Inside High End Equipment

[mansr]

29 minutes ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

A controversy exists as to whether a photograph of a 3 dimensional object comes under fair use or not.  Photographs of the Eiffel tower taken at night are said to violate the copyright of the one who designed the lighting.  It's the same situation regarding the Seattle Space Needle unless the tower is just part of the skyline.

The New York Port Authority reckons they own the skyline. Needless to say, there are those who disagree.

[Ralf11]

guess this one (no peeking!)

 

 

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

In the 3rd and 4th photos from the top, the electrolytic capacitors are too close to the valves and will have a reduced service life due to the heat.

I base this on extensive feedback in a U.K. forum devoted mainly to Musical Fidelity valve products

 

Några gear is not really any better than a dozen other, less expensive brands. They used to build (arguably) with another Swiss company, Stellavox, the finest battery-powered reel-to-reel tape recorders in the world. When that business went away, they had to find another, and that was high-end audio gear. To maintain their corporate identity, they make everything "look" like one of their recorders. This probably puts constraints on their packaging leading to problems with available space like the one outlined by Alex with the electrolytics being too close to the tubes. 

[gmgraves]

58 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

guess this one (no peeking!)

 

 

 

Impressive layout. I guessed Mark Levinson before zooming-in to see what it really was. 

[mourip]

8 hours ago, accwai said:

Ok, inside photos of older gear:

 

Yamamoto A-09S

 

 

Single-ended stereo amp with 8W per channel. Photo above from review article at 6moons.com. Neat point-to-point wiring totally by hand. High quality components throughout, down to the inhouse wound transformers/choke and tube sockets manufactured inhouse. I used to have the predecessor model A-09. The inside has this Zen-like serenity to it 

 

The Yamamoto stuff is art...

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

Impressive layout. I guessed Mark Levinson before zooming-in to see what it really was. 

 

those guys have been good at packaging since my ancestors were painting themselves blue and dancing around oak trees

[Ralf11]

oopps - i mean the ancient Celts - not grandpa

[Superdad]

From the former company I co-founded, here are some shots of the Hovland Stratos mono-block amps:

(Each 450W into 8 ohms, 730W into 4 ohms, 800W into 2 ohms; 41Kg each.)  These were taken in 2007.

 

[Ralf11]

[STC]

17 hours ago, PeterSt said:

I think it is seriously inappropriate to share pictures made by such a repair shop. Of course this starts with the repair shop doing this itself.

This is not really about pictures which can be taken from the top with the lid off, but about parts which are normally not accessible to you and me. Say the under side of a PCB, unveiling secrets, after a day of work to tear it apart for repair.

 

This is just my opinion as a manufacturer. What you do is up to you. 

 

Your concern noted.

 

This was done by own volition as I thought it would be useful for many other audiophiles to identify parts or finding alternatives replacement if necessary. 

I am looking at it from the consumers perspective. I once paid three times for a replacement pickup lens from a High End company which turned out to be a Sony’s pickup lens which was probably manufactured in my country and could be bought at 1/3 the price. It is common to see many of the parts number obliterated to prevent us from sourcing the part directly from the source. I don’t see such practice in other consumers product. I think that is seriously inappropriate and unethical.

 

Manufacturers can always protect the IP legally and usually would proudly expose their innovation for all to see. Example here where the show everything.

 

 

[sandyk]

32 minutes ago, Superdad said:

From the former company I co-founded, here are some shots of the Hovland Stratos mono-block amps:

(Each 450W into 8 ohms, 730W into 4 ohms, 800W into 2 ohms; 41Kg each.)  These were taken in 2007.

 

What about this work of art ?

[Ralf11]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inside

[accwai]

6 hours ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

There have been numerous instances of one manufacturer copying another's design when the later was not patented, recall B & K.  Whether the person who produced a schematic actually owned the copyright is doubtful because a schematic already existed in the hands of Coincident.

[...]

Disclaimer:  This is not legal advice, if that is what you want, go find a lawyer.

 

If anybody is looking for legal advice here, it would be Coincident. Doesn't look like they did anything about this incident though. The company is based out of Toronto, Canada. Probably too much trouble for them to cross the border to chase down an American. But purely as a bystander, one would have to wonder about the moral value of somebody who asked a manufacturer for schematic of one of its product, and when that was declined, reverse engineered the product, post the schematic to the an enthusiast forum to have people there bash the product around.

 

Anyway, crazy things do happen on the net. Somebody once took a photo of mine on Flickr, posted it to Wikipedia, claimed to be the photo's owner and released it to public domain. I complained to Wikipedia, showed them where the photo was located on Flickr and pointed out to them the photo's Exif metadata, even the copy displaying on Wikipedia, says I'm the copyright owner. The photo was promptly taken down. In the chain of correspondence with Wikipedia, I was informed that this isn't the first time that the person had "contributed" somebody else's photos to Wikipedia. Amazing...

 

At the other extreme, I've received a few requests from people who want to use specific Flickr photos of mine in their school assignments. I also have a photo on Flickr of the 2011 RCM violin gold medalist performing at the RCM award ceremony. The lady contacted me and asked for the photo. I ended up giving her a full rez version and granted her full usage rights. I'm reasonable you know

 

[elcorso]

 

My fiancé (she is high end and Ukranian), so the language:

 

 

 

Roch

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, accwai said:

Anyway, crazy things do happen on the net.

 

This doesn't need t be on the net per se. A colleague of mine makes photos (for a hobby). He shoots a nice event and sends the pictures of it to the local news paper (say the newspaper which only distributes in your local 20,000 people relative small city). He also puts the photo shoot on his private web site.

What happens next is that he has to take down the photos from his website or else he is sued. Remember, his own photos.

 

This is perfectly normal law over here. But crazy nevertheless.

[Ron Scubadiver]

2 hours ago, accwai said:

 

I

Anyway, crazy things do happen on the net. Somebody once took a photo of mine on Flickr, posted it to Wikipedia, claimed to be the photo's owner and released it to public domain. I complained to Wikipedia, showed them where the photo was located on Flickr and pointed out to them the photo's Exif metadata, even the copy displaying on Wikipedia, says I'm the copyright owner. The photo was promptly taken down. In the chain of correspondence with Wikipedia, I was informed that this isn't the first time that the person had "contributed" somebody else's photos to Wikipedia. Amazing...

 

At the other extreme, I've received a few requests from people who want to use specific Flickr photos of mine in their school assignments. I also have a photo on Flickr of the 2011 RCM violin gold medalist performing at the RCM award ceremony. The lady contacted me and asked for the photo. I ended up giving her a full rez version and granted her full usage rights. I'm reasonable you know

 

 

I used to have flickr photos copied on an almost weekly basis.  They were mostly photos of women with tattoos.  I have one on Wikipedia, but they asked for permission.  

[sandyk]

16 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

This doesn't need t be on the net per se. A colleague of mine makes photos (for a hobby). He shoots a nice event and sends the pictures of it to the local news paper (say the newspaper which only distributes in your local 20,000 people relative small city). He also puts the photo shoot on his private web site.

What happens next is that he has to take down the photos from his website or else he is sued. Remember, his own photos.

 

This is perfectly normal law over here. But crazy nevertheless.

 

S.N.A.F.U . ?

[House de Kris]

Since I saw a Marantz receiver pictured, I'm assuming the this thread is moving away from high-end equipment. If so, good, since I don't have hi end gear to share.  Here's a few:

 

 

Adcom GFA-545II

Bryston 2B-LP

Bryston 4B

Gemini CD9500II

RGR Model 4

Sumo Delilah

[accwai]

10 hours ago, PeterSt said:

This doesn't need t be on the net per se. A colleague of mine makes photos (for a hobby). He shoots a nice event and sends the pictures of it to the local news paper (say the newspaper which only distributes in your local 20,000 people relative small city). He also puts the photo shoot on his private web site.

What happens next is that he has to take down the photos from his website or else he is sued. Remember, his own photos.

 

That depends on what the newspaper submission is for. If it's a job for the newspaper, the contract can force the ownership of the photos to go to the newspaper. This can happen even for something less serious. For example, a lot of photo competitions in magazines have a little clause in the rules that says the competition organization would own the copyrights to all submissions, whether they win anything at all. You're not entitled to post anything to your private website that don't belong to you right? These days, one has to remember to read the fine prints before one does anything...

 

9 hours ago, sandyk said:

S.N.A.F.U . ?

 

Oh yes

 

By the way, works derived from another work is copyrighted separately. If you somehow give somebody the rights to derive from your work, they can turn it into something that's out of your control. I recall non-business Gmail's Terms of Service had something that give Google full rights to use any attachments that passed through the Gmail system. My previous employer prohibit using personal Gmail for any work related communications exactly because of that. Did some looking up this morning and can't find the clause on Google anymore. Perhaps they have stopped doing that now.

[Summit]

 Gigawatt PC-3 SE EVO and Aesthetix Pandora Eclipse

[Ron Scubadiver]

14 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

 

This was done by own volition as I thought it would be useful for many other audiophiles to identify parts or finding alternatives replacement if necessary. 

I am looking at it from the consumers perspective. I once paid three times for a replacement pickup lens from a High End company which turned out to be a Sony’s pickup lens which was probably manufactured in my country and could be bought at 1/3 the price. It is common to see many of the parts number obliterated to prevent us from sourcing the part directly from the source. I don’t see such practice in other consumers product. I think that is seriously inappropriate and unethical.

 

Manufacturers can always protect the IP legally and usually would proudly expose their innovation for all to see. Example here where the show everything.

 

 

Actually, Crown shows nothing.  The amplifier is built around a proprietary chip designed in conjunction with Texas Instruments (Burr Brown).  However it was implemented is useless to anyone else.  I have an XLS 1502 hooked up to my LS50's.  These babies sing and make a lot of audiophile gear look overpriced.

 

Some manufacturers go to great lengths to conceal their "secrets" by pouring gunk over their chips.  Remember the Gain Card?  It must have been embarrassing for anyone who paid $3k for one of those, or the guys who wrote the reviews of an amplifier based on cheap widely available modules. 

[sphinxsix]

 

[Superdad]

16 hours ago, sandyk said:

What about this work of art ?

 

16 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inside

 

Sure, here is the underside of the Hovland Sapphire.  All magnetics--output trans, chokes, and power trans were expensive custom to our spec units (wound by Frost Magnetics right here in the Sierra foothills of California).  The amp weighed 82 pounds (37Kg).  Many hours of labor went into each one.  Production from 2002 to 2008: 248 units.  Original retail price $7,800; final retail price $10,000.  Total parts cost $2,128.

 

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

That pricing points up the power of mass production (or lack of it).

 

Here is another one (any guesses?):

 

 

[jcn3]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

That pricing points up the power of mass production (or lack of it).

 

Here is another one (any guesses?):

 

 

you can see it says sunfire on the front board!  i know, that's cheating . . .