[aloksatoor]

 

[FallenAngel]

It really does make some sense though - by not releasing their datasheet and restricting purchasing of their chips, they are actively discouraging DIYers and small copycat companies (like the hundreds of DACs on eBay) that will design cheap DACs. Instead they are looking for large, good companies that will buy their stuff in bulk and produce high-end products, which in turn raises their reputation as high-end DAC chip makers.

 

[Juaquin]

Yeah, I can understand. They want to market themselves as high-end, and if that nets them profits, great. DIYers still have plenty of other options, and will make use of them because it doesn't require jumping through hoops.

I've learned more from Head-Fi and various amp designs (Millet, AMB, etc) than they could teach in many of my courses in college. Making things behind closed doors stifles the pursuit of knowledge.

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwmclean /img/forum/go_quote.gif linuxworks, I don’t see why a company can’t protect there own property and investment.

its not an accurate analogy. we've been saying (and so far, no one seems to actually disagree) that no magic IP is 'let out' by users simply integrating the chips into designs. no one WRITES code that runs inside the chips (I don't think) and so, how involved does one have to be to simply USE the chips in a design? it boggles my mind that some company thinks its still OK to play these 1990's style 'hide the spec' games.

its pathetic. not useful for ANYONE but the company's ego.


Quote:

BTW TPA have “jumped thu hoops” with this company, and it’s been an overall success for a large community of DIYers.

I understand that tpa has agreed to sign whatever nda they needed to get into this chip. that's their choice but it also does limit what others can do with the chip. this is why its not DIY friendly.

I don't call 'wiring up a prebuilt board' DIY. no sir.

Quote:

Just because the company won’t bend over backwards the way you’d like them too doesn’t mean squat. Your stance and your loss.

not my loss; THEIR loss. why can't you see that?

bend over backwards? no, you have it 100% wrong - its them who force us users to bend over backwards to GET things that others freely give away. I get the cirrus or wolfson or philips data for the cost of an ftp or wget. why is ESS being the odd guy out?

there's no LOGICAL reason. sure, there's a reason, but its not under the catagory of logic.

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif It really does make some sense though - by not releasing their datasheet and restricting purchasing of their chips, they are actively discouraging DIYers and small copycat companies (like the hundreds of DACs on eBay) that will design cheap DACs.

I can understand creating an artificial scarcity of a product for marketing reasons. and I can see marketing reasons in some of what ESS is doing.

but size of company is no test of how well they'll do on building a product with their chips.

if they CARED, truly, about a reputation there are better ways to solve this. one way is a testing program where the maker of the gear submits a built sample to the manuf and the manuf tests and certifies it. THAT would impress me. but limiting who gets the specs or chips is a marketing game, nothing more.

 

[FallenAngel]

Yet, it's all about the marketing game, that's what gets them mass profits, or doesn't. Looking at other large and very profitable companies, you'll see marketing games, not usually a desire to please or impress the DIY crowd.

It's not that I agree with the plan, nor do I personally like it all that much, it makes it harder for me to play with stuff, but I can see a reason for them doing it and realize that it can work as an effective marketing strategy.

 

[glt]

I have seen the datasheet and it the same as other companie's data sheet. It tells you how to program the registers.

I don't know why you have to sign an NDA. But with the NDA in place, people like linuxworks can't release the code because the code would tell you how the registers are to be programmed.

So even if linuxworks signs the NDA, the code he writes cannot be shared. That's the biggest drawback to a DIY project.

 

[fran]

To answer the OP:

you need to sign the NDA to get the datasheet as people say. I know a few who have done it. No big deal.

Second, you need to be visiting over at DIYaudio.com where there are a few threads, and indeed a few different PCB designs available for this chip. For example one member "acko" almost has PCBs made with the chip and a verison of the pass labs D1 output stage.


Oh, and it does sound very good, at least in the twisted pear layout.


Fran

 

[johnwmclean]

linuxworks, it’s a given that the ESS Sabre32 chip isn’t DIYer friendly, but they can choose to express themselves in the marketplace anyway they please - comparing such a small company to wolfson or the like is unproportionate, ESS Sabre may have a completely different agenda, strategically they may well have been compromised to have done it any other way. You may choose not to purchase their products, but just because they don’t fit your “ideal” is just a rant. There are plenty of other companies that fit your bill, ESS just isn’t one of them.

 

[linuxworks]

glt has a point I didn't even think to mention; that is, that if I did get hold of the chip and docs, if I did write code for it I'd probably be sued or have to worry about being sued!

just not worth it. I have a high end wolfson chip that I can play with if I want to. much easier to solder, gives high end (similar, by all reports I've read) performance at a similar level to the ESS.

one chip is 'open' and one is 'closed'. I just can't support closed chips when good open ones are available in the market.

its pretty simple. support the companies whose ideals you agree with.

 

[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif glt has a point I didn't even think to mention; that is, that if I did get hold of the chip and docs, if I did write code for it I'd probably be sued or have to worry about being sued!

Oh please, hyperbole much?

 

[linuxworks]

if they have an NDA, its usually wise to assume they are serious about 'defending their IP'.

so I would not do any public development on a project that needed an NDA and where I didn't sign one.

america IS the land of the lawsuit. its not wise to ignore that fact.

 

[frex]

Hello evrybody.

When i create this topic, i do not think it would be much controversy.
I really understand the point of view of linuxworks.
I design for my job many electronic projects, often with new intergrated circuits , and i was never asked to sign any NDA.

Today, i got a call of the ESS distributor.
He has say effectively that it is necessary to sign a NDA (He had sent it to me)
before ESS give the datasheet.
Now i must read it and decide if i sign or not.
At this time, my opinion is shared...

Maybe it is more reasonable to wait the moment where ESS will changed it's NDA strategy . As linuxworks has said, i don't think ESS have a realy good reason to make this, and i don't want endorse it.
The weekend will give me advices...


Frex.

 

[TimmyMac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwmclean /img/forum/go_quote.gif BTW TPA have “jumped thu hoops” with this company, and it’s been an overall success for a large community of DIYers.

It's certainly been a success for them, anyway, having an effective monopoly over chips to the DIY market (at least for those who don't want to sign their life away). Means they can charge whatever they want. Not sure it's a boon to us though - there's still no sign of the barebones board they promised as long as their high-dollar boards keep selling.

 

[Nebby]

I'm pretty sure TPA isn't exactly making a ton of money off their "high-dollar" boards.