Magnetar said:
It's clear to me you painted yourself into a corner. LOL
How so?
I'm curious since when I started everyone thought the approach was correct. Its only in hindsight that the problems can be seen. Your implication is that you saw these problems ahead of time. So I'm curious what you think you saw.
gedlee said:
I wasn't looking for what you were looking for in the first place, and am still not looking for it. All I'm looking for is personnel satisfaction in listening to my records.
To attempt to dictate to people (in your world potential customers or money) in a narrow minded 'my way is best and I can prove it" is futile. I know people that swear by methods (IE an IPOD and computer speakers) that are so far from your way that are 100 percent satisfied it would make your hat spin. These people have placed their value on quality, yet you say their high sound quality has no value - this leaves you with little potential customers (or money) and you firmly painted into a corner.
Magnetar said:
You don't do this for a living, you do it for fun. I do it for both.
Your implication is exactly what I do not agree with and that is "whatever sounds good to me is correct". I will always be at odds with this point of view as it is not "high fidelity". You misunderstand me when I say that "sound quality has no value". "High fidelity" or "sound quality" has no commercial value precisely because people believe like you.
The "narrow minded" comment was uncalled for.
Magnetar said:
Yes, consumers drive the market, not producers - a *VERY* basic tenet of economics.
You FIRST determine what is and (as a result) what isn't marketable. *Then* you utilize science to improve what is marketable into something *more* marketable.
Case in point - (in a different market):
Dyson.. though they prattle on in their marketing about "never loosing suction" - that was the science behind the marketing.
The real marketing "hook" was ditching the expensive and messy bags on vacuum cleaners. The secondary hook - was a cool aesthetic. Its likely though that *BOTH* "hooks" were required to do anything near the business they have done in their market.
Result - massive market share world-wide.
Hi-End audio is niche market, but it can still be a *VERY* profitable one.. just ask Wilson Audio.
gedlee said:
You don't do this for a living, you do it for fun. I do it for both.
Your implication is exactly what I do not agree with and that is "whatever sounds good to me is correct". I will always be at odds with this point of view as it is not "high fidelity". You misunderstand me when I say that "sound quality has no value". "High fidelity" or "sound quality" has no commercial value precisely because people believe like you.
The "narrow minded" comment was uncalled for. [/QUOTE}
Ummm OK
Magnetar said:gedlee said:
You don't do this for a living, you do it for fun. I do it for both.
Your implication is exactly what I do not agree with and that is "whatever sounds good to me is correct". I will always be at odds with this point of view as it is not "high fidelity". You misunderstand me when I say that "sound quality has no value". "High fidelity" or "sound quality" has no commercial value precisely because people believe like you.
The "narrow minded" comment was uncalled for. [/QUOTE}
Ummm OK
Thats rich - providing an example to the very thing he denounces.
Sometimes I wonder if we really read what we are writing.
I know I sometimes do the very same FUBAR'ed thing. Still, I can enjoy my own "occasional" stupidity.
ScottG said:
Yes, consumers drive the market, not producers - a *VERY* basic tenet of economics.
You FIRST determine what is and (as a result) what isn't marketable. *Then* you utilize science to improve what is marketable into something *more* marketable.
Hi-End audio is niche market, but it can still be a *VERY* profitable one.. just ask Wilson Audio.
You are exactly correct here, I did things the other way arround, but it wasn't out of shear stupidity.
I had made several sets of speakers for my HT and some clients - the Summas. Everybody loved them and I got the usual "you should sell those!". I even had a backer in the begining. That was completely backwards and the end result should have been expected.
My Thailand partner got things wrong too, but at least at that point I was warning him. He sold pro gear and was one of the largest audio installers in Bangkok. So I just let him do the marketing. He was sure that he could sell "great sound". Bottom line was everybody loved the products, BUT everybody bought the cheap stuff. He had both and sound quality was never a factor, only price.
Thats when I said, "OK so obviuosly I have to do the marketing here!" I have talked to a lot of people and Hi-Fi is dead or dying almost universally. I can't talk brands or people, but one guy (VERY famous) said "I have no illusions about audio today, its in the dumpster."
Then the idea hit me that DIY's may actually care about sound quality - or at least they say they do - hence, IF there is a niche then DIY might be it. I created a design that removed as much cost as possible without throwing out the sound quality in the process. My last attempt is to see if there is any interest in that.
As to your Wilson Audio comment - whats left of audio is very boutique, very fashionable, based on the premise that "its what YOU like that matters". This is a marketers dream. They can mold the demand through adverstising, branding, all the things that make purses sell for 100's when they cost 1's to make. Its exactly the same thing.
Maybe this is interesting for you, an interview with Floyd Toole and Todd Welti called "How Many Subwoofers Is Enough?".
http://www.onhometheater.com/features/20040801.htm
http://www.onhometheater.com/features/20040801.htm
gedlee said:
If someone aspires to sell boutique audio gear, must have the charm, wits, and policies of Versache. If someone aspires to sell exclusive audio gear, must carry the image and myth of an aristocrat.
Selling to the really rich, takes to be one of them in the first place. The way you sip wine counts in large amounts. You aren't selling sound. you sell STATUS.
Earl.. I'll respond to this one if in a limited fashion (because I actually do wish you commercial success).
DIY customers will NEVER be a sustained source of income for what you can offer.
Still, I do believe that you can at least generate some initial capital (not a lot mind you) via DIY'ers.
The real "key" is the waveguide itself and the driver or potential drivers it can be used with. As Magnetar has suggested, your view of what compromises the "ultimate" loudspeaker may not be what others envision.. but still, the design can add value to the waveguide (provide it for free - if they want to do then great, if not then thats great too - you've still made money).
First thing is find a *SINGLE* driver that at least 25 *serious* purchasers would consider (..if the design works out well for other drivers than so much the better) - then find out what sort of passband they want and see if you can come up with a satisfactory design to all parties. (Do a prelim. model without spending cash on the driver, expressly state that the driver chosen by others may have problems - but that you will provide as good a waveguide as you can for that driver. This should crush potential latter negative responses that the product wasn't "good enough", after all the purchasers were the ones that agreed up the driver originally.)
Production-wise (at least initially) this is a *limited* run.
Limited means LIMITED. It has a certain amount of exclusivity that makes it appealing and will likely generate more interest. Limited also means you have a make-or-break deadline to determine the viability of the product (i.e. including the number of customers), and *payment* for the product. Once you have a marketing list AND you have determined viability*, then you can open a trust account for the order.
The trust account should be structured that you don't get paid until *SHIPPED* and that the money will be re-paid if viability was incorrectly determined (minus an actual handling and processing fee). This gives customers security and you a measure of security.
The contract should be custom order under the UCC, and should expressly "bargain away" the rights of returns (i.e. charge a thousand, give a discount of 600 for expressly denying the right of return for *any* cause).
*Note that viability means that you have the capability to manufacture the product at the quantity desired, with in a timely fashion, and most importantly at a cost that is low (i.e. viable to the net return for the entire order).
Finally, make sure you have Limited Liability in-place before doing ANY of the above.. (..and that its under the tax structure you would prefer.) Note that in a ONE PERSON "Co." you can pretty much do this yourself at little more than a filing fee cost as long as you select a good jurisdiction.
As to manufacturing the horn.. you'll either need to find a good plastics co. that can do it in limited runs at very low cost OR you'll need to effectively DIY'it with a mainly cement-based mix with some weight reduction elements casted in a mold.
Weight will need to be considered to keep shipping as low as possible. You should also do extensive price comparisons first with many different shipping concerns (it can make a HUGE difference).
If you follow the advice above and have at least 25 serious purchasers then I think you will not only keep yourself out of trouble, but also make some money (*if* you keep costs extremely low). My guess for viability is 400 per pair for the waveguides, less than 75 per pair for *production* cost.
Note that all of the above is just my opinion and none of it is to be construed as legal advice.
Anyway, its just a thought.
(..and it will be a lot of work for not much of a return. )
DIY customers will NEVER be a sustained source of income for what you can offer.
Still, I do believe that you can at least generate some initial capital (not a lot mind you) via DIY'ers.
The real "key" is the waveguide itself and the driver or potential drivers it can be used with. As Magnetar has suggested, your view of what compromises the "ultimate" loudspeaker may not be what others envision.. but still, the design can add value to the waveguide (provide it for free - if they want to do then great, if not then thats great too - you've still made money).
First thing is find a *SINGLE* driver that at least 25 *serious* purchasers would consider (..if the design works out well for other drivers than so much the better) - then find out what sort of passband they want and see if you can come up with a satisfactory design to all parties. (Do a prelim. model without spending cash on the driver, expressly state that the driver chosen by others may have problems - but that you will provide as good a waveguide as you can for that driver. This should crush potential latter negative responses that the product wasn't "good enough", after all the purchasers were the ones that agreed up the driver originally.)
Production-wise (at least initially) this is a *limited* run.
Limited means LIMITED. It has a certain amount of exclusivity that makes it appealing and will likely generate more interest. Limited also means you have a make-or-break deadline to determine the viability of the product (i.e. including the number of customers), and *payment* for the product. Once you have a marketing list AND you have determined viability*, then you can open a trust account for the order.
The trust account should be structured that you don't get paid until *SHIPPED* and that the money will be re-paid if viability was incorrectly determined (minus an actual handling and processing fee). This gives customers security and you a measure of security.
The contract should be custom order under the UCC, and should expressly "bargain away" the rights of returns (i.e. charge a thousand, give a discount of 600 for expressly denying the right of return for *any* cause).
*Note that viability means that you have the capability to manufacture the product at the quantity desired, with in a timely fashion, and most importantly at a cost that is low (i.e. viable to the net return for the entire order).
Finally, make sure you have Limited Liability in-place before doing ANY of the above.. (..and that its under the tax structure you would prefer.) Note that in a ONE PERSON "Co." you can pretty much do this yourself at little more than a filing fee cost as long as you select a good jurisdiction.
As to manufacturing the horn.. you'll either need to find a good plastics co. that can do it in limited runs at very low cost OR you'll need to effectively DIY'it with a mainly cement-based mix with some weight reduction elements casted in a mold.
Weight will need to be considered to keep shipping as low as possible. You should also do extensive price comparisons first with many different shipping concerns (it can make a HUGE difference).
If you follow the advice above and have at least 25 serious purchasers then I think you will not only keep yourself out of trouble, but also make some money (*if* you keep costs extremely low). My guess for viability is 400 per pair for the waveguides, less than 75 per pair for *production* cost.
Note that all of the above is just my opinion and none of it is to be construed as legal advice.
Anyway, its just a thought.
(..and it will be a lot of work for not much of a return.
)
So I assume that you are a lawyer.
What you propose is what is actually already well in place. I am an LCC, I have a waveguide design and a selected driver. I have stated that the waveguide will work with other drivers, but that a custom crossover is required. I don't do crossover designs for free.
I will sell a full kit with drivers and all parts. I get the parts at far lower costs than the customer can get himeself. But they don't have to buy those from me. The full kit, drivers and all is $600. The waveguides alone are $200.
I make the waveguide myself and I can only make a limited number. I have a waiting list and its already growing. To be on the list requires a deposit.
I think that what you propose is pretty much exactly what I have already figured out.
But there is one piece that you may be missing. All of this is really aimed at someone else doing it. I have a patent on the major component and its licensing that I am really after in the end. I don't want to be a manufacturer.
What you propose is what is actually already well in place. I am an LCC, I have a waveguide design and a selected driver. I have stated that the waveguide will work with other drivers, but that a custom crossover is required. I don't do crossover designs for free.
I will sell a full kit with drivers and all parts. I get the parts at far lower costs than the customer can get himeself. But they don't have to buy those from me. The full kit, drivers and all is $600. The waveguides alone are $200.
I make the waveguide myself and I can only make a limited number. I have a waiting list and its already growing. To be on the list requires a deposit.
I think that what you propose is pretty much exactly what I have already figured out.
But there is one piece that you may be missing. All of this is really aimed at someone else doing it. I have a patent on the major component and its licensing that I am really after in the end. I don't want to be a manufacturer.
gedlee said:
That is exactly my point. You are a teacher. Hardly a way to make big money. But the truth is a classic value. And you will be remembered forever, quoted, and revisited, if your approach proves solid in the long term. Thats real status.
As for dough, just secure your patents and sell them dearly to the industry. A researcher can become somewhat rich.
Yeah, I wouldn't want to manufacture either - at least not with that sort of a margin and volume.
I'm sorry that can't offer any help in that direction either.
Hmm, licensing is a tricky business and I don't think its well adapted to this market (..it only barely acceptable in the software industry, and a well argued case could even crush that).
I'm straining my limited faculties here and am coming up with squat.
I believe Tom Danely has done this in the pro field with limited success- give him a "ping" and see what his take is.
Consulting-wise in Hi Fi you have Joseph D’Appolito, he seems to be doing well (though obviously it isn't licensing per se).
..Yeah, I guess I'm a Lawyer
(diploma and license), but its not how I make money anymore.
I'm sorry that can't offer any help in that direction either.
Hmm, licensing is a tricky business and I don't think its well adapted to this market (..it only barely acceptable in the software industry, and a well argued case could even crush that).
I'm straining my limited faculties here and am coming up with squat.
I believe Tom Danely has done this in the pro field with limited success- give him a "ping" and see what his take is.
Consulting-wise in Hi Fi you have Joseph D’Appolito, he seems to be doing well (though obviously it isn't licensing per se).
..Yeah, I guess I'm a Lawyer
(diploma and license), but its not how I make money anymore.
ScottG said:
Joe and Tom are both good friends.
Joe has never made a living in audio. He was a consultant for the defense industry before he retired and he now does the audio work for fun, its not a full time job.
Toms business is too new to really tell the long term viability of it. Its in vogue right now, but if that changes and he has to compete on price with the Chinese his ship will sink fast.
Not to disrupt the marketing discussion, I made some calculation for monopole, dipole and cardioid. The room dimensions in meters are at the top of the first figure, as is the mic position. These are fixed. The woofer is located as shown in each figure and aimed at the listening point is dipole or cardioid. For the dipole and cardioid the woofer position indicated the position of the front source, except for the last case where the woofer is in the cornet. In that case the dipole and cardioid are aimed at 45 degrees and the rear driver is at 0,0,0. Positions were selected as one might try to set up a room with speakers having attached woofers, i.e. a bigger 3 way system. No attempt was made to optimize the response for any type of source. We have talked a lot about woofer type and placement in regards to how modes are excited but the one thing that I don't recall being brought up in the discussion is the role of listening position. In the development of the SPL at the listening position, if the listening position is at a pressure node for a mode then that mode has no contribution to the SPL regardless of how well the source excites it. Obviously, pushing a dipole woofer into a corner isn't a good idea as it is being placed very near a velocity node for all modes and becomes ineffective at developing any low frequency SPL.
I expect to extent the analysis to allow placement of three monopole sources.
.
I expect to extent the analysis to allow placement of three monopole sources.
.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
john k... said:
I have a model of a rectangular room and I'd be interested in checking your results and maybe extending them. The issue is how did you model the cardiod? I'd need to do the same thing or we would need to agree on how to do that.
In my work I always look at the statistics for several room placements and listener positions. The variations of these different situations can be quite large and one needs a significant enough sample set to get a valid or meaningful result.
I don't follow "Positions were selected as one might try to set up a room with speakers having attached woofers, i.e. a bigger 3 way system. " These weren't subs then?
From these results I'd conclude that a monopole in the corner was the way to go!
I assume your using FEA which makes this a real difficult problem. I have a Mathcad program that can crunch three source locations and three listener positions exciting over 1,000 modes all in a single run of about 30 minutes. A few runs like that and you have a lot of data to get statistics from. FEA is not going to be able to do that.
The analysis assumes a source with free air response is flat to DC. So I'm looking at the transfer function between source and listening position which would then be superimposed on the woofer's actual free air response. When I say "as you might set up a bigger 3-way system" what I mean is that for the first 3 figures I positioned the source in the room as you migh position one speaker of a stereo pair, as opposed to how you would position a subwoofer. The last figure for corner placement was just for curiosity.
It's not FEM. It's a Green's function approach. Takes a fraction of a second per case. I'm putting a web page together on it. I'd appreciate your comments since I've not done anything like this before. It's only for rectangular rooms with perfectly rigid walls at present, but can be extended to walls with arbitrary admittance.
It's not FEM. It's a Green's function approach. Takes a fraction of a second per case. I'm putting a web page together on it. I'd appreciate your comments since I've not done anything like this before. It's only for rectangular rooms with perfectly rigid walls at present, but can be extended to walls with arbitrary admittance.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.