Angry Jesus writes:
There is a lot of snake oil in the audiophile world. A few years ago the pseudonymous NwAvGuy decided to do something about it. Not content to just criticize the hucksters, he designed a $130 headphone amp that competes with $1000 models. NwAvGuy released the design under the Creative Commons CC BY-ND license (attribution, no derivatives) and freely collaborated on revising it with multiple manufacturers looking to build and sell the amp. All he wanted was credit and to see that no one would take his design and degrade it with inferior modifications.
Then he disappeared. "In July 2012, NwAvGuy went silent. E-mails weren't returned, and blog posting ceased. 'He had gone quiet before -- for a month or so,' says Boudreau. But no one has heard a peep from NwAvGuy in more than a year and a half."
Since then some of the parts used in the last revision have been discontinued and one of the best values in high fidelity audio can't be manufactured anymore because NwAvGuy is no longer around to approve any changes.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Subsentient on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:38AM
I'd be surprised -- but not by much -- to hear that businesses hired someone.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 3, Interesting) by buswolley on Wednesday March 26 2014, @07:52AM
Is this the same guy that released a bunch of stomp box designs too?
subicular junctures
(Score: 1) by mwvdlee on Wednesday March 26 2014, @09:35AM
But such a company would benefit from making the hire as public as possible; why hasn't anybody done so?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jimshatt on Wednesday March 26 2014, @10:18AM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by zocalo on Wednesday March 26 2014, @11:06AM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:09PM
If he died 3 years ago, who renewed his domain 9 months ago?
(Score: 4, Informative) by zocalo on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:38PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:17PM
Sure, there are probably an infinite # of possibilities, but occam's razor and all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:08PM
Perhaps you missed where it was mentioned that the design was released under a *no derivatives* license - which explicitly prohibits forking, or in fact any modifications whatsoever not specifically approved by the original creator.
(Score: 1) by Acabatag on Wednesday March 26 2014, @07:21PM
Forking it might then be a good way to resolve the question of where they have gone. Fork it, publicly, and see if anybody delurks.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by stderr on Wednesday March 26 2014, @08:05PM
If you had a "no derivatives" clause in your license, would you "delurk" right after someone forked your project or would you wait until the forked version was used by a lot of people (meaning more money for you)?
Why don't you fork the project and see what happens?
alias sudo="echo make it yourself #" #
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:53AM
Anonymously produce a derivative work (preferably of equivalent or better quality) that can actually be built with parts available and see if he pops up as a result.
Alternatively post the changes you did to the original to actually make your own working version - so you're not actually distributing a modified work. The equivalent is posting the patch files so that others can apply the patches if they choose to.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 26 2014, @04:17PM
Why overthink this? If someone violates NwAvGuy's license by making a derivative, and he then sues that someone, guess what -- he'll be found and it may be possible to cajole him into the update. If he doesn't sue, then his license terms are meaningless because a license is not an actual bar to derivation, it is a right of the license holder to enforce the agreement to not derivate. It's like a stop sign. No stop sign can actually stop a car from running it -- If you do blow through a stop sign and a cop sees you, you'll get fined, but nothing actually physically prevents you from rolling right on through.
Unlike the stop sign example though, either outcome (getting away with it/getting busted) seems favorable. NwAvGuy would probably welcome others who release designs in a manner aligned with his goals (not a certainty -- maybe he went evil) in which case he'll either remain silent and not enforce his license, or come forward and approve or modify the derivation. Of course, he could also sue for damages -- though those might be hard to prove and small considering the way he gave away the first design providing the second design is similarly non-profit -- but you never know, any lawsuit can be bankrupting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:13PM
You are missing the key point - it is a business risk. If NewAvGuy does show up he can trash all the investment the company has put into the production with impunity. Maybe he totally likes the updated design but has a personal beef with the company itself - they fired his brother-in-law for example - then they are completely at his mercy.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 26 2014, @06:06PM
No - I'm not missing the point. NwAvGuy, as I understand it, released a design anonymously for an amp DIYers can build. He never sold amps. Now, if Sony, or Joe Blow Corp, goes and modifies this design and sells stuff, then yes, there would be damages to get from the ill-gotten profits. But in the case of an anonymous designer releasing a mod and making no money, then what exactly would damages come out of? This guy had no expectation of profit on the original design -- how could he lose anything on a modified design for which no profits are generated?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday March 26 2014, @06:16AM
Compared to say something like this [cnet.com] or or this [cnet.com]? I'm afraid I'm not the best judge when it comes to headphones, 30 years of playing bass loudly means that high def and low def is pretty much the same to me but from the looks of the reviews maybe the reason I've never heard of this guy is sub $100 amps just isn't that rare anymore?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:18PM
Unfortunately those "reviews" are nearly specification free and almost entirely purely subjective.
The cnet reviews are actually pretty comedic, like a desktop computer review that discussed the exact tint of gray of a Dell desktop and the subjective feel of its boot process, but carefully avoided discussing cpu speed, memory size and speed, or fan noise levels.
The point of the O2 was its not very hard for a real EE to drop noise levels by 20 dB from hissy annoyance to near inaudible, or to produce crosstalk specs better than you can hear rather than annoying but tolerable, or near perfect channel balance (here's an amp thats so good, you don't really need a "balance" control to be inaudibly perfect). You can make a measurably and audibly better amp than an audiophile amp for practically nothing (well, nothing in comparison to the cost of an audiophile amp...)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:12PM
cnet reviews have been exposed in the past to be deliberately misleading based on corporate pressures. Sometimes the best products aren't even mentioned aside inferior ones in reviews, due to corporate influence. Trust no reviews from cnet.
(Score: 1) by Hairyfeet on Friday March 28 2014, @10:16AM
Insightful? Really mods? I ask how the amp in TFA sounds compared to amps at a similar and lower price range and a diatribe against Cnet rates insightful?
Careful guys, lets not end up another den of groupthink and bandwagons like the one we got away from, mmmkay?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by lil'wombat on Wednesday March 26 2014, @07:02AM
How enforceable is an electronic design under CC ND? Can I change some components? Adjust a layout? There are not any patents involved, the basics are known, so what is required to avoid the derivative label?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @10:26AM
Well, the only person who could enforce it at all apparently disappeared ...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 26 2014, @07:26AM
So Dr. Sung has disappeared, and no one can figure out how to make a positronic brain? Excuse me, but this sounds fictional. Or a rehash of the Herzog movie about der Rosenglas.
(Score: 5, Informative) by mwvdlee on Wednesday March 26 2014, @09:43AM
I think the problem is mostly a legal one.
The license for the schematics were No-derivatives; you can use the schematic but you're not allowed to change it.
Some parts required for the original schematic are no longer available; the schematic as is can no longer be produced.
The only person legally able to change the schematic is nowhere to be found.
I'm sure there are plenty of people out there capable of updating the schematic, they're just not legally allowed to do so (atleast not publically).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GeminiDomino on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:54PM
If the copyright is recorded as belonging to a pseudonym (it would have to be, or we'd know for certain who the guy was), and he has passed away as some others in this thread have suggested, then what's to stop someone another EE from adopting the pseudonym, posting a fake excuse about his domain being pwned, and putting out some "officially revised" schematics?
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hubie on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:32PM
Are you not allowed to swap compatible components in this license? What constitutes a change in design? I can see adding or removing components that change the functionality of the circuit, but you're not allowed to swap in a similar component for one that isn't made any more? What about a case, for instance, where you have four amplifiers in your design and you use four amplifier chips, but later a 4-in-1 amplifier chip comes out; I wonder, if you swap that one chip for the previous four, is that a disallowed change? This sounds odd to me.
(Score: 2) by ls671 on Wednesday March 26 2014, @07:43AM
Of course. In any field of activity, there is so called "men in black" watching to protect the establishment although this specific case might be unrelated to that.
Everything I write is lies, including this sentence.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Dr Ippy on Wednesday March 26 2014, @10:36AM
Or even $1,000?
You can do the job with a decent op-amp and maybe a couple of transistors for a Class AB output stage. Been there, done that; was a pro audio designer back in the '70s.
Fools and their money are soon parted.
This signature intentionally left blank.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @10:59AM
I highly doubt that you have even read the specs for this amp. How about you go do that now, and report back and let us know if you still think you can do everything that one does with one op amp and a couple transistors. If so, you must be the most amazing engineer ever.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @11:23AM
Yeah, in the 70's, you could still reasonably do it with a $2 12AX7 and actually have a class A amplifier!
(Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:08PM
Pretty sure his name was Hans Camenzind. An extremely highly respected analog EE who did some important amp design work and died in his sleep a short time after the blog went dark. You may have heard of one of his side projects, the 555 timer chip, although I always thought of him as an amp guy. He was a reasonably good author, for an EE, and his writing is vaguely consistent with the writing in the blog. At least there was nothing in the blog that stuck out like a sore thumb thinking of the last time I read his book(s). He also wrote non-EE stuff.
The overall story and writing style sounds a lot like a long format Bob Pease magazine article, I grew up reading those, so I should know its a good match, and certainly fit his very public outlook on audiophiles, and Pease was one of the old amp guys so this would be right up his alley. Pease died about a year earlier so its not him.
Could be a protege or fan of those two guys. Different designers have a "language" sorta how they do stuff and talk about stuff and if its a protege its probably a protege of Pease. I'm in the Pease fan club and I could probably have pulled off that amp design, at least if it was my best day ever. I think on SN you all know how after working with some programmers for awhile the code they work on acquires a certain smell and you an tell at a glance who wrote certain code, and its kinda the same way with analog EE stuff. Its unconscious and takes some effort to explain why you know its so-and-so's design but you can tell at a glance. Like art, or music.
Its amusing how the wise old elders wear off on the new kids. Why do I backpack / hike long distances as my primary form of athletic exercise? Why, because Pease did. Not all the surprising, I learned how to troubleshoot ground loops from him and how to deal with ultra high impedance inputs. Then again I don't drive 50 year old VWs like he did or whatever other habits he had.
I have no inside knowledge and short of someone violating secrecy we'll probably never know but its either someone inspired by Pease or it was Camenzind. Its a tradeoff between what it looks like and general outlook on designing vs being in the right place at the right time with the right skills.
If I put a couple hours into it comparing work instead of just reminiscing for mere minutes, I could probably generate a fairly definitive answer, but its not worth it.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @06:06PM
You could be right about Pease, but it seems unlikely that NwAvGuy was Camenzind, because his last blog comment was almost a week after Camenzind died. Also, each comment had to be manually approved by him, due to rampant spam and trolling.
The last comment that shows up on the most recent post was written on August 28, 2012, so unless he had someone else moderate comments after his departure, that puts a lower bound on his date of death/disappearance.
(Score: 2) by hatta on Wednesday March 26 2014, @07:03PM
I think on SN you all know how after working with some programmers for awhile the code they work on acquires a certain smell and you an tell at a glance who wrote certain code, and its kinda the same way with analog EE stuff. Its unconscious and takes some effort to explain why you know its so-and-so's design but you can tell at a glance. Like art, or music.
Birders have a similar concept. Just through a glimpse of a bird's motion, an experienced birder can identify it. They call it "jizz". Not kidding.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by snick on Wednesday March 26 2014, @01:02PM
If I am reading it correctly, the Creative Commons CC BY-ND license does not grant you the right to build the amp based on the licensed design. Unless hardware is considered "another media" for the design, the license pretty clearly states that "you have no rights to make Derivative Works."
(Score: 1) by Mel Famie on Thursday March 27 2014, @12:18AM
I'm still unclear on this. There's no patent, so no patent infringement. If you don't reproduce his drawing of the schematic, there's no copyright. If you don't use his trademark for commerce, there's no trademark infringement. What's the issue with changing any damn thing you want in the design? And even selling it under a different name?