|
|
#17
06-22-2008, 03:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I would suggest that you take this matter to a court or arbitration panel of competent jurisdiction, which would be the proper forum for your issues. 
|
|
#19
06-22-2008, 06:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Has your patent issued? Has the application become publically available ?( at the USPTO website ) If it has, then by giving us the appropriate numbers we could go here.....
http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and look for ourselves....... From other threads I think there are few of us on the forum who deal at some level (I'm not a lawyer) with patents at our jobs and might be curious enough to dig a little deeper ( at home on our own time of course ).
__________________
A Strummer "Let's lute the city", said the minstrels. Oftentimes the only result I get from a thought experiment is a messed up lab. Last edited by astrummer; 06-22-2008 at 07:12 AM.
|
|
#20
06-22-2008, 07:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm with Sdelsolrey,
This isn't the place, it isn't our business. If you can't find one attorney to take your case, then you don't have one. This is an acoustic guitar forum not a law blog.
__________________
Rich - rmyAddison Share when you can...volunteer when you can't. http://www.youtube.com/rmyaddison Rich Macklin Soundclick Website Some Martins...........
|
|
#21
06-22-2008, 07:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Personally, I would love to see something online about one of your amps.
__________________
Yairi dy38 Big Baby Taylor Fender Strat Plus Ibanez Artcore semi hollow body. Yamaha GC-40A (with a hole in the side)
|
|
#22
06-22-2008, 08:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
http://www.aboutjack.com/images/soloamp_full.jpg The drivers were a two-year labor of love to develop, at a cost out of my pocket of over $100,000. The final engineering proto was screened by a couple of dozen of Nashville's most respected studio guitarist-songwriters and received "wow" and "amazing" as the most common reactions.
|
|
#23
06-22-2008, 08:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jeff,
I didn't find any product info beyond a photo, but the stuff about Mr. Campbell on his own website FAQ page was enough to distract me from getting a timely start on my Sunday practice session. If you'd like to be similarly distracted, here's a link. http://www.aboutjack.com/faq.shtml You'll find a nice photo of Mr. Campbell's (?) version of the SoloAmp on his website product page. Also, "the world's first digital electric guitar and electric bass guitar" which he claims to have developed, patent pending for the digital system. If nothing else, this controversy will make the next winter NAMM more interesting. If there is a much cheaper and more effective version of the product to be had, it'll be worth keeping an eye/ear out for. Gary
|
|
#24
06-22-2008, 08:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You claim to own the trademark "Soloamp". Yet that trademark is not registered with the USPTO. You claim to have patent rights. Yet you have not filed a patent application with the USPTO. The two patent applications you have filed, one regarding wireless networking and the other about a 6 signal pickup, have nothing to do with the Soloamp. Fishman owns the "Soloamp" domain name. Of course, I took you up on the prior "issues" you have had of which a simple Google search will uncover. Needless to say, many others have alleged you are a fraud, that you are a convicted felon and generally a crook. I don't know and don't care. I can see you are quite skilled with sock puppets. As suggested before, please take your issues to the appropriate place, which is not this forum. You'll likely find no sympathy or support here. Last edited by sdelsolray; 06-22-2008 at 08:55 AM.
|
|
#26
06-22-2008, 01:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
OKee DOE Kee
That was fun if not a bit strange, OK back on topic any one care to take a stab at the notion of using two of these units like a traditional 2 speaker system say for instance any thoughts as to ( would there more or similar phase issues) than say two standard 12" 2 way PA type speakers ?
__________________
" Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein Enjoy the Journey.... Kev... http://soundcloud.com/kevwind
|
|
#27
06-23-2008, 10:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Comparisons between a vertical array and a point source system are tricky, because usage is fundamentally different in the first place, as Bose L1 users will readily attest. For instance, with a couple of traditional box PA sets you would not expect (nor realize) accurate monitoring; i.e, the sound you here nearfield as you perform would not be the same (and you would know it was not the same) as what the audience would hear mid-room. And, you would not intentionally place the standard PA set directly behind you, but as far to the side as possible and slightly forward, to avoid feedback issues and to tone down the SPL you experience as you play. With a line array you would intentionally place the unit approximately behind where you are playing and it will serve as an accurate stage monitor as well as the mains. Using two of them, you would put one in that same position and another off to the side somewhere, and the benefit would be an approximate 3dB SPL lift into the audience... with little issue with cancellations or reflections. What you get in a nutshell is simply more loudness. The issue here is actually that the Fishman SoloAmp is not technically a line array, despite the ad claims. In my development it became very clear very early that the desired line source characteristics of creating a cylindrical "column" of forward sound that diminishes in amplitude at 3dB/doubling of distance, as opposed to the 6dB/doubling of distance of a point source, only occurs if certain conditions are met. The line source effect occurs because the wave fronts emitted from the drivers "merge" immediately in front of the drivers into one continuous vertical wave. The degree to which this merging occurs is the degree to which we enjoy the true line source benefits. That effect is impacted by: A. the closeness of the spacing of the adjacent drivers B. the actual pistonic area of the drivers compared to the non-pistonic surround/suspension area (i.e., only the linearly moving center of the driver emits sound, not the rubber ring around the cone or the frame or other parts) C. the vertical aspect ratio of the full set of speakers, based on the pistonic area of each driver and the total height of the column We were only able to achieve the theoretical minimum 3dB per doubling of distance effect with vertical array aspect ratios exceeding 8 to 1. And, this only occurred using drivers specifically chosen or designed to have maximized diaphragm area compared to the non-sound producing surround/suspension/frame. Anything shorter than this 8:1 ratio showed rapid drop off in the projection traits of a line source. In other words, with 4-inch round drivers (ones with very large diaphragms and small surrounding suspensions) at least 8 drivers would need closely spaced vertically to behave as a line source. We determined that a minimum 12 to 1 ratio (or higher) was ideal for standard drivers; i.e., ones with normal diaphragm to suspension dimensions. Funny, but our independent work confirmed the earlier work of Bose in this research, and the reason that the shortest vertical line array Bose sells (the MA12) has a 12 to 1 vertical aspect ratio. At ratios lower than about 4 to 1 we found the behavior to be indistinguishable from a point source; i.e, the dropoff with distance doubling was about 6dB. With that all now stated I can say that the Fishman SoloAmp is not a vertical line array and that their calling it that and claiming line array benefits is... well, it is not accurate. The product has two groups of three drivers separated by a tweeter. Thus, there are two separate point source loudspeaker groups, not one line source. I engineered a custom 3" x 5" rectangular full-range driver with an extremely large piston area and small surround area to facilitate close coupling. And, I used 6 of these end to end giving an approximate aspect ratio of 10 to 1. In measured performance, that arrangement yielded horizontal SPL drop of about 3.6dB per doubling of distance... very, very near a perfect line source. I have not measured Fishman's rig, but have the background to take a fair guess that it produces an almost point source wave front (two of them, actually) and shows very near a full 6dB per doubling of distance SPL diminishment. So, that magical "throws all the way to the back row" behavior of a line array is certainly not there. Again, I'll hang around for any discussion/questions.
|
|
#28
06-23-2008, 01:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Jack,
You're still attacking Fishman and touting your own product! Shame.
__________________
Rich - rmyAddison Share when you can...volunteer when you can't. http://www.youtube.com/rmyaddison Rich Macklin Soundclick Website Some Martins...........
|
|
#29
06-23-2008, 01:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote deleted, as requested.
The bottom line for me, Jack, is that you intend be introduce a competing version of the SoloAmp which will be cheaper and possibly better in some ways. I'll be keeping an open mind to that possibility, at least until it does or doesn't happen at the winter NAMM. Regarding your last post, you've discussed a bit about how a vertical line array (as realized with your prototype, at least) would relate to the "deeper sonic penetration" claimed for the SoloAmp. What about the "ultra-wide dispersion" claimed for the SoloAmp? Is that also a characteristic of your prototype, or is it perhaps an innovation which the Fishman folks added? Gary Last edited by guitaniac; 06-24-2008 at 07:23 AM.
|
|
#30
06-23-2008, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There is innovation in a commercial sense, and in a technical sense. Given Fishman's product is only the second amplified consumer instrument amp to ever be brought o market, its mere existence qualifies as innovative in the commercial sense. However, the underlying physics of line source loudspeakers is not innovative at all, technically, given over a century of recognition and development, and the resulting body of open-source knowledge on the topic. I said that to say this: I am giving a purely technical-based answer here. Both the "deep projection into the audience" and "wide dispersion" are line array characteristics, deriving from the physics of placing identical drivers linearly, side by side, and the wavefronts from each merging into a cylindrical pattern. To the degree that this Fishman product or any other product meets the technical requirements of a true line array, it will enjoy these two primary acoustic benefits. My earlier explanation was to point out that no group of three identical round drivers side by side even approaches the aspect ratio necessary to produce line source loudspeaker characteristics. Now.. that said, small drivers used even in a point source arrangement produce wider dispersion than larger drivers at a given frequency. Run a 4,000Hz test signal through a 2-inch driver and through a 12-inch driver and do the measurements and you'll see the small one *much* more evenly distributes sound than the big one. However, the benefit only occurs at frequencies above where the waveform at that frequency is smaller than the diameter of the driver. Which means the smaller drivers *do* have wider dispersion, but at only higher and higher frequencies as the driver is made smaller and smaller. Lower frequencies than where the waveform is larger than the driver rapidly begin beaming in narrower and narrower patterns. That said, not from being a supposed line array, but from using the 4-inch drivers the Fishman product will have increasingly better dispersion than a product using larger drivers starting at about 3,400Hz and up. But, that increased dispersion will be in all axes, both horizontal and vertical. Last edited by aboutjack; 06-23-2008 at 01:51 PM.
|
 |
|
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
