+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 63

Thread: Blind phono stage & amp; Capacitor testing

  1. #31
    Join Date: Sep 2013

    Location: North Island New Zealand

    Posts: 1,757
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RothwellAudio View Post
    Yes, I don't see any reason why a commercial organisation shouldn't have secrets - seems perfectly normal to me.
    People are free to share knowledge if they choose to. People are also free to keep the results of their research secrets if they choose to. The patent, copyright and trademark system is there to protect people's intellectual property and I don't see anything wrong with that.
    Yes but where software is concerned, they twist copyright to include at the sale point a licence agreement that contains clauses
    that places the paying customer neatly with them as a product. Clauses which enable them to sell information about you.

    As you cannot view the source code, let alone use the software, copy and help others, change the software to make
    it do what you want, or contribute those changes to assist globally, it is now very much a redundant and useless platform.
    But if you want to be a guinea pig for them, that is of course up to you. http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/

  2. #32
    Bigman80 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RothwellAudio View Post
    Without the circuit diagram and without knowing the values (capacitance and voltage) these tests are too vague to draw any broad conclusions from imho.

    Yes, I don't see any reason why a commercial organisation shouldn't have secrets - seems perfectly normal to me.


    People are free to share knowledge if they choose to. People are also free to keep the results of their research secrets if they choose to. The patent, copyright and trademark system is there to protect people's intellectual property and I don't see anything wrong with that.
    Broad conclusions, no. I would say that in different applications or different positions in the circuit it would have a totally different effect but in this application, this was what I found.

    Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

  3. #33
    Join Date: Sep 2013

    Location: North Island New Zealand

    Posts: 1,757
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigman80 View Post
    How about an example thats cost the researcher money rather than someone sitting there writing code? Opensource is one thing. Research is another.
    Open source is different to Free Software definitions, open source is a half way attempt at Free Software
    not quite in tune with everything that is possible.

    You need to embrace that free software is a global community of like minded users, willing to
    constantly improve code. Here for example are those working on Debian today. https://raphaelhertzog.com/tag/Freexian+LTS/
    they are paid by Debian so Yes costing the researcher money., they do this up to a set number of hours per month.
    Typically they achieve 190 hours of work contributed by 13-14 persons.

    Now try and find who or how many people are working on proprietary software - hmmm very hidden and unavailable hey !

    Debian is just one operating system. Have a look at Linux Mint, http://www.linuxmint.com and see what great work is being done
    with 5 desktop versions, and you should fall off your chair looking at the work Mageia http://www.mageia.org who are ex
    employees of Mandriva have done, to bring you Version 6. and many many others, hard at work trying to help you....and the world.

  4. #34
    Bigman80 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Light Dependant Resistor View Post
    Open source is different to Free Software definitions, open source is a half way attempt at Free Software
    not quite in tune with everything that is possible.

    You need to embrace that free software is a global community of like minded users, willing to
    constantly improve code. Here for example are those working on Debian today. https://raphaelhertzog.com/tag/Freexian+LTS/
    they are paid by Debian so Yes costing the researcher money., they do thisup to a set number of hours per month.
    Typically they achieve 190 hours of work contributed by 13-14 persons.

    Now try and find who or how many people are working on proprietary software - hmmm very hidden and unavailable hey !

    Debian is just one operating system. Have a look at Linux Mint, http;//www.linuxmint.com and see what great work is being done
    with 5 desktop versions, and you should fall off your chair looking at the work Mageia http;//www.mageia.org who are ex
    employees of Mandriva have done, to bring you Version 6. and many many others, hard at work trying to help you....and the world.
    Im not going to pretend to be knowledgeable in this area as software, freeware etc because im not. What I am aware of is that they WILL be getting paid somewhere down the line. Nothing is free in any walk of life. Debian will be getting money somewhere.

    From their website

    "Debian does not make any money from the sale of CDs. At the same time, money is needed to pay for expenses such as domain registration and hardware. Thus, we ask that you buy from one of the*CD vendors*that*donates*a portion of your purchase to Debian"


    My point was - show me a manufacturer of audio goods that freely gives away the trade secrets of the products they are currently developing. I cant find any.

    Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

  5. #35
    Join Date: Apr 2012

    Location: Co. Durham

    Posts: 1,966
    I'm Stephen.

    Default

    Sorry Oliver. But I still don't get it. You compare 7 capacitors and come up with a "winner", but don't wish to identity it. Simple question: Why? What do you think revealing it's identity will result in? Is the DIY section here going to rush out on mass buying said item causing it's price to rocket putting it out of reach for the intended use in a Fireybum (Oops. Sorry. Wrong forum) commercial product? A Bruce Springsteen-ism comes to mind: "A big - So What?"

    I'll say it again: what about the likes of Nelson Pass, John Curl. Walt Jung and Joe Curcio - and others - who freely share their knowledge. Go and search Walt Jung. Back in the late 70s/early80s he and Richard Marsh did an exhaustive comparison test both objectively and subjectively of capacitors (and op-amps). Their work is now a reference for anyone interested in the subject. I think it's fair to say if it wasn't for Walt Jung your comparison would never have been considered. This is worth a read:
    http://www.reliablecapacitors.com/pickcap.htm

    Sorry Oliver. I just thought it was an odd conclusion. On the one hand you don't want to identity your capacitor winner - and on the other you have the likes of Charles from SS-Audio giving free samples of devices for people to try:


    You mention the likes of Apple and Samsung. What about Volvo? What about the time and money they spent on research into preventing death and injury to car occupants from accidents which lead to the seat belt (and other safety design features incorporated in car designs). They could have patented the seat belt, for commercial gain. Instead, though, they gave it to the car industry for universal use, in order to save lives.

    No. I didn't loose any sleep last night (wondering what your capacitor might be. And would it really be that difficult to disguise it? And again, to what end?)

    Sent from my CUBOT_NOTE_S using Tapatalk

  6. #36
    RothwellAudio Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigman80 View Post
    My point was - show me a manufacturer of audio goods that freely gives away the trade secrets of the products they are currently developing. I cant find any.
    Yes, back in the 1970s and 1980s there were many electronics magazines which published circuits and discussions on audio designs and the contributors were willing to share their knowledge, but when Quad came up with the "current dumping" idea they protected it with a patent. As a commercial outfit I don't have a problem with them keeping their ideas to themselves.

  7. #37
    RothwellAudio Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Kipling View Post
    Sorry Oliver. But I still don't get it. You compare 7 capacitors and come up with a "winner", but don't wish to identity it. Simple question: Why? What do you think revealing it's identity will result in? Is the DIY section here going to rush out on mass buying said item causing it's price to rocket putting it out of reach for the intended use in a Fireybum (Oops. Sorry. Wrong forum) commercial product? A Bruce Springsteen-ism comes to mind: "A big - So What?"
    Yes, I tend to agree with this sentiment, too. It's ok to do research and keep it to yourself for commercial reasons but forums are all about sharing, so it seems odd to talk about your research on a forum but keep the details secret.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Kipling View Post
    Go and search Walt Jung. Back in the late 70s/early80s he and Richard Marsh did an exhaustive comparison test both objectively and subjectively of capacitors (and op-amps). Their work is now a reference for anyone interested in the subject. I think it's fair to say if it wasn't for Walt Jung your comparison would never have been considered. This is worth a read:
    http://www.reliablecapacitors.com/pickcap.htm
    I read that many years ago - brings back memories! The internet was way off in the future and I used the inter-library lending service to track down a copy of the magazine and photocopy it. Audiophiles had to be made of sterner stuff in those days

  8. #38
    Bigman80 Guest

    Default

    It seems quite evident that this has touched a nerve with you Mr Kipling.

    Yes forums are about sharing and if this wasn't going into a "product" and I had done it for personal satisfaction then id have shared it but as it isnt I am not going to.

    It has nothing to do with pushing prices up etc and that's a little cynical to be honest.

    Im sure we can both sit here and pull examples of sharing and not sharing off Google till our hearts are content, but to what end.

    Not sure what Walt Jung has to do with my listening room comparison but ok.

    Anyway, the sun's shining. Why not be happy instead?




    Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

  9. #39
    Join Date: Sep 2013

    Location: North Island New Zealand

    Posts: 1,757
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RothwellAudio View Post
    Yes, back in the 1970s and 1980s there were many electronics magazines which published circuits and discussions on audio designs and the contributors were willing to share their knowledge, but when Quad came up with the "current dumping" idea they protected it with a patent. As a commercial outfit I don't have a problem with them keeping their ideas to themselves.
    But Quad published the schematics for almost all of their amplifiers, except the most recent, so they were not exactly keeping it to themselves.
    A patent gives rights in the countries that it is registered in. Those patents also require a team of lawyers to maintain and protect from others directly copying.

    As time progresses, I think Creative Commons will become the sensible approach for electronics manufacturers to take. https://creativecommons.org/
    Rather than the complicated path of registering patents in every country of sale, then to find your idea going over the border- so to speak.

  10. #40
    Join Date: Oct 2012

    Location: NE England

    Posts: 4,173
    I'm Jez.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RothwellAudio View Post
    Yes, I tend to agree with this sentiment, too. It's ok to do research and keep it to yourself for commercial reasons but forums are all about sharing, so it seems odd to talk about your research on a forum but keep the details secret.

    I read that many years ago - brings back memories! The internet was way off in the future and I used the inter-library lending service to track down a copy of the magazine and photocopy it. Audiophiles had to be made of sterner stuff in those days
    Indeed. I well recall photocopying about 30 issues of Audio Amateur... every page!
    Arkless Electronics-Engineered to be better. Tel. 01670 530674 (after 1pm)

    Modded Thorens TD150, Audio Technica AT-1005 MkII, Technics EPC-300MC, Arkless Hybrid MC phono stage, Arkless passive pre, Arkless 50WPC Class A SS power amp, (or) Arkless modded Leak Stereo 20, Modded Kef Reference 105/3's
    ReVox PR99, Studer B62, Ferrograph Series 7, Tandberg TCD440, Hitachi FT-5500MkI, also FT-5500MkII
    Digital: Yamaha CDR-HD1500 (Digital Swiss army knife-CD recorder, player, hard drive, DAC and ADC in one), PC files via 24/96 sound card and SPDIF, modded Philips CD850, modded Philips CD104, modded DPA Little Bit DAC. Sennheiser HD580 cans with Arkless Headphone amp.
    Cables- free interconnects that come with CD players, mains leads from B&Q, dead kettles etc, extension leads from Tesco

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •