|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Just a day ago, we published a review of the Audio Zone AMP-1 on 6moons. I knew going in that the design was closely based on the 47Lab GainCard which has inspired a small underground GainClone culture, albeit in the one-up DIY and non-commercial sector.We received a reader e-mail questioning our ethics, in reviewing, awarding and thus endorsing a product that so clearly rides on the coat tails of another. Those not interested in reading the actual review should know that AMP-1 looks very similar to the GainCard but retails for $1,795 rather than $3,300 (or $4,800 when the GainCard is outfitted with the 50-watt power supply that would make it equal to the 45-watt AMP-1). AMP-1 currently sells direct from Canada but a dealer network is being set up.
Prior to accepting this assignment, I ensured that the IC-based GainCard architecture wasn't patented. In different iterations I know of, it's been used by Final Lab, nOrh, IRD and Jeff Rowland. PDF documents on the basic architecture of an IC-based audio amplifier are public-domain accessible from the National website, one popular manufacturer of ICs for these applications.
The remaining issue is that with the exception of the reviewed AMP-1, the other mentioned implementations of ICs in power amps don't borrow any visual design elements from 47Lab. You could perhaps say that once hip to the fact that ICs, properly used, can make a bona fide audiophile product, these firms did their own research and developed new approaches, thus "owing" 47Lab for the basic idea only, and not detailed circuit topologies.
AMP-1 is nearly blatant in its similarity to the original GainCard. While this is quite common in the DIY sector, our reader felt appaled to see it in the commercial sector.
Having been in manufacturing myself, we more than once encountered incidents where competitors "borrowed" clear design cues, cosmetic elements, outright ad campaign focus and other items. Sans patents or trademarks, none of that can be protected or enforced. Even patents become difficult to enforce when dealing across international borders, as with mainland China for example.
Having experience "on the other side" (being copied and having to "live with it") I have strong sympathies for 47Lab. As a consumer-by-proxy, I also feel a magazine's responsiblity toward its readers is to seek out products that offer "the same for less" in a nutshell.
My question to inmates concerns where you personally feel the line is crossed, from simply building a better mouse trap on the one hand, to being culpable for blatantly ripping off another design on the other hand, repackaging it, selling it for half or less and abusing the other guy's R&D efforts, marketing campaign and inbuilt desire-factor established by reviews and tradeshows.
This isn't an easy question, hence I encourage you to think about various implications before you fire away. But then do fire and give it your best shot.
Cheers,
Srajan Ebaen
publisher, 6moons
Follow Ups:
By reviewing a product that appears to be a simple clone of another you do us all, including the designer a great disservice.
A 'better moustrap' must be a new and innovative design in order to be better, otherwise it is just a copy with a different price tag.If a person built an exact copy of the Gaincard or any other amp, and then proceeded to sell if for 1/3 less, I would seriously question if it is a real copy, or a massively compromised copy.
I don't question the quality of this product, it could be a good sounding amp, it just needs to reflect the innovation and identity of the designer in some way, not be a simple copy of some one else's hard work.
You must recognize that fact. It is your responsibility to us.
"not be a simple copy of some one else's hard work"I hope you have at least some familarity with Amp-1 construction to know that it is not a copy and I believe that as much hard work went into it's design process as with the other amp under discussion.
From a construction perspective, Amp-1 is a new and innovative design, and has any reason to be better in it's own right. Most of you, however, are sadly focused only on external appearances, which is sort of a trivial issue in comparing the two amps, but nevertheless in some circles quite important. You should be aware that what you see, is not always what it is.
I don't doubt you in the least. I think an improved and innovative product is exactly what we all want, but I think that appearances can be decieving and problematic. If this is a different product, it should look the part, that's all.I think you know what I mean, and I wish you well. In fact, if you want to bounce aesthetic ideas off someone, just let me know. I would be happy to help.
Konnichiwa,Some basic facts first. The AZ Amp-1 DOES NOT AT ALL use the same circuit, design etc of the gaincard.
The designer clearly aknowledges the debt to the gaincard in principle (primarily external layout, small size and IC Amp). However, the circuit is based on one presented to the public and which is in the public domain and it is VERY DIFFERENT from the Gaincard. I would go as far as noting that some of the observed differences in the review are the result of using this different circuit.
And for completeness, much of the Circuit of the AZ Amp-1 was suggested by ME on a discussion board that covered Chip Amplifiers. To be specific, the Circuit uses the IC in Inverting more, eliminating certain distortions that invariably appear in the non-inverting circuit. However, I cannot claim to have "invented" the inverting mode for Operational Amplifiers either, the earliest use of this in Amplifiers (IIRC) was in a John Curl designed Mark Levinson Amplifier.
I used "inverting mode" Chip Amplifiers in the mid 1980's, based around the then brand spanking new TDA2030 or rather the East German clone A2030 of this Chip. So, Inverting Amp's and Chipamps BY FAR predate the Gaincard. I suppose if I managed to dig out my published Designs from the 1980's I could go around claiming that Kimura San copied me, which would of course be perposterous, as I am sure Kimura San was not aware of my work (few people inside former East Germany are, probably non outside...).
The AZ Amp-1 uses the same IC Chip as the Gaincard, a mass produced commodity item from National Semiconductor extensively used in TV's, Active Studio Monitors (JBL, Genlec among others) and other stuff. Many other people use the same IC too, do they all also copy the Gaincard?
The passive parts in the AZ Amp-1 are also considerably different from those used in the Gaincard, they are usually considered "better" and are more expensive among other things.
So, the AZ Amp-1 does use a different circuit AND different parts from the gaincard. To claim it is a "copycat" item is to claim that all Car makers that happen to have 4 Wheels on their cars copy the Ford Model T.
Anyway, my zwei pfennig.
> > The designer clearly aknowledges the debt to the gaincard in principle (primarily external layout, small size and IC Amp).==With all the internal creativity and wonderfully unique circuitry aspects, why stop there and "punt" the chassis design? Near as I can tell, YOU should get the credit for this clone T.
> > With all the internal creativity and wonderfully unique circuitry aspects, why stop there and "punt" the chassis design? Near as I can tell, YOU should get the credit for this clone T. < <And I always give credit when one is due. So thanks again T. ,for coming up with schematic that created so much fuss on the forums, that I couldn't resist temptation to try it.
As to the chassis design, the concept behind the amp is simplicity and purity of both electrical schematic and the layout itself (at least in my amp;-)). I did consider different chassis arrangements, but nothing was as practical, cost effective and simple as those two pieces of square tubing closed together by 2 slabs of aluminum.
It makes for a very rigid construction (2 smaller elements vibrate less than one large), the size provides enough cooling, so one can avoid heatsink fins which might become a source of additional resonances, less parts altogether (so less assembly time and additional hardware). In my case the chip is mounted directly on a rear panel, between RCA jack and binding posts. This provides for a truly shortest possible signal path in the amp. To allow good heat transfer, both aluminum slabs are CNC machined with great accuracy and the tubing is tightly fitted over the 1/4" notches. There is no additional fasteners required for the chassis to be rigid and stable, but for the sake of protection, we use 4 screws on the bottom.
I am actually very proud of that design, and I don't feel uncomortable that I was copying competitior's design. The concept used to make GainCard chassis could be compared to the invention of a weel. It always existed, but nobody was aware of it, until somebody tried it for the first time. Does this mean that nobody cannot use it, beside the originator? Because, IMO, the chassis concept used in the original GainCard, is the best for the design. I would compromise my design if I would use different approach. It's simple as that and that's why I decided to go with that.
I never actually saw a real GainCard (just the pictures in magazines). I will admit, that right from the beginning I was fascinated with that small amp and I regard Mr. Kimura as pioneer of a new approach to high end, a man who started a revolution. As much as he is critisized, he is also admired and there is a tremendous amount of fresh thinking and ingenuity in everything he creates. So once again, I give credit where it's due. Thank you for the inspiration (and sorry if I upset you).
RE: chassis design. We're stuck in the snow with one chain on.I fully comprehend the design/functionality aspect.
But this is not a wheel, and I do not appreciate working backwards with this concept, which at this point we are. Physically and cosmetically it's way too similar to existing competition to give any credit for the design except to Mr. Kimura.
Build the acrylic one, or one as creative and show us something new.
> > > As much as he is critisized, he is also admired and there is a tremendous amount of fresh thinking and ingenuity in everything he creates. So once again, I give credit where it's due
===Credit is one thing.
But show respect and honor his design, by coming up with a design from your brain not his. I don't buy this tube and chassis knock off for one minute and I'm loosing patience explaining this. The AMP ZONE intrudes on common sense in that they are TOO similar. That Positive Feedback chose not to review it based on this should have warned you.
Peter, market anxiety, bad judgement and wishfull thinking is IMHO going to unravel some of your obvious talent. Your acrylic, like I said before is miles ahead of AMP-1,,,,,,AESTHETICALLY....To me it's (AMP-1) superb sonic engineering and excecution in a chassis that is (using your own definition) as creative and pleasing as a soda pop can.
Personally the AMP-1 looks sonically to be just what I have looking to add to my tube amp collection as a "summer" amp. No way will I go near it based on the looks alone, I don't care if God licks my ear listening to it.
IMHO your missing a great opportunity. Fire whoever insisted that design was "good enough", "cheap enough" and "market worthy" and get on with your goals. BTW, again, your engineering and assembly is light years ahead of the outside of that amp.
I have failed to mention that the design of AMP-1***IS PERFECTLY FINE FOR DIY***. I can make one myself and enjoy the design in my home as I'm sure many chipamp builders do. That is the beauty of DIY. In no way do I want that to be misunderstood.But when a *company* is established (is there a CO. called Amp Zone?)you are going to be subject to the respect and scrutiny of all you expect to have buisiness with. That's why you never really see things like lots of amp companies with big blue VU meters, sure they're cool. By and large companies *strive* to stay out of each others way by designing or "trade dressing" in an effort to avoid commonality problems. And by and large hifi mfgr'ing works this way. Hifi is diverse and new designs like your acrylic are cause for celebration. And the simpler the product, the easier it is to design unique appearance. Don't let "consumers" dictate to you what you should be making and marketing. Based on what I see, you are capable of *leading* on your own and creating stuff every bit as wonderfull as Junji Kimura. But not at the direction of "market experts". Be your own guide.
Notjust sonics, I deserve the whole enchilada. That's just me.
My wife and I have over 50 years experience designing and creating professionally. She has taught on the college level only to have students appear on the scene years later with hideously similar works and we know "they did not get it". Then some create the most wonderfull original works that light our fire and everyone else's. They go on to amaze a respectful audience.
I will champion the cause for originality out of respect for those that taught me.
And I'm wasting productive time explaining this.
TC
Konnichiwa,> With all the internal creativity and wonderfully unique
> circuitry aspects, why stop there and "punt" the chassis design?Well. Looking at things simply, there are a lot of reasons why most airplanes are shaped like airplanes. When you start mashining from solid it is much easier to do rectangualr shapes and the size of the case gets determined by what it holds. So there is a lot of form follows function.
I'm sure Peter thought first about doing it differently, but when production engineering comes into this and you have a given set of tools things have a way of turing out similar. There are reasons why Cars tend to have four wheels too.
So, what am I saying? I'm saying that IF you make an Amp that is dual mono (this including the "docking together" is not unique to the gaincard nor was the gaincard the first unit to do this) and has a volume control and uses a compact electronic circuit and has an external PSU (again, the gaincard was not the first Amp to have an external PSU) you end up with something that looks a lot like the Gaincard if you let form follow function.
And let's just say if Peter would have made his Amp round and small someone would have accused him of copying Musical Fidelities X-Series. And if he made still another form sureley someone else would have already made it.
What I'd personally suggest to peter to make greater visual difference is to round off the corners but then this would look like something from that Canadian guys (Moon?).
> Near as I can tell, YOU should get the credit for this clone T.
Well, Peter started with the circuit I suggested and placed in the public domain (as did Joe Rasmussen with his JLtI BTW and probably a few 100 DIY'ers by now).
He then proceeded to make circuit changes (mostly subtractive - removing some of the "belt & braces" features I had added to make the likelyhood of working amp larger for unskilled constructors) and did a long and extensive series of listening tests to come up with his component choice (and I'm sure I'd have choosen different components in the same tests).
So, if someone wishes to mention me as the populariser of the idea to use power Op-Amp's inverted I must plead guilty as charged. I have however not "invented" this and Peter has put at least 100's of Hours of development into the Amplifier that has now become a commercial product. So it is very much HIS design even if there where direct and indirect influences upon his choice of circuit, Amplifier Chip, physical layout etc....
BTW, if you look inside the Gaincard, it looks VERY different from Peters internal layout too.
> > Well. Looking at things simply, there are a lot of reasons why most airplanes are shaped like airplanes.==Good point, and one I'm glad you brought up. Dad was/is a senior Boeing engineer. Aeronautics has THE most limiting design criteria in the world. Audio does not. Still I know what you are saying.
Sonically I know that you have gone where nearly all have not T. And I am amazed by the depth of your swim.
As creative as gainchip amps are, the creativity must also be applied to preserving another mfgrs ideas and design. It's a respect thing.
I wonder if all this can be laid at the feet of Elvis impersonators. At first novel, then their quanitity becomes irritating and then annoying. When did it become ok to just throw your hands up in the air and declare a wheel is a wheel.
This discussion is a lot of crap. To call someone's designed product a wheel is insulting to all those who exercise their creative talents.Would you, given correct circumstances, purchase a copy of an art masterpiece? Something like 'Mona Lisa', just because it is a good copy and is cheap? I know a guy that laboriously and faithfully copys works of the 'old masters'. Does that make him an artist? Does that make what he does Art?
Peter, if you have a good idea, great. The world can always use a better idea, another creative solution. We don't need just another wheel. We don't need another rip off of a truly good idea that has a proven track record. In order to provide the world with something of REAL VALUE, you must go all the way and make it a truly revolutionary, creative product, not just a copy and not on the back of another's hard work. Regardless of the rationale to the contrary.
Guess what. The rationale that you expressed for the chassis design already happened. The ideas are not original, but there are other ways that are.
Get in the pool or go home.
You seem to be missing my point. As long as you didn't had both units for evaluation you cannot comment that one is the copy of the other. It just happens that they both share cosmetic similarities, but that's about it. You might like it or not, but for one person sharing your views, there may be ten with opposite views.Get in the pool or go home.
Dave A writes:"Guess what. The rationale that you expressed for the chassis design already happened. The ideas are not original, but there are other ways that are."
> > .Peter writes:"It just happens that they both share cosmetic similarities, but that's about it."==Backup buddy, 47 did it first. 47labs gaincard does NOT share a likeness with amP-1. AMp-1 took it's likeness from *IT*(47labs).
So far we have alluded to wheels, planes, pop cans in an effort to circumvent/assimilate justification for using Kimuras chassis design.If it were not for the fact that you provided evidence that you have designed an amp with "personalized" cosmetics like the one shown ....
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9112&pagenumber=1
.....I wold have long ago abandoned this 3rd grade aesthetics *plagerism* discussion.
One things for shure, when you aspire to such creative and unique *ideas*, you can pretty much assure no-ones gonna clone YOUR clone? Theyll just make it *gasp*, less expensive.
I guess my only way out of it, is making the price of amP-1 higher than the price of GainCard. If someone decides to buy it, it's only because it's better and not regarded as cheap imitation. Maybe that's what I should have done from the beginning? ;-)
Theres any number of ways to rectify the situation. Fix production @ "X" # of units and lump it. Then mkt the acrylic for more than the Amp-1 by a bit (?). Or get real creative and "break new ground" by coming up with something new and cool. You got the chops, it's just a formality. But a mere decision or two.TC
That is the point. You take the problem, with all it's aspects and come up with a new and innovative solution. If you want to include a certain retail price point into the problem, fine. Just make sure that, in the end, it looks as innovative as it really is.I would like to see you create a fresh new amp design, instead of a copy of one. In that way, you will stop dangling your feet in the water's edge and dive in. We all welcome another great product, so do it. Just remember that it must look great to be great. Give it an identity.
Would you like to be a clone?
You guys have been a lot of help, inspiration and actually you didn't get on me too hard ;-).I agree that while AMP-1 is a fine design, it will always carry a mark of a clone in some circles. It was a good entry product to grab attention and enjoy my 15 min. of fame, but you are right that I need a truly new and innovative product to really make it big. I believe I'm capable of that and the new design should come out soon.
Good luck Peter. I look forward to your contributions.
No one so far (except for Peter Daniel) came up with a justification for the blatant visual resemblance, because it is simply not defendable.Yet, in this case it is ok to copy others' product because the gaincard is too expensive, it contains very few parts that cost little, we hate the mystique eastern philosophical bullsh*t advertisement, it is a free country etc.
Srajan not only endorsed such a product at the cost of 47 lab that has supported his webzine, but also took this opportunity to start yet another self promotion here. Brilliant! I loved the little touch when he said he is writing for the consumers (who are always right, right?).
As you can guess, I'm disgusted by this whole thing.
This is an interesting question, however, in the computer industry this type of behavior is very common and just part of "competition". The simple fact is that 47labs is playing for a type of cult status in which less is more, zen blah blah, and making you pay thousands for a complete amp on a chip that costs very little from the chip manufacturer (National Semicondutor I believe). It is not considered unethical behavior in most industries to copy a design that isn't patented, in fact in the pharmaceutical industry the minute the patent runs out on an important drug there are companies churning out generics for much much less and the original company usually all but gives up this drug to focus on the protected ones. The fact that the generic is a reversed engineered product doesn't seem to bother anyone. You see this copying also in the auto industry (look at the recent and ongoing SUV rage). I personally think its great that someone refined their DIY design enough to make a commercial product even if it were an EXACT copy of the 47labs (not hard when using a monolithic chip amplifier). I would say that the $1795 price tag was still milking it quite a lot. I don't feel terribly sorry for 47labs when they are charging so much for so little and simple inspection of the amp allows people copy with ease. Try copying a Passlabs amp, or a Rowland, or especially an Audio Research amp. The reason why no one makes a cheap copy of these is because you CAN'T make a cheap copy. Tubes alone for an ARC amp run over $1000 nevermind the transformers or the chasis to support such weight. If 47labs can't compete because they are too high priced and this invites people to copy then that's too bad. They probably just copied the design in the App notes from National Semiconductor anyway. So who is copying who??
Dear Srajan:I agree with almost all aspects of your argument. At the end of the day, the only reason I was upset is the fact that the cosmetic design of Amp 1 is so similar to that of Gaincard. I have nothing to complain about Amp 1's execution in all other aspects. If Amp 1 came out with its own unique cosmetic design, I'll still be bothered by competition, but Junji Kimura will certainly be happy with its arrival. After all, one of Junji's objective is to bring in a diversity in highend industry.
Best regards,
As the one who started this thread, I wish to thank one and all for a nicely varied discussion that extended from the technical/legal to the ethical/moral and creative/artistic and covered a lot of ground in the process.I'm never one closed to the very real possibility of being wrong and would certainly fess up the moment I felt I had screwed up. Considering the matter which originally prompted my first post with the help of all your input, I feel comfortable that in this instance, justice was served, i.e. that the review proper created the right historical context and bestowed appropriate credit for original concept where due.
Competition is what makes the world of commerce go round and round, and in the end, it tends to results in more variety, more choices for the consumer and often trickle-down technology at lower and lower prices.
If 47Lab felt offended by my review and award, I would, in closing, respectfully suggest that as the original firm to popularize the use of IC output devices in high-performance audio amplifiers, they might feel compelled to return to the lab and show these newcomers "how it's 'really' done" - i.e. continue the spirit of competitiveness, appreciate how Peter Daniel definitely improved build quality, possibly cosmetic appeal, clearly volume control functionality and conceivably/arguably certain performance parameters.
Incorporate these aspects into a new 47Lab product to retain competitve edge and ongoing R&D momentum? If one wanted to continue winning races, the practice sessions just never stop. The GainClone phenomenon has gathered momentum for years and Peter Daniel in particular hasn't just quietly labored behind the scenes but openly contributes on the DIY forum with detailed pix and diagrams of his ongoing research.
Not to know about your competition *if* your interest were to remain the pack leader is just no excuse in today's connected world. To just sit there means being run over, eventually. It's perhaps a bit cruel, but it's the way things work. Complaining about it is simply immature. As a reviewer/publisher, I make it my business to know as much about the changing audiophile landscape we elected to cover as possible. As a sales & marketing manager before that, I made it my business to know what the competition was up to. That's just common survival instincts, is it not?
Best,
Excellent summation, Srajan. I couldn't agree more.If someone is able to take a product of a type such as mine and not only make it as good or better but also for a lower price (barring such practices as dumping), I need to be asking myself what am *I* doing wrong, not trying to make scapegoats out of the competition and least of all not out of those who would review such a product.
se
......for edifying us with your cogent post below. Pun intended.
I have been reading this thread growing and can't stop myself putting in a few cents.Firstly I like to disclose my commercial involvement. I am manufacturing partner of F.T.Audio Passive Controller and also a dealer of 47Lab.
The way I look at it is that the cicuit is so simple, how come no one think of it (or commercialise it) while the OP-amp is available for so long. If you look at Mr. Kimura's bio, he started his own R&D in 1982. The op-amp approach is the result of his effort. He may have gone through trying different types of circuitry and decided on the op-amp approach. We can't denied his effort of bringing the op-amp approach to the audio's world attention. Execuation is the ART part of a design. The simpler the design, the more important is the execution that involving careful part choice, fine tuning and complete package production. The part choice of the Gaincard may be cheap but its production cost may be high. Never underestimate the production cost of the chassis. If Mr. Kimura decided that is the way to make his product sound good, he has a choice to do so. Being such a simple design, it is not surprise that it can be copied easily. But the final sound come down to the final fine tuning of different designers. The final judge is the consumer. If they can have a chance to listen to them side by side, they can make a decision what to buy.
I think the biggest mistake is Mr.Kimura is too open about his design. Again, this is where I admire him. When we designed our X-coupler, we were well aware of that. If you called us selfish, sorry, we have to make something back for our time and R&D cost. As long as we think our product offer the value than it costs, I think there is no moral problem. I also have been bashed about ripping off in Audioreview and they said they can make a passive for $25. Again, the judge is the consumer, not people who has not listened to the product.
The way I look at it is that the cicuit is so simple, how come no one think of it (or commercialise it) while the OP-amp is available for so long.It's not that no one thought of it before. It had been thought of AND tried before. It's just that virtually everything the Gaincard embodies was rejected by the status quo as sounding inferior.
Monolithic integrated circuits sounded bad. Discrete circuits sounded better.
Global negative feedback sounded bad. Zero global negative feedback sounded better.
Lack of power supply bypass caps sounded bad. Adding power supply bypass caps sounded better. And bypassing the bypass caps sounded better still.
Tiny amounts of power supply filter capacitance sounded bad. Gobs power supply filter capacitance sounded better. And gobs more power supply filter capacitance sounded better still.
Cheap carbon film resistors sounded bad. Expensive metal films sounded better. And much more expensive bulk metal foils sounded better still.
Cheap stamped metal RCA jacks with God knows what sort of dielectric sounded bad. Solid machined RCA jacks with Teflon dielectric sounded better.
And so on.
So it's not as if the concepts that are embodied by the Gaincard are concepts that had been sitting around all these years wholly undiscovered awaiting some pioneering visionary like Junji Kimura. Rather, those concepts had already been tried and summarily rejected as being inferior.
And I'm not saying they are necessarily inferior as that is ultimately a subjective judgement. I'm simply saying that that's been the conventional wisdom of the high-end status quo (in the US at least) for several decades now.
From my perspective, I don't see the Gaincard's success being due to any sort of visionary thinking, but rather a pair of brass balls, timing, and marketing.
If you look at Mr. Kimura's bio, he started his own R&D in 1982. The op-amp approach is the result of his effort. He may have gone through trying different types of circuitry and decided on the op-amp approach.
According to Mr. Kimura, his choosing an opamp was ultimately a simple matter of convenience, not years of R&D. In fact, it was precisely to AVOID having to do any significant R&D. From his article in Audio Amigo Magazine:
When I first started designing a CD transport, I was hesitant to use a tube amp as its reference amplifier. I wanted to bring the sound of CD up to challenge that of LP, which, in my mind, was always associated with tube amplifiers. But to design a new solid-state from ground up requires totally dedicated attention and will divert my energy from designing the transport. Op-amps came in handy for my purpose at that moment.
In other words, his primary focus was designing a CD transport and in order to avoid taking too much attention away from that pursuit, he reached for some opamps because they're such simple devices to use and allowed him to put something together that would work with little hassle.
We can't denied his effort of bringing the op-amp approach to the audio's world attention.
What he did was bring attention to something that had already been tried and rejected by the status quo. He just happened to do it at a time when the pendulum of the status quo had reached its limit and began swinging back the other way. This was about same time many audiophiles had begun to reject their massive, high power solid state amplifiers and started embracing flea powered single-ended triode tube amps, which was another something that the status quo had already rejected decades before.
Just look at something like speaker cables. Some folks got the notion that speaker cables on the order of 18 gauge zip cord were too wimpy. So they moved up to 12 gauge and that started a mindset of bigger is better and before long, speaker cables were starting to approach the size of fire hoses. Now things are starting moving back in the opposite direction, with more and more feeling that smaller is better, significantly smaller even than the 18 gauge cables that had previously been rejected as being too small.
The part choice of the Gaincard may be cheap but its production cost may be high. Never underestimate the production cost of the chassis.
Sure. But neither should one grossly OVERestimate the production cost of the chassis.
I hope I'm not stepping over the line as far as AA's industry members rules are concerned, but it's the only way I can speak from direct experience. But the company I work for manufactures amplifiers in which the materials, machining, finishing and labeling costs for the chassis exceed that of the Gaincard and Power Humpty by a considerable margin, with the parts cost exceeding it by considerably more, yet retail for no more than the Gaincard.
This amplifier here for example:
Just one of the 32 output devices cost nearly as much as the chip used in the Gaincard. The circuit boards are all gold plated and hand stuffed and hand soldered (again, this is all done here in the US). The power supply is dual mono back to the AC line.
Retail price with a 50 point dealer markup is $3,250.
So I don't think anyone is underestimating the production cost of the Gaincard/Power Humpty chassis.
se
Hello Paul. Sorry to hear about the bashing of your passive. I think it's great that people can build and enjoy a passive for $25. My problem still remains that it OK to DIY something for whatever the cost is and that's great, but for those of us who want to go in a different direction and buy (GASP!) a product that fits our needs and we're happy with it, no matter the cost, we're either fleeced sheep or part of the problem, whatever that is.I really wish there could be a middle ground where everyone could enjoy their path, and music, in peace and respect others for what they have chosen. But as an American I defend to the death the right of the people to flame and bash! So keep flaming and bashing folks.
BTW, I'm keeping my Gaincard. Great summer amp. But just to take an opportunity to stir up more trouble, what would you think about the Gaincard with a tube front-end, driver or buffer? Quick everyone, before there's a rush at the patent office. But seriously, I think a tube-opamp hybrid has potential, maybe even more so than an OTL. What do you think and thanks for hanging in there.
Passive Chappy, as you aware the I wouldn't use any active preamp in my system no a tube preamp is a no-no to me. The tube/ic combo will give you what you suggesting and again it all come to the execution. Another option is to go for a source with tube output. Well, is it better than OTL, I am not sure.
All good points Paul. I guess I'm keeping my Croft also. Great winter amp.
tube/ic ... done!
And the discussion on it:
So we have a little expensive box about the size of your average after market auto amplifier. Pretty much the same chiset and technology. Hideously expensive. Along comes another unit pretty much the same technology. only half the hideous price. This is cause for concern? What about the huge number of CD players usig the same Mechanisms and chipsets. Gee they all sort of look alike. Solid stste amps, they all seem to share pretty much the same layouts as well. As I am not impressed by Zen mystics in audio I guess I just don't understand the fuss.
nt
Don't know where this thread will end up, but after viewing some of your links and the corresponding threads, DAMN that's some beautiful work you do. Neat, tidy, perfect fit and finish -- truly exceptional. Nearly brought tears to my eyes.
Thanks,
This makes me wonder if you saw my attempt at building AlephX. I was probably one of the first who acomplished that.;-)
- http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5980&perpage=15&highlight=a75&pagenumber=1
I sometimes visit the DIY board (don't post, though). Saw a good deal of your pics a while back. My impression remains: DITTO!I guess the 20 years of "practice" has paid off? You do nice work -- very nice work. When a tough DIY crowd praises you, you know that your work stands out.
It was facinating watching Peter's journey from "Let's see what all the fuss is about Thorsten's circuit" to commercial product.Peter's product is better built, even simplier, and based on the inverting version of the ChipAmp, which time after time has proven a better performer than the non-inverted version (as used in the Gaincard).
As with everything implementation is very important, and Peter has done his homework. I wish him great success.
I'll chime in my hairsplitting opinion. I bet the team who designed the chip and the schematic knew it was bloody good. The specs are impressive. Any open-mineded audiophile designer worth their salt, seeing such a simple schematic and impressive specs, would be interested in finding out more about it.It took a high-end designer with credulity like Kimura to kiss and bless it and say it was good. Then manufacture it with all the trappings of the esoteric and bring it to market with philosophical overtones. For an unreasonable amount of money.
So how is Kimura to be commended? By finding the readily available circuit? By tweaking this circuit and manufacturing technique to a spiritual high? By discovering something that could bring wonderful high-end sound to a great number of people on a beer budget and instead creating something for many less individuals at the Dom Perignon end of the spectrum?
He doesn't get my respect as a designer or an artist, but maybe as a businessman. Of course, as a busninessman, he may have known that he couldn't patent the product and that copying it was easy. What's the best way to prevent that from impacting your business? By exclusifying it and mystifying your audience. He's done a great job at that, and as a business, is a good move. As an artist - well we're not REALLY talking about art here are we?
What is special about 47 Labs is chutzpah. They took a circuit little different from an IC manufacture's application notes, put in a pretty box, uttered cosmic zen hype and charged $5,000 for it.
For those interested, Mr. Yoshi Segoshi of Sakura Systems, the importer for 47Lab, sent me a personal official reply which I just added to the end of the review and which includes, in passing, some commentary from Kimura-San of 47Lab as well:
www.6moons.com/audioreviews/audiooasis/audiozone_3.htmlCheers,
> > He also suggests that taking off the cover of the capacitors makes an improvement in sound and wanted me to deliver the message to the people of Audio Zone! It was my turn to say "Gee!" < <I am well aware of capacitor skinning practise, yet I found a better way to improve the capacitors sound. If you look at the picture of my amp, you'll notice that we mount PS capacitors in polycarbonate blocks, which effectively prevent any induced resonances and microphonics. If I would take the plastic off, the capacitors would be loose (otherwise the fit is tight, the diameter is exactly 7/8"). However, we will continue to remove plastic from the coupling caps.
I am deeply sorry that our marketing debiut turned out this way. The initial amp I was building wasn't intended to be a copy of a GainCard. I decided to use similar chassis as it clearly showed advantage over anything else. It is a study in simplicity, functionality, good looks and matches the minimalistic approach of the rest of a circuit. I truly admire that idea and although I had reservations originally, decided to use it anyway. The size of our amp is approximately 1.5 times bigger and the front panel doesn't carry the final look yet. We will try our most to make it as much different than GainCard, as possible.
I simply don't see a better way to built this amp, that's why I did it this way. Again, it has nothing to do with copying. The amount of time I spent on fine tuning and components swapping is astonishing and it just happens that some of audiophile parts we are using are to my taste. We started with non-audiophile brands, but further we went, the better sound we achieved (although proper mix and match was very important). In particular, the choice and arrangement of rectifying diodes and type of umbilical PS cord is critical to the final voicing of the amp.
Stick to your guns, Peter. Many times, there is much more to the book than what appears on the cover, and unless one goes through the pain of being a manufacturer, with all the behind-the-scenes problems and roadblocks, the cover looks very simple. The attitude being, "big deal....I can do that!" Maybe yes, but many times no.But all this discussion, if you keep an open mind, will lead to an even better product, and other (improved) products in the future. It is good being responsive to potential customer's comments and questions.
Srajan, I think that this kind of stuff happens in the free market place. Companies feel they need protection should patent their stuff. What should really happen is that companies create better products for the right price and let the market decide. I think actually both 47 labs and Amp Zone will be around, because there is a market niche for both.On a similar note for everyone, in a thread over at
http://greggbaker.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=news;action=display;num=1057536033
there has been an assertion that the PD Amp 1 is better than the Gaincard. As an owner of an original Gaincard I just wanted to note that I think the review at 6 moons of the PD Amp1 says that it as good as or better than the Shigaraki amp that 47 labs makes, not the Gaincard. Now I've heard an inverted Gainclone in comparison with my Gaincard and I have to say it sounded very good, probably better than my Gaincard. But the condition in which this happen, 16 ohms speakers / lamp cords speaker wire / patch cords (yes, patch cords) that came with the 10 Sony CD player, raised some questions for me. In this situation my Gaincard was not the best. With different components, the result might be different.
There been a lot of bashing of the Gaincard by some folks here at AA and the other board above who think it's a complete rip off. I'll be the first one to say that it quite pricey. But let's look at the Gaincard in the context of what's I think it's competing against. The traditional SS monster amps: Krell, Mark Levinson, Pass Labs, Threshold, Goldmund, BAT, Cello, Aragon, Accuphase, Spectral, Plinuis, etc. In this company I think the Gaincard does quite well. For those who still think it's rip off, I'm sure you think all of those other amps are a rip off too. Just so long as there's fair treatment of the Gaincard in that you say as Shakespeare once said (from Macbeth I believe), "A pox on all of your houses!"
Believe me, I'm all for DIY and low cost alternatives. It's how the big boys in audio got started and that's where the cutting edge is. But for those of us who don't have the time, talent or interest to put in the effort to be on the bleeding edge, a plug and play solution is the way to go. I got my Gaincard about 4 years ago. There just wasn't any of the fine options that guys like Peter and Scott Nixon are offering and I didn't feel like waiting. I wanted great sound now. The other option was getting a 50 watt Goldmund or the Pass Aleph 3. Those are still nice amps, but the Gaincard blew them away for me. I think what needed here is a big tent concept where everyone in the Op amp nation can gather around the campfire, or class A heatsink if you prefer, roast marshmallows and smores and sing kumbya. It's a free country with free speech, for now, so those who wish to keep bashing can do so. But as Maxwell Smart says "if that energy could only have been used for niceness, instead of not so niceness."
For now it’s a dream.Thanks everyone for your time on this. My rant, such as it is, is over.
You make an important point that seems to, indeed, have escaped some posters. My review compares the $1,750 Shigaraki 4717 (which I had in-house and reviewed a few months back) and the $1,795 AMP-1, NOT the $3,300 - $4,800 GainCard (depending on power output and number of power supplies). Shigaraki offers 3 inputs, 25 watts and funky looks/terminals. AMP-1 offers 45 watts, 1 input and aesthetics/build quality on par with GainCard proper.47Lab is made in Japan, Audio Zone in Canada. Both by small companies, neither in China, both with dealer margins. On balance, AMP-1 offers sound very comparative with Shigaraki (possibly better in two specific areas, likely slightly differenty, definitely on the same level), in an aesthetically far more pleasing package, and with clearly far superior build quality.
Apples to apples, and in my book, AMP-1 beats Shigaraki. How it would compare to GainCard I don't know except to paraphrase Mr. Segoshi who feels that GainCard offers higher resolution and finesse than Shigaraki while 4717 is a bit warmer, a quality possibly preferable in certain systems.
Passive Chappy makes another excellent point by mentioning some specific amps he feels perform "on the level" with the GainCard. Owning $10,000 tube monons myself and having owned and reviewed plenty of other good amplifiers, I must concur that the Shigaraki/AMP-1 implementations of the National Semiconductor chip are scarily good when mated to copasetic loads. If the IRS repossessed my tube monos tomorrow to punish me for wacky personal opinions and tangential writing, I could live with the sonics of either Shigaraki or AMP-1 on my $18,000 DUOs in a heartbeat - without feeling cheated in the slightest. I'd pick the AMP-1 for the "other" qualities mentioned - I like sound *and* high-quality aesthetics/functionality.
Regardless, that's high compliment for the basic architecture independent of specific implementation. It really should make certain uber-amp manufacturers quake in their boots. Of course, the Zen-like size and simplicity of these amps appeals to only a small audience to begin with so it's a mute point. To compete in the mainstream, they'd have to be brutish, big, heavy and expensive, defeating the whole rationale. But make no mistake. If it's high-quality sound you want, this concept pioneered by Kimura-San is eminently viable. So much so that I for one hope to see many more happy IC iterations and alternatives for budget-conscious end users.
Cheers,
If you ignore that the circuit has been used countless times in beginners electronics books for decades then yes he copied the circuit. But it is simply that. Every EE student for the 20 years or more has made this circuit at some point in time. The only thing that could be a patent infringement is the layout and peter's is completely different.The truth of the matter is that the major differences come in parts selection which is significantly different and Peter has done his own r&d (not to speak for you peter, but i've been watching every step of the way) to select parts.
Had peter started this project by dismantling the gain card and saying how can I alter this to sell it at a profit then this would be a different story.
If 47Labs had something unique to protect then they should have patented it. That is what the system is for (though some people abuse it -- or rather the patent office allows frivilous patents). If not, then someone else can come along and copy it. 47Labs could probably pursue litigation to get Audio Zone to change their product, but this would be costly. Some years ago, Mercedes Benz sued Lexus because their cars looked similar in appearance to the Mercedes "style." I don't think that case went anywhere.The review did nothing wrong. There is a product out there to be reviewed and it was reviewed. 6moons was very clear about the similarities between the products. The moral question belongs to Audio Zone and whether it was acting responsibly when it copied (but also apparently imrpoved upon) someone else's product. The market will tell.
Thanks to one and all who have responded.With due respect, I believe my colleague Steve Rochlin is wrong. Like ETM, Sakura Systems, the US importer for 47Lab, was an ad supporter on my site. Rather than "protecting" them from the competition, I elected to review this "clone" for the reasons already given here as well as in the review. And yes, it did cost me an advertiser.
There is no patent on the GainCard, simple as that. Let's look at Tripath and Bel Canto. BCD was the first High-End firm to embrace this module in a bona fide High-End product. By now, they're in their nth iteration of this technology and have continuously advanced their implementation to "Stay ahead of the curve". Plenty of other companies have embraced this idea since. Bel Canto never grumbles or whines but rather applauds the "more is merrier" math as open endorsement and growing cred for this particular version of digital amplifiers.
47Lab had the engineering advantages on implementing an IC for an output device in a High-End audio product, at a time when ICs were snuffed at as suitable only for headphone outputs and low-fi applications. As with Tripath, the engineering work on the actual chip had been done by the IC manufacturer as one poster properly reminds us.
Rather than staying atop their #1 position in this "IC field", I suggest 47Lab has wasted time to push the envelope into lower-priced products that don't suffer the ergonomic or visual complaints of their current Shigaraki line.
The AMP-1 is manufactured in Canada, includes a dealer margin for an eventual dealer network and is built not by a large corporation with deep pockets but a specialty dealer of antique audio. If Audio Zone can do this in Canada, with top-notch parts, the Japanese should be able to remain competitive and, in fact, have done this years ago.
As noted in my Shigaraki 4717 review, their lower-priced version doesn't conform to typical US customer expectations for construction quality. While there liably are sonic tweak reasons, one could also argue that the Canadians have addressed these issues head-on, to make a great-sounding product better by removing the "visual" edges, adding functionality (the 31-step rather than 12-step attenuators) and selling it for a very attractive price.
In the end, the one area where AMP-1 might step over the imaginary line is in what one party here called 'trade dress', an area of the law I'm just not familiar enough with to know whether the AMP-1 infringes. If a "regular" amp based on typical Class A/B Mosfet technology launched sporting this particular look (incidentally, also "copied" by HeadRoom in their "supermax" dual-mono amp), I think this particular issue of "too close for comfort" wouldn't even be raised.
The fact that it's IC-based, dual-mono, with two miniature boxes connected via front- and back panel, with dual attenuators and an outboard power supply makes the cloning aspect very obvious.
I'm certainly very sympathetic toward 47Lab but, like someone else also pointed out, I'm first and foremost writing for the consumer. If I find a better Krell for 1/2 the money (or one within 90% of its performance) readers deserve to know about it. Same here.
I'm still mulling things over but all this feedback is not only welcome but also helpful to "add data to the upstair machine process".
Gracias.
Srajan
Srajan,Actually feel all this is great for discussion :-) Lively and makes some VERY good points.
If there is no patent, then 47 Labs has no grounds and, yes, go for a review :-) It simply reminded me of a FREE project Nelson Pass had published by Audio Amateur, then a while later someone used Nelson's design to make commercially available units. That situation was a bit sticky indeed as Nelson did have his design protected as i recall.
So when are you going to review the Korsun versus the Red Rose? That would be interesting indeed :-)
Enjoy the Music,
Yes, that did happen with the 'Zen' amp and, I believe you are correct, Pass did not have his design protected. Although the manufacturer didn't break any laws, Pass stopped providing free designs for many years. The result was many people in the hi fi community were deprived of his generousity in sharing design concepts.
My question to inmates concerns where you personally feel the line is crossed, from simply building a better mouse trap on the one hand, to being culpable for blatantly ripping off another design on the other hand, repackaging it, selling it for half or less and abusing the other guy's R&D efforts, marketing campaign and inbuilt desire-factor established by reviews and tradeshows.What R&D efforts?
The Gaincard basically comes right out of the data sheet for the LM-3875, the power opamp used in the Gaincard:
I mean, how many ways can you wire up an attenuator and a power opamp?
In terms of R&D, I see nothing terribly remarkable about the Gaincard. About the only thing I find remarkable about the Gaincard is that someone had the balls to take a $2.50 monolithic power opamp, some equally inexpensive parts (i.e. stamped metal RCA jacks, etc.), stuff them into a reasonably nice case, wrap it up in some eastern philosophy doubletalk, slap a $3,300 pricetag on it ($5,100 if you wanted a dual mono power supply), and managed to win over those who preached a conventional wisdom which insisted that something like the Gaincard would have to sound like absolute garbage.
I do however admire Kimura for thumbing his nose at the prevailing conventional wisdom.
As for the cosmetics, yes, Peter's enclosure bears a somewhat striking resemblence to the Gaincard's enclosure. But then those Power Humptys and Dumptys bear a somewhat striking resemblence to the Musical Fidelity X series enclosures.
Personally I don't see that there's anything controversial here at all.
se
As I am a person behind Amp-1, I think few words of explanation might be in order.First of all, technology behind GainCard cannot be patented, as they use readily available IC chip amp, used also in car stereos and portables. The implementation of the circuit may differ, and ours is different also. We are using inverting mode on the amp, do not have 12 positions stepped attenuators, but 31 steps detented pots and all the parts are completely different. We are not using printed board, but p2p technique. We actualy use a different chip too, as the one used by 47 Labs is an isolated version. There is a different location to attach chip to the chassis, the different materials for the chassiss and the different colors.
The only resemblance between our amp and GainCard is the approach of using 2 square tube channels closed on both ends by front and rear panels. I had doubts about that issue initially and implementing it in a marketplace on another amp. However, when I investigated it more, it seemed like the simplest and most effective way to built a small chassis. When you think about it, there cannot be really a patent on the shape of the audio unit as all of them look almost the same (square boxes). If patent applies here, it can only be assosiated with a method the panels are connected together and we do it in a completely different way than it is done in a GainCard.
If the company that came first with a chassis design accomodating top cover and two panels (one for the front and one for the back), didn't allow others to copy it, we wouldn't have high end audio as such ;-)
Well, the appearance would have to be distinctive, if not unique, for "trade dress" to apply. Obviously, a rectangular metal box does not qualify as distinctive, much less unique.I'm not personally familiar with the appearance of the 47 Labs product. I vaguely recall reading some reviews in Stereophile, which may or may not have been accompanied by photos.
First, let's look at what's legally protected and what isn't.If the design isn't patented, it's not legally protected. If the design is novel, it could be legally protected. So, it would be fair to assume that the designer of the 47 Labs product knew that his/her design was not new ; otherwise, he/she would have patented it. Put differently, under that theory, the 47 Labs product is, itself, a kind of clone. The marketing may be original; the packaging may be original; but the thing itself (as a circuit) is assumed not to be original if it's not patented.
The overall appearance of a product -- called "trade dress" is legally protected; and you don't have to register it or trademark it. So you can't make something that looks like a clone of another product. The owner of Silverline speakers apparently found this out the hard way when Avalon acoustics sued him for producing a loudspeaker that was very similiar in appearance to, IIRC, the Avalon Avatar. Subsequent version of the Silverline speaker do not have the faceted appearance of the Avatar.
So, I don't think it would be legal to build a "clone" (in terms of appearance) of the 47 Labs Gaincard, even though it would be legal to use the exact same circuit, parts, etc.
I fail to see the moral spin that some folks are putting on this. If someone can build essentially the same product as the 47 Labs Gaincard and sell it for less, why shouldn't they? And, if you think they shouldn't, then you must also believe it is immoral for major grocery chains to market sodium hypocholorite solution (i.e. liquid laundry bleach) in their own private label containers for less money than the Clorox Corporation sells the exact same product under the "Clorox" brand name!
I would think your interest, as a reviewer, is aligned with the consumer. If product "A" sounds as good as product "B" at 2/3's the price, you ought to say so. Competition is good, even though competitors fail. And, at the level of pricing you are discussing -- thousands of dollars -- I have a very hard time justifying the collection of an extra thousand or two for what may be a generic product.
I know some of your webzine colleagues (not referring to PF online or 6moons specifically) have other ideas and see themselves as cheerleaders for the audio industry -- that's why I never read their stuff. I can read the manufacturer's ad copy instead; at least I know where its coming from.
Finally, I have to say that Mr. Rochlin is completely wrong in suggesting that a reviewer could, without more, be liable for reviewing a product that infringes a patent, copies another product's trade dress, etc. He's also wrong in suggesting that you could copy the appearance or the content of his web site. Even if its not registered, that is protected by copyright and trademark law.
> > Re: When does a better mouse trap turn distasteful carboncopy cloning?Depends on who you ask. Morals + $0.35 gets you a doughnut. So it is with creativity.
What is "creativity" worth, anything? It obviously takes creativity to make a product less expensive. But it takes more creativity to be the first.
> > I fail to see the moral spin that some folks are putting on this. If someone can build essentially the same product as the 47 Labs Gaincard and sell it for less, why shouldn't they? And, if you think they shouldn't, then you must also believe it is immoral for major grocery chains to market sodium hypocholorite solution (i.e. liquid laundry bleach) in their own private label containers for less money than the Clorox Corporation sells the exact same product under the "Clorox" brand name!
==The moral spin derives from the fact that alot of audio certainly is, or is claimed to be *artististcly* inspired. Art and artisticly inspired designs own a subjective value that elevates their worth, far beyond Clorox. Your buying something of higher value when it's *original*. Your not buying aesthetics based on a *spec* or performance level alone. Your also buying artistic *intent*, *interpretation* and *excecution*. These intangibles have value, if not to the buyer then certainly to the original creator.
I'd rather have a blank wall than stare at a hotel cheesy print that matches the couch.
Same with amplifiers. Wavelengths, Atmaspheres, Krells, Fishers and more all have artistic merit and worth. Especially to the creators. Out of respect for *their* passion for their products comes the respect for their products and hence the "moral spin". 47 Labs has a well established artistic "presence" with great respect to the implementation, the details of which are probably lost to the bean counters and those uninspired by originality and creativity.
This is a hard sell, in consumer America, where modifying ones pick up truck is the predominant art form.
I thnk the issue of artistic merit, and appreciation of ones artistic acheivement needs to be re-evaluated. If all we do is clone each other, we will wander aimlessly (with fatter wallets).
To buy the original is to support artistic inspiration and creative excecution.
If the phrase has any content, what it means is that there is some original quality in the product/work.That means it can't be copied. A copy of a Reubens or a Monet is distinguishable from the original.
And, in any event, a painting would be legally protected from copying during the duration of its copyright.
There might be some small aspects of the implementation of a circuit design (e.g. parts selection and component layout) that would not be subject to legal protection.
So, for this you think people should pay thousands of dollars more to the original "author" rather than patronize a "cloner"? Well, if you can persuade someone to do that (and, let's face it, by "branding" a number of manufacturers of various luxury products have done that successfully), more power to you. But please, spare us the condescending rant about "consumer America" etc. etc. and leave morality out of it.
Because what you're really talking about is a desire to enter the "vanity market" -- the market patronized by buyers so rich that they can afford to, for example, buy a Rolex watch for several thousand dollars, when any number of Japanese-made quartz watches will keep time more accurately, require less maintenance and will last longer for 1/4 the price. Of course, a Seiko is not a Rolex. And the vanity market is all about buying the Rolex, so that you can say that you own one. It is not about functionality; it is about status. And it is about people who have enough money to move beyond concern for the necessities, beyond even concern for functionality, to the realm of buying status.
Bruce, you miss the point, as do so many others. Ethics is not moral spin. We have always protected the innovative spirit, although not perfectly. If we fail to recognize the importance of creativity in our lives, we stand to suffer in unimaginable ways.It may seem trivial that artists, designers and movie producers are so concerned about how the public uses their works, but it is not.
What if Da Vinci was the only artist, and everything else was copies of his works?
What if Bach was the only composer, and everything else was a variation or copy of his work?
What if Frigidare designed a product in 1958 and everything since was a copy?
You like the '57 Chev or the '65 Corvette?
Do you remember the feeling when the first Stingray came out? What about the first Firebird in 1967?The list goes on and on. Without innovation and creativity, we get stuck. We don't get better, we don't improve. We just copy and recycle the same idea over and over.
If we let everyone copy someone's innovation, the innovator goes back to farming and we lose the benefit of their creativity. We don't learn, we don't improve, we simply lose.
No spin in that.
> > That means it can't be copied. A copy of a Reubens or a Monet is distinguishable from the original.==Can and will. Distuinguishable, absolutely. Every art market has well stocked and supported a clone market since time. The copy market operates as normal. From snowy barn landscapes to chainsaw bears. What your buying is assumed, that the original is too expensive (hence the copy). Wherever creativity reigns, the clone artists are close behind. I know 5 people who could paint me the most exquisite Renoir or Hopper copy, and I know who would be interested in buying it, it would have a worth as a copy. I have just the wall for a Hopper. I could paint a Shcnabel or Hockney or Dine with my feet. Some people would really be impressed, even motivated to buy.
> > And, in any event, a painting would be legally protected from copying during the duration of its copyright.
==good one.
> > what you're really talking about is a desire to enter the "vanity market" -- the market patronized by
==equally patronizimg. Sorry for mine.
I always like the *watch* analogy, and I always think of Walken's "comfortable peice of metal". I suggest the plastic digi that comes with burritos, even better accuracy.
Do you manufacture audio hardware or software?
If not, "M" is misleading.
I initiially clicked onto the Cain & Cain website, didn't see anything audio-related, and clicked off BEFORE the audio link appeared. Duh!~Jay
Terry Cain is one of the Cain's in Cain & Cain. Terry manufactures fantastic, Fostex-based, rear horn-loaded loudspeakers.
Terry Cain is one of the Cain's in Cain & Cain. Terry manufactures fantastic, Fostex-based, rear horn-loaded loudspeakers.Gee, I wonder where I might be able to find a dealer who sells these fantastic, Fostex-based, rear horn-loaded loudspeakers...
You're shameless, Kapton, SHAMELESS! ;)
se
Yo......Shameless Steve from Sacramento.You overlooked my attempts at alliteration, you silly bear. And by the way......Terry's speakers would sound very good indeed with the Coda and Innersound amps you've designed. :--)
Yo......Shameless Steve from Sacramento.That's Sack O' Tomatoes to you, pal!
You overlooked my attempts at alliteration, you silly bear.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't notice you were alliterate. You seem to be able to read and write quite well. Or are you one of those functional alliterates I've heard about?
Terry's speakers would sound very good indeed with the Coda and Innersound amps you've designed. :--)
Hehehe. 'Cept they ain't my designs. That credit goes to Eric Lauchli.
se
HowdyYou can click on the (M) and see what Terry manufactures. Among other things, great speakers. (Click on the Cain audio button on his web site.)
That's a pretty esoteric argument I'm not sure I can swallow. I don't really put the Gaincard (or any amplifier, for that matter) in the same category as a Monet or Picasso. And if I did, I can only afford the print, not the original anyway.In this case, I'd paraphrase your closing remark slightly to:
"To buy the original is to support artistic inspiration and creative excecution and, ultimately, to be ripped off."
This assumes, of course, that the amp being reviewed is equal to or close to being the equal, of the Gaincard.
> > . I don't really put the Gaincard (or any amplifier, for that matter) in the same category as a Monet or Picasso==Amps do have a *SPARK* of artistic freedom, if you know where to look. No not the same category I agree.
> > "To buy the original is to support artistic inspiration and creative excecution and, ultimately, to be ripped off."
==No garauntee to be ripped off, speculation at best. And generally originals will retain greater value.
Believe me, I'm not disparaging the 47 Labs stuff as I've never heard it (except for the OTA I use), but there seems to be a fair bit of it for sale on Audiogon for 40-60% of its original price. As an "original", I would say that it is not holding its value very well.
Again not much of an argument.
just checking a-gon, and not a single peice of 47 labs available.
You are indeed correct that there is nothing there now, but I can assure you that it is commonplace to see the 47 Labs gear (like much of the other gear at Audiogon) selling at 40-60% of retail. You're deluded if you think otherwise. I'll post back to this thread if it is still active when it next happens. Expecting high end audio pieces to hold their value is a bit optimistic I think.
> > This is a hard sell, in consumer America, where modifying ones pick up truck is the predominant art form. I thnk the issue of artistic merit, and appreciation of ones artistic acheivement needs to be re-evaluated. If all we do is clone each other, we will wander aimlessly (with fatter wallets). < <I just wonder whose design approach shows "more artistic "presence" with great respect to the implementation, the details of which are probably lost to the bean counters and those uninspired by originality and creativity. "
In case you are not sure, the design of our amp, beside being concentrated on sonic perfection, was also focused on perfection in implementatiton, whose "presence" can be clearly seen below. If you are still claiming copying the original design you must be sriously joking.
> > I just wonder whose design approach shows "more artistic "presence"==I was reffering to the one that they (47) had established in the market.
> > In case you are not sure, the design of our amp, beside being concentrated on sonic perfection, was also focused on perfection in implementatiton, whose "presence" can be clearly seen below. If you are still claiming copying the original design you must be sriously joking.
==With all due respect. I have seen the original photo at the top everywhere on DIY sites, reffered to basicaly how not to do it. The photos cannot tell me how one or the other will sound. I do not know the particulars of these amplifiers design short of basic understanding and did not mean to comment on sound quality.I am simply trying to point out that gaincards in general are a great blank canvas. A veritibal ready to go etcha-sketch. To as Bruce puts it "trade dress". Why no wood. glass, cork, enamel or fuzzy things??
Hi Sirajan,As you know, people copy the work of others all the time. Without an absolute standard of right and wrong, people are free to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
We joke about shippers who's actions seem to say that if they can break it, we didn't pack it right. Thus, excluding themselves from any wrongdoing. It's like the thief who says that it's not really burglury because you left your door unlocked. Therefore, it's your fault you got robbed because he found a way in. Yet, when it's our package that gets damaged, or our home that gets robbed, things look a whole lot different.
Personally, I think that the big record companies represented by the RIAA are a bunch of greedy crooks. However, I'm not convinced that those who share downloadable music files are the Robin Hoods they would portray themselves as being. Yet, there seems to be this idea that whatever someone else does (product, service, or whatever), is fair game to copy because I'm Robin Hood, and that makes whatever I do right.
I've been doing what I do for somewhere around 25 years, and feeding myself through it for the last 10 years. I've also done a bit of audio reviewing. I think that too many on all sides of the equation are simply motivated by their own self-interests. It takes character to stand up and say openly that something is clearly a copy of something else and not an original work. One must be willing to suffer the consequences of publicly stating such a position. In this litigous society you better be able to defend your position. I don't mean defent it with truth, but with money. Quite often you're right because you have the money to prove it.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I would like very much to see truth and honesty come back in fashion. Right now, it seems that whatever gets me what I want is fine, and however I choose to get it is alright too.
The right thing IS the right thing BECAUSE it's the right thing. The wrong thing IS the wrong thing BECAUSE it's the wrong thing.
I see absolutely no problem with you reviewing the product. I find the suggestion below that you could somehow be responsible and held liable for some kind of infringement a sad reflection of what the USA has become, and that is the most ridiculously litigious society in the world. Don't get me wrong, not all litigation is ridiculous, but the US does hold absolute top honours for stupid and unnecessary lawyering.If 47 Labs is protected by patent or whatever is legally required in this case, I'm sure they will seek legal counsel. If not, I see no reason that someone else should not manufacture and market the product (perhaps even improving it), sell it at a much lower price and still make money. Not much new here; it's been going on for centuries.
I've owned a real Gaincard for several years, and have seen/heard the AMP-1 that was reviewed.Despite the obvious ripoff of and similarities to the Gaincard, and even at half the price, it still fails in my eyes. Here's why:
1) It's NOT a gaincard. There are those for whom only the original will do. The item is more than the sum of it's parts.
2) the ripoff of styling elements is not even well done. The proportions are all wrong. Feet are too big, knobs are too small. Powersupply has no elegance of form. Colors/metal treatment is garish in comparison. (intead of anodized black, it's silver and polished brass (gold?)... reminds me of the ugly Musical Fidelity stuff).
3) the people who would pay 1/2 the price of a Gaincard for a fake one, are few and far between I think. It seems the Gaincard syndrome(?) appeals to 2 types. Those who like and want the Gaincard and will throw down the $ to have one. And those who are too cheap to do so/think they can do better, and will build their own for a couple hundred bucks and be happy with it. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground.
IMNSHO, I'd think Peter (the builder of AMP-1) would be better served by coming up with a more original case design, something small and elegant that wasn't such a big ripoff of the gaincard case design. He had some one-offs he had posted pics of on DIYaudio.com forums I think.. those looked much more interesting/better/unique than the AMp-1. (the acrylic/heatsink/copper pipe one in particular).
BTW, the retail on the 50w Gaincard is $4000, not $4800. (www.sakurasystems.com). Also, the regular gaincard puts out more than 25W, measured at something over 40w from what I had read in various places.
Ironically, I wonder if this review will help or hurt the Amp-1's chances in the marketplace. Could certainly go either way I think.
I have a question to Ed Sawyer: Where and when did you happen to hear the Amp-1?
At the Montreal HiFi show this spring.
One: Listening at shows means very little IMHO how a SINGLE product within a SYSTEM may said single unit reproduce music in YOUR system... and i have been to more shows than i care to admit.Two: to say that unit "Y" sounds like unit "X", a reviewer should have had both units.
Enjoy the Music,
They are not completely relevant to Ed's comments. He pointed out the design/ concept/ ethical flaws with the amp and I consider these more to the point than weather it sounds good or not.
to many audiophiles.
That what I thought. But AFAIK there was no GainCard featured in the same room, so you cannot really comment on sonic comparisons between the two units. It was also our early version and the amp supplied for the review is still different electronicaly. Our PS in some way is not as nice as the amp, but this is also one area we decided to cut the costs. But, it is made out of 1/8 steel tubing, which has much better shielding properties than aluminum and PS can be positioned right beside the amp without causing any interferences.You might not like the gold knobs and brass spikes, but we were not trying to create similar look to GainCard. In fact we were after totally different amp with different visual appeal and sonic presentation. If you claim that our amp looks and sounds different than GainCard, I think we succeeded.;-)
My acrylic amp was a sideproject and I still have plans to market it, although in limited quantities.
Of course I can comment on it. I *owned* a gaincard, knew it well. How is this different than Sirjan's review? he didn't have a Shigaraki there to compare with, and he didn't mention even reviewing the Gaincard. Seems valid enough to me, if you consider his review valid.For something "different" than the Gaincard, it sure looks like it's trying really hard to be LIKE the gaincard... yes, the knobs/feet/looks to me just don't have nearly the aesthetic appeal as the gaincard case. But that's just me.
I guess another question is: would this AMP-1 exist or even stand a chance of being noticed if it had not been for the Gaincard initially? Probably not. Anyway, imitation is a sincere form of flattery I guess.
I'll weigh in here having read almost more than I can stomach.No, the idea of a small case in two mono halves is not original (Camelot phono stage reviewed some time back in HiFi News) and chip amps have been reviewed in the past as well (HiFi World reviewed the Final branded battery powered chip amp pre/power setup years ago) I seriously doubt that 47 labs could contemplate having pioneered either technology. If I build monoblocks, am I copying Quad II's or did that nasty Peter Walker copy someone elses idea in building them? Shame on him!
So, someone builds a chipamp in a dual mono case (both of which seem like sound engineering practice to me) (and with the gall to use an outboard power supply too, Shocking I call it!) and somehow this becomes a crime?
Peter has said that he wasn't trying to copy the gaincard but was develping his own design implementation as an offshoot of the work done by himself and many others in the DIY community who found (as many others in the past have) that chip amps could produce fine sound when well implemented.
Let it rest folks!
It's not valid at all. If you didn't listen to both amps in a same system you cannot comment how they compare. You might have own GainCard for years, but you didn't own our amp and short audition at the Show, in unknown system and invironment, is not an indication of anything. The speakers used at the Montreal Show were brand new creation and how can you be sure that you were listening to the amp and not the speakers?For somebody not having technical background, the GainCard may indeed grow to a legendary status, as it seems to be your case, but then, I'm surprised you don't own it anymore. Was it because you saw those pictures, posted here few months back?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=104819#post104819On the contrary, I also present a link to Amp-1 inside look, which is a totally different ball game.
> > I guess another question is: would this AMP-1 exist or even stand a chance of being noticed if it had not been for the Gaincard initially? < < My unswer to your question is: probably not. I wouldn't even know that those chips are so good. So here's my question to you: Whould consumers benefit from the fact that only GainCard is offered to them and no other alternative exist, doesn't matter if better or worse?
I am still not sure how the others will accept the fact that the amps look indeed, sort of similar, and I'm also curious how this thread will develop. But one thing should be certain, we were not trying to create a fake GainCard. To some who lived with GainCard for years it may look so, but for somebody seeing both amps for the first time, the appeal may be completely different.
> > I am still not sure how the others will accept the fact that the amps look indeed, sort of similar,==Back when audio was "box driven"(could still be), many mfg'rs would offer a *black* version, of their *silver* version.
The AMP-1 looks to be the *silver* (w-gold knobs)version of the 47labs product. I know and understand the differences in the amps. Without judging the sonics, the amps -for all inents and purposes- look exceedingly similar. To the point of distraction. And it is kinda distracting.
> > To some who lived with GainCard for years it may look so, but for somebody seeing both amps for the first time, the appeal may be completely different.
==With such a simple platform as a gainclone, there exists a great opportunity for aesthetic enhancement, unique to existing designs. The 2 box channell and end caps structure, while not *the same* only serves to dilute the 47Labs original design methodology. In effect devalueing BOTH products simultaneously, ultimately. So now we should expect yet even more very similar designs?
The major issue in the both amps' controversy, is the actual use of the four parts creating a chassis. You've probably also noticed that a PS case used by 47Labs is close resemblance of M-F X series cases, yet nobody seemed to complain.Your arguments are very logical and make sense. But it appears, that this method of building a small chasis is the best for that type of design. Should it be kept then, as 47Labs exclusive, without others being able to use it (even in different form, size and pattern)?
The market place has tons of products looking like the original with some differences: from cars to jeans to shoes to soft drinks. Ever wonder why all soda cans have same shape and volume? It is the free market entreprise and anything that is not copy protected/patented can be emulated.
> > . You've probably also noticed that a PS case used by 47Labs is close resemblance of M-F X series cases, yet nobody seemed to complain.==They're both round. The MF an aloomineeum extrusion with heatsinks built in and legs. Power Humpty is much larger metal(sheet? tubing?), black with insect like feet. I so very little similar design wise..
> > But it appears, that this method of building a small chasis is the best for that type of design.
==Perhaps, yes. Perhaps really just like anything else better and fresher designs appear everyday.
> > The market place has tons of products looking like the original with some differences: from cars to jeans to shoes to soft drinks. Ever wonder why all soda cans have same shape and volume? It is the free market entreprise and anything that is not copy protected/patented can be emulated.
==Taste. It's the real thing. Even if it's seaweed wrapped french fries, or saki and a cheeseburger?
> > They're both round. The MF an aloomineeum extrusion with heatsinks built in and legs. Power Humpty is much larger metal(sheet? tubing?), black with insect like feet. I so very little similar design wise.. < <This makes me think you are forgetting that my amp is also much larger, different color and totally different feet (only 3 of them) ;-)
> > Perhaps, yes. Perhaps really just like anything else better and fresher designs appear everyday. < <
I dare to say that our chassis is much better designed and the fit is much better also. We are not using rods to hold it together, but press fitting, which is self centering and structuraly more rigid. Only 4 screws at the bottom provide additional protection. We chose clear anodizing as it seems to be more trendy thse days.
I never saw a real GainCard so I cannot comment on the taste.
> > This makes me think you are forgetting that my amp is also much larger, different color and totally different feet (only 3 of them) ;-)==It still *reeks* of the aforementioned "Japanese (47)" influence, from a purely cosmetic POV.
I looked at the acrylic model.
Why oh why was not that design or similar, the one to mkt? Way better appearance/cosmetics. Ninja pookey meets George Jetson. And if they (acrylic)are more expensive to produce, that's a *challenge* well worth persuing. To establish a "uniqueness" and identifiable, personal look. Definition of a well thought out product. As 47 had back when.
The "acrylic" succeeds on it's own right far far better (than AMP-1) as a way to show your consierable engineering/assembly skills. Me I'd be making hard maple ones.
And seeing the "acrylic" one proves to me that gaincards can be creatiive and unique. You have poisoned your own argument defending the AMP-1 "lookalike" by showing us the better design example.
TC
Thanks for your appreciation. I also liked the acrylic one, but my partner, insisted on marketing the aluminum body amp. He probably saw a bigger potential in it.;-)Initial testing showed also that aluminum body amp sounds somewhat better than acrylic amp (uing same parts, the only exception being the pots). So the tubing must be doing something good to the amp's structure. I'm currently working on a custom order, which is a gainclone made out of maple and in a cube shape.So your taste is quite good. Will see how it turns out. If it will look good and sound well, it might be my next project, but don't tell me I'm copying your idea.
But the truly good GainClone amp will be a pair of monoblocks as this takes away the variable of PS cords (which affect the sound in a big way) as well potentiomemters will be out, blaming a preamp stage for their defficiency. I've built the prototype and it appears to be better than AMP-1.
1. You are acting here as a reviewer, there is a new product in the market, you listen to it, you judge and publish your veredict.2.- As far as I understand, it's not your obligation to know if the technology included into that product has been "borrowed", clearly copied or whether it is the fruit of extensive research work. That's the problem of the new product's manufacturer ethics and perhaps the first product's who might start a lawsuit for copy.
3.- You should clearly state in your review (I haven't read it yet) that this is a new company's product and nothing about their reliability is known. We know nothing about service, warranty, dealers... Is not a problem, but it should be commented.
I think that this post honours you and your concerns are understandable, but I don't think it's a reviewer's mission to support only the products that are innovative in their designs, are solidly stablished or provide excellent service. Then what would happen is that only very few brands would be reviewed. I think your goal should be to offer an objective (in this case since subjectiveness in involved, at least unbiased should be enough) assessment of a product´s performance.
The really hard work was done by the designers of the integrated circuit(s). Further credit goes to the process engineering and device integration teams within the company that makes the integrated circuits, that ensure the fabrication process generates transistor characteristics that make the integrated ciruit design a success.Unless the 47labs product uses a custom chip that was reverse-engineered and built in a foundry for the knock-off, similar layouts simply indicate basic common sense on the part of the circuit board designers in both companies.
Copying the external appearance of a successful product for the sake of stealing business is immoral if not illegal. However, making a cheaper board implementation of a chip set available to anyone willing to purchase it should only raise questions about the details of the execution.
The basics: If 47 Labs have patent or other legal protections, selling copies are illegal. You reviewing said copies knowing this information might make you liable or part of some lawsuit.Will avoid discussing the MORAL obligations as each person has their own set of morals. IMHO you know you were reviewing a copy is akin to, well...
May i copy your website and design and also copy your content while i am at it. Will just make a few rewordings and subtle changes. i am sure it is ok with you, right?
Enjoy the Music,
Steven R. Rochlin
If I understand you correctly, in a nut shell, AMP-1 uses the same IC as the 47Lab GainCard. So what's the problem? If the makers of AMP-1 can do it at half the price more power to 'em and we're better off as consumers.Where there's little innovation, there's little intellectual property to protect. We see it throughout the Pee Cee (PC) industry.... it's mostly the same stuff in different packaging.
If you only knew....The profit margins on this are something in excess of 50x the cost, and 90% of the cost is in the casing.
Anonymo, it seems like you are pretty much separeted from reality.
Talking about Amp-1, the cost of casing (amp alone)is only 14% and the profit margins are about 3x the cost.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: