|
|
Post by audiophill on Sept 17, 2016 7:08:20 GMT -5
Rhode Island
|
|
|
|
Post by alexbpm on Sept 21, 2016 21:00:31 GMT -5
Heck you guys could have a GTG with those two speakers and charge admission! I would play and fly out for that face-off. No pressure  |
|
|
|
Post by robo1967 on Oct 30, 2016 20:35:32 GMT -5
How do you like the double impact? Mine our on order. |
|
|
|
Post by audiophill on Oct 30, 2016 20:44:20 GMT -5
My Tekton Brilliance are Epic! As far as the double impact go they sound great but the pendragons seem louder.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 30, 2016 21:34:46 GMT -5
My Tekton Brilliance are Epic! As far as the double impact go they sound great but the pendragons seem louder. Is the double impact better than the brilliance or the pendragon? How does it compare? |
|
|
|
Post by audiophill on Oct 31, 2016 6:57:48 GMT -5
I prefer the detail of the brillance, however it's all room dependent. The brilliance are better for small rooms the double impact for large rooms. I do not think the brilliance would be able to fill a large room and vice versa I don't think the double impact would sound good in a small room. The pendragons are probably best bang for the dollar and can work in both large and small rooms. If you can spend the extra and have a small to medium size room the brilliance are awesome!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wideawake on Oct 31, 2016 13:50:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 31, 2016 14:26:21 GMT -5
Well he is saying he's figured out a way to overcome the limitations of mass with speakers. However, there is no information that I could find on how he acheives this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wideawake on Oct 31, 2016 16:41:51 GMT -5
The abstract says, "Improved speakers are better able to accurately reproduce sound through the use of low-mass transducers." This is not a new concept.
The problem statement itself is quite nebulous. There are no particulars provided in the current design of loudspeakers, other than the mass of the driver, that relates to itemized issues that this patent is attempting to solve. The "Field of the Invention" states, "The present invention relates to loudspeakers, and more particularly to designing loudspeakers to more faithfully and accurately reproduce signals." But, how has this been done? No mention of that anywhere in the document.
The rest of the document is essentially gibberish - at least to me. There is no method or process provided in building crossovers or electrical/physical interactions with the transducers or cabinetry to affect a better sounding speaker.
It seems like anyone can make vague statements and write up a document with some useless drawings and get a patent issued without any explanations or elaborations what-so-ever. How the heck did he get the patent office to grant him this patent? What constitutes the IP in this patent? Scratching my head!
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Oct 31, 2016 16:55:11 GMT -5
The abstract says, "Improved speakers are better able to accurately reproduce sound through the use of low-mass transducers." This is not a new concept. The problem statement itself is quite nebulous. There are no particulars provided in the current design of loudspeakers, other than the mass of the driver, that relates to itemized issues that this patent is attempting to solve. The "Field of the Invention" states, "The present invention relates to loudspeakers, and more particularly to designing loudspeakers to more faithfully and accurately reproduce signals." But, how has this been done? No mention of that anywhere in the document. The rest of the document is essentially gibberish - at least to me. There is no method or process provided in building crossovers or electrical/physical interactions with the transducers or cabinetry to affect a better sounding speaker. It seems like anyone can make vague statements and write up a document with some useless drawings and get a patent issued without any explanations or elaborations what-so-ever. How the heck did he get the patent office to grant him this patent? What constitutes the IP in this patent? Scratching my head! Well whatever someone comes up with, the proof is in the listening anyway. Either it sounds good to a potential buyer or it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 31, 2016 17:31:57 GMT -5
The abstract says, "Improved speakers are better able to accurately reproduce sound through the use of low-mass transducers." This is not a new concept. The problem statement itself is quite nebulous. There are no particulars provided in the current design of loudspeakers, other than the mass of the driver, that relates to itemized issues that this patent is attempting to solve. The "Field of the Invention" states, "The present invention relates to loudspeakers, and more particularly to designing loudspeakers to more faithfully and accurately reproduce signals." But, how has this been done? No mention of that anywhere in the document. The rest of the document is essentially gibberish - at least to me. There is no method or process provided in building crossovers or electrical/physical interactions with the transducers or cabinetry to affect a better sounding speaker. It seems like anyone can make vague statements and write up a document with some useless drawings and get a patent issued without any explanations or elaborations what-so-ever. How the heck did he get the patent office to grant him this patent? What constitutes the IP in this patent? Scratching my head! Well what he's saying is low mass transducers are still too heavy to reproduce overtones with proper speed but he's figured out a way to make it not so. I think what he's hinting at is that he'll use multiple transducers to make the speed higher. I'm gathering that by the way he uses the concept of movie frames. However, I don't see an explanation as to how. Maybe parts of a patent can be confidential? |
|
|
|
Post by audiophill on Oct 31, 2016 17:43:03 GMT -5
Proof is in the listening, anyone in the R.I. area want to come listen for yourself just ask and your welcome to audition! The brillance I have anyway which has the new patent pending.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Laufman on Oct 31, 2016 18:42:38 GMT -5
I've read a lot of patents, and this one has me scratching my head... I'm not sure what exactly is being protected... lots of words and not too much meaning. The oddest patent I've ever read. And apparently is has been granted. Go figure! Maybe Rory can enlighten a poor old fart like me... Rory?  |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Oct 31, 2016 19:23:33 GMT -5
It seems like anyone can make vague statements and write up a document with some useless drawings and get a patent issued without any explanations or elaborations what-so-ever. How the heck did he get the patent office to grant him this patent? What constitutes the IP in this patent? Scratching my head! It's pretty easy to understand; they have non-experts approving things that experts should be approving. Just like in politics; too many lawyers and not enough scientists/engineers. |
|
|
|
Post by lehighvalleyjeff on Oct 31, 2016 19:31:28 GMT -5
I'm getting a bit lost in the technical stuff here. Honestly for me I need to hear a speaker in order to truly guage whether it's a good fit for my system or not. Hopefully someone in PA will order a pair so I can actually hear these in action.
|
|
|
|
Post by adaboy on Oct 31, 2016 19:36:03 GMT -5
Lol, we do get caught up in the weeds on technical issues.
I think someone nailed it. You just have to listen for yourself. I have personally auditioned over half of his offerings and will stand with my observations and impressions. Tekton makes really good speakers sound wise. I have seen a lot prettier that's for sure but man do these things sound good.
Dont knock it until you try it. Btw Apple scratches patents on napkins and gets them approved. Not sure that part is rocket science.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wideawake on Oct 31, 2016 20:55:57 GMT -5
I'm not knocking his speakers. I have never heard them therefore I have no opinion about how they sound. And I wouldn't even have bothered to look at his patent had it not been for my curiosity regarding how he integrates tweeters with large bass drivers without utilizing a midrange driver (in some models, lest you guys jump on me about this too). When you have such a design you need to cross over those bass drivers quite high and when you do that with large drivers, the higher frequencies from the large drivers tend to beam at the xo point while the tweeter comes in at a wide dispersion. This causes acoustic anomalies that are difficult to properly recover from. I was hoping that his patent would provide some clues as to how he manages to do this. Having said that, you miss the point entirely by saying that his patent does not matter and that all that matters is whether or not the product sounds good; not to mention that it is an illogical argument. It's almost as illogical as saying I drive a red car therefore his patent does not matter. The two are unrelated! I hope you can see that. This person (Eric?) is making some claims that are clearly steeped in hyperbole. If he can be so brazen as to cite his demonstrably useless patent to suggest that all other speaker manufacturers' products are rendered obsolete because of his patent, then one is tempted to draw unfavorable conclusions as to his credibility. I thought it was just me who wasn't understanding the patent but big Dan echoed my observations too and nobody on this forum is able to explain what the IP consists of in this patent, as yet. If Eric's speakers are as good as some people say they are then why the need for such shenanigans? garbulky , you cannot hold back information in a patent if you want to protect your IP. If the information is not in the patent then you cannot protect against its unauthorized use. That's the whole idea of applying for a patent in the first place. This is the reason that many inventors choose not to file patents so as to not give away their secret sauce. Instead they rely on the first movers advantage to gain a footing in their market. |
|
|
|
Post by adaboy on Oct 31, 2016 21:13:42 GMT -5
I'm not knocking his speakers. I have never heard them therefore I have no opinion about how they sound. And I wouldn't even have bothered to look at his patent had it not been for my curiosity regarding how he integrates tweeters with large bass drivers without utilizing a midrange driver (in some models, lest you guys jump on me about this too). When you have such a design you need to cross over those bass drivers quite high and when you do that with large drivers, the higher frequencies from the large drivers tend to beam at the xo point while the tweeter comes in at a wide dispersion. This causes acoustic anomalies that are difficult to properly recover from. I was hoping that his patent would provide some clues as to how he manages to do this. Having said that, you miss the point entirely by saying that his patent does not matter and that all that matters is whether or not the product sounds good; not to mention that it is an illogical argument. It's almost as illogical as saying I drive a red car therefore his patent does not matter. The two are unrelated! I hope you can see that. This person (Eric?) is making some claims that are clearly steeped in hyperbole. If he can be so brazen as to cite his demonstrably useless patent to suggest that all other speaker manufacturers' products are rendered obsolete because of his patent, then one is tempted to draw unfavorable conclusions as to his credibility. I thought it was just me who wasn't understanding the patent but big Dan echoed my observations too and nobody on this forum is able to explain what the IP consists of in this patent, as yet. If Eric's speakers are as good as some people say they are then why the need for such shenanigans? garbulky , you cannot hold back information in a patent if you want to protect your IP. If the information is not in the patent then you cannot protect against its unauthorized use. That's the whole idea of applying for a patent in the first place. This is the reason that many inventors choose not to file patents so as to not give away their secret sauce. Instead they rely on the first movers advantage to gain a footing in their market. No arguments here, I just absolutely don't care about what's in the sauce... You are curious about his speakers and therefore are calling shenanigans without even hearing or seeing for yourself. Why don't you call Eric, and also audition a pair then you won't have to speculate. I'm not out to get you btw, I only chimed in because I have experience with them. I drove 12 hours to visit his shop, try it you'll like it. If not, no worries there are many speaker manufactures out there. I have heard all but one (T-1's) of Emotiva's offerings and I'll tell you as good as Emotiva's sound they aren't in the same ball park. Curious if Big Dan will admit to wanting Eric on board the Emo team.... Again Wideawake I'm not against you bud, you may have more technical knowledge on design and that is pretty cool, just chiming in with 1st hand listening knowledge. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by Wideawake on Oct 31, 2016 21:29:04 GMT -5
No arguments here, I just absolutely don't care about what's in the sauce... You are curious about his speakers and therefore are calling shenanigans without even hearing or seeing for yourself. Why don't you call Eric, and also audition a pair then you won't have to speculate. I'm not out to get you btw, I only chimed in because I have experience with them. I drove 12 hours to visit his shop, try it you'll like it. If not, no worries there are many speaker manufactures out there. I have heard all but one (T-1's) of Emotiva's offerings and I'll tell you as good as Emotiva's sound they aren't in the same ball park. Curious if Big Dan will admit to wanting Eric on board the Emo team.... Again Wideawake I'm not against you bud, you may have more technical knowledge on design and that is pretty cool, just chiming in with 1st hand listening knowledge. Thanks You say, "You are curious about his speakers and therefore are calling shenanigans without even hearing or seeing for yourself." You keep getting it all wrong! And I don't have the energy to elaborate any further. I'm happy for you if you own and like Tekton speakers. I get curious about a lot of things since I'm incredibly curious by nature and I'm constantly learning new things due to my curiosity. However, I'm not in the market for speakers. I know you're not "against" me. It's all good. Enjoy your speakers. |
|
|
|
Post by audiophill on Nov 1, 2016 6:30:36 GMT -5
Want more to scratch your heads At! Look at his new subwoofer a single 18" driver and 2 8" driver's with 1600 watts. Wouldn't the 18"driver cancel out the 2 8" drivers? By the way the brilliance are awesome I love them! Don't care about the new patent, the brilliance speakers sound awesome!
|
|
