My apologies Zanth. I didn't realise you were asked the same question so many times over and over again. I read the 2nd interview, saw a few comments about it and then ahead went to make my previous post.
If you remember me well enough, then you'll remember that I do not like Grado's marketing (even after reading the 2nd interview) but having said that, I'm not going to make a fuss of anything in this thread and I hope it will stay calm here.
Yes when I have a long enough holiday, I'll give Grado a call myself.
i dont really get his dismay over people "cloning" the RA-1... its just a simple op-amp based amplifier? any CMOY is the exact same thing? every op-amp datasheet has a nearly identical circuit for as long as i can remember as one of their "example" circuits...
although i do understand if his issue is people selling "RA-1 Clone"s since that is his trademark, but people "cloning" the design of the RA-1 is kind of silly... then every commercial manufacturer that uses a simple dual channel opamp stage for their headphone jack copied grado's RA-1?
anyway, this thread was a great read, nice to know that grado's people are as nice as their products
i dont really get his dismay over people "cloning" the RA-1... its just a simple op-amp based amplifier? any CMOY is the exact same thing? every op-amp datasheet has a nearly identical circuit for as long as i can remember as one of their "example" circuits...
although i do understand if his issue is people selling "RA-1 Clone"s since that is his trademark, but people "cloning" the design of the RA-1 is kind of silly... then every commercial manufacturer that uses a simple dual channel opamp stage for their headphone jack copied grado's RA-1?
anyway, this thread was a great read, nice to know that grado's people are as nice as their products
Pardon this mistake (if it is, I read the interview a while ago) but I don't think John has a problem with people making the "RA-1 clone" for personal use. Like you mentioned he doesn't want people selling them labeled as such.
__________________
north star m192 → b22/Stax SRD7-pro → Stax Omega II
project: all custom Blue Hawaii
When folks opened the RA-1 up and cloned it for their personal use, John was not thrilled but he was not angry. When folks started selling the RA-1 clones and CALLING them RA-1 Clones, well it was too much for him.
again, its a simple dual opamp headphone amplifier, every cmoy is basically exactly the same idea... i dont think the RA-1 was in ANY way an original design... the only issue i could see is people selling "RA-1 Clones" using the name RA-1...
also i do not think that the RA-1 is a bad design, all the simple opamp amplifiers (CMOY, RA-1 etc) are great in their simplicity even if they are not 'ideal' but they are very effective in what they do, especially since grado's are so easy to drive...
Headphoneus Supremus: His body's not a canvas, and he wasn't raised by apes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flecom
again, its a simple dual opamp headphone amplifier, every cmoy is basically exactly the same idea... i dont think the RA-1 was in ANY way an original design...
Well, there's something original about the design. I have a clone, using same parts, and it does not sound like my de facto RA-1. It's actually better in some respects, but it lacks the slight warm, tubey quality of the RA-1. With a simple design and a small parts count, all it takes is one slight difference to change the whole sound.
Moderator Headphoneus Supremus: Moderator and SHAman who knew of Head-Fi ten years prior to its existence
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle
Well, there's something original about the design. I have a clone, using same parts, and it does not sound like my de facto RA-1. It's actually better in some respects, but it lacks the slight warm, tubey quality of the RA-1. With a simple design and a small parts count, all it takes is one slight difference to change the whole sound.
Agreed. It comes down to parts selection etc. If John and John (the engineer) sat down for 10 days, 8 hours a day to listen to various parts to figure out what sounded best and to meet a certain price point, and their hourly rate is say...$100/hour? Does that sound fair? Maybe higher maybe lower, but for argument's sake, let's say 100 (the time is also likely far lower so it can even out but whatever) then that would be 160 man hours x 100, or $16k worth of R&D. Now, that may seem large for some, tiny for others, but it is still $16k that went into finding what worked best. If someone wants to invest their own time to figure it all out and then produce an amp then fine, but cloning for profit (and cloning a product so many crap on) was and is heinous. I don't blame him one bit for being po'd. Now then, we have Ray Samuels who disguises his opamp numbers and or removes the numbers outright so that this same thing can't happen. Other folks pot their designs like the RA-1 etc. Manufacturers need to protect their work, even if the circuit is well known, obviously parts selection comes into play.
Look at the Ear HP4. This amp retails for 4k thereabouts. $4k!!! Now, opening up the amp one sees excellent workmanship, superb layout, an excellent circuit implemented to near perfection with a hand-made transformer, specifically designed for the application..BUT the rest of the parts are plain jane. Yet, this amp is often said to be among the best in the world. Obviously with budget parts inside and the capacity to sound incredible against amps with premium parts, one pays a hefty sum for the circuit (in this case which was novel), the transformer (which is custom made) and the expertise of the designer, for (in this case) Tim's excellent ear. The same goes for John who in the end voices his gear with his ear.
Cloning for profit just plain sucks and I hate when I see it. It is policy here on Head-fi to delete threads promoting cloning for profit, a policy I wish did not have to exist because people would do their own leg work and discover somethign for themselves.
Linear Mode
