|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Those of you making four conductor braided cables, please be aware that you are infringing on patent number 6,215,062, issued to Kimber Kable on April 10, 2001.That's right. Kimber has patented the simple four conductor braided cable (gee, took 'em all these years of doing three wire braids before they managed to figure THAT out?).
Unbef!@#inglievable. I'd made four conductor braids at LEAST 20 years ago. I'm sure I wasn't the first (gee, you'd think no one was ever in the Boy Scouts and learned how to make boondoggles) and I'm equally sure I wasn't the last.
It really pisses me off when companies exploit the patent system not to protect the intellectual property of true innovation, but instead so they can slap some silly-ass technobabble name ("Orthgonal GyroQuadratic" in this case) on a long-used no-brainer and call it "patented" in order to impress ignorant consumers.
I wonder what Kimber's patent attorneys are working no now? The telephone?
*sigh*
se
Follow Ups:
Hi,I'm no expert on patents and I may well be wrong on this. However I believe patent protection would only kick in when someone other than or without authorization from the patent holder tries to commercialize what the patent covers.
In this case, it should still be okay, assuming the patent on 4-wire braiding valid, for me to do my own braiding so long as no pecuniary or exchange terms involved.
That would mean I could just do the braiding for my own use or may even pass a few pairs of my DIY cable to my audio buddies.
All that said, if I cut a deal with my audio buddy that I'd be exchanging with my DIY cable of braiding wires for his, say, NOS tubes, that could be some problems the attorneys may like to look somewhat closer.
I'm no expert on patents and I may well be wrong on this. However I believe patent protection would only kick in when someone other than or without authorization from the patent holder tries to commercialize what the patent covers.In this case, it should still be okay, assuming the patent on 4-wire braiding valid, for me to do my own braiding so long as no pecuniary or exchange terms involved.
That would mean I could just do the braiding for my own use or may even pass a few pairs of my DIY cable to my audio buddies.
I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.
You don't have to commercialize something before it voilates the patent holder's rights. Any unauthorized use, commercial or otherwise, is prohibited.
Of course a patent holder isn't likely to go after individuals using it for their own purposes. But if they did choose to do so, they would be well within their rights.
se
Considering these are the same people who "patented" the Diaural crossover circuit, which is nothing more than a very simple series circuit, what else could you possibly expect?? What's even more interesting is how many companies signed up for licsensing for the Diaural circuit.
Get ready for a new marketing campaign. Bring your hip boots and get ready to swallow your pl----, oops I mean, well whatever.
Rather excited about this, aren't we?As a matter of fact, a lot of things are patented, but would not be defensible in court. Someone patented placing fiberglass inside an enclosure to absorb sound waves. A recent patent granted for this, and I am not kidding. Just try defending it in court.
A lot depends on how much money, in terms of lawyers, you are willing to throw at things. If it was Bose, then give it up.
On another topic, I am curious as to how this whole "braiding is better than twisting thing" fits in with your idea of subjective cable (or audio in general) anarchy.
I mean, you get all bothered by other folks sharing their experiences with materials and geometries, yet you seem to be doing the very same thing with this braided wire wrap wires, in terms of saying that braiding is a superior alternative to twisting. Oh, I know you are not hard selling it, in fact, you are going out of your way to appear to not be doing so, and yet trying to bring some enthusiasm to it as well.
Clever, that "It doesn't suck" comment, but still, a bit contrived, eh?That's good, it is always nice to get a cable upgrade.
The ONLY reason I mention this at all is the seeming dichotomy between your stance on others sharing their experiences with DIY cables, and your insisting on subjective anarchy, and yet now, you seem to be having your own feelings of the "need to share" regarding this braiding of wire wrap wires. Otherwise, why the beef about the patent, and the multiple posts re braided wire wrap wires?
Not a big deal, except that which you have made it in the past.
The sad part is, many cable DIYers have been there 20 years ago with twisted and braided wire wrap wires, and moved on already to more advanced designs.
Like many things, it gets re-discovered by folks, and enjoys a renaissance. No right or wrong really, just a matter of how much time and money one is willing to spend to try and acheive audio nirvana, and how many side trips along the way are considered acceptable.
On another topic, I am curious as to how this whole "braiding is better than twisting thing" fits in with your idea of subjective cable (or audio in general) anarchy.Excuse me? I made absolutely no such declarative statement of fact as "braiding is better than twisting." I simply said that I subjectively preferred the braided cable over the twisted quads.
Which is wholly in keeping with my Zen Hedonism.
I made no attempt to assert my subjective preference as any sort of objective reality, nor did I attempt to assert it as having any inherent superiority to the subjective preferences of others.
So I fail to see how you come to have the notion that I'm somehow at odds with myself.
I mean, you get all bothered by other folks sharing their experiences with materials and geometries, yet you seem to be doing the very same thing with this braided wire wrap wires, in terms of saying that braiding is a superior alternative to twisting. Oh, I know you are not hard selling it, in fact, you are going out of your way to appear to not be doing so, and yet trying to bring some enthusiasm to it as well.
Clever, that "It doesn't suck" comment, but still, a bit contrived, eh?What the !@#$% are you talking about, Risch?
I have NEVER had ANY PROBLEM with ANYONE sharing their experiences with materials and geometry.
Where on earth do you get this nonsense?
You show me one post where I have ever had any such problem with anyone along such lines. And none of your usual weasel tactics. Put up (a URL and only a URL) or shut up.
YOU'RE the one who has problems with people sharing their experiences with materials and geometry.
Oh, everything's fine as long as their experiences are in keeping with your own. You've no problem with that. But the moment someone's experiences aren't in keeping with your own, you kick down the door like Crusader Rabbit, calling their experience into question and offer up a whole littany of reasons why they SHOULDN'T be having the experience they're having.
It's interesting that you refer to my outlook on things (i.e. that one should simply go with whatever subjectively satisfies them the most, regardless of any objective specs or anyone else's experiences) as anarchy.
Anarchy implies lawlessness. And I can see where that could be looked down upon by someone who regularly attempts to establish themself as "the law" when it comes to what others should be satisfied with.
The ONLY reason I mention this at all is the seeming dichotomy between your stance on others sharing their experiences with DIY cables, and your insisting on subjective anarchy, and yet now, you seem to be having your own feelings of the "need to share" regarding this braiding of wire wrap wires. Otherwise, why the beef about the patent, and the multiple posts re braided wire wrap wires?
The "seeming dichotomy" is nothing more than your own delusion. When you can show that I've ever had a problem with anyone sharing their experiences, then we'll talk about seeming dichotomies.
The beef about the patent was simply a beef about the patent. I've had a number of beefs about patents here in the past. Why are you trying to tie this beef into this particular delusion of yours? As Freud once said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
The sad part is, many cable DIYers have been there 20 years ago with twisted and braided wire wrap wires, and moved on already to more advanced designs.
More advanced or more superfluous? Who ultimately decides?
And contrary to this notion of yours that I just fell off the turnip truck, I've already been down this road and began the journey over 20 years ago.
And somewhat like yourself, I too was obsessed with objective specs. And for a time it seemed to work (with plenty of reinforcement from the status quo). But as I grew older, I became more introspective and began questioning how I had previously been looking at things (not simply on matters of audio, but other areas as well).
One question I asked myself was whether my seeming to prefer that which was objectively better was because it WAS better, or simply because I'd managed to convince myself that if it was objectively better, it simply MUST sound better.
So I began looking at the whole objectivist construct and realized that it shaped up as something out of an epic from Greek mythology or some fantasy role playing game.
The objectivist construct is that of a demon slayer on the road to some preordained destination, taking it as an article of faith that we'll all be happy once we get there even though we've never actually been there to really know.
The objectivist construct is an aversarial one. Much of the satisfaction comes from slaying the demons, knowing that once slayed, one is that much closer to the destination. It gives a sense of power and control as well as justifaction.
So I decided to try a different approach.
Instead of a preordained destination to someplace I've never been and seeing demons at every turn intent on preventing me from reaching that destination, the only destination I concerned myself with was my own personal satisfaction. This made more sense given that my personal satisfaction was a destination I was already quite familiar with.
As for the demons, I simply stopped giving them any particular consideration with regard to my personal satisfaction and put an end to the whole adversarial element of the objectivist construct.
I found it rather liberating.
Instead of spending time working on slaying the demons, anticipating the next demon, and wondering if there were any demons I may have overlooked, I spent more time simply enjoying music. The only thing I had to consider was whether I was satisfied with the end result however that result may have come about.
So I went back and started covering old ground again but this time without the prejudicial demon filter. And I found that I got rather different results. Without all the demons chattering away in the back of my mind and being concerned solely with ultimate personal satisfaction, I no longer found any particular correlation between objective specs and what ultimately pleased me in the end.
Anyway, I'm not saying that this approach is the only valid approach. Simply that it's my approach and I offer it only to help others understand what my perspective is.
Like many things, it gets re-discovered by folks, and enjoys a renaissance. No right or wrong really, just a matter of how much time and money one is willing to spend to try and acheive audio nirvana, and how many side trips along the way are considered acceptable.
Side trips? This presupposes that there's only one road to audio nirvana. And as witnessed by your behavior here, you seem to assume that that one road is the road you happen to be traveling on and that anyone not traveling that same road is either taking a side trip or is just plain lost and in need of your assistance to get them on the "right" path.
There are many roads to audio nirvana and none of them are inherently superior to any other. All that counts is that we reach our respective destinations.
It's this intolerance of yours that insists YOUR road is the ONLY valid road that I find so distasteful.
se
Obviously, I struck a nerve here.As for what specifc post/s you have problems with folks sharing their experiences with materials and geometry, well, I speak from personal experience, as you do tend to focus on me and my posts.
I doubt that I have a real need to provide any URL, your replies and comments have been more than once, and less than restrained.
I stand by my comments, you are 'guilty' of some of the very things you have railed against, and when the shoe is on the other foot, somehow, it just doesn't fit, at least in your mind.
[ The beef about the patent was simply a beef about the patent. I've had a number of beefs about patents here in the past. ]
I do have to wonder why you were perusing the Kimber patent at all, not planning to patent your own particular braid and geometry, were you? ;-)
Just an observation that you did seem rather pissed about it, and way disproportionate to the whole idea of "just trying this litz-wire braided cable thing out". I seriously doubt that Ray Kimber is going to knock down your door (Alright, open up! Cable police!) and have you hauled away because you braided up some interconnects.[ And somewhat like yourself, I too was obsessed with objective specs. ]
You have a mistaken idea about this, and despite my efforts to dispel it, you persist. As you are quite aware, I base my materials and geometry recommendations in large part on "That Which May Not Be Discussed (Or Even Mentioned In Front Of Steve, Ere He Explode With Outrage)" type listening tests. This goes a bit beyond simple personal preferences and biases. It is also wholly subjectively based, and based on extensive listening exprience under a variety of conditions.
In any case, I go with what sounds the best, and make an effort to try and correlate that with the relevant factors as they are known at this time. There is absolutely no doubt that some of the fundamental cable parameters DO affect the sound in certain instances. This can usually be backed-up with various measurements, and so has some credible correlation factor. You yourself seem to agree, citing improving shielding as reducing noise as just one example.
It is once we go beyond these simpler aspects that it gets much more difficult to put one's finger on exact causes. It is also more difficult as to where to put that line where we have to say "we just don't know why" something sounds as it does.
Obviously, your idea of where that line is, is much closer to just the basics than mine is.
I have covered some of the philisophical aspects in a post over in General:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/general/messages/206918.html[ It's this intolerance of yours that insists YOUR road is the ONLY valid road that I find so distasteful. ]
Well, you have made your feelings about me known quite vocally. I don't think that that is in question. What is in question is whether or not you are indeed correct, and that I actually do insist such as you say I do. I don't feel that I do, to any great extent.
I get VERY few complaints, primarily from cable naysayers who just want total freedom to denigrate and flame folks here.I fully expect yet another vitrolic and over the top response, and as I have done in the past, I will probably not reply any further, it is pointless and fruitless once the mud slinging has started.
Jon Risch
As for what specifc post/s you have problems with folks sharing their experiences with materials and geometry, well, I speak from personal experience, as you do tend to focus on me and my posts.Not one shred of substance or validation. Just more empty claims.
Weasel.
I doubt that I have a real need to provide any URL, your replies and comments have been more than once, and less than restrained.
Not one shred of substance or validation. Just more empty claims.
Weasel.
I stand by my comments, you are 'guilty' of some of the very things you have railed against, and when the shoe is on the other foot, somehow, it just doesn't fit, at least in your mind.
Not one shred of substance or validation. Just more empty claims.
Weasel.
I do have to wonder why you were perusing the Kimber patent at all, not planning to patent your own particular braid and geometry, were you? ;-)
Not at all. I've no interest whatsoever in patenting anything.
Actually I was simply curious as to whether Kimber had patented his original three wire braid. At first I thought the 6,215,062 patent was it until I pulled it up and saw the illustrations.
Just an observation that you did seem rather pissed about it, and way disproportionate to the whole idea of "just trying this litz-wire braided cable thing out". I seriously doubt that Ray Kimber is going to knock down your door (Alright, open up! Cable police!) and have you hauled away because you braided up some interconnects.
The way I approached the issue (i.e. the "Attention Cable Braiders" topic and "...you are infringing on patent number...") was nothing more than sarcasm. I knew before I made the post that the patent was a load of BS because I knew others must have done the same thing well before 1999.
You have a mistaken idea about this, and despite my efforts to dispel it, you persist. As you are quite aware, I base my materials and geometry recommendations in large part on "That Which May Not Be Discussed (Or Even Mentioned In Front Of Steve, Ere He Explode With Outrage)" type listening tests. This goes a bit beyond simple personal preferences and biases. It is also wholly subjectively based, and based on extensive listening exprience under a variety of conditions.
Which amounts to nothing more than a big pile of claims without substance or validation that reside in the realm of sheer and total BS right alongside Dan's claims.
The bottom line is that you and your experience, tests, etc. are irrelevant and can be taken completely out of the equation. All that anyone need do is simply consider the objective specs, go for the best objective performance, and achieve the exact same result.
In any case, I go with what sounds the best, and make an effort to try and correlate that with the relevant factors as they are known at this time.
But what sounds best to you can be determined by others wholly exclusively of yourself by nothing more than objective specs. If it's objectively better, it must sound better.
Even when you're speculating as to causes with regard to why something sounds good (or why something sounds bad for that matter) to someone else, your analysis boils down to nothing more than your considering objective specs. If something sounds good to someone, you'll look for something that's objectively better to explain it. If something sounds bad, you'll look for something that's objectively worse to explain it.
Everything you say ultimately boils down to nothing more than objective specs.
As for my comment regarding shielding as reducing noise, that comment was made purely with regard to the physics of the matter. When I discuss physics, I keep it purely in the realm of the objective and make no claims or implications with regard to actual listening experiences.
[ It's this intolerance of yours that insists YOUR road is the ONLY valid road that I find so distasteful. ]
Well, you have made your feelings about me known quite vocally. I don't think that that is in question. What is in question is whether or not you are indeed correct, and that I actually do insist such as you say I do. I don't feel that I do, to any great extent.
Jon, just about every time anyone so much as suggests taking any path other than yours you jump in and start preaching your gospel as if you're trying to save people from a fate worse than death.
The most recent and obvious example of this was your reply to my Cable Asbolution post.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/59700.html
You either denounced, called into question or cast doubt on virtually everything regarding the wire used (or merely mentioned) based on objective specs.
Kynar? Too piezoelectric. That's out.
Tefzel? Well, you say you can't comment on the sound, but add caveats regarding more objective specs such as purity, processing, quality control.
Silver plated copper wire? That's out.
And after that, you call ME into question for having used cables made with polyethylene.
I'd cite more specific examples, but I've already provided more than you have regarding your claims against me and since no specific examples are good enough for you, I must be on pretty safe ground here.
se
The use of the term moderator in this forum is clearly a contradiction in terms. At the moment I can not find anything polite to describe it. Steve and I disagree on many points. I am not a Zen Hedonist, and I am very much a die hard, orthodox, conservative student of linear design. I do find his knowledge on Electro- magnetics to be far superior to mine, and I have enjoyed his posts not only for their knowledge but for the humor.
I have also been to the Jon Risch web site. I have read sections in that web site that are in direct contradiction to my own and others experience, but also presently known fact. To think that some folks here consider you the last word in cables makes me fully understand why "high end" is ever shrinking. Those of us with a common sense will continue to oppose this charade.
If you have some bones to pick about ANYTHING at my website, please cite specific examples of scientifc or physics mistakes.Otherwise, your comments are without substance or validation, and reside in the realm of sheer and total BS.
It is incredible to me how some cable naysayers can cite 'facts', and yet when pressed to explain, reference, or otherwise back-up those 'facts', never seem to do so, but make excuses and use the all too predictable cop-out. Your so-called 'facts' may be such in your belief system, but not necessarily to the rest of the world.
I believe Steve's post below this one about sums it up. I see no point to add anything further at this time.
Just another form of cop-out.I'll thank you to not say negative things about my website contents, without providing any backup or solid evidence that what you say has ANY basis in fact or truth.
Jon Risch
I'll thank you to not say negative things about my website contents, without providing any backup or solid evidence that what you say has ANY basis in fact or truth.You mean like the way you say negative things about me without providing backup or solid evidence that what you say has ANY basis in fact or truth?
I'm still waiting for you to show a single shred of evidence to back up your claim that I have problems with people sharing their experiences.
You're one of the biggest and most blatant hypocrites I've ever encountered in my 42 years on this planet.
se
Steve, you make NO SENSE to me! You are the one of the most irresponsible, petty, do-nothings, that I have ever encountered. You can't learn from constructive criticism, and have NEVER left the sophomore level in college, even if you have done a pretty good job of teaching yourself. Jon Risch has tried appeasing you, ignoring you and criticizing you. You just can't learn from others on how to conduct yourself on this website. What's your problem?
Steve, you make NO SENSE to me!That's because you're insensible, John. It's quite clear that your higher level brain functions are significantly dulled. Perhaps the result of shrinking of your frontal lobes due to chronic alcohol abuse. Perhaps the result of old age or something else.
Your insensibility is why you've never demonstrated the ability to present any sort of rational, thought out argument which actually addresses the issue at hand the entire time you've been here. Instead you just crawl out of your cave, lob a few rocks, thump your chest, and then go scurrying back to the shadows.
And each time it's nothing more than a repetition of the same tired old empty accusations which to date you have completely failed to substantiate.
Now run along back to your cave.
se
Otherwise, your comments are without substance or validation, and reside in the realm of sheer and total BS.You mean like your comments which were without substance or validation regarding your claiming I have problems with people sharing their experiences? Comments which are still without substance or validation I might add. I guess that leaves those comments in the realm of sheer and total BS as well.
Hypocrite.
se
"Which is wholly in keeping with my Zen Hedonism."Hi Steve:
Don't you find it interesting that people here have as much trouble as people at AR understanding the distinction between objective, technical issues, and personal choice based on personal experience?
I loved your explanation which follows and fully intend to frequently plagiarize it in wholesale fashion.
PHIL! You ol' dog you. I knew you'd come crawling back. We all do. Hell, I didn't last more than three months. :)Don't you find it interesting that people here have as much trouble as people at AR understanding the distinction between objective, technical issues, and personal choice based on personal experience?
Yes. And you can add diyAudio.com to the list. I find it not simply interesting, but inextricably bizarre. It's a simple enough logical construct that most people seem to understand it without further explanation. Yet even after numerous explanations, there are a handfull of individuals who for some strange reason simply cannot make the connection.
I'm at a complete loss to explain why this should be the case.
Some time back as a form of reality check, I ran it by my 65 year old mother, my 38 year old sister and my 15 year old neice. They all seemed to understand it. And to make sure they weren't just being patronizing, I had them explain to me how they understood it using their own words.
Again, I find it quite bizarre.
I loved your explanation which follows and fully intend to frequently plagiarize it in wholesale fashion.
Why thank you. And to celebrate your return, I'll give you an extra 20% off the wholesale price! :)
Welcome back, Phil!
se
Thanks Steve, it's good to be back.I know you've been doing your usual brilliant job here of attempting to bring some rationality to this normally irrational hobby.
As you know, I've been over arguing certain aspects of the subjectivst viewpoint at the AR cable asylum. It's unbelievable how much dogma and irrationality exists there at the home of the "naysayers" and "scientists". They incesantly demand proof of the yeasayers, but go absolutely appopletic when they themselves make a claim and are then asked to support it. Because most of them consider themselves "scientists", they also believe that they are immune from any scrutiny or questioning.
It never ceases to amaze me how wedded people become to their own beliefs, and how personally identified they become with those beliefs, that they can't even step back for a minute, hear what someone with an opposing view has to say and engage in some healthy self-examination of their own beliefs.
Virtually everyone I suppose would agree that it is humanly impossible to be correct 100% of the time, but it seems very few are willing to consider that rule might just happen to apply in their particular case.
Keep up the good work. I know well what it feels like to be at a board arguing points that run counter to the deeply held beliefs and dogma of the strong and determined majority at that board.
Give it a break, Phil! Steve is just attacking another member of this group, as usual. Jon Risch is correct.
Yes master. Anything you say master. May I bow down and kiss your feet master.IN CASE, I don't make myself clear, your last post is probably the most pathetic post I have ever seen on the internet.
While all are welcome at the Asylum, abuse of the rules will not be
tolerated. Consistent abusers will be banned from the site. Offenders will be issued an official warning with a "COOL IT" post by one of the moderators.
This means that all comments on the thread are to stop. The participants are to cool off or an automatic 7 day ban will be put in place to force them to do so. If this "COOL IT" post is persistently ignored on three different occasions, then the offender(s) will be permanently banned.
No further follow-ups will be considered.
Thank you for your support of the Asylum.