- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
- Posts
- 11,027
- Likes
- 6,644
This past week there has been a lot of discussion about Singlepower, in large part because there are, I believe, approximately 200 members who own Singlepower products, and, for the first time, photographs of the inside of a Singlepower amp (an MPX3 in this case) were posted.
There are, in my opinion, valid questions raised by those photos, and I think we've covered the lot of them. In large part, it's up to Singlepower to answer most of those questions, on this forum or by other means, if they choose to. Of course, the opinions of those members who have technical experience who've reviewed the photos might make for helpful discussion, too, and, from what I've seen, already has at times.
As for what class Singlepower amps run in: I have seen no proof one way or the other. I'd rather not see it debated ad nauseam unless someone, from either side of this argument, has proof, one way or the other, that Singlepower amps do or don't run class A, or are or aren't single-ended. If you're just going to jaw at each other without proof, save it for another place. Of course, at their option, Singlepower could also elect to comment more about this on the forums, which may or may not be helpful to the discussion.
Regarding the issues of patent(s) pending: From what I understand, one can't claim "patent pending" until the patent is on file with the USPTO. However, I have seen no proof so far that proves whether or not Singlepower's claims of patent(s) pending are valid or not. So, once again, we can debate this until the cows come home without proof either way (which many of you seem apt to want to do), or we can wait and see if (a) someone who knows for sure wants to explain it, or (b) see if a patent filing does eventually show up, to see the date of the filing relative to the claims of such. As someone stated, it can take quite some time for a filing to become visible on search (if someone knows otherwise, then please say so). Again, Singlepower could also elect to answer this on the forums at their option, which may or may not be helpful in the context of this discussion.
Regarding 6Moons: Let me say first that I really enjoy reading 6Moons. Any suggestions that they should investigate every single claim a manufacturer makes to them is, in my opinion, ridiculous. If an amp manufacturer tells me his amp runs class A, or tells me he has patents pending, I would usually be inclined to believe him. Now, if any of what that amp manufacturer tells me proves not to be true, then the fault, in my opinion, lies with the manufacturer for providing incorrect information. Is that what happened here? Again, I haven't seen any proof of it yet (see my previous two paragraphs). Do I think Srajan should have posted that open letter to his readers? I don't know what information he received, or from whom he received it, so I won't comment on that.
If you have photos you want to post that are relevant to this discussion, then it's up to you to post them for discussion if you wish to.
I will say that recently (not long before all of this happened this past week) Singlepower explicitly requested that I not allow internal photos of Singlepower amps to be posted by anyone, and it was a request I respectfully told the manufacturer I would not grant. I will also say that the manufacturer, in making that request, told me about patent(s) pending as one of the reasons for the request. At this point, I don't know if any patent has been filed by the manufacturer. Sooner or later, any patent filing becomes available via online search, and if and when such a filing appears, then we'll know whether or not a patent was filed before I was told that at least one patent was pending (I was provided no details of what was apparently being patented).
Here's what I'd appreciate from the members of the community: Don't let the discussion devolve into petty arguments about things for which there's no proof. If the technically inclined wish to offer opinions about the construction of Singlepower amps based on the current or future photos -- or any other amps for that matter -- than go ahead and state your opinions as your opinions, unless, of course, you have proof to state them as facts. Again, I do feel that the photographs that were posted do raise valid questions, and civilized discussion about them should not be that difficult.
Here's what I'd also appreciate: Don't write off valid questions as the pursuit of a witch hunt -- I've seen that happen over the last several days a lot. If, in response to valid questions, that's all that you have to say, then don't bother posting it. If more internal photos are posted (and I wouldn't be surprised if we see more in the future), please don't resort to the witch-hunt accusations in response. If you think something that someone posted is witch-hunt-like, then contact me (and/or other moderators you feel comfortable with) directly via PM. I may or may not respond (I get a lot of messages, so don't be offended if I don't respond), but if I (or the other moderators you contact) agree with you, then something will be done about it.
There, I think that about covers my opinions on this. If I have anything else to add, I'll post again in this thread.
There are, in my opinion, valid questions raised by those photos, and I think we've covered the lot of them. In large part, it's up to Singlepower to answer most of those questions, on this forum or by other means, if they choose to. Of course, the opinions of those members who have technical experience who've reviewed the photos might make for helpful discussion, too, and, from what I've seen, already has at times.
As for what class Singlepower amps run in: I have seen no proof one way or the other. I'd rather not see it debated ad nauseam unless someone, from either side of this argument, has proof, one way or the other, that Singlepower amps do or don't run class A, or are or aren't single-ended. If you're just going to jaw at each other without proof, save it for another place. Of course, at their option, Singlepower could also elect to comment more about this on the forums, which may or may not be helpful to the discussion.
Regarding the issues of patent(s) pending: From what I understand, one can't claim "patent pending" until the patent is on file with the USPTO. However, I have seen no proof so far that proves whether or not Singlepower's claims of patent(s) pending are valid or not. So, once again, we can debate this until the cows come home without proof either way (which many of you seem apt to want to do), or we can wait and see if (a) someone who knows for sure wants to explain it, or (b) see if a patent filing does eventually show up, to see the date of the filing relative to the claims of such. As someone stated, it can take quite some time for a filing to become visible on search (if someone knows otherwise, then please say so). Again, Singlepower could also elect to answer this on the forums at their option, which may or may not be helpful in the context of this discussion.
Regarding 6Moons: Let me say first that I really enjoy reading 6Moons. Any suggestions that they should investigate every single claim a manufacturer makes to them is, in my opinion, ridiculous. If an amp manufacturer tells me his amp runs class A, or tells me he has patents pending, I would usually be inclined to believe him. Now, if any of what that amp manufacturer tells me proves not to be true, then the fault, in my opinion, lies with the manufacturer for providing incorrect information. Is that what happened here? Again, I haven't seen any proof of it yet (see my previous two paragraphs). Do I think Srajan should have posted that open letter to his readers? I don't know what information he received, or from whom he received it, so I won't comment on that.
If you have photos you want to post that are relevant to this discussion, then it's up to you to post them for discussion if you wish to.
I will say that recently (not long before all of this happened this past week) Singlepower explicitly requested that I not allow internal photos of Singlepower amps to be posted by anyone, and it was a request I respectfully told the manufacturer I would not grant. I will also say that the manufacturer, in making that request, told me about patent(s) pending as one of the reasons for the request. At this point, I don't know if any patent has been filed by the manufacturer. Sooner or later, any patent filing becomes available via online search, and if and when such a filing appears, then we'll know whether or not a patent was filed before I was told that at least one patent was pending (I was provided no details of what was apparently being patented).
Here's what I'd appreciate from the members of the community: Don't let the discussion devolve into petty arguments about things for which there's no proof. If the technically inclined wish to offer opinions about the construction of Singlepower amps based on the current or future photos -- or any other amps for that matter -- than go ahead and state your opinions as your opinions, unless, of course, you have proof to state them as facts. Again, I do feel that the photographs that were posted do raise valid questions, and civilized discussion about them should not be that difficult.
Here's what I'd also appreciate: Don't write off valid questions as the pursuit of a witch hunt -- I've seen that happen over the last several days a lot. If, in response to valid questions, that's all that you have to say, then don't bother posting it. If more internal photos are posted (and I wouldn't be surprised if we see more in the future), please don't resort to the witch-hunt accusations in response. If you think something that someone posted is witch-hunt-like, then contact me (and/or other moderators you feel comfortable with) directly via PM. I may or may not respond (I get a lot of messages, so don't be offended if I don't respond), but if I (or the other moderators you contact) agree with you, then something will be done about it.
There, I think that about covers my opinions on this. If I have anything else to add, I'll post again in this thread.
