|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 10, 2018 17:48:43 GMT -6
That’s not true at all. Trade secrets are normally documented, they have to be in order to be able to enforce them. Otherwise how could you prove that someone stole it? You just don’t publish them, or patent them, and you have to take steps to protect them. Trade secrets are protected by law and are protected indefinitely. Unlike patents, where you disclose the invention and have protection for 20 years. However, a patent precludes someone who independently discovers something from using it, while a trade secret doesn’t. Didn’t you rag hard on that intern who supposedly stole a bunch of trade secrets from Shannon and violated his NDA? Yet here you laud people for doing the same to give information to Klaus? :/ There's a qualitative difference. Klaus collected information from former employees who had knowledge that was no longer current in the company's production, often about techniques that had been discarded by the original company. Shannon's intern obtained current information under false pretenses. Furthermore he did not use it just thjo do the work himself, he corporatized it. That's sleazy eight ways from Sunday!
There's a big difference between preserving information from being lost and sneakily stealing information under false and dishonest pretenses and using it to start a competing company with corporate backing.
I really don't get what your problem is - do you really want precious information about microphone production techniques to be irretrievably lost? Do you not understand the difference between scholarship and theft?
This is just excuses. You said: And since trade secrets are not usually documented, instead being passed from master craftsman to successors, this is precisely the type of critical knowledge that gets lost over time unless it happens to be passed down from the original craftsmen to people like Klaus and (the late) Oliver Archut, often in violation of nondisclosure agreements.
It isn't their information to give. That information belongs to Neumann. If it is a trade secret, what they did was not only wrong and unethical but likely illegal. It is Neumann's prerogative to use, not use, discard, or keep their own intellectual property. This is tantamount to saying that if Neumann was no longer using a machine they developed it is just fine for a former employee to take it to give to Klaus. In other words, that is theft, not scholarship. Further, Klaus has profited immensely from his position as an expert, particularly as "the" expert with a vast array of special, privileged Neumann information. There is absolutely no difference between person A violating an NDA to start his company and profit from it than person B inducing another person to violate their NDA and profiting from that. In fact, in the eyes of the law, inducing someone to breach their duty of confidentiality, or accepting knowledge if you have a reasonable expectation that what they are disclosing is a trade secret or is violating their NDA, is expressly misappropriation, and is illegal - a federal crime, punishable by fines up to $250,000 and prison up to 10 years! Even using a trade secret obtained doing something that is not otherwise illegal, such as overhearing a conversation, is misappropriation. I want to be very clear. I'm not accusing him of misappropriating trade secrets - you are the one that did that. I prefer to think that he came by his information through honest means. Source: I was the IP / Patent Liaison for a multinational corporation for many years.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 10, 2018 17:50:19 GMT -6
I suppose, but I genuinely do not think any movements are made by hand any more, at any price. If you think that you are wrong. Perhaps, but I'd need to know what "by hand" means. Does a CNC machining center count if the products are assembled by hand?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 10, 2018 18:14:42 GMT -6
Can we stop the arguing? I’m getting tendinitis in my thumb from having to scroll so much.
|
|
|
Post by dankennedy on Aug 10, 2018 18:20:07 GMT -6
I have a pretty fair knowledge of mic technology, friends in the biz, as well as knowing Klaus. Everything he says is something I can understand. Capsule 100%. Neumann of 1965 ain't Neumann of 2018, it's owned by Sennheiser after all, and those engineers of the late 20th century are in their dotage, or resting comfortably somewhere underground. Power supply 60%. I know of several well respected mic designers who say they hear the difference between power supply designs, voltage regulated by series reg or shunt. I haven't messed with it, but no grounds to disagree. So the two major factors I agree with and completely understand. Cables? Well, sometimes it's a religion, sometimes it's real. A low power driving system, like a plate output transformer coupled amplifier is sensitive to loading, and this might be part of the cable issue, after all, the inter-cable capacities of the various types vary a lot, and a few hundred/thousand pF can and do alter things, so yeah, could be. Tube 100% Shit yes, tubes these days suck. Good fucking luck.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 10, 2018 19:17:27 GMT -6
I have a pretty fair knowledge of mic technology, friends in the biz, as well as knowing Klaus. Everything he says is something I can understand. Capsule 100%. Neumann of 1965 ain't Neumann of 2018, it's owned by Sennheiser after all, and those engineers of the late 20th century are in their dotage, or resting comfortably somewhere underground. Power supply 60%. I know of several well respected mic designers who say they hear the difference between power supply designs, voltage regulated by series reg or shunt. I haven't messed with it, but no grounds to disagree. So the two major factors I agree with and completely understand. Cables? Well, sometimes it's a religion, sometimes it's real. A low power driving system, like a plate output transformer coupled amplifier is sensitive to loading, and this might be part of the cable issue, after all, the inter-cable capacities of the various types vary a lot, and a few hundred/thousand pF can and do alter things, so yeah, could be. Tube 100% Shit yes, tubes these days suck. Good fucking luck. An honor to have you here, Sir!
|
|
|
Post by aremos on Aug 10, 2018 19:26:12 GMT -6
... Capsule 100%. ... Power supply 60%. ... Tube 100%. Great River = Great mic-Pres! A little lost in the understanding of these percentages ... 1) capsule 2)tube 3)PS ?
|
|
|
Post by dankennedy on Aug 10, 2018 20:30:09 GMT -6
Let me clear up my thoughts. I agree completely, Capsule, Tube, Power Supply, Cable, in order of importance. 60% power supply is my own ignorance/inexperience with shunt/series regulator sonic differences. Jury is out, but I tend to believe the people (multiple) who tell me it matters.
I absolutely believe in keeping the knowledge, but I know from personal experience that you have to have a pretty high basic knowledge and experience level to even begin to understand the points Klaus is making. I don't think a lot of folks actually know or understand this. It's not snob shit, it's absolute engineering knowledge. There are few in the world that have it. DJ, KH, the Gefell guys, a couple at Audio Technica, not too many others. That includes a fair number of mic manufactures. Their corporate knowledge base is not as good as it was.
|
|
|
Post by aremos on Aug 10, 2018 21:30:57 GMT -6
DJ = David Josephson? And I'd add DB (David Bock & Dirk Brauner).
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 10, 2018 22:03:25 GMT -6
I had 4 different capsules in the Blackspade UM17B (and R), three were made by Thiersch, one by Oliver Archut, probably from China. I heard the same mic with 3 different caps, and one was a new version of the same mic. I think Klaus is probably right about the capsule being the culprit when it comes to a dissatisfaction tonally. Even the mighty Thiersch capsules flinched when hit hard, but that didn't happen at all with a vintage U47, U67 or M49 I tried. The new Chandler REDD doesn't have that distortion when hit hard either, although it has a very extended high end that can be mistaken for it by ears that haven't learned how to listen for it yet and track accordingly.
As with Klaus' findings, I had an upgraded power supply, and it did improve things a little, but nowhere near as much of a difference as changing the capsules did.
This s making me wonder if Shannon could do anything with the capsules in two mics I have in the closet that have Chines capsules. One is similar to a 251 and one similar to a U47 in design.. hmmm..
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 10, 2018 23:42:22 GMT -6
Great thread. Helps me further understand and appreciate the value of "old school" ways... Chris
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 11, 2018 8:43:15 GMT -6
Argue and you will be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Aug 11, 2018 12:22:26 GMT -6
Darn. link did not work as expected.
Here's the text of a post by Klaus in a parallel thread on another forum. Hope this casts a bit of light on the question of "Golden Ears vs Hard Measurement."
The graphs themselves were not posted.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Aug 11, 2018 14:22:25 GMT -6
Not to be contrarian, but it strikes me as odd that the world’s best microphone manufacturer can’t get it right on their own star product, while somehow there are a few select individuals that really know better, know what’s wrong, and know how to fix it. I can’t help but remain skeptical. I have no horse in the race anyway... I like to think this way. It's logical to think this way anyhow. But, then I'll have a client's mic in my studio (for a re-tube, or a session) and I'm often just floored at how much better I like some of the originals compared to mics that are attempting to clone that sound. Rack gear I feel differently. There's plenty of ways to make rack gear better than before, IMO. But, with mics, my ears tend to favor the classics when they're in good shape. I've not compared the new re-issue but I have A/B'd (using matching tubes) Neumann's 90's reissue with a classic and it wasn't really close for me. The reissue was a great sounding mic. But the classic just translated the emotion of music in a more satisfying way to me by seeming more natural, yet somehow richer, more present and still smoother. Maybe the new reissue is another beast entirely. I don't know. I'm not part of the "exclusive club" so I'm not protecting any investments. I'm not threatened by anyone's opinion on the subject. Just sharing an opinion having had the opportunity to use a lot of great vintage mics and a lot of clones. I think what we see a lot of on forums today is a push back from years of gear snobs flaunting their prized possessions. People WANT to see something just as good come along.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 11, 2018 15:01:25 GMT -6
ITCS
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 11, 2018 16:03:13 GMT -6
Bowie said, "People WANT to see something just as good come along".
I couldn't agree more. People here are rooting for Stam to hit a home run with the SA67, and most of us are certainly hoping that Neumann replicates the microphone magic we've all been seeking. Chandler's Redd is truly a viable alternative to the classics, (finally, whew), and the Soyuz 0-17 is in the ballpark too. Unfortunately, they're out of reach for many of us pricewise. The Warm WA47 is damn good, and a great value compared to other mics in its price range, but a little higher up the food chain, and the Stam and Golden Age mics have the potential to get us into the zone we want without taking a second job or mortgage.
Many of us have been frustrated trying to work around the dreaded capsule nasties, and to date, you get what you can pay for, but since ITCS, I'm more hopeful than ever that Shannon can help if we need him to.
First I gotta get my hands on the Stam 67, then I'l know where things really stand.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 11, 2018 16:06:05 GMT -6
I think what we see a lot of on forums today is a push back from years of gear snobs flaunting their prized possessions. People WANT to see something just as good come along. Related problem, not science at all: changing tastes....or inflexible, and not changing.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 11, 2018 18:17:56 GMT -6
ITCS??
ITCS - Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science ??
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Aug 11, 2018 18:30:03 GMT -6
I think what we see a lot of on forums today is a push back from years of gear snobs flaunting their prized possessions. People WANT to see something just as good come along. Related problem, not science at all: changing tastes....or inflexible, and not changing. Very much. I've found just about every decently built piece of gear I've used to sound good in one application or another. If not, I surely found that someone else was able to put it to good use in their application (after all, taste is hugely subjective). IMO, we're lucky to be in an industry where you more often than not get what you paid for. I have a hard time reading the "other" forum because everyone casts an exaggerated opinion to wage this war over what the "best" gear is. I've found it to be incredibly unhelpful and has so often steered me into buying gear that didn't suit my needs at all. I wonder if there are food forums where people have the same silly arguments about what tastes better...
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Aug 11, 2018 18:36:33 GMT -6
ITCS?? ITCS - Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science ?? I had to ask John in a PM ITCS = It’s The Capsule Stupid
|
|
|
Post by c0rtland on Aug 11, 2018 18:36:58 GMT -6
That's a perfect analogy. A food blog. Lol
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 11, 2018 18:43:13 GMT -6
Related problem, not science at all: changing tastes....or inflexible, and not changing. Very much. I've found just about every decently built piece of gear I've used to sound good in one application or another. If not, I surely found that someone else was able to put it to good use in their application (after all, taste is hugely subjective). IMO, we're lucky to be in an industry where you more often than not get what you paid for. I have a hard time reading the "other" forum because everyone casts an exaggerated opinion to wage this war over what the "best" gear is. I've found it to be incredibly unhelpful and has so often steered me into buying gear that didn't suit my needs at all. I wonder if there are food forums where people have the same silly arguments about what tastes better... Many classical location guys seem to be militantly Schoeps, Neumann, or Sennheiser (etc) and can't get along with one or all of the others at all. I'm sure the foodies do it too.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 11, 2018 20:57:05 GMT -6
Funny, a friend of mine is an engineer, and he was sent to record the New York Philharmonic. His boss gave him a pair of his favorite Shoeps. Just for fun, he bought along a pair of Guage USA's SDC's, KM84 imitations that cost around $200. Both the conductor and his boss chose the cheap Chinese capsule SDC recording. So it goes to show, one never knows, do one.
You gotta listen with your ears and not your eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 11, 2018 22:47:37 GMT -6
ITCS?? ITCS - Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science ?? It’s the capsule, stupid lol
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 11, 2018 22:48:27 GMT -6
That’s an idiom in America btw.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Aug 11, 2018 23:06:50 GMT -6
That’s an idiom in America btw. We got plenty of those...some days I am one. Oh wait, idio-M...
|
|