[Sovkiller]

Guys before taking any side, I do beleive that this is a very delicate situation, and please before going public like this, at least you two would try to settle this issue in private, using all means possible, and the reason is very simple, if for any reason one of the two parties is wrong, definitelly that will not be good for the reputation of any of you guys.

If Heapdhonia copied the Meier design, that is not "very ethical" from them (if you can call one thing ethical and more ethical, instead of simply calling it ethical or not ethical) but OTOH, if for any reason, there is not too much room for any other implementation, in this simple OPAmp design, using those OPamps, without going crazy in complicated designs, in which there is not too much room for any other different implementation, as it could be the scenario in many cases. Or if for any reason it is one of these "classic designs" from the books (which we do not know, as do not know the schematic in question) and for any (hard to believe reason) Jan is making a precipitated assumption, that, for sure, will not be good for his reputation neither...

Guys my suggestion is to try to resolve this peacefully, and try to reach an agreement, contact each other, by phone, letters, emails, or whatever, before comming here publicly again, but if the case weights in one way, please don't hesitate to keep us updated as well...

 

[feifan]

I'm thinking that this conflict may be a lot more complex than who's right or who's wrong. Rather than a single, clear issue, there seems to be a multitude. With so many different agendas, it's no wonder that we sometimes seem to be talking at cross purposes (no pun intended). One of the confounding issues seems to be, 'What is the role of a SIG such as Head-Fi in disputes that have a direct impact on our combined interests?' Another way of putting it is, 'Where else would a topic such as this come up in a public forum and mean so much to the members?' I'm guessing that Head-Fi is one of a handful -- if not the most logical -- of arenas.

Should we allow this dispute to continue? I would think yes -- IF it contributes to a better understanding of the role of Head-Fi in determining questions of integrity and value in its relatively small, close-knit community of buyers and sellers. Definitely no -- IF the dispute gets out of hand and deteriorates to personal attacks, flaming, irrational charges and counter charges that threaten to tear our community apart.

I trust that the Head-Fi moderators have their finger on the pulse of this thread and have a pretty good idea of when to step in, turn off the 'mike,' and close the door. The fact that they haven't done so -- yet -- may be an indication that the discussion is relevant to the mission of the forum and continues to have some merit. The bottom line is that it's being conducted in a civil and objective manner and hasn't turned into a s*** slinging, meaningless brawl. And it probably won't, given the personality of this discussion board. In the brief time that I've been a member, I've learned that Head-Fiers tend to be a very peace-loving, objective, courteous group that needs little or no outside policing. I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that our raison d'etre is the passionate pursuit of equipment that increases the enjoyment of music.

Coming back to the central dispute, I think it's fair to say that the majority of onlookers have suspended their judgment and are taking a wait-and-see attitude. The shared assumption is that the person charged is innocent until proven, conclusively, that he is in the wrong. No one's saying that Head-Fi is or should serve as the courtroom. The gist of the discussion seems to be focused on technical areas in which we, collectively, have some expertise, and there's a possibility that our findings could have a direct impact on the outcome. The strength of this "possibility" is currently being tossed around by those among us who have the most knowledge and experience in matters of circuit design and, more specifically, crossfeed designs.

However, the ultimate purpose of this discussion is neither to develop expert witnesses nor to settle this dispute once and for all, although these are possibilities. The real purpose, it seems to me, is simply the pursuit of knowledge -- knowledge about headphone amps. As a Head-Fier, I am fascinated by the discussion of our forum experts. As they work through the facts and share insights with one another, I'm learning a lot, and the more I learn, the greater my pleasure in head-fying.

 

[kramer5150]

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm thinking that this conflict may be a lot more complex than who's right or who's wrong. Rather than a single, clear issue, there seems to be a multitude. With so many different agendas, it's no wonder that we sometimes seem to be talking at cross purposes (no pun intended). One of the confounding issues seems to be, 'What is the role of a SIG such as Head-Fi in disputes that have a direct impact on our combined interests?' Another way of putting it is, 'Where else would a topic such as this come up in a public forum and mean so much to the members?' I'm guessing that Head-Fi is one of a handful -- if not the most logical -- of arenas. Should we allow this dispute to continue? I would think yes -- IF it contributes to a better understanding of the role of Head-Fi in determining questions of integrity and value in its relatively small, close-knit community of buyers and sellers. Definitely no -- IF the dispute gets out of hand and deteriorates to personal attacks, flaming, irrational charges and counter charges that threaten to tear our community apart. I trust that the Head-Fi moderators have their finger on the pulse of this thread and have a pretty good idea of when to step in, turn off the 'mike,' and close the door. The fact that they haven't done so -- yet -- may be an indication that the discussion is relevant to the mission of the forum and continues to have some merit. The bottom line is that it's being conducted in a civil and objective manner and hasn't turned into a s*** slinging, meaningless brawl. And it probably won't, given the personality of this discussion board. In the brief time that I've been a member, I've learned that Head-Fiers tend to be a very peace-loving, objective, courteous group that needs little or no outside policing. I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that our raison d'etre is the passionate pursuit of equipment that increases the enjoyment of music. Coming back to the central dispute, I think it's fair to say that the majority of onlookers have suspended their judgment and are taking a wait-and-see attitude. The shared assumption is that the person charged is innocent until proven, conclusively, that he is in the wrong. No one's saying that Head-Fi is or should serve as the courtroom. The gist of the discussion seems to be focused on technical areas in which we, collectively, have some expertise, and there's a possibility that our findings could have a direct impact on the outcome. The strength of this "possibility" is currently being tossed around by those among us who have the most knowledge and experience in matters of circuit design and, more specifically, crossfeed designs. However, the ultimate purpose of this discussion is neither to develop expert witnesses nor to settle this dispute once and for all, although these are possibilities. The real purpose, it seems to me, is simply the pursuit of knowledge -- knowledge about headphone amps. As a Head-Fier, I am fascinated by the discussion of our forum experts. As they work through the facts and share insights with one another, I'm learning a lot, and the more I learn, the greater my pleasure in head-fying.

x2!!

I am interested in the business side of head-fi as much as the headphones themselves, so I find this discussion fascinating. I had to edit my initial reaction on page 1 though. I for one am going to give both parties the benefit of the doubt and let them work it out legally before I pick sides.

Filburt brings up an interesting point.... I wonder how many different BOMs you could you spec out when you factor in part cost/availability/lead-time, noise reduction, stability, bias voltages...etc... I would also throw in source / headphone synergy as another limiting factor.

Are there really that many different ways to build the "most optimal" circuit?

 

[Frihed89]

Here is what I think:

Mr Meier believes his design has been copied and he wants to inflict as much pain on the other mfr. as possible by bad-mouthing him on this forum under the pretext of finding out how many of these copies units have been sold.

The correct way to go about this is to file a law suit and force the other mfr to disclose this information.

But I don't think Mr. Meier plans to file a law suit. I think he just wants to cause as much damage as he can in this informal way.

I think the managers of this forum should have erased this post as soon as it came to their attention, because this is not the place to solve the problem, but perhaps Mr. Meier as a sponsor of this board has some influence over this decision.

This whole thing stinks.

 

[Robert Gehrke]

Yesterday I send Meier an email asking to solve this matter privately. Up to now no reply.

May I add that this thread is illegal on the German internet: to gain a negative public image against a competitor without any proof. I know this is a U.S. based forum with Meier as a main sponsor but as long as fairplay counts this thread must be locked!

May I also add that I asked the owner of this forum three times to become a sponsor. Up to now without any response. Seems this forum is not independent.

 

[scottiebabie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frihed89 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here is what I think: Mr Meier believes his design has been copied and he wants to inflict as much pain on the other mfr. as possible by bad-mouthing him on this forum under the pretext of finding out how many of these copies units have been sold. The correct way to go about this is to file a law suit and force the other mfr to disclose this information. But I don't think Mr. Meier plans to file a law suit. I think he just wants to cause as much damage as he can in this informal way. I think the managers of this forum should have erased this post as soon as it came to their attention, because this is not the place to solve the problem, but perhaps Mr. Meier as a sponsor of this board has some influence over this decision. This whole thing stinks.

Finally, someone with some chutzpah! Being a newbie with near zero knowledge in headfi and all, I only started posting in this thread coz I was disgusted by the condemnations of the lynch mob that was forming.

I thought I woke up in a cave where Neanderthals ruled and the Neanderthal with the biggest voice wins. Or we are civilized people living in societies that embrace concepts of laws and due process. What happened to the presumption of “Innocence Until Proven Guilty”? For anyone not in the know, that just happens to be the paramount directive central to our justice system! And Due Process is the pillar of that concept. The legal and dare I say moral and ethical way would have been to gather all evidence (as conclusive as possible) FIRST before we make charges and accusations! And NOT the other way around! Think what would happen if the authorities (think POLICE) didn’t adhere to this simple concept…

Infact IMO the only aggrieved party (as of now) is Headphonia. I could be wrong but I believe Headphonia may even have legal grounds for a slander suit. Don’t know about anyone else but if someone calls me a liar, a cheat and a thief, he better have a wholelotta proof or he better have an army backing him coz I’ll be doing the ape dance and be a stomping on em!! But that’s just me. YMMV.

I don’t who’s right or wrong and we might even find that out eventually. But I do think that how the OP went about this isn’t something to be proud of. IMO ofcoz! To any who disagrees, flame away…

 

[Pace]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Gehrke /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yesterday I send Meier an email asking to solve this matter privately. Up to now no reply. May I add that this thread is illegal on the German internet: to gain a negative public image against a competitor without any proof. I know this is a U.S. based forum with Meier as a main sponsor but as long as fairplay counts this thread must be locked! May I also add that I asked the owner of this forum three times to become a sponsor. Up to now without any response. Seems this forum is not independent.

So let me get this straight, did you answer to Meier's queries when he approached you with this issue originally?

 

[Jahn]

by the way, the quick and dirty and not quite accurate definition of libel (not slander, which is spoken, not written like libel) is that it happens only when you badmouth someone knowing that what you're saying is false. obviously Jan believes what he's saying about headphonia is true, so if even if it ends up being false, Jan's state of mind when posting his belief is not slander.

and here's the legalese -

a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person

that said, the intent of this thread was to collect info from headphonia owners, so since that doesn't include me, i bow out.

 

[Filburt]

I don't think your understanding of defamation is accurate, Jahn. The libel/slander distinction seems to largely live in the e-lawyer realm nowadays; in courts you usually just see a claim for defamation, and 'actual malice' is not a universal requirement. I'm not going to go into that further since it's really outside the scope of this thread and we needent engage in e-lawyering

 

[elrod-tom]

I feel compelled to respond to a couple of these comments:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frihed89 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the managers of this forum should have erased this post as soon as it came to their attention, because this is not the place to solve the problem, but perhaps Mr. Meier as a sponsor of this board has some influence over this decision. This whole thing stinks.

First of all, I simply reject out of hand this notion that the only reason this thread has been permitted is because Meier Audio holds sway over the decisions made here by the moderators. I suspect this hasn't been answered yet because it's one of those "I won't even dignify that with a response" sort of things.

It's an interesting exercise to consider what would happen if we DID just this. Would some folks feel compelled to open a thread, accusing the moderators of shutting down a thread because we were trying to curry favor with a potential sponsor?

We can't really win either way...so, we tend to be a bit laisse faire about the whole thing. The subject is IMHO a bit distasteful, but it's topical and (judging by the responses in the thread) people are surely interested in it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Gehrke /img/forum/go_quote.gif May I also add that I asked the owner of this forum three times to become a sponsor. Up to now without any response. Seems this forum is not independent.

I suggest you try a fourth time.

I will not speak for the owner of the site, other than to say I know him well and know VERY well that he is EXTREMELY busy with all things Head-Fi right now...which, by the way, is NOT his primary business. I suspect that he simply hasn't found the time to respond lately.

But that doesn't make this comment OK....it's wreckless, ill considered, and frankly dead wrong. Were the shoe on the other foot, I suspect that any action (e.g. closed thread) would provoke a similar response from the opposing viewpoint. Again, we simply can't win.

BTW - I don't intend to get drawn into any moderator conspiracy theories over stuff like this. If anyone really wants to discuss this, you may PM me about it. Be forewarned that I'm not going to permit that discussion here.

 

[Sovkiller]

For the mods I think that everything what could be said by either party has been said already, and any further debate between non related members will be futile, and will lead to a misundertandings and more confission...

This topic should be dicussed privately, and when you get all the elements, that shows evidence in the case one of the two sides is acting in the wrong way, then and only then, just bring that to our attention, but like it is now, is completelly useless for us to draw any conclusion...Jan is a gentleman in all the extension of the word, we all know that, but OTOH we do not know the other party, and we do not have any elements enough to judge any of the two parties, other than the past reputation, in which case, the balance will goes to Jan's side...IMO this thread should be locked down, until an agreement is settled (in case they finally do) and only then, let us know the outcome to draw our own conclussions...

 

[mrarroyo]

I do not see anything else to be gained by keeping this open. At the end of the day we have an sponsor making allegations that in his own mind he thinks are true. On the other side we have a company who vehemently objects. We will not know the truth, Jan needs to take this to the court and prove his case. Until then it is all a case of "he said, she said"

I think this thread should be closed.

 

[feifan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer5150 /img/forum/go_quote.gif x2!! I am interested in the business side of head-fi as much as the headphones themselves, so I find this discussion fascinating. I had to edit my initial reaction on page 1 though. I for one am going to give both parties the benefit of the doubt and let them work it out legally before I pick sides. Filburt brings up an interesting point.... I wonder how many different BOMs you could you spec out when you factor in part cost/availability/lead-time, noise reduction, stability, bias voltages...etc... I would also throw in source / headphone synergy as another limiting factor. Are there really that many different ways to build the "most optimal" circuit?

For the "business side," this case has to be textbook for electronics manufacturers and distributors re limits or extent of culpability. There's a lot going on here, including the amount of freedom developers should have in designing circuits and new products. Head-Fiers could be directly impacted whether the laws are loosely or tightly interpreted. We may see either an increase or decrease in the number and range of headphone amps, supply and selection. As consumers, we're in a quandary: competition lowers prices and improves quality, but unregulated competition could curtail R&D. Stuff to think about.

 

[Jan Meier]

Dear Headfellows,

Yes, it’s true. It is a very nasty situation. But should it really been kept away from this forum? To be honest, I don’t think so. Robert wrote himself that

“Even in the future I will use open designs and will adopt them (as every designer does). See my next "Amperor" amp with two 9V batteries - its basically a Pimeta/PPA.”

This behaviour clearly violates the HEAD-FI rules as given in the DIY section. As such this is something that concerns all members! Without such rules HEAD-FI would not function as well as it does now and if such rules are violated then people should be made aware of that.

But yes, nonetheless the situation is nasty, I fully agree.

“But I don't think Mr. Meier plans to file a law suit. I think he just wants to cause as much damage as he can in this informal way.”

I asked Robert for sales-numbers so we could settle the situation as gentlemen (without going public). I only started this thread when I didn’t have received any significant response after 10 days of waiting and wanted information to estimate the “damage” done by his actions. If my intentions would be to cause damage, then I would have started a thread immediately without contacting Robert first and without giving him a 10 day “deadline”.

> it inevitably gets reduced to a "he said, she said" argument

> So can anybody verify that the schematics used are the same?

> is it possible that there are really only so many ways to layout a crossfeed function and that two (or more) parties could independently generate very similar designs?

I feel this is the point that has to be proven. Therefore I decided to make the amplification circuitry of the PORTA CORDA MkIII public. People can then check themselves whether their Headphonia resembles the PC or not. Also people now can judge for themselves whether the circuitry of this amp is a very original one or not and how large the likelyhood is, that Robert just by accident came to the same circuitry.

Some clarifications:

- The crossfeed filter is build using six resistors (R1, R2, R5, R6, R7, R8) and three capacitors (C5, C6, C9). It basically is a version of the bass-enhanced crossfeed filter as published in an article on Headwize. The filter was optimized for a 10 kOhm load resistance (12 kOhm and 56 kOhm resistors in parallel, R11 and R13 for the left channel, R12 and R14 for the right channel). The filter can be activated/deactivated with S1

- C3, C4, C7, and C8 are added to eliminate high frequency components (low pass filter, cut-off frequency around 150 kHz).

- The amplification circuitry is build around two LM6171 opamps. The basic topology is that of an inverting amplifier. The amplification factor is set by the ratio of the resistance of the potentiometer and R11/12 (low gain mode) or (R11 in parallel with R13)/(R12 in parallel with R14). Maximum gain can be set by S5/S6. It is somewhat unusual to use an inverting amplication topology but the big advantage is that noise is strongly reduced when overall gain is low. With a non-inverting topology (potentiometer followed by a gain stage with fixed gain factor) the noise added by the gain stage can become very obvious at low sound levels. The fact that the signal is inverted is hardly audible (if at all). To prevent oscillations output and inverting input of each opamp are connected with a (slew rate limiting) capacitor of 47 pF (C1 and C2)

- The non-inverting inputs of the opamps are connected to ground to make them less vulnerable for RF-contaminations of ground (R10/R11). However, instead of using regular values of 1 or 2.2 kOhm I opted for a higher value of 10 kOhm. The reason is that I wanted to more-or-less balance the DC input impedances of the opamp to minimize any offset caused by the rather large biasing input currents.

- To further minimize offset voltages also the inverting inputs were directly connected to ground using 22 kOhm resistors (R15 and R16).

Note: FET-opamps do have much lower biasing currents than the LM6171 and therefore do not have problems with offset voltages. R9 and R10 can be given much lower values and R15 and R16 are not needed at all. Actually the latter only will add extra noise and lower the effective feedback factor, thus increasing distortion. Although the Headphonia uses FET-opamps R15 and R16 are nonetheless implemented!

- The outputstage of each opamp is biased into class-A using a 1k5 resistor (R17, R18) connected to the negative voltage line. Normally this value has to be optimized for each opamp.

- R19 and R20 are added to increase stability when driving large capacitive loads.

The Headphonia amplification circuitry is a 1:1 copy of the circuitry shown above (except for the fact that Robert later decided to leave out R19 and R20 and has short circuited the space on the PCB of the Headphonia with small pieces of wire). It uses exactly the same resistor values and capacitor values and although R15 and R16 were not needed with the opamp used they were well added!

I personally feel that the circuitry of the PC in many aspects is very different from the open designs found on Head-Fi and Headwize and I do not believe that the two amps are completely identical by accident. But people are now able to judge/verify by themselves.


Robert: “May I repeat that I never analyzed your amp. That's a crazy accusation.”

That’s just playing with words. Maybe you did not analyze by yourself, but you got the schematics from somewhere and I’m very sure that you know that these were the schematics of the PORTA CORDA MkIII.

“Yesterday I send Meier an email asking to solve this matter privately. Up to now no reply”

I waited 10 days without a reply. Actually, I was just writing a reply with a peace-offer when I saw your latest post. I then decided to rethink my position. You will get my answer later.

“ May I add that this thread is illegal on the German internet: to gain a negative public image against a competitor without any proof.”

The proof is lying on the table in front of me. A Headphonia next to a PORTA CORDA amplifier! With the schematics above all Headphonia owners can get their own proof.

“ Seems this forum is not independent.”

In all honesty, I feel this remark tells me more about you then it does about all the volunteers that keep this forum alive!

Cheers

Jan

Note: I'm pretty sure that people will be aware that the schematics published are free for personal use but that commercial applications are not allowed!

 

[Hi-Finthen]

Thank You Dr. Jan.......

Robert, an equally well laid out rebuttal, if you please sir?