I'm sorry, you answered the question about first notch frequency here https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...loading-in-a-synergy-horn.338678/post-5822331
Well, that information is actually in both Danley patents (6411718 and 8284976) and the third-party PDF file that was posted here from Facebook. In a nutshell, since the lower frequency drivers in an MEH are not at the horn throat entrance, there will be a frequency at with cancellation occurs for each of the drivers that are off the central axis of the horn (the "off-axis" ports. The corresponds to a 1/4 wavelength distance from the off-axis post location(s) to the throat of the horn. This determines the upper limit of the lower frequency driver (mostly...) and is a major design point in an MEH design--i.e., where do you put the off-axis ports?
Here is a plot of the K-402-MEH woofers and the Danley SH-50 (series 2) woofer port raw response--no EQ is used, showing in the case of the K-402-MEH the two notch frequencies (~720 Hz and 1900 Hz), and the notch frequencies of the SH-50 (650 Hz, ~1300 Hz):
Chris
It didn't cost me a thing. In fact, the encouragement to use the first notch frequency in my crossover to avoid patent issues was actually beneficial to my final K-402-MEH crossover schema. It actually works much better to cross at the woofers' first notch downslope than at a lower frequency, since I then discovered that I don't need to use canned crossover filters to find a good crossover schema.
I do have to place EQ notches at ~1200 and ~2300 Hz to attenuate the two higher response peaks above the first and second notch frequencies, respectively. Those two PEQs in the woofer output channels were the only "extras" that I had to deal with besides the relatively simple attenuating PEQs for the woofer's peaking response (IIRC, it takes only two PEQs to flatten the woofer response to ±1.5 dB above 100 Hz,
Chris
I do have to place EQ notches at ~1200 and ~2300 Hz to attenuate the two higher response peaks above the first and second notch frequencies, respectively. Those two PEQs in the woofer output channels were the only "extras" that I had to deal with besides the relatively simple attenuating PEQs for the woofer's peaking response (IIRC, it takes only two PEQs to flatten the woofer response to ±1.5 dB above 100 Hz,
Chris
Last edited:
There's no patent infringement until you sell a product that incorporates the patent or a part of it.
DIY clones for personal use are totally legally fine, and completely moral.
For DIY, there's simply no need for worry about patent infringement, or use the term 'MEH', unless you feel the need for sanctimony.
Read US8284976. It provides an answer. However, I found that it didn't apply in the case of the K-402-MEH.
I suspect that the narrow SH-50 using a 1" compression driver and relatively deep woofer ports from the horn mouth probably had a detrimental effect on phase and group delay flatness through the first notch frequency. Higher order crossover filters are not used in Danley's SH-50, but there are quite a few notch filters (EQing peaks flat) in the crossover network.
The SH-50 is actually a good example of a "phase link" design. The four midrange drivers cover just over an octave of passband.
Chris
Any thoughts on the angle of the J7 horns and why they alternative directions? I guess how is summation achieved if they're shooting different directions? I would Assume it's 45 degrees each way since it's a 90 degrees box and then it appears that the center two point straight out, whereas the top and bottom three angle up and down, respectively.
Not to jump into this thread on the wrong foot but you are absolutely incorrect about this, in fact the patent author himself, Tom Danley, on this very website has said that is not true. https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/tar-tiny-array-of-ripoles.309865/post-5134538
You can copy/reproduce/modify/improve any patent as much as you want without any worry as long as you are not selling the product or information, patents are not intended to stop innovation just financially protect against direct clones from business competitors. As soon as you have financial incentive to use the patent you must pay royalties.
Without seeing this thread i too somehow independently drew up an almost identical design recently even down to the same drivers and waveguide, i think the appeal comes from looking at the recent J7 & J8 boxes (J8 just being a taller/bigger version from what i can see) and the output and density being very desirable.
However, the more i look into this i have noticed the J7 is the least similar synergy horn danley has made yet far and appears to deviate surprisingly far from their original design philosophy. The magical paraline/horn combiner they have had multiple iterations of in the past appears to be gone and appears to now be two tightly packed rows of compression drivers attached to standard waveguides shooting in alternating directions which seems contradictory to keeping the acoustic masses close for better coupling. The midbass drivers are no longer mounted on the walls bandpass 4/6 style as in most (all?) previous synergy designs, and now appears to be some kind of tapped horn with a small outlet that just happens to be a round hole similar in appearance to the older designs but acoustically has nothing in common. I saw a pretty good picture somewhere on this site that showed it but am struggling to find it again, will update if i can find it.
At least on the DIY version i drew up the driver we picked are not that surprising, they are basically some of B&C's newest and best products and show obvious advantages. For the horn stacking with the ME148 i initially figured it's basically the same if not slightly better than multiple line array boxes directly on top of each other, but after digging deeper into waveguide research im no longer so convinced this is a good solution. While it still has appeal i do question what the sound quality is from the J7/J8 in comparison to older boxes and i'm not as convinced as i was a few weeks ago. Currently looking back to a smaller simpler design with just one coaxial cd and 4x 10's maybe, i only really need output down to 70-80hz as i plan to use with subwoofers so going bigger than 10's/12s seems unnecessary.
Yep, what you say of course makes practical sense.
Patent lawyers will argue forever, as to what the "letter of the Patent Law" means.
Well, I should say argue until the client quits paying to get its desired meaning accepted by the court...Lol
Anyway, of course a pure hobbysist with no financial incentive, can make a patented product before the patent expires,
Heck, even if there is an eventual financial incentive, even a business competitor can make the product before the patent expires....
as long as there is no realization of financial gain during the patent period.
How else could a firm like B&C could announce their coaxial ME464 for sale, the day after the applicable BMS patent expired?
You think they pulled an all-nighter to make one real quick? haha
Good observations. When I first saw the J7, I was like, wow this is really different from the synergy line.... the SH50, 90x60, etc.
To me, the J7 seemed more like a line array stuck into a single box.
I can imagine how with enough listening distance, it can sum more like a point source, but i can't see how it could do so at closer distances, like the early synergy products can.
But all that said, I certainly haven't had a J7 to listen to...
I too, like the idea of building DIY synergies that only go down to 100Hz. Saves a ton of size and weight. And besides, every box needs a sub anyway!!
70-80Hz is a little tough though, as I've needed reflex ports to get that extension with 12"s, (& 10", and 8"s)..
And the problem with that is, then a bigger box is needed around the horn, raising size and weight dramatically.
Ime, a single ME464 is a pretty good SPL match for two 12"s, provided the 12"s are only asked to pull duty down to 100Hz. I don't have enough experience below that to say how the matchup would hold.
Your thoughts on four 10"s make sense....I guess it would come down to how easily could they mount with the ports where they need to be.
Good luck, keep us posted
@LeviathanBaphomet there are J7 internal images here: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/constant-curvature-tweeter-array.388439/#post-7149222 its a 3 way design but I am unsure how the midranges are tapped into the main horn, I was presuming they are still 4th order bandpass. The bass drivers are horn loaded with the horn mouth constricted by the entry hole into the main horn. I have seen a DIY design with the same bass arrangement and it has not much impact on the response.
Is your plan to use ME148 waveguides for the tweeters?
Regarding the behaviour of these large Danley products .gll files are available so you can look at the baloon data to see how good/bad they are. I haven't done this, some of this data has been processed for presentation here: https://www.spinorama.org/?sort=date&reverse=false&search=dan
Is your plan to use ME148 waveguides for the tweeters?
Regarding the behaviour of these large Danley products .gll files are available so you can look at the baloon data to see how good/bad they are. I haven't done this, some of this data has been processed for presentation here: https://www.spinorama.org/?sort=date&reverse=false&search=dan
Hi LeviathanBaphomet, mark100,
The guidance is not personal opinion, but the relevant law, whether a statute or case law. To wit, 35 U.S. Code §154(a)(1) recites (emphasis supplied):
"Every patent shall contain a short title of the invention and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, of the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States, and, if the invention is a process, of the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling throughout the United States, or importing into the United States, products made by that process, referring to the specification for the particulars thereof."
Kindest regards,
M
The guidance is not personal opinion, but the relevant law, whether a statute or case law. To wit, 35 U.S. Code §154(a)(1) recites (emphasis supplied):
"Every patent shall contain a short title of the invention and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, of the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States, and, if the invention is a process, of the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling throughout the United States, or importing into the United States, products made by that process, referring to the specification for the particulars thereof."
Kindest regards,
M
Last edited:
Hi M,
the personal opinion that DIY is aok, reflects the "law" much better than the statute, because it syncs with how case law has been applied over many years.
Search it out, if you're so inclined.....
To simply quote the US Code is at best throwing darts as to what the "law" really means...
I used to work with lawyers extensively on contract law...even had to build and oversee an inhouse legal team team simply to reduce legal expenditures.
Trust me, you can't just quote statutes.....
I believe the problem is "indirect infringement" on your part, Mark, and how many users choose to build their own based on your instructions posted to this forum. You become liable as if you produced the items yourself, making you the infringer, not the DIYers that build from your instructions:
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6081&context=law_lawreview
If Mr. Danley's lawyer (or his boss at DSL) chooses to move against your posts on the subject, you may be in legal jeopardy. I certainly wouldn't put myself into that position cavalierly. Retirement doesn't pay that well...
In the case of the K-402-MEH that I've made and have shown the design to others, the design makes use of the woofers being crossed above the first notch frequency (through use of notch filters above the woofers' first notch frequency of ~490 Hz), and uses straight delay on the LF channel equivalent to 90 degrees at 490 Hz to sum the woofers and compression driver in-phase without induced excess phase shifts or excess group delay:
It's important to read the patents carefully, I've found. One can still get the phase response performance of the "Synergy" patent (US8284976) without infringing on the claims of patent. But how you handle the crossover is important--even though the crossover itself isn't discussed in the patent claims.
(FYI) It should also be noted that the Danley SH-50 also doesn't appear to need US8284976 since at least its woofers actually produce output above its first notch frequency--and the crossover actually sums the woofer and midrange outputs above the first notch frequency to produce its output.
Chris
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6081&context=law_lawreview
If Mr. Danley's lawyer (or his boss at DSL) chooses to move against your posts on the subject, you may be in legal jeopardy. I certainly wouldn't put myself into that position cavalierly. Retirement doesn't pay that well...
In the case of the K-402-MEH that I've made and have shown the design to others, the design makes use of the woofers being crossed above the first notch frequency (through use of notch filters above the woofers' first notch frequency of ~490 Hz), and uses straight delay on the LF channel equivalent to 90 degrees at 490 Hz to sum the woofers and compression driver in-phase without induced excess phase shifts or excess group delay:
So the K-402-MEH is actually made to the US6411718 patent (now expired):
It's important to read the patents carefully, I've found. One can still get the phase response performance of the "Synergy" patent (US8284976) without infringing on the claims of patent. But how you handle the crossover is important--even though the crossover itself isn't discussed in the patent claims.
(FYI) It should also be noted that the Danley SH-50 also doesn't appear to need US8284976 since at least its woofers actually produce output above its first notch frequency--and the crossover actually sums the woofer and midrange outputs above the first notch frequency to produce its output.
Chris
Last edited:
Hi Mark,
I am not quite sure what do you mean by the phrase that a personal opinion "reflects the 'law' much better than the statute, because it syncs with how case law has been applied over many years." If you mean that companies in general do not sue (the few) people who make or use the infringing product personally, that is not "applying the law". Can you please clarify? Actually, ignore the clarification, I am out of this discussion as per infra.
I did quote the statute to illustrate that LeviathanBaphomet was wrong that "selling the product or information" is the only infringing activity.
Please see above. You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you want, but if you read court's opinions, they always start with statutory law and then apply case law in their analysis.
Hi Cask05,
Arguably, mark100, would be a direct infringer, if the product that he makes and uses infringed on the claims of a patent in force. He also might be found as "inducing infringement" under your scenario, cf. 35 U.S. Code § 271.
Correct, The reliance on Mr. Danley's statement is one of the fallacies of LeviathanBaphomet for many reasons in addition to what you posted.
This is my last post on the subject, because: (i) the discussion is tangential to the topic of the thred, and (ii) reciting support for arguments is met with the "trust me, I know better" attitude.
Kindest regards,
M
I am not quite sure what do you mean by the phrase that a personal opinion "reflects the 'law' much better than the statute, because it syncs with how case law has been applied over many years." If you mean that companies in general do not sue (the few) people who make or use the infringing product personally, that is not "applying the law". Can you please clarify? Actually, ignore the clarification, I am out of this discussion as per infra.
I did quote the statute to illustrate that LeviathanBaphomet was wrong that "selling the product or information" is the only infringing activity.
Please see above. You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you want, but if you read court's opinions, they always start with statutory law and then apply case law in their analysis.
Hi Cask05,
Arguably, mark100, would be a direct infringer, if the product that he makes and uses infringed on the claims of a patent in force. He also might be found as "inducing infringement" under your scenario, cf. 35 U.S. Code § 271.
Correct, The reliance on Mr. Danley's statement is one of the fallacies of LeviathanBaphomet for many reasons in addition to what you posted.
This is my last post on the subject, because: (i) the discussion is tangential to the topic of the thred, and (ii) reciting support for arguments is met with the "trust me, I know better" attitude.
Kindest regards,
M
Chris , M, if you guys want to play airchair lawyers, reading letter of the law statutes on the net, and passing judgements .. good luck....
Chris, as ridiculous as i think your infringement arguments are...i'm gonna play along
Well, as i intend to lay out..given your thinking...you are the one who might want to think more about jeopardy...
Ok, you've talked ad nauseum about the "Danley method of xovers". Time and time again.....
All I have ever advocated is steep linear phase xovers...totally different than anything to be found in the patent(s).
Hmmm, who's closer to infringing here ????
You lay your defense on the minor technicality of crossing the woofers above the first notch frequency....????
Really?? that's trivial minutiae type, letter of the law thinking, imnsho..
I'll tell you where my line on my infringement is....if I were in any way enjoying economic benefit...I would be infringing on.....and as far as I can tell, the courts would agee, rightly so. Common law is wiser than statutes, it constantly reinterprets them in terms of purpose, fairness, and plain common sense.
If I were only using my DIY Syns for local gigs, gaining economic benefit....my sense of equity says I'm violating the patent.
And Chris, just thinking about folks taking forum advice as evidence of infringement....
Like said earlier, I always advise steep linear phase xovers...I've yet to see anyone do that.
Oh, and I advise to skip cramming low ports into corners, and go for the center...I'm still looking for folks to try that....
The only thing i've advised in common with the patents, is putting drivers on a dang pyramid...ala Unity, which hass expired.
On the other hand, you seem to have a number of folks following your full advice....your talking about how the synergy patent took the unity patent further, with the Danley xover method...but i guess you don't have to worry, you've got it call overed with the above the first notch frequency stuff. Lol
Come on man, get real, peace...
I apologise for derailing this thread so hard, patents are a tricky topic for sure.
Yes i am aware what i said directly contradicts the legal wording but i was intending to address the 'spirit' and 'intent' of patents more so than the legal definition. Each case of potential patent infringement is unique and has it's own set of ethical+moral angles to be assessed and it's not always clear when things cross the line, i am not trained in any kid of law what i have said is opinion but from what i believe is a common sense perspective. This whole discussion could easily be it's own hundred page long thread.
At the end of the day, many have and will try to recreate multiple entry horns, synergy style and will likely make some good copies but real danley boxes will always be the most desireable and it will be difficult to achieve the same level of understanding as the inventor.
A few thoughts do come up, if the inventor is aware of small or large scale infringement but makes not attempts to stop it do they lose any rights/ownership of their invention? Similar to how if one does not attempt to defend a trademark you can lose exclusive usage of it? What if they are aware but it's not financially realistic to do so? In the case of speakers, does the use case matter; if one keeps the speaker just in their lounge is that different to bringing them out for gigs, does it matter if the gig is for profit or not? I think we can all agree straight up making and selling synergy horn type boxes is a violation but the lesser use cases are not so clear cut.
Back to the speaker -
Not sure about if i'd still use the ME148 for a single compression driver design, i think the horn shape of a synergy usually loads the driver enough to not need an extra waveguide, i would likely go traditional style with the horn leading back to just the opening of the exit diameter of the CD. Keeping the opening small helps reduce the size of the box a bit and no longer has the added depth from the waveguide.
Yes i am aware what i said directly contradicts the legal wording but i was intending to address the 'spirit' and 'intent' of patents more so than the legal definition. Each case of potential patent infringement is unique and has it's own set of ethical+moral angles to be assessed and it's not always clear when things cross the line, i am not trained in any kid of law what i have said is opinion but from what i believe is a common sense perspective. This whole discussion could easily be it's own hundred page long thread.
At the end of the day, many have and will try to recreate multiple entry horns, synergy style and will likely make some good copies but real danley boxes will always be the most desireable and it will be difficult to achieve the same level of understanding as the inventor.
A few thoughts do come up, if the inventor is aware of small or large scale infringement but makes not attempts to stop it do they lose any rights/ownership of their invention? Similar to how if one does not attempt to defend a trademark you can lose exclusive usage of it? What if they are aware but it's not financially realistic to do so? In the case of speakers, does the use case matter; if one keeps the speaker just in their lounge is that different to bringing them out for gigs, does it matter if the gig is for profit or not? I think we can all agree straight up making and selling synergy horn type boxes is a violation but the lesser use cases are not so clear cut.
To me at least, this 'method' of making tiny technical changes to avoid violating a patent is pedantic and really highlights the difficulties of this whole situation and ignores the entire intent of patent law. If you think doing this makes you any more legally safe than anyone else making copies you are imaging it and it's only for your own mental comfort and a weird way to justify it.
Back to the speaker -
The MF in the J7 are Beyma 6MCF200Nd i believe. They do indeed still appear to be joined in 4th order style/offset horn, i presume super close to the HF section to achieve reasonable coupling as they play quite high, im guessing covering around 400hz-2k region possibly.
Not sure about if i'd still use the ME148 for a single compression driver design, i think the horn shape of a synergy usually loads the driver enough to not need an extra waveguide, i would likely go traditional style with the horn leading back to just the opening of the exit diameter of the CD. Keeping the opening small helps reduce the size of the box a bit and no longer has the added depth from the waveguide.
I think the thing to keep in mind is you still want a good octave or two of solid output below the frequency you want to cross at otherwise when pushed to higher power levels things might not sound so great.