agedhorse

Can’t fix stupid…or lazy!

If the copper is damaged like this, there is something very wrong with the cable.

The proper footswitch won't damage your amp either!

The difference in maximum volume between the D-800 and D-350 is just about 3dB It's not a practice amp, it's a totally giggable amp with the features of the D-800, but with the bright switch replacing the deep switch, less power, convection cooling (no fan), smaller, lighter and with a USB power port. The D-350 doesn't support 2 ohms. An amp this low powered wouldn't be the ideal choice for driving the typical cabinet combinations that would make up a 2 ohm load, these players would be better served by the D-800 anyway.

Agreed, not a 120 watt heavy combo.

Cone damage (creasing) is always a result of too much power, exceeding the mechanical power handling limits of the driver. This can occur in both ported and sealed speakers, where the displacement (or the axial force) exceeds the ability of the materials to resist deformation. Generally it’s much easier to cause this damage in ported speakers driven below Fb or F3, but it can happen in a sealed cabinet as well. About 25 years ago, it was seen that an inherent design flaw in the cone edge design in many speakers was contributing to this as available amplifier power increased. An industry wide redesign of cone edges greatly reduced this tendency. The problem is similar to what we see in high voltage electronics, corona stress that occurs at sharp edges and bends, but in a mechanical device results in a high fatigue density of the paper, resulting in a crease over a fairly short period of time.

With every argument about cause and effect, there is an argument that disputes it. For example, combining multiple point sources creates an inconsistent midrange pattern as you move horizontally and vertically relative to the centerline of the cabinet. This may or may not be a problem in the real world for all players, no different than the argument about beaming in a 15" driver which doesn't result in the uneven sound field but may or may not be a problem with reduced off axis response to all players. Every solution has pros and cons, understanding this will help when making choices between the different options.

Sales of ongoing models pay for the R&D costs of new products. Perhaps after say 20 years it could become public domain, that would offer some protection? It doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t really belong to them, it a justification of a behavior.

With no legitimate safety approvals on any of these products, “shower of sparks” is a great example of “you get exactly what you pay for”.

With no legitimate safety approvals on any of these products, “shower of sparks” is a great example of “you get exactly what you pay for”.

With no legitimate safety approvals on any of these products, “shower of sparks” is a great example of “you get exactly what you pay for”.

This is a good point. Copying a response doesn’t appear to be protected because there’s generally no illusion or confusion as to buying a copy of the original circuit or a copy of the original physical amp (a “clone”) and the original amp. Regarding modelers, I have mixed feelings on this because the process and resulting products do exploit the work and costs associated with developing the original products, but on the flip side, reputable, honorable modelers often license (at a cost) the IP from the original product being modeled so the original designers and company are compensated for their work.

Depends on the IC, maybe possible, but seems high to me. If I were to guess, it would be closer to 5000-ish.

Agreed, once a product is discontinued that is different. One challenge is that in today’s modern world, an existing successful product’s future success can be severely hampered merely by a press release and renderings promising something “similar” for much lower cost. This is the premise for some companies releasing vapor ware products (a promise of a competing product with no intention of ever releasing it). I was hoping to stimulate some discussion and appreciation for what designers and companies developing new products often struggle with, and why pushing the state of the art can be so costly.

The Veyron was introduced long before 2015, I don't remember exactly when it started shipping, but the introduction, the pictures and the price swayed dealers not to buy an already successful product when there would be competition coming at less than 1/2 the price. This is one way that damage is done (and the basis of Mackie's claims for damage valuation). There is a difference between buying discontinued IP and simply taking current IP as their own. They did not buy anything, and there are numerous examples of this going back decades. For the most part, they appear to stay on the "legal" side of the line, though it doesn't make things any less painful for those of us who have seen our work used in ways we didn't intended. I was hoping that folks here might better appreciate the effort and cost that goes into developing new and innovative products and how appropriating work that was done by others does hurt those doing the work. The saddest part of this IMO is that they are fully capable of developing any level of technology and creativity in-house. They are a very capable, resourceful company, as capable as any company out there, yet their business model doesn't showcase their ability in that way. Some of their other business groups (like Midas, KT, TC) have in fact done considerable development (both creative and technological), and they seem to have avoided most of this. https://books.google.com/books?id=iQ4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=behringer+copying+mackie&source=bl&ots=tjIVlmIe82&sig=ACfU3U24ffjkT8_3AXtgoR8EA9tCFUe0XQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiw2uDsye_3AhX5lI4IHSVVDigQ6AF6BAgcEAM#v=onepage&q=behringer copying mackie&f=false https://cdm.link/2009/09/on-behringers-track-record-value-and-copies/ https://musictech.com/news/gear/behringer-swing-controversy/ https://macprovideo.com/article/audio-hardware/curtis-family-speaks-out-against-behringer-synth-clone-plans-using-cem3340 https://www.svconline.com/proav-today/behringer-launches-td-3-clone-of-roland-tb-303

This happened while the product was popular, BEFORE the product was discontinued.

Then let them develop their own cosmetics and feature sets rather than copy somebody else’s. When I was in school taking exams, I wasn’t allow to copy somebody else’s work. That was called cheating or plagiarism.

Yes, it matters to those who worked hard, or paid for the considerable costs of developing such. It affects us for sure. It should also matter to players, because advancements in design and technology come from reinvestment of earnings from preceding products. Not paying for the cost of R&D reduces costs and enables cheaper products but can impact future advances by other more innovative, creative products. Are you suggesting that it’s ok to take the work of others as long as it’s cheaper, even if the work is not yours?

Different industries source their products differently. Also, there were some earlier suppliers for both the computer and TV/monitor industry that sourced caps from vendors using counterfeit (and defective) materials. This is a much different situation, and not something that i have seen in the audio world that I live in. As long as the design respects the appropriate limitations of the caps being used, i almost never see an issue with caps.

No, the ONLY cap failures I have seen in (quality) class D amps are in the SMPS when the user connected the amp to 230V while configured for 115V. This is not a cap issue, and generally there’s a lot more damage from this kind of accident.

Here in N. America, the Streamliners are still covered under the factory flat rate service program. I so rarely see a bad power module that it's almost the last thing on the list of potential issues and the replacement modules are in stock and still a current part. All the other things are generally simple and straight forward for a QUALIFIED tech, but what's becoming far more of a challenge is finding a truly qualified tech... that's FAR more concerning than a class D amp (or any other amp for that matter). As far as cost of repair of tube/valve amps being cheaper, has anybody priced out a set of tubes or a replacement transformer lately? Replacing a power module (as rare as it might be) is less costly (by quite a bit) than replacing a set of tubes/valves. Tube/valve amps (in my experience) are much less reliable than a quality solid state amp of any type.

Streamliner on the outside, nothing like it on the inside.

Yes, all over eBay, Ali Express and Ali Baba. If they aren’t purchased through ICEPower directly, or one of their AUTHORIZED distributors, there are usually fake. They look just like the real thing, just a little bit cheaper and no warranty.

I have also had designs stolen, it’s becoming a bigger and bigger deal as design cycles shorten with increased competition. I feel you pain here. Even if I was to design an SMPS/class D module, due to the complexity and difficulty to troubleshoot versus the cost of building the module, it would still be less expensive in most cases to simply replace the module. The problem with the higher technology is that it’s very expensive and time consuming to develop, and even more so to do it reliably. (There are plenty of examples of unreliable “roll your own” designs by big and small manufacturers alike). In order to amortize these costs (and that includes global safety and EMC certification) to keep the cost per module down, the production volumes need to be much higher than most in the bass industry could ever use in several lifetimes. This is why top tier companies like ICEPower exist, they sell to other industries also, in addition to dominating the bass market. This allows them to spread the NRE costs across hundreds of thousands to millions of modules. Economies of scale are responsible for class D being a viable solution AND a good value to the players.