Okay, what ever you say.

The Monkey might agree.

Correct.

MBLs

Also correct.

Heh MBLs will give you the boom alright. And the sizzle.

boom + sizzle = crazy delicious

Here's the quote from the JH thread:

This makes even less sense to me. Granted we are talking about tiny amounts of power so it isn't a problem to drive the crossovers but why not have it in the amp where good full size components can be used and then feed 3 different amps for each driver? Better yet, use an active crossover (non DSP) and have no phase issues.

This makes even less sense to me. Granted we are talking about tiny amounts of power so it isn't a problem to drive the crossovers but why not have it in the amp where good full size components can be used and then feed 3 different amps for each driver? Better yet, use an active crossover (non DSP) and have no phase issues.

Because Jerry applied for the patent while he was at UE, and then it wasn't approved until last year, so JHA can't use the idea of active crossovers in a triamplified IEM setup unless UE licenses it to them.

Isn't an active three way system obvious prior art, that just happens to be connected to an IEM?

How is it different to a DCX 24/96 ? http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/DCX2496.aspx

Indeed, nothing new about that so the patent would be very hard to enforce.

I'd love to hear the argument tho "I knew the patent was invalid when I applied for it. I just was going to use it to make a profit. But now it should be revoked, because I want to use it to make a profit."

That would be funny but how can anybody get a patent for something that has been done for almost a century? Perhaps I should patent the electrostatic earspeaker and then sue Stax...

Sue them for copying the style and feel provided by your unique product.

Jerry is the named inventor and Dan's hypothetical description would admit inequitable conduct before the Patent & Trademark Office, so I don't think he will go that route.

Here is the patent: http://appft1.uspto....060193479.PGNR.

Here is the abstract describing it:

A headset with an active crossover network is provided. The headset is coupled to an audio source using either a wired connection or a wireless connection. The active crossover network, utilizing either analog or digital filtering, divides each channel of the incoming audio signal from the audio source into multiple frequency regions sufficient for the number of drivers contained within each in-ear monitor of the headset. The output from the network's filters is amplified using either single channel or multi-channel amplifies. Preferably, gain control circuitry is used to control the gain of the amplifier(s) and thus the volume produced by the drivers. More preferably, the gain of the gain control circuitry is adjustable. The headset includes a power source that is coupled to the amplifier(s) and, if necessary, the network's filters. The power source can be included within some portion of the headset or included within the wireless interface. Alternately, an external power source can be used, for example one associated with the audio source.

I'm no patent lawyer, but it seems he got really bad advice either before he decided to make the product at JH Audio, or after the patent was finally issued. Or perhaps he got no advice at all...

So he'd basically fighting his own actions, albeit a previous incarnation of himself?

Bizarro Jerry

Well played, sir.

Possible patent skulduggery aside, the question remains: is the 3A a decent amplifier/DAC solution or no? jp vouches for the sound. Anyone else? Has anyone cracked the thing open? Inquiring minds (mostly Jeffy's) want to know...

Yes

The amp is not ALO based he and Matt McDeath had a falling out that caused the amp sections delay

The non active sounded x-over sounded better than the current version

My scenario wasn't serious.

Glad it doesn't use the ALO fail but I still don't get how somebody could get a patent on something like this. There is no actual difference in driving active IEM's or active speakers with the crossover in front of the amps so how is this worthy of a patent or how could it even be enforced? Reminds me of an Icelandic hamburger place that has the square hamburger bun trademarked for the whole of Europe as they clearly invented it two years ago...

patents are a hunting licence. In this case a very poor hunting license.

i can think of at least 3 different and easy ways around this patent.

actually with logitech vs jha, this could turn into another

dishnetwork vs tivo.

speaking of alo, their latest

http://www.studiosixamplifier.com/

looks a little bit like the old marantz 8b

but seriously gas tube power supply ??

Edited October 28, 201213 yr by kevin gilmore

The non active sounded x-over sounded better than the current version

Sorry, I am still confused here by the wording. Regardless, would you do it all over again, especially now that the new JH16Pro now have the Freqphase Waveguide to keep the drivers in phase?

Active -- before the amplifier -- in this case, would have been done in the digital realm

Passive -- after the amplifier

Non active -- passive

Active -- before the amplifier -- in this case, would have been done in the digital realm

Passive -- after the amplifier

Non active -- passive

I get that, but he typed something that didn't make sense, probably an iPhone autocorrect thing or something, "The non active sounded x-over sounded better than the current version".

If I try to correct it seems like he was trying to say "The non-active cross-over sounded better than the current version". But, the current version is the non-active cross-over.

Making crossovers is always a crap shoot as you try to do as little damage as is possible to the sound plus maintaining correct phase. Now add to that the use of tiny parts and it's even harder to do it properly.

So is the freqphase basically the crossover done right, making it time and phase aligned? If so, is the JH3A essentially obsolete?