IVX: very true, neither is it for L6385D, which is the one i am using 😉
BTW how do you make these quote fields? I always make them manually, but i think you are using a little bit smarter way??? 🙂
BTW how do you make these quote fields? I always make them manually, but i think you are using a little bit smarter way??? 🙂
Hi Ivan
I am not interested in the 1 W performance of a 20 Watt amp but the 1 Watt performance of amps of > 100 Watt of output power.
Regards
Charles
I am not interested in the 1 W performance of a 20 Watt amp but the 1 Watt performance of amps of > 100 Watt of output power.
Regards
Charles
Patents
IVX: With regards to your question about Bruno Putzeys' patents in relation to the NewClassD RC network, i have read his patent claims closely for this particular part.
Here are the claims that come into scope:
Now as you can see, i have a capacitance in parallel with a resistor, coupled in series with another resistor. This is not the same as Bruno's patents claim. However i do admit that the resulting circuit function is somewhat comparable.
So just to be sure, i have sent a mail to Jan-Peter asking if they see it as a violation, in which case it would of course have to be resolved properly.
IVX: With regards to your question about Bruno Putzeys' patents in relation to the NewClassD RC network, i have read his patent claims closely for this particular part.
Here are the claims that come into scope:
Now as you can see, i have a capacitance in parallel with a resistor, coupled in series with another resistor. This is not the same as Bruno's patents claim. However i do admit that the resulting circuit function is somewhat comparable.
So just to be sure, i have sent a mail to Jan-Peter asking if they see it as a violation, in which case it would of course have to be resolved properly.
Thanks for your reply Lars Clausen!
I agree that low volume production should be sold at hight price...The difference with me is that prototypes is design to be stable in mass production. Performance was excelent, but not tuned each one as your. That why I can sold module as at such low price. I already sold these module for fews commercial company (some pro too, but cannot give any name here...) that use it in Surround sound system or in multichannel pro audio amp. I only sold module, they do all the rest.
Nice work, seem interesting way the micro-controler!
Fredos
www.d-amp.com
I agree that low volume production should be sold at hight price...The difference with me is that prototypes is design to be stable in mass production. Performance was excelent, but not tuned each one as your. That why I can sold module as at such low price. I already sold these module for fews commercial company (some pro too, but cannot give any name here...) that use it in Surround sound system or in multichannel pro audio amp. I only sold module, they do all the rest.
Nice work, seem interesting way the micro-controler!
Fredos
www.d-amp.com
A cap in parallel with a resistor isn't that new at all. It is a circuit detail used since decades in PID controllers.
I don't think that this detail violates the UcD patent.
Regards
Charles
I don't think that this detail violates the UcD patent.
Regards
Charles
I think both this kind of circuit, and something very similar to the circuit of Putzeys' patent was implemented in the circuits developed by a Norwegian engineer in 1970. It was a class D with 1,5MHz switching frequency, running at 30W and a stunning 99% efficiency (with bipolar transistors!). I do not remember for sure what company he worked for.
Clausen, is it so that the delay time causes the rise in distorsion when runnng at higher switching frequencies?
(If you want to post a quote you have to check the checkbox at the lower right corner of the post before you hit the answer-button.)
Clausen, is it so that the delay time causes the rise in distorsion when runnng at higher switching frequencies?
(If you want to post a quote you have to check the checkbox at the lower right corner of the post before you hit the answer-button.)
Charles: Thanks for the support! I did find a reference design with exacly the same feedback topology as used in UcD, dating before Hypex' patent date. It can be seen here:
http://focus.ti.com/lit/an/slua286/slua286.pdf
It's a PWM regulator, but essentially very similar to the circuit described in the UcD patent.
But of course i have no intent of offending my friends in Hypex, so it will be my pleasure to redesign the global loop, as to be sure it does not collide with the UcD patent.
Which btw can be seen here
🙂
http://focus.ti.com/lit/an/slua286/slua286.pdf
It's a PWM regulator, but essentially very similar to the circuit described in the UcD patent.
But of course i have no intent of offending my friends in Hypex, so it will be my pleasure to redesign the global loop, as to be sure it does not collide with the UcD patent.
Which btw can be seen here
🙂
Lars, Quote script it's a really really strong voodoo, turn on your intuition and you'll see Quote:_check_box in the right bottom corner. ;-)
Charles, i mean 20W performance of the 80W amp versus 1W performance of the 400W amp. I agree about UcD patent, but it make possibility for anyone to use this stuff if additional res added, even 1Ohm or less. BTW, boringly without Bruno here. :-(
Charles, i mean 20W performance of the 80W amp versus 1W performance of the 400W amp. I agree about UcD patent, but it make possibility for anyone to use this stuff if additional res added, even 1Ohm or less. BTW, boringly without Bruno here. :-(
Class D patent
Infinity had a patent which is very similar to UCD patent #
5218315 June 1993
Hard to patent old circuits which have been around for years
Infinity had a patent which is very similar to UCD patent #
5218315 June 1993
Hard to patent old circuits which have been around for years
Member
Joined 2003
Sorry, I meant NewClassD, got my merds wixed there. 😉UrSv said:
Thanks for your response. Can we expect distortion measurements at full rated output power sometime soon? Looks like this might be a great little high powered amplifier!
DcibeL said:
😎
I will get the full powered measurements made within a day or two 🙂
MOER: I have been peeking on Google to find this patent you are referring to, and i would be reluctant to say that it is similar to UcD. However i came across this interesting page, where someone has painstakingly put together the short and sweet of a bunch of Class D patents. Very nice job! Take a look 😉
http://www.acutechnology.com/ClassD/Pat_list.html
What factors do you concider to be the greatest contributors to distortion in this construction Clausen?
Thanks for the class D patents link by the way. Do you know if it is anywhere near complete?
Thanks for the class D patents link by the way. Do you know if it is anywhere near complete?
I'd like to see at least half power measurements, which is I think .... to go out on a limb... "standard"? At least for different loads, and Vs frequency.
Regarding patent infringement, I'd think give Hypex a few days and they'll be OK with it.... just a guess. The UCD isn't patented based solely on the phase lead circuitry which can be achieved via other means .... as we see here already. Really what's the difference? I'm sure many patents could be found that would bring UCD into question, if all it had to go on was that form of phase lead.
I'd be more interested to know that both pre and post filter feedback methods are optimal for the given design or if one is thrown in to make a point..... further dissection will reveal 🙂
Sander since you'll be doing the graphs I think I'll save myself the time.
I just received a pair of UCD400 V6.1 to compare these things to. I'll only be able to operate them at half power, and the only mod I plan on making to them for comparitive purposes is to short the coupling caps. However it will not be my intention to turn this into a NewClassD Vs Hypex UCD at all.
You may expect an honest and objective report. This of course does not exclude the inevitable comparison to UCD, it is what I've come to know... I'll walk the line on it. Certainly I'm extremely interested in trying the pre Vs post filter feedback comparison.
Regards,
Chris
Regarding patent infringement, I'd think give Hypex a few days and they'll be OK with it.... just a guess. The UCD isn't patented based solely on the phase lead circuitry which can be achieved via other means .... as we see here already. Really what's the difference? I'm sure many patents could be found that would bring UCD into question, if all it had to go on was that form of phase lead.
I'd be more interested to know that both pre and post filter feedback methods are optimal for the given design or if one is thrown in to make a point..... further dissection will reveal 🙂
Sander since you'll be doing the graphs I think I'll save myself the time.
I just received a pair of UCD400 V6.1 to compare these things to. I'll only be able to operate them at half power, and the only mod I plan on making to them for comparitive purposes is to short the coupling caps. However it will not be my intention to turn this into a NewClassD Vs Hypex UCD at all.
You may expect an honest and objective report. This of course does not exclude the inevitable comparison to UCD, it is what I've come to know... I'll walk the line on it. Certainly I'm extremely interested in trying the pre Vs post filter feedback comparison.
Regards,
Chris
Snickers-is said:
It's popped up several times on this forum and I believe is done by a forum member... who doesn't seem to participate actively at least anymore.
It is by no means complete as he mentions intentionally leaving out alot that just didn't make sense or was so redundant with other patents that they weren't worth mentioning again. Some are there just for comical relief too... the things some people patent.
BTW, should Hypex decide that this amp's post filter feedback require changing, I'd also like to see exactly what Nuforce uses.... since it's been brought into question as well... that they use something much closer to UCD if not identical and isn't very relative to their own patents.
I think Lars made an intentional effort to skirt UCD feedback just so and even that was probably going further than he had to.
You could probably even use the ESR of the trace....
BTW Lars, how would you, yourself, compare this module to the one of LCaudio which they can't seem to get to production?
Re: Class D patent
Doesn't look that way at all really, seems like anyone can get a patent and are more than welcome to battle it out in court, they make more money that way. Not too many patents are actually novel, at least some have good portions of it which are, others are direct rip offs or patent something so known and obvious that it's laughable.
MOER said:
Doesn't look that way at all really, seems like anyone can get a patent and are more than welcome to battle it out in court, they make more money that way. Not too many patents are actually novel, at least some have good portions of it which are, others are direct rip offs or patent something so known and obvious that it's laughable.
I am having a hard time understanding how filed patent applications on commonly known technology can be approved. I especially see this repeatingly in Voice Coil. I remember reading about some people filed an application for series cross overs in general. Another company (large Japanese one) filed an application for patenting the use of a single capacitor bypassing one of two drivers connected in series. As the editor wrote: "This topology has been commonly used as long as dynamic loudspeaker drivers have existed".
Why? Because patent usage has been twisted from its original intent of making possible the sharing of new technology whilst protecting the inventor's rights to it, to the more obscene purpose of generating income for courts and governments.
What do you suppose Microsoft Vs Apple or whatever made the courts last year? I bet it's alot more than the poor sucker who wrote the code they're fighting over.
I wonder who patented the code Lars used on his MCU? I bet at least 10 people did, because there's likely to be just a few obvious ways of doing it that make any sense.
If you have the money to buy a patent you can, if you have the money to defend it you're unstoppable.
What do you suppose Microsoft Vs Apple or whatever made the courts last year? I bet it's alot more than the poor sucker who wrote the code they're fighting over.
I wonder who patented the code Lars used on his MCU? I bet at least 10 people did, because there's likely to be just a few obvious ways of doing it that make any sense.
If you have the money to buy a patent you can, if you have the money to defend it you're unstoppable.
But patenting old technology is any way illegal all over the world and if the technology is previously known the patent is automatically invalidated.
I think the fights around the patents more or less are a question of wether or not a type of technology is covered by a specific patent.
Anyway, it is not likely to believe that anyone (other than the lawyers) kan make money this way.
I think the fights around the patents more or less are a question of wether or not a type of technology is covered by a specific patent.
Anyway, it is not likely to believe that anyone (other than the lawyers) kan make money this way.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.