mode & preventing that distortion amplification in the first place. To each their own, obviously, but I tend to prefer that anyway given the potential advantages with polar matching, power-response etc. Harder to do with drivers that have secondary / smaller peaks below the main resonance, but presumably we're talking about high quality examples of drivers rather than mediocre ones. Same applies to midranges of course, just higher up the range. And tweeters for that matter. 😉
Last edited:
What is the cone for?
What's the mechanism that different cone has different sound?
Is that due to cone material difference or motor structure?
Would you use the driver to the point it has breakup?
PA drivers use paper for most of their drivers. The force PA drivers need to handle is enormous.
What's the mechanism that different cone has different sound?
Is that due to cone material difference or motor structure?
Would you use the driver to the point it has breakup?
PA drivers use paper for most of their drivers. The force PA drivers need to handle is enormous.
A driber designer faces a huge number of compromises. In the end you have o judge it on how well it works.
dave
dave
I seriously looked at going, but the long drive is more than I handle with my sore back right now.