Listening Get Together

[John Roberts]

Re: Listening Get Together

A sad reminder of the state of the patent office. It is generally too easy to get a patent awarded (it must be I have 9 ). They generally just do a search for similar "language". I doubt there is much prior speaker art talking about "vortex" technology. The PTO is comfortable letting the courts sort out the bad patents from good, but this often results in the golden ruling (deep pockets win)..

I can imagine lawyers and the court system having a field day with this, if anybody is crazy enough to prosecute this. I do not find the courts a good place to parse technical matters.

JR

 

[Art Welter]

Re: Listening Get Together

I never thought I would find myself bumping this thread, but there has been an interesting development. Reading the May 2014 copy of Voice Coil, I see Big E's patent has been issued! Here's what James Croft, who reviews patents for Voice Coil, has to say:
Originally Posted by Voice Coil Volume 27, Issue 7, Page 24

"I normally don't take patents or system presentations that are expressed with so much apparent hyperbole very seriously, but some acoustical engineers who I respect measured and listened to these systems. They found the subjective quality and a number of objective measurements suggest that something unusual and positive is going on with these devices.
The patent doesn't include any specifications, dimensions, references to Thiele-Small (T-S) parameters and their relationship to the architecture, proposed relational dimensions of the different chamber sections. [sic] There is nothing that would teach you how to create a reasonably functioning unit, let alone an optimized device. Since it is the inventor's responsibility to provide enough information that one skilled in the art would be able to build a "best mode" version of the invention, it would appear that this patent does not meet its legal requirements. Also, there are no measurements or comparative benchmarks disclosed."

Sounds like James Croft has never built anything, I could easily re-create those cabinets from the patent drawings, which clearly show designs that simply lie in the continuum between "scoop", "transmission line", and "tapped horn" concepts. I would agree that nothing in the patent supports the ridiculous claims made.

I wonder where the measurements James refers to are, nothing in any of the past measurements suggests anything "unusual and positive", other than the Big E horn designs are more efficient than simple ported enclosures, and have unusually bad frequency response resulting from the combined response of the rear "tunnel" with the driver's front radiation.

 

[Glenn Adams]

Re: Listening Get Together

It took Edison over 1,000 light bulbs before he got one right. So what if some guy with a saw and some wood made something he thought sounded great? Wouldn't be the first time a discovery was made in this way. In fact most of pro audio pre 80's were built in this fashion. I do not see how this design creates any magic unless it cancels out only the bad frequency's and boosts the good ones.

As Ivan said, physics and measurement's aren't there to support the claims issued. Any box or horn with something bouncing around inside of it will produce sound. Sounds that someone may like more than another.

He feels he is onto something and no one should discourage him. So long as people know what they are buying and like it so what?
What if Edison had quit after that 1,000th bulb? (I know Tesla would have, and did in reality)

We have all been discouraged at some point, bolstered by naysayers. Did any of you quit, or did you work even harder at your dream?

I read the full post just now and this guy got taken out to the wood shed. I commend him for keeping his cool. And now he has a patent.
Dream on, saw away, measure later.

 

[John Chiara]

Re: Listening Get Together

It took Edison over 1,000 light bulbs before he got one right. So what if some guy with a saw and some wood made something he thought sounded great? Wouldn't be the first time a discovery was made in this way. In fact most of pro audio pre 80's were built in this fashion. I do not see how this design creates any magic unless it cancels out only the bad frequency's and boosts the good ones.

As Ivan said, physics and measurement's aren't there to support the claims issued. Any box or horn with something bouncing around inside of it will produce sound. Sounds that someone may like more than another.

He feels he is onto something and no one should discourage him. So long as people know what they are buying and like it so what?
What if Edison had quit after that 1,000th bulb? (I know Tesla would have, and did in reality)

We have all been discouraged at some point, bolstered by naysayers. Did any of you quit, or did you work even harder at your dream?

I read the full post just now and this guy got taken out to the wood shed. I commend him for keeping his cool. And now he has a patent.
Dream on, saw away, measure later.

Glenn, I don't disagree with you philosphically, but sometimes....as in the recent PONO discussions on Gearslutz...I feel it is necessary to have a Pro Forum limit speculation and wide eyed...albeit uninformed... enthusiasm for the sake of holding ourselves to a higher standard of measured results and sound science. We are not dealing with unknown areas of physics here. Normal laws apply and should be the standard by which any discussion is judged. Otherwise, it can turn into a source of easily avoided misinformation for anyone visiting casually or real newbies. I don't have a horse in this race but after reading the convoluted logic of some contributors to the aforementioned PONO discussion... That fly in the face of proven science for the sake of some 'hope' of defying the laws of physics and achieving some level of 'audio enlightenment'...I am glad we have moderators and real experts to help keep the consumer audio type hypers accountable.

 

[Glenn Adams]

Re: Listening Get Together

Thanks John - short of reading 151 pages of opinions can you boil down the PONO comments for me?

I started my Audio profession working in a very hi end audio store. I am talking Audio Research, Threshold, CR, EC, Sota, Dynavector, Quad, Acoustat, Magnepan, and such. I am 56 and I can still hear that MP3 and most CDA's suck. So I would be interested in a portable player that sounded like the good old days with all of todays ease of use.

Looking at the PONO add I'd say that marketing was their real achievement with some people who I am sure can't hear a freight train go by. So Neil has a retirement fund now. Why not call it Audio Porno if it is all that good?

 

[John Roberts]

Re: Listening Get Together

Thanks John - short of reading 151 pages of opinions can you boil down the PONO comments for me?

I started my Audio profession working in a very hi end audio store. I am talking Audio Research, Threshold, CR, EC, Sota, Dynavector, Quad, Acoustat, Magnepan, and such. I am 56 and I can still hear that MP3 and most CDA's suck. So I would be interested in a portable player that sounded like the good old days with all of todays ease of use.

Looking at the PONO add I'd say that marketing was their real achievement with some people who I am sure can't hear a freight train go by. So Neil has a retirement fund now. Why not call it Audio Porno if it is all that good?

PONO appears to be a solution in search of a problem. Sampling theory and quantization rates are mature technology that was well vetted by mass market consumer audio, (think Phillips and Sony with the CD, not some musos and studio types).

Over the decades since the CD there have been naysayers trying to market higher resolution solutions, the market has not only rejected them all but has gravitated to the even lower resolution than CD media (MP3 et al) to reduce bandwidth requirements.

Studio recording can justify the highest resolution available for archival purposes. In a free mass market PONO will get exactly the response it deserves.

JR

 

[Glenn Adams]

Re: Listening Get Together

PONO appears to be a solution in search of a problem. Sampling theory and quantization rates are mature technology that was well vetted by mass market consumer audio, (think Phillips and Sony with the CD, not some musos and studio types).

Over the decades since the CD there have been naysayers trying to market higher resolution solutions, the market has not only rejected them all but has gravitated to the even lower resolution than CD media (MP3 et al) to reduce bandwidth requirements.

Studio recording can justify the highest resolution available for archival purposes. In a free mass market PONO will get exactly the response it deserves.

JR

Good point. Lossless has not done much either. Kids I know are content with some of the worst audio and video I have ever seen. But a video game has to be perfect.
They play me a tune out those crappy little speakers on a phone that sounds like a midgets kazoo.

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: Listening Get Together

A sad reminder of the state of the patent office. It is generally too easy to get a patent awarded (it must be I have 9 ). They generally just do a search for similar "language". I doubt there is much prior speaker art talking about "vortex" technology. The PTO is comfortable letting the courts sort out the bad patents from good, but this often results in the golden ruling (deep pockets win)..

I can imagine lawyers and the court system having a field day with this, if anybody is crazy enough to prosecute this. I do not find the courts a good place to parse technical matters.

JR

A question for the patent guys-of which I am not one.

What exactly does getting a patent on something mean?

1: Does it simply mean that it is a unique idea or "twist" on an existing product or something that has not been presented before?

2: Is there anything in the process that actually confirms that the product/device actually do what it claims to do? If so-how is it verified or checked?

Or something else?

 

[John Roberts]

Re: Listening Get Together

A question for the patent guys-of which I am not one.

What exactly does getting a patent on something mean?

1: Does it simply mean that it is a unique idea or "twist" on an existing product or something that has not been presented before?

It must be novel (new) so not already known to those skilled in the art, or obvious (which is hard to prove. If it's obvious why wasn't it done before?), or published. In the context of patents, selling something using the invention counts as publishing it.

2: Is there anything in the process that actually confirms that the product/device actually do what it claims to do? If so-how is it verified or checked?

I recall one very high profile case 15 or 20 years ago when some guy tried to patent a perpetual motion machine. This has been tried before and is a big red flag for obvious reasons. He was asked to show a model that proved his claim. As usual with that particular type of claim there is some fundamental error in how they are measuring the input and output power. AFAIK they did not get the patent because we still do not have perpetual motion.

In the early days it was routine to have to present a working prototype or model to the PTO to prove that a design worked. I doubt they have the physical space to hold one of everything ever patented, but there are some historical old Wright bros proof of concept models etc. I never had to prove an invention, but conveniently for me, all of mine actually worked.

Or something else?

In my decades of experience dealing with patent lawyers and the patent office I have never been overly impressed by either. The outside patent lawyers who help prepare and marshal patents through the system are generally a few steps further up the food chain than the patent examiners. I think Einstein may have been a patent examiner in one of his early jobs, but that is not typical of the caliber of my encounters.

I have actually had patent applications denied, when the examiner found something using a word search that appeared similar, even if it wasn't (IMO). Sometimes I would not fight over a patent that probably wasn't that commercial anyhow, while it's hard to know up front which ones are and are not. At the time FLS was just another invention, but it did well for Peavey (and others). I abandoned one I was pursuing personally back in the '70s because I did not have the money to educate the examiner about a subtle real difference between two similar sounding things.

As I have posted about at length, and like with many things, this is a sport for those with deep pockets. The major companies accumulate war chests of numerous patents and they trade them around like chips with other big companies for chips in their war chest. When you can't make a deal you go to court and the man with the best (most expensive) lawyer wins. I do not expect to find justice about technical question in a legal court room. While the laws of physics may be finite, the language used in patent claims are lawerishly vague and imprecise. WTF is a "vortex" in the context of loudspeakers? I don't remember that from physics class, so in court the best BS'er wins.

JR

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: Listening Get Together

While the laws of physics may be finite, the language used in patent claims are lawerishly vague and imprecise. WTF is a "vortex" in the context of loudspeakers? I don't remember that from physics class, so in court the best BS'er wins.

JR

I am still wondering how this "design" can reduce reflections in a room and lessen the room modes.

SURELY there must be some sort of explanation of how this works. After all, we are all still governed by the laws of physics.

Maybe this is how it works:

" MVW technology produces a de-correlated sound presentation to the listener resulting in greater perceived clarity with reduced adverse environmental reactivity.
Manipulated Vortex Waveguide "

Does anybody know what what a "de-correlated sound presentation" is? Or know of a way to explain it?

 

[John Roberts]

Re: Listening Get Together

I am still wondering how this "design" can reduce reflections in a room and lessen the room modes.

SURELY there must be some sort of explanation of how this works. After all, we are all still governed by the laws of physics.

Maybe this is how it works:

" MVW technology produces a de-correlated sound presentation to the listener resulting in greater perceived clarity with reduced adverse environmental reactivity.
Manipulated Vortex Waveguide "

Does anybody know what what a "de-correlated sound presentation" is? Or know of a way to explain it?

That statement does not even sound internally consistent with itself. If "de-correlated" means scrambled, it seems unlikely that this would increase clarity, but perhaps the weasel word is "perceived". Human perception is all about discarding lots of redundant information and extrapolating an interpretation or view of the sound space from a few cues isolated from the sound field.

Scrambling the temporal content, before it gets scrambled by room boundaries or other reflective surfaces could make them seem to disappear. Still not sure how this would increase clarity. If one cue is suppressed the brain will default to use other cues.

As I have suggested before, hifi playback is already an imperfect system based on perceptual trickery. If there is any there there, this could probably be done more easily with a digital plug-in. But I am not convinced there is any there there.

You generally don't use snake oil salesmanship to sell the real deal, while that alone does not prove it is BS, it does appear to be walking and quacking like a duck.

JR

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: Listening Get Together

That statement does not even sound internally consistent with itself. If "de-correlated" means scrambled, it seems unlikely that this would increase clarity, but perhaps the weasel word is "perceived". Human perception is all about discarding lots of redundant information and extrapolating an interpretation or view of the sound space from a few cues isolated from the sound field.

Scrambling the temporal content, before it gets scrambled by room boundaries or other reflective surfaces could make them seem to disappear. Still not sure how this would increase clarity. If one cue is suppressed the brain will default to use other cues.

As I have suggested before, hifi playback is already an imperfect system based on perceptual trickery. If there is any there there, this could probably be done more easily with a digital plug-in. But I am not convinced there is any there there.

You generally don't use snake oil salesmanship to sell the real deal, while that alone does not prove it is BS, it does appear to be walking and quacking like a duck.

JR

One of the things that Tom Danley uses to judge the quality of a loudspeaker is to closer your eyes and see if you can tell how far away it is.

If you have an idea of the distance-then that is an indicator of BAD things. If you can't tell how far away it is-that is a good thing.

The reason being that a "poorer" design will give off all sorts of "clues" to your brain that will give an idea of the distance-reflections-different time arrivals of different passbands and so forth.

So if you use that "test"-a "de-correlated" signal would give off lots of clues-which in looking at the design it would-due to all the different signal arrivals.

But maybe some people "like" that sound------------

 

[John Roberts]

Re: Listening Get Together

One of the things that Tom Danley uses to judge the quality of a loudspeaker is to closer your eyes and see if you can tell how far away it is.

If you have an idea of the distance-then that is an indicator of BAD things. If you can't tell how far away it is-that is a good thing.

The reason being that a "poorer" design will give off all sorts of "clues" to your brain that will give an idea of the distance-reflections-different time arrivals of different passbands and so forth.

So if you use that "test"-a "de-correlated" signal would give off lots of clues-which in looking at the design it would-due to all the different signal arrivals.

But maybe some people "like" that sound------------

Not to be argumentative, but have you actually listened to this speaker, with eyes open or closed.

I think there was one favorable report from a reviewer.

I do not find the gibberish explanation very convincing but i am not smart enough to predict exactly what is or isn't going on. It wouldn't be the first time an inventor did not understand how his invention works. The patent files are full of them.

JR

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: Listening Get Together

Not to be argumentative, but have you actually listened to this speaker, with eyes open or closed.

I think there was one favorable report from a reviewer.

I do not find the gibberish explanation very convincing but i am not smart enough to predict exactly what is or isn't going on. It wouldn't be the first time an inventor did not understand how his invention works. The patent files are full of them.

JR

No I have not heard any of the products so therefore cannot honest say anything-one way or the other.

What I find "interesting" is that sometimes people hear something "different" about a product and automatically assume it is "better"-just because it is different. yet in reality it s a fault-but the fact that it is "different" makes it stand out. And some people "hook" onto that.

I will say you can find favorable "reviews" for even totally crappy products. It all depends on where the "reference" is or what the "motive" is.

I know it is not fair to judge without actually hearing-but when the basic "rules" of getting a good sound (driver spacing vs wavelength for example) are violated-it makes it hard to believe-or that the designer is paying attention to simple things like freq vs wavelength.

But hey-if they are selling product-then good for them. It is just the "BS descriptions" that get me-that have no meaning.

Of course the whole hi-fi industry is FULL of such descriptions-maybe that is the idea.

Of course the lack of any measurements is also a concern-but that does not seem to bother some manufacturers in our industry who are making the most expensive products-yet have no published data and never will.

Oh well. As long as you "trust and believe" why do you need data??????????????????????????????

 

[John Roberts]

Re: Listening Get Together

No I have not heard any of the products so therefore cannot honest say anything-one way or the other.

What I find "interesting" is that sometimes people hear something "different" about a product and automatically assume it is "better"-just because it is different. yet in reality it s a fault-but the fact that it is "different" makes it stand out. And some people "hook" onto that.

And sometimes two reviewers can even hear different things listening to the same unit (happened to me).

I will say you can find favorable "reviews" for even totally crappy products. It all depends on where the "reference" is or what the "motive" is.

I know it is not fair to judge without actually hearing-but when the basic "rules" of getting a good sound (driver spacing vs wavelength for example) are violated-it makes it hard to believe-or that the designer is paying attention to simple things like freq vs wavelength.

just trying to be disciplined about this. Scientific method and all that.

But hey-if they are selling product-then good for them. It is just the "BS descriptions" that get me-that have no meaning.

Of course the whole hi-fi industry is FULL of such descriptions-maybe that is the idea.

I walked away from the hifi industry back in the '80s it was too disconnected from reality for me.

Of course the lack of any measurements is also a concern-but that does not seem to bother some manufacturers in our industry who are making the most expensive products-yet have no published data and never will.

Ivan the only honest engineer...

Oh well. As long as you "trust and believe" why do you need data??????????????????????????????

Then again why do they need a patent? They seem to be all in on their fantasy, it seems a little extreme just for marketing purposes so they apparently believe in their story.

but who knows, I don't. Just trying to keep it real (and I know better than to expect too much from speakers).

JR

 

[Glenn Adams]

Re: Listening Get Together

John - Ivan is correct about a great many things. I sold ultra high end stereos in the 70's and 80's.
i could take you into our speaker room and tell you what you are going to hear before you heard them and you would hear that very difference in sound. Psychoacoustic snake oil. I never sold anything I thought sounded horrid, but I could give you reasons to point that Bose to your paneling and say you would hear this tremendous sound stage like you were there, and you would nod and buy it. Bose was our low low end speakers. All I will say about the design is OK it is a quad 8 inch with internal folded horn porting, but if the 2 inches are ripping out of the same area as the ports than I know what it will sound like. And that impression will not change with listening to it. Over the decades of hearing thousands of designs I can look at the design of a box and it's drivers and tell you about what it will sound like, on and off axis. I don't need a demo of Ivan's SBH from Tom to know what it will do and how it will sound. I could buy the SBH speaker or any other unity design without hearing it. There is little that surprises me.

Also they shouldn't worry about those 5 ply cabinets. Most home builders start with CDX, or MDF. If they want to sell a pro that box they better increase the price and buy pro wood.

Dream, Saw, Listen, Measure, then Sell

 

[Dave Barnett]

Re: Listening Get Together

I never thought I would find myself bumping this thread, but there has been an interesting development. Reading the May 2014 copy of Voice Coil, I see Big E's patent has been issued! Here's what James Croft, who reviews patents for Voice Coil, has to say:



http://www.google.com/patents/US20140060959

So it's like a back-loaded horn, only it starts out wide behind the driver, then gets narrow, then flares out again?

 

[John Roberts]

Re: Listening Get Together

John - Ivan is correct about a great many things. I sold ultra high end stereos in the 70's and 80's.

That was you? Thanks for the 411 but i was designing hifi gear in the 70s-80s. I know all the salesman tricks and more than a little about psycho-acoustics.

i could take you into our speaker room and tell you what you are going to hear before you heard them and you would hear that very difference in sound. Psychoacoustic snake oil. I never sold anything I thought sounded horrid, but I could give you reasons to point that Bose to your paneling and say you would hear this tremendous sound stage like you were there, and you would nod and buy it. Bose was our low low end speakers. All I will say about the design is OK it is a quad 8 inch with internal folded horn porting, but if the 2 inches are ripping out of the same area as the ports than I know what it will sound like. And that impression will not change with listening to it. Over the decades of hearing thousands of designs I can look at the design of a box and it's drivers and tell you about what it will sound like, on and off axis.

You are a better man than I... Time to throw away all the anechoic chambers and SMART test gear.

I don't need a demo of Ivan's SBH from Tom to know what it will do and how it will sound. I could buy the SBH speaker or any other unity design without hearing it. There is little that surprises me.

I get surprised often. Just not by posts here.

Also they shouldn't worry about those 5 ply cabinets. Most home builders start with CDX, or MDF. If they want to sell a pro that box they better increase the price and buy pro wood.

Dream, Saw, Listen, Measure, then Sell

I've seen boxes made from carbon fiber,,, light weight and rigid, but that is just one of several variables.

Indeed with the judgement that comes from experience we can make make sweeping assumptions about gross generalities when the physics is straightforward. I once had a difference of opinion with my boss about a budget molded plastic speaker approach. he was swallowing the competitor's marketing kool-aid hook, line, and sinker, while i argued about the laws of physics yadda yadda. Since i never was much of a yes man, I wouldn't yield without a test and it came down to a shoot-out between my way and the bosses way. We had transducer engineering build up a prototype each way... After several seconds of loud swearing, my boss conceded that my way was better...

But that one was easy... no speaker vortexes involved.

JR

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: Listening Get Together

So it's like a back-loaded horn, only it starts out wide behind the driver, then gets narrow, then flares out again?

Yeah-that is how they "capture" the sound and then "release it".

I read that somewhere in the description of how it "works".

Of course I don't know what that advantage might be-since the lows are typically late in time and need to be forward of the higher freq devices-what advantage is there to "catch and release"?

Or maybe I am missing something.

 

[Glenn Adams]

Re: Listening Get Together

Yeah-that is how they "capture" the sound and then "release it".

I read that somewhere in the description of how it "works".

Of course I don't know what that advantage might be-since the lows are typically late in time and need to be forward of the higher freq devices-what advantage is there to "catch and release"?

Or maybe I am missing something.

Ivan - It uses a magna flux capacitor to store the sound inside the box until everything is in phase then releases it in perfect phase and amplitude. It uses the Piezo woofer that is flat from DC to Light. Didn't you see the memo?


@John - " I once had a difference of opinion with my boss about a budget molded plastic speaker approach" That was you?