Showing 1 of 320 conversations about:
sosolar
238
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
is the module a direct copy from my 2016's work? I dont remember I have legally authorized anyone to do so. And comments available here: http://bbs.hifidiy.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1192897 http://bbs.hifidiy.net/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=1149252&pid=26334919
search

search
Jun 5, 2018
bunkbail
177
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
it certainly has the same pcb layout, no doubt about that.
Jun 5, 2018
elira
199
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
@CEE_TEE you should clarify this. This doesn’t seem right.
Jun 5, 2018
MusicIsGreat
186
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
Not sure if it’s truly design copy, Soekris DACs also look like this one to a certain degree, the design seems to be pretty standard among R-2R implementions, if you have a valid patent on your design then nothing to worry about or almost.
Jun 5, 2018
hellomynameisalex
4
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
I'd guess it's the question of whether it's a design-resemblance or if it's actually the same design. I'm not an expert so I'm surely interested in how this plays out.
Jun 5, 2018
YuukiHaruto
10
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
There is only so much you can do with R2R and layout optimization can end up looking almost the same
Jun 5, 2018
sosolar
238
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
You are right. I have done so much research and experiments on that, and figure out that it is good enough for audio playback. The most important is the purity of input signals(i.e. PLL, triggering circuits)
Jun 5, 2018
sosolar
238
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
Yes it changed some parts' package code into 0603 and forgot to remove refdes, that why it doesnt look harmonic.
Jun 5, 2018
verifonix
726
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
Jun 5, 2018
eyeshield21
36
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
okay now, this needs to be clarified from Massdrop/Airist Audio's side.
And people talking about "valid patents" on diy designs are driving me nuts.
Jun 5, 2018
zbells
185
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
Jun 5, 2018
CEE_TEE
3406
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
Yes, working on a response...thank you!
Jun 5, 2018
Jimster480
380
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
Wow that would be bad on the part of massdrop.
Jun 5, 2018
Heefty
1353
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
Unfortunately, if you don't have a patent on your design, a shout-out by the person who capitalizes on it is the best you can hope for. That's why patents exist.
Jun 5, 2018
WilliamTse
103
Founder, Airist Audio
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
I was not aware of your project until you posted here. We have been working on the R-2R DAC for a few years, and we demonstrated one when we had our first show, a New York area head-fi meetup in 2015. I have spoken to my team and they assure me that they did not copy your design. Our DAC is a sign-magnitude R-2R ladder, and both of these are well established and standard concepts. While other designs have implemented interesting methods such as auxiliary ladders and other compensation techniques, we stuck with the basic R-2R structure. This leads to the four resistor ladders followed by current amplifiers for each ladder and differential amplifiers to merge the positive and negative halves of each channel and apply some filtering to further mitigate the high frequency switching artifacts. None of these are novel or proprietary art. As several comments have pointed out, there are only so many ways to optimize the layout of a resistor ladder, hence the similarity between many different products. I've attached an image to illustrate those similarities:
search
From left to right: RDAC, Soekris, Hibiki, Denafrips, Rockna Though the chips may appear similar, programmable logic devices are simply vessels and it is the code they contain that defines their operation. The control logic for the ladder is code I wrote myself based on the concept of sign-magnitude conversion. Once flashed into the chip, the code cannot be retrieved. By the nature of R-2R ladders, the performance of the DAC is significantly affected by the stability of the reference voltage. The two circuit blocks next to our logic device are linear series voltage regulators, using an LT6656 precision voltage reference. For anyone interested, here is a quick read on this type of regulator with diagrams: https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1272466
And one with a little more detail and background: http://www.onmyphd.com/?p=voltage.regulators.linear.series
Although it is the most visible, the top board is not the only part of the RDAC. DACs using the same delta-sigma chip are not all the same, nor are DACs using the same basic R-2R topology the same. From the side angle photos of the RDAC you can see some of the circuitry underneath for handling the power, digital input selection and decoding, as well as our digital signal processing and clocking mechanisms, etc. These circuits define the RDAC as much if not more than the top board, both in terms of sound signature and design time and effort.
Jun 5, 2018
nwimpney
196
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
Someone copied it. Yes, the others you posted are very similar in layout, but there's a difference between similar and a direct clone. This has all of the parts in the same layout, including the spacing of the 0603 resistors matching the original layout, just with the smaller footprint. The only difference I see is the LED and current limiting resistor added. From looking at it, there's enough superficial differences that it looks like it may have been redrawn, as opposed to directly pulled from the board files, but there's no way the layouts are that identical by coincidence.
Jun 5, 2018
elira
199
Jun 5, 2018
bookmark_border
Jun 5, 2018
nwimpney
196
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I'm not an IP lawyer, but AFAIK, this wouldn't be patentable, as it's not a new invention. The topology is well known. I would guess that "copyright" would be the more relevant thing in this case, if anything covers it. I'm not sure if there's any inherent copyright on a PCB layout (There are for some things). The thing is, that whether it's technically legal or not, directly copying someone else's design and claiming that you spent years working on it isn't cool, and it certainly appears that's what's happened with this board at least. It's certainly possible that other parts of the design are original work, but even if that's the case, it's only right to give credit for the parts that were copied (even if no legal license or payment is required).
Jun 6, 2018
MusicIsGreat
186
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
As much as I agree with everything you said, I would not go as far as saying you did not believe in their working for couple of years by using the word claiming, to be honest with the degree of complexity of this design, two years wouldn’t be that far fetched. To me, it’s commandable that by their design, they allow us average joes to be able to own a r-2r design, that says something about their cooperation and desire to offer a good piece of kit to use by us commons mortals. I don’t like a cheater as more as you do but their actions indicate that they want to ease our financial pain and enjoy a good resistor ladder DAC.
Jun 6, 2018
nwimpney
196
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
yes. My point is that it appears someone else did at least some portion of the work, without getting any mention.
Jun 6, 2018
sosolar
238
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
copyright reserved.
Jun 6, 2018
sosolar
238
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Copyright reserved. We can send a letter to your office if you want.
Jun 6, 2018
sosolar
238
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
You are right, we have done numbers version of that board, the latest version is with LEDs. We did sell some amount of board on Taobao, and we can upload some of our customer and see whether there is airist audio's crew. There should be 5 candidate at most, should be the quickest way to show what happens.
Jun 6, 2018
zbells
185
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Regardless of the situation, I think they're trying to make money first and foremost. But yes, I'm also sure they'd like to have a great product that sells well and to the largest market possible.
Jun 6, 2018
Pierre111
365
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I'm not sure those photos help the case here sorry, it does show that out of five way to design this type of Topology, 3 are original and 2 are the same. I really believe that it's totally OK to see what other has done while trying to find the best way to implement it, but in this case really the guy should at least have received a phone call, even if the final design of the whole DAC brings something new, if the code if different, if everything around the R2R Layout is optimized by you, maybe in the end this doesn't deserve money, but at the very least it deserve credits. It is just not possible to have a design THAT identical without studying what this guy has done. Your analogy about many designer using the same delta sigma chip not making the same DAC, that is very very true and your whole technical justification to put forward that it's in the end still your design is somehow justify as well, but it's not justify denying the Hibiki module has been used. Back to using a chip. Every engineer that incorporate a DAC chip in their design actually have to pay for that chip, and part of that is R&D, you don't just buy the Silicon, you also buy a design
Jun 6, 2018
Heefty
1353
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I certainly would act on it then.
Jun 6, 2018
elira
199
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
You should not share your customer's information. That information is private.
Jun 6, 2018
TramicusRex
21
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Yes I would have your lawyer send a letter.
Has nobody from massdrop responded to this? (Would be indicative of the times and not at all in a good way.)
If not that is truly shameful,, as are the poleoole who knowingly signed up anyway.
I suggest you hit them hard enough to wake them up if nobody has addressed this by now.
Good luck. My massdrop participation tiny though it is hangs in the balance of this issue.
Jun 6, 2018
bunkbail
177
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Do your customers also have the gerber files? Kinda weird for them to have the exact pcb layout and claiming they are as a huge coincidence. Lmao human with enough braincells wont fall for such bullcrap. If I were you, I would suspect whoever I sent the gerber files to, most likely the pcb printing guys.
Jun 6, 2018
elira
199
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
What's the position of Massdrop on all this?
Jun 6, 2018
Dr_Rodney_McKay
131
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Copyright, really? I don't see the (C) indicating such on the photos you've posted. Putting things into the public domain tends to undermine any intellectual property protection that might otherwise be available. But copyright wouldn't be the applicable form of protection for a device anyway.
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general28 (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Jun 6, 2018
Pierre111
365
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I agree that there is probably not much legal action here, the tech is not patentable and copyrights probably don't apply as you say, but plagiarism is certainly not ethical, ethics are more in cause here than laws
Jun 6, 2018
sosolar
238
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
In shenzhen, you can copy a exitsted board one by one, detail by detail to a gerber file spending small amount of money even a FPGA/CPLD design. Quite a shameful truth here.
Jun 6, 2018
sosolar
238
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
You are right, I should talk to some of them and find the one buy and copy my module.
Jun 6, 2018
bunkbail
177
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Did you have your copyright markings, with your name and year of creation on your PCBs then?
Jun 6, 2018
Dr_Rodney_McKay
131
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I agree. On the ethical question, William Tse of Airist says they demonstrated their design in 2015, which sosolar starts this thread by asking whether that is a copy of his 2016 work. Case dismissed.
Jun 6, 2018
bunkbail
177
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Nope, if you actually paid attention to the whole thing, sosolar had started the project in late-2015. http://bbs.hifidiy.net/thread-1149252-1-1.html There is the prove and William Tse still hasn't had anything to back his claim up.
Jun 6, 2018
Pierre111
365
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
They demonstrated quote "one" design, that just say they where working on a R2R Dac, they don't say they demonstrated "this" design. Again my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, and it obviously depends on country, is that having a copyright mean that you have an easy to prove case in case of plagiarism, but not having a copyright doesn't mean one is not the author, just that it's harder to prove. I don't believe that by law plagiarism is permitted regardless if the author has a copyright or not, it just deny the authors of his defence but it doesn't mean you're allowed to copy!
Jun 6, 2018
Dr_Rodney_McKay
131
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
December 15 is very late 2015. Do you really suppose the meetup that Mr. Tse mentioned was even later in 2015 than that? "We have been working on the R-2R DAC for a few years, and we demonstrated one when we had our first show, a New York area head-fi meetup in 2015."
Jun 6, 2018
Heefty
1353
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Legal action or not, you have to admit that selling this without thoroughly scrutinizing both designs to illustrate differences would be a 0.5Malfoy level dick move.
Jun 6, 2018
bunkbail
177
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
It could be that they had a prototype that was completely different than this one we see right here. Unless Tse proves that he used the same design with the same layout like we see right now, I would take his word with a pinch of salt.
Jun 6, 2018
Dr_Rodney_McKay
131
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Pierre, I took that to mean he demonstrated one example of *this* design or one very similar to it.
Jun 6, 2018
Inorbit
79
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
And you just take William Tse's word for it? How about sosolar start selling the Hibiki in 2016? When do you think he started the design work on it? Jan 2016? It might be case closed for the simple minded.
Jun 6, 2018
Pierre111
365
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
So you're saying that Hibiki copied Airist?
Jun 6, 2018
nwimpney
196
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I'm not so sure on the copyrights not applying, but regardless, I see it more as an ethical problem. Clearly someone cribbed the design from another source. If sosolar did the design 100% from scratch, then WilliamTse or someone on his team must have copied it, whether he knows about it or not. those boards are just too similar.
They're not from the gerbers, as some of the traces are positioned differently, and some components are different packages/footprints, etc, but the layout appears to be too similar to happen purely by virtue of optimizing the same topology. I'll tell you right now, if I had drawn this board and was using 0603 resistors instead of the 0805 on sosolar's version, I would have ended up with a much smaller board, and almost inevitably, many other parts would be oriented or positioned differently.
My guess is that someone either had the PCB sources, and made the changes and tweaks as they wanted, or more likely, they just sat down with a PCB and redrew it, with all the positioning the same.
Jun 6, 2018
Dr_Rodney_McKay
131
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I can certainly see why people believe something "must" have been copied, but I am not so sure. If there is an optimal design, then skilled practitioners would "discover" it independently. As YuukiHaruto said, "There is only so much you can do with R2R and layout optimization can end up looking almost the same ."
Jun 6, 2018
nwimpney
196
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
It's also entirely possible that they're sourcing that module from a 3rd party who is responsible for the cloning, (or who bought it from yet another supplier....)
Jun 6, 2018
nwimpney
196
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
No. There is no one optimal design. They could end up very similar. I wouldn't be surprised if the ladders ended out with the same layout, etc, but they won't end up with every component in the same position and orientation, even if they were working from the same schematic. There's going to be cases where something just doesn't matter and a part could be equally well positioned vertically or horizontally, and by chance, some of those "don't matter" parts will end up different.
Jun 6, 2018
elira
199
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Well, same form factor, same connections, same component distribution, at least they changed the color.
Jun 6, 2018
Dr_Rodney_McKay
131
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I am not invested enough in this to pick one specific part on any of these boards, and argue for or against a 90-degree turn or the optimal orientation of any particular part, but I will say that parts that "could be equally well positioned vertically or horizontally" would be few and far between just due to the intended purpose of the finished product, and much more so considering that manufacturers will want everything to fit into a rectangle of minimal area, to minimize their expense. I also see nothing on the Hibiki board corresponding to the Airist board's part R225, R226, D51, and D52. Like you said, there is no one optimal design, but as I see it, this is also not necessarily anything more than two nearly optimal designs that just ended up very similar.
Jun 6, 2018
Pierre111
365
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
My guess, and just a guess, they are building a R2R Dac, using well documented textbook theory and you start comparing, measuring against what's available, your design don't perform as well in some area, you look deeper and you see that a fast and easy way is to do the same thing. Even if it's the "optimal" design, Is it a reference design? Is this set of components and circuit open source and available to the public, from what I read it doesn't look like it. it's more than the same optimal design, it's the same layout, let's say the ladder is built like such and it just make sense, there still about fifty surronding components that are not only the same, they are positioned at the same place! The probability of this happening is just IMPOSSIBLE, there is absolutely no way it is just coincidence there is just too many parameters!
Jun 6, 2018
Heefty
1353
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
The almost part of that statement is the problem. These are not almost the same, they are the same. I would buy the excuse if not for the board to board connectors by the controller. The similarities there go well beyond similar optimizations to similar devices. There is no chance that two completely separate design optimizations would settle on exactly the same configuration there. There's too much left to choice or preference on connectors like that.
Jun 6, 2018
elira
199
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
It's a different version of the board. This one has those components.
search
Jun 6, 2018
sosolar
238
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
the board you are looking is early version without LED, that is not for sell. The version I selling is WITH LED and resistor you mentioned. Please follow links posted by @TimConor bofore, and say it again.
Jun 6, 2018
bunkbail
177
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Based on the board here http://bbs.hifidiy.net/thread-1192897-1-1.html, it seems that the module is exactly the same as the airist ones, with those LEDs and resistor intact. This is as obvious as it gets. Airist guy don't even bother to change a single component on the board lmao.
Jun 6, 2018
Dr_Rodney_McKay
131
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Thank you for bringing my attention to this Airist drop. I hope that whoever did the work gets fairly compensated, and I am interested to see who that will turn out to be.
Jun 6, 2018
Inorbit
79
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
My guess is that MD will cancel this drop just to avoid even the slightest chance of getting sue for importing copy-right infringed goods. Unless they bet on sosolar not having the resource to sue.
Or think about it from a business point of view. The moment sosolar litigates the entire shipment will be held at custom until the case cleared in court right? Now MD can't deliver which will lead to unhappy customers. Right?
Jun 6, 2018
Dr_Rodney_McKay
131
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
OK, thinking about it from a business point of view, if sosolar has a valid claim, is this the most profitable way to present it? Has anybody shopping on Massdrop been convinced to go buy a Hibiki? Or just to not buy an Airist?
Jun 6, 2018
Afterman
229
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
"And you just take William Tse's word for it?"
Well you can say that the other way too.
Jun 6, 2018
D2Girls
59
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I believe this is the most likely case
Jun 6, 2018
elira
199
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I'm convinced not to buy it. And I'm doubting Massdrop ethics. This is not good for the audio community, and Airist negating something that is evident without action from Massdrop is sad.
Jun 6, 2018
Ron1319
5
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I used to do PCB design and although it does seem like somebody used the other design as a template, I agree that it's such a small part of the overall design and a pretty trivial layout. I don't know enough about patents to know whether it's too simple to patent for sure or not, but I suspect it's not protected. I don't know how many people reading this are going to understand just how simple that layout is, though. To someone who designs PCBs, it's trivial. Like.. throw it together in an hour trivial.
Jun 6, 2018
bunkbail
177
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Well, sosolar has explained himself and the tech behind the R2R module at length over at head-fi thread, whereas Tse is doing feck all on explaining why the exact pcb layout is used and go about explaining irrelevant things that we can actually find on google by ourselves.
Jun 6, 2018
rastus
855
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Jun 6, 2018
sosolar
238
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
What I expected is either MD cancel this drop, or compensate some credit for me. For Airist Audio, I will still talk to our lawyer for further move. And for customers, I hope you would enjoy my balanced version which is using exceptional better clocking circuits and better PSU at Hongkong Exhibition 2018.
Jun 6, 2018
Pierre111
365
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Can I hire you? You certainly work much much faster than me, I'd like a guy that could throw this kind of thing in an hour any days, that would be gold.
Jun 6, 2018
A community member
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Circuit board design and circuit schematics are not covered under copyright law. The courts ruled on this decisively decades ago in the Mackie vs. Behringer lawsuit, enabling Behringer to openly clone and sell other manufacturer's designs under their own brand/trademark without recourse.
Patent infringement is another matter, but R2R ladder DACs have been around for decades, and are not patentable. Something must be new technology and involve and "inventive step" to be patentable, amongst other things. And, any patent that might have existed on R2R DAC topology would've expired long ago.
Quit being armchair attorneys and enjoy the product. Nothing improper has been done here.
Does anyone here who is complaining use an Android smartphone? If so, you're being hypocritical.
To sosolar, differentiate your product via marketing, make improvements to your design to stay one step ahead of Massdrop/Airist, or come up with something new that qualifies and get a patent. This is how competition benefits us all.
Jun 6, 2018
sosolar
238
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Thank you for you kind remind. We still need to talk to them about this. Anyway, we have developed some other fascinating DACs to release soon.
Jun 6, 2018
VBar
43
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Massdrop might be in a bit of panic now, but you really can't blame them for what happened till now. The Airist Audio team is the one that copied your design and Massdrop is just hearing about this about 24 hours back. They should be getting their facts straight and preparing a response or decision. Let us leave the judgement till we see their response.
As for me, I hope they don't cancel this drop, but, rather reach some sorts of an agreement with you. As all the big-shots at HF and SBAF seems to approve this DAC, it is also an attestation of your work. More than anything, it makes a finished R2R DAC available for us at an affordable (?) price point. But I do believe financial compensation is in order since you did part of the work in a product they are trying to market, what ever the laws of the land says about intellectual property.
Jun 6, 2018
willsw
27
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
While the legal aspects of it are being discussed out of curiosity, the core impropriety is that in the niche world of speciality audio products and DIY, people want credit given where credit is due. Even if they wanted to roll the product out and start selling it without mention of the Hibiki board, all they needed to do was acknowledge whatever needs to be acknowledged regarding the similarities. This isn't a billion dollar industry. Admitting that you based your little DAC on a pre-existing design isn't going to result in lawsuits and huge profit loss. If they had a semi-competent person speaking for them, it wouldn't even be a lasting issue to explain that they'd used the board (if this is true) and they won't be sharing profit with sosolar.
We're talking about a small market of moderately priced luxury goods being sold through a limited platform. The stakes aren't legal. The stakes are whether people like you.
Jun 6, 2018
willsw
27
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Out of curiosity, do you make completed DACs or offer OEM sales? Has any company made a commercially available DAC using your boards?
Jun 6, 2018
sosolar
238
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
As we are small team working on our spare time, OEM is very welcome, seriously. We also make our own DACs, ready to release this year.
Jun 6, 2018
WilliamTse
103
Founder, Airist Audio
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
The top PCB on the RDAC has a visually similar layout to the Hibiki board, but they were developed independently.
You can read more here: https://www.massdrop.com/buy/massdrop-x-airist-audio-r-2r-dac/talk/2100186
Jun 6, 2018
Volly
284
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Sosolar, is the price of this dac favorable or do you feel for the money you could improve on the value of this product further.
Another question, how does this particular DAC perform with the power delivery chosen by Airist?
Jun 6, 2018
g_v_l
76
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Legalities aside, the smell from this product is enough to dismiss it IMO. There are other entry-level R2R options from respectable shops like Soekris and Metrum for not that much more $.
Jun 6, 2018
sosolar
238
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
You got another point, 6656 using here is not suitable for ladder because it produce 50uvrms noise, while my design(6654) can go deep to 1uvpp that make the sound purer, darker. This should be a costdown point for Airist.
Jun 6, 2018
Volly
284
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
This is what I was afraid of. How much more costlier would it have been to implement a better power supply/delivery? Given that there is no room for upgrading this particular unit, then perhaps with a LPS?
Jun 6, 2018
bunkbail
177
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
So, he cut some more corners to save some bucks? They use cheap connectors and micro USB ports (micro USB in a desktop device LUL), and that still not enough? No wonder why it measured like shit.
Jun 6, 2018
nwimpney
196
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
That's beyond visually similar. I'm not buying it, figuratively or literally.
Jun 6, 2018
sosolar
238
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
nope, 6654/6656 share the same footprint. It is simply a costdown(probably from 3 USD to 2USD), but 350 times noisier.
Jun 6, 2018
Volly
284
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Thanks for your time on this sosolar, you've definitely confirmed my suspicions!
Jun 6, 2018
verifonix
726
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Damn I hope they read this comment.
Jun 6, 2018
Jotunn
77
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I wonder if many take your same approach the cost will be reduced... just curious.
Jun 6, 2018
nobi_one
37
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
And here I was - wondering why there was so much empty space behind in the chassis (in the official pics) for a collaboration piece...
search
Hope things get sorted out asap!
Jun 6, 2018
A community member
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I agree it looks very close. So what.
There are only so many ways to lay out pixels on an LCD screen, and there are only so many ways to lay out a pair of resistor ladders on a board, along with the buffers and other components required.
There is going to be a particular optimal routing of the traces to avoid noise, induction, oscillation, etc. There is only so much space that 48 SMD resistors are going to require on a PCB, which will dictate size.
For all we know, all of these boards were independently designed with extremely similar characteristics based upon widely accepted best design practices for this type of circuit using what would prove to be consensus components given the cost target.
And, if the board was essentially copied, so what. There is no intellectual property there. The circuit topology is nothing more than a commodity, and I could do that board layout from scratch in a few hours tops in a CAD application, probably less. So, nobody is being deprived of the fruits of any significant labor.
If anything, the fact that a couple of well-known and well-regarded companies implemented a clone of his design (if that is indeed a fact) could actually lend credence to his heretofore relatively unknown design and name and boost the sales of his competing product.
Jun 6, 2018
Huxleigh
83
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
To the last two points...
I am not a qualified engineer. But it is not my understanding that the board is the only element of @sosolar's DAC that has been copied. The misappropriation being alleged seems far more extensive than that. This includes a prototyping and revision process that, presumably, requires far more effort and expenditure than replicating a widely understood board layout.
To date, no official attribution has been given to @sosolar for his design of the DAC in question. The extent that he is receiving any recognition is due entirely to his own efforts to call attention to the impropriety he is alleging. On the contrary, Massdrop has opted to stand behind @WilliamTse's (rather tortuous) claim that the design of the DAC is exclusive to Airist Audio.
Reasonable people can make up their own minds as to the merits of each disputant's case. I have little doubt further information will emerge one way or the other.
Jun 6, 2018
A community member
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
There is nothing immoral or illegal about researching other non-patented circuit designs and/or board layouts and using them as a basis for your design. The courts have ruled definitively about this, and this is how it is done. I suggest researching Mackie v. Behringer, or even the reverse-engineering of IBM's proprietary BIOS chip to enable PC clones, and the legality thereof. Whether you are making cars, televisions, smartphones, or litter boxes, you look at the existing technology, you determine which implementations have worked best, and you implement some clone or combination thereof, perhaps with some of your own improvements. Certain things are protected intellectual property, and certain things are not. The item in question here is not. Period.
Do you people get bent when the vast majority of audio amplifiers designed and sold over the past several decades don't credit James Bongiorno for the dual-differential, fully complementary topology?
Jun 6, 2018
A community member
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I agree, I hope the original designer of the board is fairly compensated. And fair compensation for a non-copyrightable, non-patentable, commodity of a design completely devoid of intellectual property is exactly $0.
Jun 6, 2018
Huxleigh
83
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I'd encourage you not to take (further) offense, but you're just repeating yourself...
Reiterating basic legal theory and practice, albeit correctly, doesn't really address the salient issues. I do not expect Massdrop would have proceeded with the marketing and sale of this product if they were not receiving sound legal advice as to their potential liability in an intellectual property and/or contract dispute.
You can rest easy knowing that you've made your own position on the legalities of the matter quite clear.
Jun 6, 2018
VBar
43
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
I really don't have much to say about the financial compensation part as the views of the people and laws of the land differs where ever you look. But giving credit where it is deserved is common courtesy. It happens all the time even in open source software development. It is a standard people try to uphold. @WilliamTse mentions that they approached an external consultant for designing/engineering the circuit board. It could even be this person who just copied a working design off a DIY board (I am not sure about the feasibility of this, as my knowledge in this field is lacking). But, it is a bit of unfair practice considering @sosolar is planning on releasing their own fully-built devices this year.
Well, unfair is not illegal, so I will stop here.
Jun 6, 2018
localmotion
1
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
"There is nothing immoral or illegal about researching other non-patented circuit designs and/or board layouts and using them as a basis for your design."
Yet said defendant already said it was pure coincidence they are the same, there was no research of @sosolar board/designs.
Jun 6, 2018
A community member
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Jun 6, 2018
bunkbail
177
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
It was literally in Tse's first response lmao. "I was not aware of your project until you posted here." What he posted 10 hrs after that was just damage control and passing responsibilities onto other party, basically saying "don't blame us, blame the people we hired to clone the board, while we sit over here claiming the original work as ours and reaping the rewards."
Jun 6, 2018
Thanks for posting, will be curious to see what the answers are to this.
Jun 6, 2018
nwimpney
196
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
This is exactly the problem. Stating outright that it's an independent design that just "looks similar" when it clearly is a copy. There are too many variables that some things would end up different, no matter how well understood the basic circuit is.
If the design has no value, and (according to several users on this thread) could be easily thrown together in an hour or two, why copy it?
This isn't a case of similar general layout of a well known circuit topology. It's a straight up clone.
Even if it's legal, it's a scummy thing to do. Especially the part where he claims it's their own design.
If he had said "Here's a dac we implemented, based on a board design we found wherever." "we improved x,y,z, and added whatever features on the base board", etc. That would at least be the truth, and whether or not the original creator is compensated, buyers at least know who did what, and have a more realistic idea of the design practices.
I doubt that anyone who would simply copy a significant board in the design has put in a whole lot of engineering time measuring and/or revising things for the best results.
Jun 6, 2018
Will
6608
Chief Product Officer
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
The RDAC is unrelated to your project, but if you want to discuss it further, you can email me: will@massdrop.com
Jun 6, 2018
bunkbail
177
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
People with enough braincells can tell that Hibiki DAC is 100% related to the RDAC smh my head
Jun 6, 2018
Inorbit
79
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Wow, just wow. You've not talked to sosolar yet but you already made such a statement "The RDAC is unrelated to your project"? How can you be so sure? Just because Tse said so? Or did you see irrefutable prove? I'm just curious.
Jun 6, 2018
WilliamTse
103
Founder, Airist Audio
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
As I explained, our engineer researched existing implementations and came across the Hibiki on the Chinese audio forums. He drew on this and other boards, including the Soekris and MSB implementations, as the basis for the layout. The design of the 4-layer top PCB of the RDAC goes deeper than the component layout and it is not the same design as the Hibiki.
You can read more about the development process here: https://www.massdrop.com/buy/massdrop-x-airist-audio-r-2r-dac/talk/2100186
Jun 6, 2018
nwimpney
196
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Looks to me like the main dac board is a direct clone. I've done more than enough PCB design to know how impossibly unlikely it is for the boards to end up that similar without something fishy going on. Best case is that they both copied the design from some reference PCB design floating around elsewhere, and are both lying about it being their own original design. More likely case is that it's a total ripoff. Whether there's value added elsewhere, (on the big empty base-board, case, etc.) doesn't change the fact that there's some dishonesty going on.
Jun 6, 2018
nwimpney
196
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Cool story. You stick with it.
Jun 6, 2018
Afterman
229
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Oooh, I want a balanced version
Jun 6, 2018
verifonix
726
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
All you people being so crazy about balanced, what's the effin' point?
Jun 6, 2018
eyeshield21
36
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
MD in full denial mode lmao
Jun 6, 2018
Afterman
229
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Because my amp has those plugs so I want a DAC with those plugs to match and be utilized so it will look hella awesome when I look at it while listening to it.
Jun 6, 2018
verifonix
726
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Hahaha fair enough at least you're not telling me it will sound better ;) +1 to you
Jun 6, 2018
user73
338
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
But... if I make a sandcastle on Earth #1, and you make a sandcastle on Earth #2, what are the chances that our sandcastles would be so similar?
Never mind that they both look like castles, or even the same castle for that matter, as there are only so many ways to conceptualize a simple sandcastle. But the same dimensions, window placement, crenelation, and corbels? And with all but a couple stones placed the same, with such similar mortar lines between them?
I would have a difficult time being convinced that we didn't use the same mold, or that our molds weren't at least created in the same mold-making machinery, maybe by the same mold-makers, or even that one of us didn't somehow acquire inspiration from the other, intentionally or otherwise, with or without good intentions.
I mean - it's certainly possible that we both came up with the same thing. Right? And in such a case, I know I'd be pretty... surprised, and shocked - speechless even. What about you though? Would you be surprised? I would think so, and I'd find it kind of weird if you were instead defensive, and quite verbose about it , and proceeded to educate me on the history of sandcastles that... don't look like ours.
Pretty sticky situation. Best of luck to you and your team in navigating it.
Jun 6, 2018
WilliamTse
103
Founder, Airist Audio
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Hey user73,
The engineer we worked with for the RDAC drew inspiration for the layout from several different sources, including implementations of R-2R from MSB, Soekris, and the Hibiki. These informed the basic arrangement of components and served as a starting point for the rest of our design for that 4-layer PCB. In order to get the sound we wanted, that top board alone was not enough, hence the DSP, clocking, and other enhancements implemented on the bottom board.
You can read more about how the RDAC came about here: https://www.massdrop.com/buy/massdrop-x-airist-audio-r-2r-dac/talk/2100186
Jun 6, 2018
bunkbail
177
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
"I was not aware of your project until you posted here."
What happened to your first ever statement on this thread? It reeks, you know.
Jun 6, 2018
killerwingnut
24
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Yeah, that's the smoking gun here...
Jun 6, 2018
WilliamTse
103
Founder, Airist Audio
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
Hi bunkbail, I’m happy to clarify!
In the product development process, you build a team and assign responsibilities to the team. Those responsibilities come in the form of specifications and goals. The RDAC is a combination of several products. The top PCB, the bottom PCB, the PSU, etc. Separate team members managing separate parts.
I was unaware of the Hibiki top pcb design, it was not something I researched when writing the sign-magnitude conversion logic. After seeing sosolar’s post I asked the team member focused on the top PCB if he was familiar. He explained it was one of a variety of implementations he looked at, and took inspiration from over the course of designing our top PCB.
So to conclude, I was unaware of the Hibiki, thus my post saying as much, and the engineer who designed our top PCB had seen it before.
Jun 6, 2018
elira
199
Jun 6, 2018
bookmark_border
How likely do you think is going to be that swapping a Hibiki board for your very different one will lead to a perfectly working DAC?
Jun 6, 2018
Painiyff
50
Jun 7, 2018
bookmark_border
"engineer who designed the top PCB has seen it before." --- > then promptly goes to create an identical board. Hmm...
Jun 7, 2018
WilliamTse
103
Founder, Airist Audio
Jun 7, 2018
bookmark_border
Hey elira,
The Hibiki is physically incompatible the bottom board of the RDAC. The basic inputs to the top board of the RDAC are power and i2s signal, and the output is two channels of analog out. If you forcibly wire the inputs and outputs together in this way, you might be able to get sound out...or you might start a fire.
Jun 7, 2018
lkong
24
Jun 7, 2018
bookmark_border
Good to know your "engineers" can change the connector layouts. Only thing gets on fire here is your pants.
Jun 7, 2018
Heefty
1353
Jun 7, 2018
bookmark_border
Different connector layout means different pcb layout so he's got that one. I still don't understand why they didn't optimize the pcb for the components they're using though.
Jun 7, 2018
Hexophile
6
Jun 7, 2018
bookmark_border
Yes, and whether or not this layout has any standard industry implementation.
Jun 7, 2018
KopaZ
2
Jun 8, 2018
bookmark_border
try measuring the pins and see if they have identical voltage/resistance/capacitance?
Jun 8, 2018
Sopp
11
Jun 8, 2018
bookmark_border
You said "I was unaware of the Hibiki top pcb design, it was not something I researched when writing the sign-magnitude conversion logic. After seeing sosolar’s post I asked the team member focused on the top PCB if he was familiar. He explained it was one of a variety of implementations he looked at, and took inspiration from over the course of designing our top PCB. "
Now it seems you are quite familiar to the Hibiki board.
Jun 8, 2018
sosolar
238
Jun 8, 2018
bookmark_border
If someone could offer me one, I am willing to have a test even comparasion between mine.
Jun 8, 2018
nwimpney
196
Jun 8, 2018
bookmark_border
I'm not sure if you changed the positioning of the connectors on your board in other revisions, but it looks like it was redrawn without a space between them so they can use a single connector. Other than that, I would be very surprised if there's any functional difference.
Jun 8, 2018