Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Audio "Exciters"??

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 7:39:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Can Some one Tell me who makes a good Brand of Audio Exciter??

More about : audio exciters

Anonymous
November 9, 2004 8:18:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>From: stressmane@aol.com (Stressmane)
>Date: 11/8/04 11:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20041108233918.06500.00000165@mb-m22.aol.com>
>
>Can Some one Tell me who makes a good Brand of Audio Exciter??
>
>

Aphex Aural Exciter is a good one.
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 8:18:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 09 Nov 2004 05:18:46 GMT, bruwhaha58097238@aol.com (Raymond) wrote:

>>From: stressmane@aol.com (Stressmane)
>>Date: 11/8/04 11:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20041108233918.06500.00000165@mb-m22.aol.com>
>>
>>Can Some one Tell me who makes a good Brand of Audio Exciter??
>>
>>
>
>Aphex Aural Exciter is a good one.

Aural exciters: Handjobs for the audio inept.



http://liondogmusic.com
Related resources
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 8:18:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Rick Ruskin" <liondog@isomedia.com> wrote in message
news:uhl0p0hm3iar6vsr68q91loc659iah27ja@4ax.com...
> On 09 Nov 2004 05:18:46 GMT, bruwhaha58097238@aol.com (Raymond) wrote:
>
> >>From: stressmane@aol.com (Stressmane)
> >>Date: 11/8/04 11:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <20041108233918.06500.00000165@mb-m22.aol.com>
> >>
> >>Can Some one Tell me who makes a good Brand of Audio Exciter??
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Aphex Aural Exciter is a good one.
>
> Aural exciters: Handjobs for the audio inept.
>


i have a love/hate relationship with a bbe "sonic maximizer".
November 9, 2004 9:14:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Rick Ruskin wrote:

> On 09 Nov 2004 05:18:46 GMT, bruwhaha58097238@aol.com (Raymond) wrote:
>
>
>>>From: stressmane@aol.com (Stressmane)
>>>Date: 11/8/04 11:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <20041108233918.06500.00000165@mb-m22.aol.com>
>>>
>>>Can Some one Tell me who makes a good Brand of Audio Exciter??
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Aphex Aural Exciter is a good one.
>
>
> Aural exciters: Handjobs for the audio inept.
>
>
>
> http://liondogmusic.com

And sometimes a handjob's just the ticket.
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 11:16:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Stressmane" <stressmane@aol.com> wrote in message news:20041108233918.06500.00000165@mb-m22.aol.com...

> Can Some one Tell me who makes a good Brand of Audio Exciter??


For the sake of simplicity, the Aphex "Type B" exciter is a cool tool to
have around for giving life to poorly recorded tracks. The "Type C" is
a POS (IMHO), and the BBE line is a very different beast in operating
principle - ok for more of a 'time-alignment' thing when dealing with
synth tracks and sampled sounds.

Probably the most usable of the lot is the Aphex Type III... almost as
long out of production as the Type B, but a lot more bells & whistles
and can be used for light noise reduction as well.

The best 'exciter' is a well recorded track and a well balanced mix.


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 12:49:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <20041108233918.06500.00000165@mb-m22.aol.com>,
Stressmane <stressmane@aol.com> wrote:
>Can Some one Tell me who makes a good Brand of Audio Exciter??

I don't think such a thing really exists.

The two big ones are the BBE and the Aphex, both of which have very different
spectra. For salvaging poorly-made recordings, I think they are both about
par although they do sound different.

Everyone and his brother are making these things now, though. Rolls makes
one. There is even a module available from ADT that goes into their V700
racks.

I think any one of them is probably useful for salvage work, and that's really
about all the exciter is useful for.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 2:20:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Stressmane wrote:
> Can Some one Tell me who makes a good Brand of Audio Exciter??

* Prosoniq mixCiter [1]
* Steinberg Spectralizer
* BBE [2] also has a DirectX version

Of these three, I liked the mixCiter most. Spectralizer may sound a bit
harsh.

[1]
<http://products.prosoniq.com/cgi-bin/register?service=s...;
[2] <http://www.bbesound.com&gt;

Johann
--
Hint: Netzkultur und Umgangsformen sind Thema.
(*Tönnes in <cc3b3o$i57$00$1@news.t-online.com>)
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 2:20:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <419099dc$0$20943$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>,
johannburkard@nexgo.de says...
> Of these three, I liked the mixCiter most. Spectralizer may sound a bit
> harsh.

The Oxford Inflator plugin (available on PowerCore and ProTools) is also
in essence an exciter, though it's not marketed that way. It worked
really well for me yesterday to make the lead vocal cut through a busy
a cappella mix.

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 10:25:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message news:cmqle2>

> I think any one of them is probably useful for salvage work, and that's
> really
> about all the exciter is useful for.



Exciters can help salvage a dull and unrepeatable track. But it's better to
get the tone /life you want in teh recording stage.

Routine exclusive use is tiresome, and to be avoided.

geoff

PS Remember when Winelight came out, and the cover notes enthused about the
recording made extensive use of the then-new Aphex Aural Exciter ? Whatever
happened to Grover ?

PPS I prefer Oral Exciters .....
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 10:25:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:awikd.723$3U4.61952@news02.tsnz.net...
>
> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message news:cmqle2>
>
>> I think any one of them is probably useful for salvage work, and that's
>> really
>> about all the exciter is useful for.
>
>
>
> Exciters can help salvage a dull and unrepeatable track. But it's better
> to get the tone /life you want in teh recording stage.
>
> Routine exclusive use is tiresome, and to be avoided.
>
> geoff
>
> PS Remember when Winelight came out, and the cover notes enthused about
> the recording made extensive use of the then-new Aphex Aural Exciter ?
> Whatever happened to Grover ?

For awhile there, that was part of the licensing/use agreement - you had to
credit it on the album.

Neil Henderson
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 10:25:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote in message news:Tbpkd.26122$Al3.5739@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...

> For awhile there, that was part of the licensing/use agreement - you had to
> credit it on the album.
>
> Neil Henderson


Careful there... you're showing your age... How about a hundred bucks
per running minute to use the 'exciter' on your mastering edit ?


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 1:57:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:06:38 -0500, David Morgan \(MAMS\) wrote
(in article <i0rkd.3098$2h7.1448@trnddc03>):

>
> "Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:Tbpkd.26122$Al3.5739@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> For awhile there, that was part of the licensing/use agreement - you had to
>> credit it on the album.
>>
>> Neil Henderson
>
>
> Careful there... you're showing your age... How about a hundred bucks
> per running minute to use the 'exciter' on your mastering edit ?
>
>
>

And to add to that bit of history....

DIDJA know that the aural exciter was the result of a bad chip in a monitor
amp circuit? Something sounded nasty during a mix session. They tracked it
down to a bad piece of circuitry that was spewing harmonics on one channel.
When they combined to mono, (reducing the amount of effect) they sort of
liked what it did. The rest is history.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 9:24:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5tadnV9c5rt5Fg7cRVn-qw@comcast.com...

> And to add to that bit of history....
>
> DIDJA know that the aural exciter was the result of a bad chip in a
monitor
> amp circuit? Something sounded nasty during a mix session. They tracked it
> down to a bad piece of circuitry that was spewing harmonics on one
channel.
> When they combined to mono, (reducing the amount of effect) they sort of
> liked what it did. The rest is history.

That's interesting, because the folks at Aphex have also told a very
different story: the founder of the company said he built a Dynakit tubed
power amp (I think a Mark III) and miswired it. He said he liked the result
so much that...

The fact that they're telling two wildly divergent stories about how the
idea got started leads me to suspect that both of them are bullshit. I
suspect the founder read Russell Hamm's famous article in JAES and decided a
distortion generator would be just the ticket.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 3:41:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Z7Okd.7869$7i4.4509@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

> "Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:5tadnV9c5rt5Fg7cRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>
> > And to add to that bit of history....
> >
> > DIDJA know that the aural exciter was the result of a bad chip in a
> monitor
> > amp circuit? Something sounded nasty during a mix session. They tracked it
> > down to a bad piece of circuitry that was spewing harmonics on one
> channel.
> > When they combined to mono, (reducing the amount of effect) they sort of
> > liked what it did. The rest is history.
>
> That's interesting, because the folks at Aphex have also told a very
> different story: the founder of the company said he built a Dynakit tubed
> power amp (I think a Mark III) and miswired it. He said he liked the result
> so much that...
>
> The fact that they're telling two wildly divergent stories about how the
> idea got started leads me to suspect that both of them are bullshit. I
> suspect the founder read Russell Hamm's famous article in JAES and decided a
> distortion generator would be just the ticket.
>
> Peace,
> Paul



I thought it was a Dyna preamp, but, same idea.

Anyway, I'm amazed they ever got a patent on this at all.

Somewhere in my pile of papers, I have a copy of a patent that predates
the Aphex patent by many years, and yet the circuit concept is
essentialy identical.

Didn't Aphex sue Behringer for stealing their "idea"? I found that to be
darkly humorous...

-bruce seifried
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 3:41:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

bruce seifried <vze2qwtg@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>Anyway, I'm amazed they ever got a patent on this at all.
>
>Somewhere in my pile of papers, I have a copy of a patent that predates
>the Aphex patent by many years, and yet the circuit concept is
>essentialy identical.

That's okay, there have been plenty of folks patenting the same system
since then too. TDS is one of the more interesting ones. For some
serious amusement, check out patent 5,361,304. The circuit isn't the
same (and in fact the circuit does not function the way the patent says
it does.... the effect produced is the result of overshoot and ringing
in the coil), but the overall results are quite similar.

>Didn't Aphex sue Behringer for stealing their "idea"? I found that to be
>darkly humorous...

No, Aphex sued Behringer for stealing their circuit design and their PC
board layout, to the point that the Aphex logo was still on the Behringer
boards.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 6:23:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>No, Aphex sued Behringer for stealing their circuit design and their PC
>board layout, to the point that the Aphex logo was still on the Behringer
>boards.

Not to open old wounds, but did anybody actually see one of the Behringer
circuit boards with Aphex written on it? Or is that another Urban Legend?

I'm told the owner's manual was a very close rip off, and I have no doubt that
the circuit was very similar too. As I understand it, Uli worked for Aphex at
one time, so I can understand how circuit ideas "migrate." But the logo?
November 12, 2004 7:52:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia.com> wrote in message news:<uhl0p0hm3iar6vsr68q91loc659iah27ja@4ax.com>...

> >
> >Aphex Aural Exciter is a good one.
>
> Aural exciters: Handjobs for the audio inept.
>
>
>
> http://liondogmusic.com

My analogy of audio exciters/BBE thingys is they are a lot like eating
cotton candy. When you start out they taste great. By the time you are
done you have a bad taste in your mouth and your hands are all sticky.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 8:02:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

chuxgarage@aol.com (ChuxGarage) wrote in message news:<20041112102355.21770.00000501@mb-m14.aol.com>...
> >No, Aphex sued Behringer for stealing their circuit design and their PC
> >board layout, to the point that the Aphex logo was still on the Behringer
> >boards.
>
> Not to open old wounds, but did anybody actually see one of the Behringer
> circuit boards with Aphex written on it? Or is that another Urban Legend?
>
> I'm told the owner's manual was a very close rip off, and I have no doubt that
> the circuit was very similar too. As I understand it, Uli worked for Aphex at
> one time, so I can understand how circuit ideas "migrate." But the logo?

I wouldn't believe it for a second. It's just too preposterous a deed
to have been committed by any sane person and, say what you like about
him, Uli Behringer is clearly not unhinged.

The venom spewed forth against Behringer in this group and elsewhere
is extraordinary (though it seems to have abated of late), no doubt
once fuelled by an effective whispering campaign by the company's
indignant competitors.

Let us not forget that the revered Jim Marshall took his first step on
the road to fame and riches by stealing Fender's amplifier designs.
And wasn't Gibson's humbucker patented? Not aware that anybody has
ever paid royalties on their stolen versions of the design. And what
about PRS, anybody? Paul has just been *proved* by a court of law to
be a thief. Yes, an absurd finding, I agree, but no doubt every bit as
valid as the possibly apocryphal case that establishes Behringer in
the popular mythology as a coven of rogues.

Raglan
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 1:16:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Raglan <somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za> wrote:
>chuxgarage@aol.com (ChuxGarage) wrote in message news:<20041112102355.21770.00000501@mb-m14.aol.com>...
>>
>> I'm told the owner's manual was a very close rip off, and I have no doubt that
>> the circuit was very similar too. As I understand it, Uli worked for Aphex at
>> one time, so I can understand how circuit ideas "migrate." But the logo?
>
>I wouldn't believe it for a second. It's just too preposterous a deed
>to have been committed by any sane person and, say what you like about
>him, Uli Behringer is clearly not unhinged.

No, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to be done in a place where intellectual
property is considered free, and where duplicating someone else's design is
considered flattery. The Chinese attitude is very different than yours and
mine in this regard, and it's a cultural thing.

I am sure that Uli did not do this himself. The question is how soon he found
out about it.

>The venom spewed forth against Behringer in this group and elsewhere
>is extraordinary (though it seems to have abated of late), no doubt
>once fuelled by an effective whispering campaign by the company's
>indignant competitors.

I've never used any of the Behringer gear, so I have no reason to spew hate
about it. But I have seen the photos and much of the court transcript from
the Aphex suit and the later Mackie suit.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 5:48:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike" <mmeprod@mmeproductions.com> wrote in message

> My analogy of audio exciters/BBE thingys is they are a lot like eating
> cotton candy. When you start out they taste great. By the time you are
> done you have a bad taste in your mouth and your hands are all sticky.

Are you sure that isn't a Hollywood casting couch scenario?

Neil Henderson
November 13, 2004 7:38:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

If anyone's interested in a top-o-the-line exciter, the Aphex 250 Type
III, drop me an email or call, as I have one for sale. It is muuuuch
better than the more common, inexpensive exciters.

You can read up on it at:

http://www.aphex.com/250.htm



David Correia
401-247-0218
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

CelebrationSound@aol.com
www.CelebrationSound.com
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 9:44:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<cn3ub5$jr8$1@panix2.panix.com>...
> Raglan <somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za> wrote:
> >chuxgarage@aol.com (ChuxGarage) wrote in message news:<20041112102355.21770.00000501@mb-m14.aol.com>...
> >>
> >> I'm told the owner's manual was a very close rip off, and I have no doubt that
> >> the circuit was very similar too. As I understand it, Uli worked for Aphex at
> >> one time, so I can understand how circuit ideas "migrate." But the logo?
> >
> >I wouldn't believe it for a second. It's just too preposterous a deed
> >to have been committed by any sane person and, say what you like about
> >him, Uli Behringer is clearly not unhinged.
>
> No, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to be done in a place where intellectual
> property is considered free, and where duplicating someone else's design is
> considered flattery. The Chinese attitude is very different than yours and
> mine in this regard, and it's a cultural thing.
>
> I am sure that Uli did not do this himself. The question is how soon he found
> out about it.
>
> >The venom spewed forth against Behringer in this group and elsewhere
> >is extraordinary (though it seems to have abated of late), no doubt
> >once fuelled by an effective whispering campaign by the company's
> >indignant competitors.
>
> I've never used any of the Behringer gear, so I have no reason to spew hate
> about it. But I have seen the photos and much of the court transcript from
> the Aphex suit and the later Mackie suit.
> --scott

So you're suggesting that Uli handed over an Aphex product to his
Chinese subcontractors for reverse engineering, and they proceeded to
go a bit too far? It's possible, I suppose, but wasn't the early
Behringer stuff actually produced in Germany?

As for the court transcripts, I remain a little sceptical. Cases such
as this are usually decided on the papers, and only seldom on argument
in court. Is it possible that you've seen the plaintiffs' affidavits
but not the respondent's replying affidavits? That would make your
view of the cases somewhat unbalanced.

I've used a fair bit of Behringer gear for live sound, and I've found
it adequate, cheap and also reliable, contrary to much of the foaming
opinion I read on Usenet. And the company does seem to be moving into
a new league. If you haven't tried the DEQ2496 (a notably original
product as far as I can see), you might like to.

Raglan
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 10:16:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote in message news:LBeld.25196$bP2.19538@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Mike" <mmeprod@mmeproductions.com> wrote in message
>
> > My analogy of audio exciters/BBE thingys is they are a lot like eating
> > cotton candy. When you start out they taste great. By the time you are
> > done you have a bad taste in your mouth and your hands are all sticky.
>
> Are you sure that isn't a Hollywood casting couch scenario?
>
> Neil Henderson
>
>

Lolly-pops... cotton candy... what the heck.
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 11:44:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"ChuxGarage" <chuxgarage@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041112102355.21770.00000501@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >No, Aphex sued Behringer for stealing their circuit design and their PC
>>board layout, to the point that the Aphex logo was still on the Behringer
>>boards.
>
> Not to open old wounds, but did anybody actually see one of the Behringer
> circuit boards with Aphex written on it? Or is that another Urban Legend?
>
> I'm told the owner's manual was a very close rip off, and I have no doubt
> that
> the circuit was very similar too. As I understand it, Uli worked for
> Aphex at
> one time, so I can understand how circuit ideas "migrate." But the logo?

The actual PCB foil negative maybe ? Or design file if hat technology...

geoff
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 3:51:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Raglan <somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za> wrote:
>So you're suggesting that Uli handed over an Aphex product to his
>Chinese subcontractors for reverse engineering, and they proceeded to
>go a bit too far? It's possible, I suppose, but wasn't the early
>Behringer stuff actually produced in Germany?

That fits the facts that I have seen, and I can't think of a better
explanation. If you can, let me know.

This, incidentally, is not in any way unusual. I recently declined to
review a product sold by a company who has "their own factory in China."
I sent them a copy of the schematic (which really took me no longer than
an hour to figure out), showing how their device worked and why it wasn't
a good idea, and they called me back to thank me profusely because they
didn't have a copy of the schematic and had been trying to get one from
the factory for a while.

>As for the court transcripts, I remain a little sceptical. Cases such
>as this are usually decided on the papers, and only seldom on argument
>in court. Is it possible that you've seen the plaintiffs' affidavits
>but not the respondent's replying affidavits? That would make your
>view of the cases somewhat unbalanced.

I have seen all of the filings that were made public, which indeed may
not tell all of the story at all. If there's any more information out
there, I would welcome seeing it.

>I've used a fair bit of Behringer gear for live sound, and I've found
>it adequate, cheap and also reliable, contrary to much of the foaming
>opinion I read on Usenet. And the company does seem to be moving into
>a new league. If you haven't tried the DEQ2496 (a notably original
>product as far as I can see), you might like to.

Right now I am trying to _avoid_ trying out new gear....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 12:51:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Raglan" <somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> I wouldn't believe it for a second. It's just too preposterous a deed
> to have been committed by any sane person and, say what you like about
> him, Uli Behringer is clearly not unhinged.

Well they did get pinged for actually creating a net-list to clone the
MAckie 24.8, it is said.

> And wasn't Gibson's humbucker patented?

Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".

geoff
www.paf.co.nz
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 12:51:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message news:<VWjld.1129$3U4.99092@news02.tsnz.net>...
> "Raglan" <somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> > I wouldn't believe it for a second. It's just too preposterous a deed
> > to have been committed by any sane person and, say what you like about
> > him, Uli Behringer is clearly not unhinged.
>
> Well they did get pinged for actually creating a net-list to clone the
> MAckie 24.8, it is said.
>
> > And wasn't Gibson's humbucker patented?
>
> Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
> pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".
>
> geoff
> www.paf.co.nz

It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
serves.

Raglan
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 6:22:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Raglan" <somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za> wrote in message >> Don't know if
it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
>> pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".
>>
>> geoff
>> www.paf.co.nz
>
> It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
> the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
> serves.

So it's understandable why others thought it had 'No patent' ?!!!

;-)

geoff
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 6:22:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Geoff Wood <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:

> "Raglan" <somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za> wrote in message >>

> >> Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
> >> pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".
> >
> > It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
> > the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
> > serves.
>
> So it's understandable why others thought it had 'No patent' ?!!!

Patents only last for a certain period (20y?). The very idea with
patents is to spread technology and make it available to others. The
inventor is given a protected period where he is granted monopoly for
the protected invention and in return, when that period is over, the
invention is placed in the public domain for all to use. If one wants to
prevent a competitor to use a certain invention for ever then a patent
is not the way.

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 8:59:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Can Some one Tell me who makes a good Brand of Audio Exciter??

Craane Song HEDD.

It's what the Aphex Aural Exciter wanted to be and wasn't.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 9:04:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Audio "Exciters"??
>From: somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za (Raglan)
>Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2004 6:02 PM
>Message-id: <45eabfb.0411121702.78fe284f@posting.google.com>


>Let us not forget that the revered Jim Marshall took his first step on
>the road to fame and riches by stealing Fender's amplifier designs.


Not Fender designs to begin with, they were RCA designs and the patents had
probably expired..
>And wasn't Gibson's humbucker patented? Not aware that anybody has
>ever paid royalties on their stolen versions of the design. And what
>about PRS, anybody? Paul has just been *proved* by a court of law to
>be a thief. Yes, an absurd finding, I agree, but no doubt every bit as
>valid as the possibly apocryphal case that establishes Behringer in
>the popular mythology as a coven of rogues.
>
>Raglan
>

Behringer lost the case. Case closed!
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 12:39:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mail.addr.can.be.found@www.farm.se (Lars Farm) wrote in message news:<1gn8l9o.tbt0ta7j8lmgN%mail.addr.can.be.found@www.farm.se&gt;...
> Geoff Wood <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:
>
> > "Raglan" <somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za> wrote in message >>
>
> > >> Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
> > >> pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".
> > >
> > > It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
> > > the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
> > > serves.
> >
> > So it's understandable why others thought it had 'No patent' ?!!!
>
> Patents only last for a certain period (20y?). The very idea with
> patents is to spread technology and make it available to others. The
> inventor is given a protected period where he is granted monopoly for
> the protected invention and in return, when that period is over, the
> invention is placed in the public domain for all to use. If one wants to
> prevent a competitor to use a certain invention for ever then a patent
> is not the way.
>
> Lars

Very true. However, the patent could not have expired before others
started cloning the humbucker. Gibson's patent would have been applied
for c. 1957, and granted c. 1960.

Raglan
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 12:43:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

rickpv8945@aol.com (Richard Kuschel) wrote in message news:<20041114130401.12272.00000792@mb-m28.aol.com>...
> >Subject: Re: Audio "Exciters"??
> >From: somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za (Raglan)
> >Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2004 6:02 PM
> >Message-id: <45eabfb.0411121702.78fe284f@posting.google.com>
>
>
> >Let us not forget that the revered Jim Marshall took his first step on
> >the road to fame and riches by stealing Fender's amplifier designs.
>
>
> Not Fender designs to begin with, they were RCA designs and the patents had
> probably expired..

I defer to your superior knowledge.

> >And wasn't Gibson's humbucker patented? Not aware that anybody has
> >ever paid royalties on their stolen versions of the design. And what
> >about PRS, anybody? Paul has just been *proved* by a court of law to
> >be a thief. Yes, an absurd finding, I agree, but no doubt every bit as
> >valid as the possibly apocryphal case that establishes Behringer in
> >the popular mythology as a coven of rogues.
> >
> >Raglan
> >
>
> Behringer lost the case. Case closed!
> Richard H. Kuschel

Which one may as well say about Paul Reed Smith losing his case to
Gibson earlier this year. Except I don't think many reasonable people
would.

Raglan
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 12:13:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Just for the record, I'm looking at a couple of Gibson humbuckers I
bought in the early 70's and they both have a sticker on the bottom that
says "PAT NO." followed by a number that's unfortunately scratched off
beyond recognition.

@D

Geoff Wood wrote:
>
> Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
> pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".
>
> geoff
> www.paf.co.nz
>
>
!