agedhorse

Tastes in speakers and speaker voicing certainly have changed. What we) as designers) can do with Neo drivers is something we had been wishing for decades ago. This is a better example of player’s constantly asking for something that designers were unable to deliver until the new technology came about.

Not IME, provided you have access to a QUALIFIED technician who knows how to CORRECTLY diagnose problems. In quality amps, failures of the power amp and class D sections are really quite rare. Most failures are related to exactly the same issues faced by older school amps, though overall the newer amps are better designed and built, with better quality parts. When there is a power supply or power amp failure, generally it's less expensive to replace the power module in a class D amp than it is to repair a class AB/G/H amp of similar power rating. Many older amps are not economically repairable with such failures because the cost of repair exceeds the value of the amp... ie. you can buy a used amp for less than it would cost to repair the bad one. With cheaper amps (say <$300), unless the shop is very good and accurate with diagnosis, it may not be worth repairing regardless of the type of amp. This is the nature of a highly efficient manufacturing environment. This is not an are where I have extensive experience, this mentality is at odds with the companies I have worked for throughout my career.

Actually, how an amp sounds when it's driven hard is not so much the type of power supply and power amp, but the intent of the designer and the choices made in voicing and dynamics of the circuitry. Music has evolved, so have the designs at the same time. If the voicing and dynamics response of an older school amp or voicing choices appeal more to you, then that's what you should play, and quit disparaging those who don't share your personal preferences and tastes.

This is not true, and most (not all) amp manufacturers no longer make class AB amps anyway, so why would they say this? IME, those who do not offer class D amps are the ones who have struggled with, or stumbled badly with class D technology. Those who haven't stumbled have not looked back and continue to move forward. This is not true of Mesa, certainly since 2014 when they "discovered" how much better and more reliable class D is. In most cases, they don't. Many switchmode power supplies are MUCH beefier than their heavy line frequency supplies, especially at 230V/50Hz. A quick test of SMPS output impedance shows how obvious this is too. Why can't those folks who live and die by the heavy gear as a preference refuse to acknowledge that other players might have different preferences and tastes that are just as valid? I've designed gear in both camps, each amp model does exactly what I intended with regards to performance and voicing with ZERO regard for the amp's size, weight or technology used.

Made in Italy or Indonesia?

Things are improving somewhat, but we are still backlogged by months. I’m still frustrated, that’s not improving

Can’t fix stupid…or lazy!

If the copper is damaged like this, there is something very wrong with the cable.

The proper footswitch won't damage your amp either!

The difference in maximum volume between the D-800 and D-350 is just about 3dB It's not a practice amp, it's a totally giggable amp with the features of the D-800, but with the bright switch replacing the deep switch, less power, convection cooling (no fan), smaller, lighter and with a USB power port. The D-350 doesn't support 2 ohms. An amp this low powered wouldn't be the ideal choice for driving the typical cabinet combinations that would make up a 2 ohm load, these players would be better served by the D-800 anyway.

Agreed, not a 120 watt heavy combo.

Cone damage (creasing) is always a result of too much power, exceeding the mechanical power handling limits of the driver. This can occur in both ported and sealed speakers, where the displacement (or the axial force) exceeds the ability of the materials to resist deformation. Generally it’s much easier to cause this damage in ported speakers driven below Fb or F3, but it can happen in a sealed cabinet as well. About 25 years ago, it was seen that an inherent design flaw in the cone edge design in many speakers was contributing to this as available amplifier power increased. An industry wide redesign of cone edges greatly reduced this tendency. The problem is similar to what we see in high voltage electronics, corona stress that occurs at sharp edges and bends, but in a mechanical device results in a high fatigue density of the paper, resulting in a crease over a fairly short period of time.

With every argument about cause and effect, there is an argument that disputes it. For example, combining multiple point sources creates an inconsistent midrange pattern as you move horizontally and vertically relative to the centerline of the cabinet. This may or may not be a problem in the real world for all players, no different than the argument about beaming in a 15" driver which doesn't result in the uneven sound field but may or may not be a problem with reduced off axis response to all players. Every solution has pros and cons, understanding this will help when making choices between the different options.

Sales of ongoing models pay for the R&D costs of new products. Perhaps after say 20 years it could become public domain, that would offer some protection? It doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t really belong to them, it a justification of a behavior.

With no legitimate safety approvals on any of these products, “shower of sparks” is a great example of “you get exactly what you pay for”.

With no legitimate safety approvals on any of these products, “shower of sparks” is a great example of “you get exactly what you pay for”.

With no legitimate safety approvals on any of these products, “shower of sparks” is a great example of “you get exactly what you pay for”.

This is a good point. Copying a response doesn’t appear to be protected because there’s generally no illusion or confusion as to buying a copy of the original circuit or a copy of the original physical amp (a “clone”) and the original amp. Regarding modelers, I have mixed feelings on this because the process and resulting products do exploit the work and costs associated with developing the original products, but on the flip side, reputable, honorable modelers often license (at a cost) the IP from the original product being modeled so the original designers and company are compensated for their work.

Depends on the IC, maybe possible, but seems high to me. If I were to guess, it would be closer to 5000-ish.

Agreed, once a product is discontinued that is different. One challenge is that in today’s modern world, an existing successful product’s future success can be severely hampered merely by a press release and renderings promising something “similar” for much lower cost. This is the premise for some companies releasing vapor ware products (a promise of a competing product with no intention of ever releasing it). I was hoping to stimulate some discussion and appreciation for what designers and companies developing new products often struggle with, and why pushing the state of the art can be so costly.

The Veyron was introduced long before 2015, I don't remember exactly when it started shipping, but the introduction, the pictures and the price swayed dealers not to buy an already successful product when there would be competition coming at less than 1/2 the price. This is one way that damage is done (and the basis of Mackie's claims for damage valuation). There is a difference between buying discontinued IP and simply taking current IP as their own. They did not buy anything, and there are numerous examples of this going back decades. For the most part, they appear to stay on the "legal" side of the line, though it doesn't make things any less painful for those of us who have seen our work used in ways we didn't intended. I was hoping that folks here might better appreciate the effort and cost that goes into developing new and innovative products and how appropriating work that was done by others does hurt those doing the work. The saddest part of this IMO is that they are fully capable of developing any level of technology and creativity in-house. They are a very capable, resourceful company, as capable as any company out there, yet their business model doesn't showcase their ability in that way. Some of their other business groups (like Midas, KT, TC) have in fact done considerable development (both creative and technological), and they seem to have avoided most of this. https://books.google.com/books?id=iQ4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=behringer+copying+mackie&source=bl&ots=tjIVlmIe82&sig=ACfU3U24ffjkT8_3AXtgoR8EA9tCFUe0XQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiw2uDsye_3AhX5lI4IHSVVDigQ6AF6BAgcEAM#v=onepage&q=behringer copying mackie&f=false https://cdm.link/2009/09/on-behringers-track-record-value-and-copies/ https://musictech.com/news/gear/behringer-swing-controversy/ https://macprovideo.com/article/audio-hardware/curtis-family-speaks-out-against-behringer-synth-clone-plans-using-cem3340 https://www.svconline.com/proav-today/behringer-launches-td-3-clone-of-roland-tb-303

This happened while the product was popular, BEFORE the product was discontinued.

Then let them develop their own cosmetics and feature sets rather than copy somebody else’s. When I was in school taking exams, I wasn’t allow to copy somebody else’s work. That was called cheating or plagiarism.

Yes, it matters to those who worked hard, or paid for the considerable costs of developing such. It affects us for sure. It should also matter to players, because advancements in design and technology come from reinvestment of earnings from preceding products. Not paying for the cost of R&D reduces costs and enables cheaper products but can impact future advances by other more innovative, creative products. Are you suggesting that it’s ok to take the work of others as long as it’s cheaper, even if the work is not yours?