Bill,
The K-402 by itself is $285(US), but Klipsch recently changed its policy so that you have to buy a 2" compression driver and an adjustable stand - raising the price to ~$1000(US), which is too high. That's the problem that I'm working.
The KPT-305 is ~$1500(US), which is also too high for this cheap crowd (but not the cinema marketplace). It has a box, the K-402 horn, and a throat-mounted 8" driver. It's intended to be a band pass module for the behind-the-screen 4-way systems in the cinema line.
So the real issue is the horn itself, especially one that has the woofer mounting pads built-in and is beefed up to withstand the added loads from the woofers (I use two 15" Crites cast frames). The price should be much, much less than the PSE-144, marketed out of OZ, at least in my opinion, and much closer to the horn-only price from Klipsch quoted above.
The difference between the US6411718 (Unity) patent, assigned to Sound Physics Labs, and the US828916 (Synergy) patent is very odd. The second patent almost doesn't reference the first, and really it makes claims only on the combination using passive crossovers and no nulls, but it's based on a unity horn configuration. I'm not a lawyer, but what I do know about patents is the the same patented invention cannot be patented again in a different patent, without change, but assigned to two different owners (companies). Once the IP from the first patent expires, any claims that secondary (parasitic) patents can have must be based on the combination of the original patented design plus the improvements, all together, or the IP protection dissolves.
So if you're designing and producing Unity horns, the apparent IP protection has ceased and cannot be retroactively reinstated due to the twice-delinquent fees status to the USPTO--the patent is dead. There is a finite chance that it might be reinstated, but you'd have to tell a whopper of a story to the USPTO to get away with that, and in May 2016, the game's apparently locked forever.
I'll break the discussion on that subject right there for clarity's sake.
Chris
The K-402 by itself is $285(US), but Klipsch recently changed its policy so that you have to buy a 2" compression driver and an adjustable stand - raising the price to ~$1000(US), which is too high. That's the problem that I'm working.
The KPT-305 is ~$1500(US), which is also too high for this cheap crowd (but not the cinema marketplace). It has a box, the K-402 horn, and a throat-mounted 8" driver. It's intended to be a band pass module for the behind-the-screen 4-way systems in the cinema line.
So the real issue is the horn itself, especially one that has the woofer mounting pads built-in and is beefed up to withstand the added loads from the woofers (I use two 15" Crites cast frames). The price should be much, much less than the PSE-144, marketed out of OZ, at least in my opinion, and much closer to the horn-only price from Klipsch quoted above.
The difference between the US6411718 (Unity) patent, assigned to Sound Physics Labs, and the US828916 (Synergy) patent is very odd. The second patent almost doesn't reference the first, and really it makes claims only on the combination using passive crossovers and no nulls, but it's based on a unity horn configuration. I'm not a lawyer, but what I do know about patents is the the same patented invention cannot be patented again in a different patent, without change, but assigned to two different owners (companies). Once the IP from the first patent expires, any claims that secondary (parasitic) patents can have must be based on the combination of the original patented design plus the improvements, all together, or the IP protection dissolves.
So if you're designing and producing Unity horns, the apparent IP protection has ceased and cannot be retroactively reinstated due to the twice-delinquent fees status to the USPTO--the patent is dead. There is a finite chance that it might be reinstated, but you'd have to tell a whopper of a story to the USPTO to get away with that, and in May 2016, the game's apparently locked forever.
I'll break the discussion on that subject right there for clarity's sake.
Chris
Chris,
It seems the only real diff is maybe that the "lower" (mid) driver is only used at frequencies below the reflection notch off the apex/throat. Did the Unity cross the mid tohigher in frequency than that (maybe use the notch as part of the crossover)?? I can't imagine that the Yorkville or the old Lambda kits left that horrible notch in the midrange response, and if not, then they should be disqualifying prior art.
Yeah, at $285 the K-402 would be fine, wish I had known that (would've been playing with it. Though a bit large for most homes). Any hope of working around that?
Bill
It seems the only real diff is maybe that the "lower" (mid) driver is only used at frequencies below the reflection notch off the apex/throat. Did the Unity cross the mid tohigher in frequency than that (maybe use the notch as part of the crossover)?? I can't imagine that the Yorkville or the old Lambda kits left that horrible notch in the midrange response, and if not, then they should be disqualifying prior art.
Yeah, at $285 the K-402 would be fine, wish I had known that (would've been playing with it. Though a bit large for most homes). Any hope of working around that?
Bill
I'm not sure, to be honest. I can say that the second patent is difficult to interpret, and therefore, difficult to defend. I'll stand by my first statement above: leave the crossover implementation to the DIYer or allow them to buy it from someone else.
I'm working an alternative to the K-402 horn. Using a K-402 to cut holes and attach woofer mounting pads and then having to stiffen it on the top and bottom sides isn't the best way to do things. It's better to design those geometries into the horn in one piece.
Chis
I'm working an alternative to the K-402 horn. Using a K-402 to cut holes and attach woofer mounting pads and then having to stiffen it on the top and bottom sides isn't the best way to do things. It's better to design those geometries into the horn in one piece.
Chis
Last edited:
+1
I will be the first to buy a flat pack kit, without the crossover but with just the mid drivers since they are the hardest to get . A recipe for DSP crossover would be e big plus.
Maybe another kit sold through Home page DIY Sound Group ?
I'm lurking on this concept since a long time but the required wood cuts and the lack of well defined and stable supply for mids ( Celestion TF0410MR group buy?) is holding me back.......
Chris
I will be the first to buy a flat pack kit, without the crossover but with just the mid drivers since they are the hardest to get . A recipe for DSP crossover would be e big plus.
Maybe another kit sold through Home page DIY Sound Group ?
I'm lurking on this concept since a long time but the required wood cuts and the lack of well defined and stable supply for mids ( Celestion TF0410MR group buy?) is holding me back.......
Chris
Perhaps JBL horn 2352 could be utilized for synergy too? (page 42)
http://www.iceco.com/JBL/JBL Full Line Catalog.pdf
Still available in Europe in Greece! http://www.artsound.gr/catalog/2352...aperture-radial-horn-p-15885.html?language=en
http://www.iceco.com/JBL/JBL Full Line Catalog.pdf
Still available in Europe in Greece! http://www.artsound.gr/catalog/2352...aperture-radial-horn-p-15885.html?language=en
Last edited:
I think that the difference is in two areas:
1) crossover (passive) redesign: the Synergy crossovers can produce square waves, and
2) Perhaps...the horn expansion angles
Here is a post by Danley that describes the differences: it pretty much says what I said above...i.e., it's the exact design of the passive crossovers to match phase at the crossover points and to flatten overall phase without the phase shifts associated with typical passive crossover filters.
Re: synergy vs unity - tomservo - High Efficiency Speaker Asylum
Chris
Chris, thanks for the link.
I don't actually see any exact or ever rough crossover design in the Synergy patent, though. There isn't much there except mention of crossover order (low, but how is that patentable?). And that the staggered distances of the drivers helps in phase alignment (but the same staggering was already in the Unity patent).
Anway, doesn't seem very daunting.
I'm still amazed that Tom let the Unity patent lapse. It was due to expire in a few years anyway, but still.....
I don't actually see any exact or ever rough crossover design in the Synergy patent, though. There isn't much there except mention of crossover order (low, but how is that patentable?). And that the staggered distances of the drivers helps in phase alignment (but the same staggering was already in the Unity patent).
Anway, doesn't seem very daunting.
I'm still amazed that Tom let the Unity patent lapse. It was due to expire in a few years anyway, but still.....
Bill,
The more that I read from Tom D., the more that I'm impressed for both his feel of the domain and his understanding of the physics/math, perhaps to a level that hasn't been seen before.
Having said that, like a lot of good engineers, I don't think that he spends a lot of time on the legalities of IP protection. I think that's what has happened in this case. I think you now see that, as written, the Synergy patent does very little except cast a shadow over a couple of areas of the crossover design, except that he didn't actually describe the crossover design in order to patent it. Otherwise, we'd be reading about the exact crossover design features in the patent. I think that you have to go into the supporting documentation that was provided to the patent examiners (USPTO) to understand just what they patented. That happens sometimes with patents.
Chris
The more that I read from Tom D., the more that I'm impressed for both his feel of the domain and his understanding of the physics/math, perhaps to a level that hasn't been seen before.
Having said that, like a lot of good engineers, I don't think that he spends a lot of time on the legalities of IP protection. I think that's what has happened in this case. I think you now see that, as written, the Synergy patent does very little except cast a shadow over a couple of areas of the crossover design, except that he didn't actually describe the crossover design in order to patent it. Otherwise, we'd be reading about the exact crossover design features in the patent. I think that you have to go into the supporting documentation that was provided to the patent examiners (USPTO) to understand just what they patented. That happens sometimes with patents.
Chris
Chris
Agreed about Tom's grasp of the acoustical concepts. On the patant issue, though, the one thing I did learn from working with a patent lawyer when I was in the corporate world was (and this is a quiote from memory) "if it's not specified in the claims portion, then it isn't protected by the patent".
Agreed about Tom's grasp of the acoustical concepts. On the patant issue, though, the one thing I did learn from working with a patent lawyer when I was in the corporate world was (and this is a quiote from memory) "if it's not specified in the claims portion, then it isn't protected by the patent".
True, but sometimes the definitions of the terms used in the claims are fully understandable only when you delve into the backup documentation.
I believe that you can make synergy horn crossovers or you can make a "unity horn", but if you decide to make both, you may have a legal issue.
Perhaps if Tom happens by, he might share his view of the current status so that we can understand the boundaries of the DSL Synergy patent - US 8,284,976 B2. I suppose also that if we have a US patent lawyer here, they might also offer up a non-binding legal opinion.
The key portion of the first claim is the sub-clause: "the at least one lower driver having an upper frequency end lower than a frequency of a first cancellation notch for the at least one lower driver."
The key portion of the fifth claim is the sub-clause: "the at least one lower driver having an upper frequency end lower than a frequency of a first cancellation notch for the at least one lower driver."
The key portion of the sixth claim is the sub-clause: "the lower driver having a lower frequency end and being located at a point along the horn passageway having a preselected expansion rate which is slower or equal to the low cut off or expansion rate governed by the high pass frequency for the horn."
These claims can only can be interpreted when you've got a crossover attached organically to the loudspeaker assembly.
For instance, what the user does with upstream active digital crossovers not attached or sold as part of the loudspeaker assembly isn't controllable by someone selling Unity horn kits.
Chris
I believe that you can make synergy horn crossovers or you can make a "unity horn", but if you decide to make both, you may have a legal issue.
Perhaps if Tom happens by, he might share his view of the current status so that we can understand the boundaries of the DSL Synergy patent - US 8,284,976 B2. I suppose also that if we have a US patent lawyer here, they might also offer up a non-binding legal opinion.
The key portion of the first claim is the sub-clause: "the at least one lower driver having an upper frequency end lower than a frequency of a first cancellation notch for the at least one lower driver."
The key portion of the fifth claim is the sub-clause: "the at least one lower driver having an upper frequency end lower than a frequency of a first cancellation notch for the at least one lower driver."
The key portion of the sixth claim is the sub-clause: "the lower driver having a lower frequency end and being located at a point along the horn passageway having a preselected expansion rate which is slower or equal to the low cut off or expansion rate governed by the high pass frequency for the horn."
These claims can only can be interpreted when you've got a crossover attached organically to the loudspeaker assembly.
For instance, what the user does with upstream active digital crossovers not attached or sold as part of the loudspeaker assembly isn't controllable by someone selling Unity horn kits.
Chris
I think that when you read the claims in the Unity horn patent (now expired), you'll see the degree of apparent overlap of the two patents: Patent US6411718 - Sound reproduction employing unity summation aperture loudspeakers - Google Patents
I read through both patents entirely the other day looking for the difference. The description of Synergy (the "teaching" part) goes into much further detail about how the physical arrangement helps align the phases, about frustrums, horn areas, and advantages of the arrangements. But still, the only things that seem different in the legal claims portions are the specification about the crossover happening below the cancellation notch, where in the Unity it isn't specified. And, as you said, the cross-sectional area where the lower drivers port in. But, there were Unity speakers commercially sold before the Synergy patent, I believe, and if their crossover points are below the cancellation notch and their ports are in the given position or closer to the mouth, then those would be "prior art" and effectively nullify any such claims.
My opinion means a hill of beans, of course! What would matter would be what happens should a conflict go into court. So just the "what if" part of the whole thing might serve as a deterrent giving effective "protection".
My opinion means a hill of beans, of course! What would matter would be what happens should a conflict go into court. So just the "what if" part of the whole thing might serve as a deterrent giving effective "protection".
The fact the Unity utilized and sold with that arrangement is totally different than claiming it in the patent or being described in the specifications. As most of the broad claims had already been used by the Unity, all that was left for the Synergy was the more esoteric claims of phase alignment and injection points.
But once something has been offered for sale commercially, the patent must have been applied for within one year, or the concept become public domain. You can't be granted a patent for something you or someone else has been selling longer than a year previous to your applying.
Or so the law was at that time. I was patenting something that was under such a deadline about the same period (the company I was working for was selling a product and then decided they should maybe patent some parts of it that I was involved with) ... since then, the law has changed so that there is something called a "provisional patent" that has to be filed before even offering it for sale).
Or so the law was at that time. I was patenting something that was under such a deadline about the same period (the company I was working for was selling a product and then decided they should maybe patent some parts of it that I was involved with) ... since then, the law has changed so that there is something called a "provisional patent" that has to be filed before even offering it for sale).
Your point about prior art of Unity horns is key to the observation that the Synergy patent probably won't withstand a concerted legal challenge--and that was my first thought as well. I also see that it had a long time between submittal and issuance (priority 2008-issuance 2012)...which is really not a good sign.
I don't think the second patent was legally written to actually be defended in court--only to discourage others from trying.
Chris
I don't think the second patent was legally written to actually be defended in court--only to discourage others from trying.
Chris
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.