There are far too many unknowns about the unit concerned, a few of which I have already indicated, for anyone to attempt to say that Evans
makes overpriced very shoddy equipment. All we have is uninformed opinion and hearsay.
Perhaps Evan's should respond to this thread before his name is totally ruined by uninformed opinion having turned into a witch hunt.
That is my final contribution to this thread.
makes overpriced very shoddy equipment. All we have is uninformed opinion and hearsay.
Perhaps Evan's should respond to this thread before his name is totally ruined by uninformed opinion having turned into a witch hunt.
That is my final contribution to this thread.
Sure, but Tom Evans forced the videos removed as providing the evidence of the "far too many unknowns" you seem now suggesting never existed as known... What uninformed opinion as now becoming hearsay?
A lot of intrigue and free advertising going on. As my mum used to say “any advertising is good advertising”...
It's a (commercial) product, is it fair to criticise it on a diy forum? He has customers that buy his products, it's up to them how they spend their money.
The copyright issue is a load of bo**oc&s😆
It's a (commercial) product, is it fair to criticise it on a diy forum? He has customers that buy his products, it's up to them how they spend their money.
The copyright issue is a load of bo**oc&s😆
Sure, why not? We can criticize it anywhere we like. 🙂
Of course. Not going to tell people how to spend their money.
Of course it is, but it got the video pulled didn't it.
jeff
My only criticism was the build quality/assembly, not the circuit. I'm old, and I like anodized aluminum and machine screws. 🙂
jeff
jeff
Last edited:
Not necessarily in the UK and EU unfortunately. It's a bit hard to interpret.
I guarantee you, that Tom Evans never imagined that Mark would have the ability and patience to reverse engineer all of the Mastergroove’s circuits. 😎
Unit was sent to Mark without providing service manual. Reverse engineering was normal thing to do.
I’m no lawyer, but I have been involved in a few of these issues from a business perspective. I don’t know about in the U.K., but in the U.S., a circuit’s functioning is not protected by copyright. To protect that requires a patent. Copyrights protect the particular ‘artistic/creative expression’ that is a drawing, or document, or photo, or software, etc. Not the functional information or ideas that drawing, or document, or photo, or software, etc. conveys. Mark’s reverse engineering the functioning of the Mastergroove’s circuits to create his own original drawings are not protected for Tom Evans co. by copyright. As Jan alluded somewhere upthread, Mark’s particular expression (his creation) of his own schematic drawings are now, themselves, under HIS copyright protection.
Of course, YouTube isn’t interested in sorting any of that out. Costs them less money that way.
Last edited:
But the sharing of the service manual or showing schematic snippets could be where the copyright violation lies ... assuming there is a violation. A lot of end-user license agreements state that you're not allowed to reverse-engineer the product. But that'd be a violation of the licensing terms and not a copyright violation.
I'll admit that I didn't watch all of the video so maybe more was shared than what I saw. I did see the schematics that were shown around the 10-15 minute mark. There was enough schematic to glean the overall topology of the circuit and form an opinion on it but not really enough to reproduce it. It sounds more like the manufacturer reacted to suddenly being exposed for charging a premium for build quality that didn't exactly look the part. Hopefully they'll up their game and build it better next time.
I suppose the repair guy could try to repost the video with the schematic bits removed. But I wouldn't blame him if he just moves on.
Tom
Where Mark would have been in legal jeopardy was if the Evans co. had sent him copies of their schematics, and he showed those on his web show. He’s free to draft his own reverse engineered schematics, which may not even be correct. Especially, when they’re not based on schematics conditionally provided to him by the Evans co., or outright stolen. It sounds like none of those happened.
OTOH, it's not like YouTube's legal department gets involved. I bet it goes like this: Someone clicks the Report button and says, "that's my copyrighted work! They showed schematics in the video. See!". YouTube might ask for some sort of proof, so they're pointed to the manufacturer's website where images of the amp are shown. YouTube goes, "yep, that's your work". Assuming they even get involved that far. Then they pull the video.
It's far cheaper for YouTube to just take the content down than it is for their employees to get involved. And also cheaper than for them to get into some sort of legal battle with Evans.
Tom
It's far cheaper for YouTube to just take the content down than it is for their employees to get involved. And also cheaper than for them to get into some sort of legal battle with Evans.
Tom
Being in the UK, the laws are pretty much the same as in the EU.
A circuit per se is under no copyright (it as argued as "technical aspects of connecting parts in a given way" AFAIR) - this is very much the same issue with complex LEGO sets - you can copy the result, but the construction plan (like a schematic) is copyrighted and you can't copy that.
However nothing stops you from creating your own plan/schematic, that's what Mark did. So that is perfectly legal. He has a copyright on the created-by-him plans and repair manual, he can sell it.
Those "do not reverse engineer" terms are unenforcable in the UK/EU and void. One could attack the validity of the whole licensing agreement, when these kinds of terms a present.
(The modern way to get some kind of legal protection from reverse engineering is to add a microcontroller with firmware, the firmware is protected by copyright; if it is protected by some means, like readout protection flag, it has even stronger protection, up to jail time.)
Btw. discussing this matter without having watched the video is - meh.
Btw. 2 - the criticism is on the contruction of this 25k machine, which is shoddy, even by DIY standards. The circuit itself is pretty standard, rather sub-standard with the use of some questionable parts.
Btw. 3 - my understanding is, the high price is (somewhat) justified by extremely selected parts, individually selected for lowest noise. That obviously takes a lot of working hours, so does not come cheap. Not sure, how true this claim is.
I don't think so, it really is the click of a button. Unfortunately, this being completely asymetric, the punishment for mis-reporting is nowhere as easy to enforce.
So it seems back up somewhere else...
https://odysee.com/The-£25,000-Pre-Amp-that-went-Wrong---Tom-Evans-Mastergroove-SR-mkIII:c
https://odysee.com/The-£25,000-Pre-Amp-that-went-Wrong---Tom-Evans-Mastergroove-SR-mkIII:c
Not sure if this was answered, but it looks like a Metcal desoldering iron.
https://store.metcal.com/en-uk/shop/soldering-desoldering/hand-pieces/MX-UK5
What, if instead of showing how to assemble it, you showed how to dissemble it, and it would be up to someone else to decide if they wanted to read it backwards - I think a manufacturer of a kit car used this to sell a car as parts, rather than a kit to build a car.
The whole fun of Lego for me was to look at the picture on the box, and make it from that.
I didn't say I didn't watch it. I said I watched enough to form an opinion on the build quality and see the schematics. Do I have to watch it in half-speed and savour every word to be approved by you to have an opinion and to express my opinion?
Anyone with even a little bit of experience taking commercial products apart – or even just looking at pictures of the insides of commercial products – should be able to conclude within seconds or seeing the insides of that amp that the build quality is nowhere near what can reasonably be expected for a commercial product, never mind a $25k product. I'm sorry to hear that it took you the careful watching of a full 45-minute video to reach that conclusion. Some of us are faster.
Anyone can make those claims. They're impossible to verify. Also, a competent designer would design the circuit such that it does not require matched or selected parts. But that doesn't make for much of a marketing story.
Tom
- Status
- Not open for further replies.