• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Reminder to consumers:(Probably) inferior SMSL SP200 Clone

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
There is a bit of a nuance there though. If you acquire the product then do whatever you want with it for your own use. This is covered by fair-use laws amongst others. But when you reverse engineer to create a competing product and sell it, then it may violate one or more of copyright law, patent law, etc., if it applies. It is the non-adherence to the latter types of prior agreements and trade laws that I am referring to as IP theft. The agreement is part of reciprocal arrangements done as being mutually beneficial among companies and nations, not a moral imperative.

If a manufacturer took no necessary precautions to protect IP by patenting, registering copyrights, trademarks, etc., as may be applicable, then they would not be able to have a recourse under those laws.

As far as consumer behavior is concerned, I was talking more about hypocrisy than a moral imperative. If one nation wants to hold another for IP theft (whatever that definition might be) that affects them adversely, they shouldn't be encouraging it when it benefits them.



This is the Nirvana (perfection) fallacy often advanced against things one doesn't like. People who create IP and people who are encumbered by IP rights usually fall on either side of this thing.

Not really sure how to reply to the first portion, not seeing much disagreement, if any.

As for the last comment, I'm not sure what the message is, with respect to the garbage nature of IP laws as they currently stand. When I critique IP laws, I critique their current form, not the concept of having such laws. The encumbrance in our example would befall the majority of people and businesses, while only the top tier and oldest businesses would benefit greatly. You see many failed businesses being consolidated under one roof and being paid hefty sums, just for their patent portfolios. It's that sort of practice where these IP laws fail on a multitude of levels in my opinion. But I don't know, perhaps people have some new arguments for monopoly formations that are beneficial or something.
 

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,409
Likes
1,923
Not really sure how to reply to the first portion, not seeing much disagreement, if any.
I was just clarifying the nuance behind your earlier statement that once you have acquired an object, people shouldn't tell you what can or cannot do. It is not a blanket right to do whatever you want. If for your personal use and learning and testing even reverse engineering, you are correct. Nobody prevents that. If that includes rights to reverse engineer so you can bring out a clone or incorporate that technology in competition to the one you reverse-engineered then you are violating any protected IP rights. That distinction is important.

As for the last comment, I'm not sure what the message is, with respect to the garbage nature of IP laws as they currently stand. When I critique IP laws, I critique their current form, not the concept of having such laws. The encumbrance in our example would befall the majority of people and businesses, while only the top tier and oldest businesses would benefit greatly. You see many failed businesses being consolidated under one roof and being paid hefty sums, just for their patent portfolios. It's that sort of practice where these IP laws fail on a multitude of levels in my opinion. But I don't know, perhaps people have some new arguments for monopoly formations that are beneficial or something.

That makes a false inference that it helps only create monopoly companies and then goes into a challenge that a rebuttal would need to argue for monopoly formations. That is begging the question.

In my line of business of tech startups, having those protections are crucial for startups to even consider going to the market. They wouldn't even get funding if they didn't have suitable protections. So without those protections, the technology would be incorporated quickly by bigger companies that already have a big market penetration and the smaller innovative companies would not stand a chance.

This is why patent laws were invented, to help the small inventors. Sure, it is possible to abuse it but you don't throw the baby with the bath water because of it. It is not the definition of laws that need to be fixed but how they are applied and enforced (to avoid silly patent granting, patent trolling, swapping, etc). If this is all you are saying, then I agree with you. But it is a far cry from questioning whether IP laws should exist. Nobody who creates any IP would do that because it helps people that create IP small or big equally.

There is also a petri-dish to see how it would work without any protection and that is the App economy say for Apple devices. There are small companies and indepedent developers that are trying to bring innovative solutions with limited marketing skills. And then there are vulture companies who wait to see if any of them look like they are taking off, and just copy the features, technology, idea into their product and use the large established they have to drive the small developer out of the market. Zynga was a famous example of this with his CEO's message asking his employees to do this was published. Apple itself has been accused of incorporating things (that were market tested by a smaller company and therefore the market risk removed) into their software driving that small company out of business. And all this is because there aren't good safeguards for protecting software, innovative ideas in software, etc.

There is a part of the ecosystem that does not believe in any software protections. Many still in the pig-tailed 1960s culture where people do software for the love of it. They get support because IP laws by nature protect the few (the creators) from the majority that would benefit (in the short-term) with no protections. If someone worked hard to create an application that people were willing to pay $10 for, only to see someone make a clone (and so not have to go through the trial and error process of seeing what works and what doesn't, which is the price of innovation) and sells it for $1.99, consumers would benefit and cheer for no protection that would deprive them of those cheap goods. But that would be very short-sighted.

If say Schiit or PS Audio were free to reverse engineer an SMSL or a Topping or an Okto than spend their R&D to make their competing products and rely on brand recognition to flood the market at half the price how would the Oktos of this world survive?

It is better to look at imperfections in the system and discuss how to fix them than make narrow (and false) conclusions that it is only enabling the monopolies. The latter may make big news but there is a huge ecosystem in every area that would fall apart if IP laws were weakened with the pretense of some abuses. The people who would benefit are the predators happy to clone/copy for short-term hit and run, consumers in the short-term when clones flood them until no one had an incentive to innovate any more and everyone is waiting for another to innovate so they can copy. No funding, no next startup.
 

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
I think we should take this to PM after this if we keep going. I have a bad tendency to veer too far off topic in threads.

I was just clarifying the nuance behind your earlier statement that once you have acquired an object, people shouldn't tell you what can or cannot do. It is not a blanket right to do whatever you want. If for your personal use and learning and testing even reverse engineering, you are correct. Nobody prevents that. If that includes rights to reverse engineer so you can bring out a clone or incorporate that technology in competition to the one you reverse-engineered then you are violating any protected IP rights. That distinction is important.

Oh in that case, sure. But the commentary I present was my preference to how things ought be. I don't have qualms about reverse engineered products being incorporated into clones. I see no issue with this. Now you might say as you have later on about "no protections for new companies tho". We'll get into that right now..

Keep in mind though, we still haven't touched the most problematic portion of IP laws' failure, and that is to establish proper or stable guidelines on what can and cannot be classified as such.

In my line of business of tech startups, having those protections are crucial for startups to even consider going to the market. They wouldn't even get funding if they didn't have suitable protections. So without those protections, the technology would be incorporated quickly by bigger companies that already have a big market penetration and the smaller innovative companies would not stand a chance.

So the thing is, you should know being in the tech startup business. The biggest desire is a buyout. Rarely do tech startups work toward some long term domination goal of the market space. And if you're not working to either of those goals, your investment sources simply cease existing (that's the current venture capitalist paradigm if you seek funding or going public perhaps if you're not bought out earlier).

As for the protections, they don't actually exist, since you're going to get bought out anyway if indeed you have something worth of value. By removing the protections though, you now just cut to the chase on a macro scale (and societal scale where resources need not be wasted by a small company hoarding perhaps a new tech that aims to revolutionize daily life in some significant way perhaps), so either, you show that you've miraculously outdone the competition with something new that can't be reverse engineered for the time being, or just get out-done by larger companies that out-do you either way even with protections (they find a way around your patent to offer basically a similar product that does some new thing, or something better, and comes with a brand-name of a big company).

These IP protections virtually exist only for the sake of larger companies, in hopes they can sue another company that plays tough ball in the same playing field (since they can't be bought, they must be battled in court). IP protection for smaller guys is a silly notion, as nothing will protect you from a buy out if you have anything worth value, or protect you from being litigated to oblivion if you decide to copy their idea in some fashion that gains traction.

This is why patent laws were invented, to help the small inventors. Sure, it is possible to abuse it but you don't throw the baby with the bath water because of it. It is not the definition of laws that need to be fixed but how they are applied and enforced (to avoid silly patent granting, patent trolling, swapping, etc). If this is all you are saying, then I agree with you. But it is a far cry from questioning whether IP laws should exist. Nobody who creates any IP would do that because it helps people that create IP small or big equally.

Nah, that's not why patent laws were created (that is conceptually what was sold as an idea, but it's purpose is now fully revealed as only the passage of time can demonstrate truly, of which I spoke about briefly). But generally speaking, yes that's all I was saying, no one is questioning whether IP laws should exist, but in the form they currently exist, you may as well toss out the whole thing and resalvage parts that make sense in a new model (a model that tracks perhaps innovation quantity or quality over spans of time). Also, since we live in a globalized world. If the major nations can't agree on a model, then having one is silly as we become more interconnected (silly due to the notion of how major corporate players aren't affected by them with respect to companies smaller than them).

There is also a petri-dish to see how it would work without any protection and that is the App economy say for Apple devices. There are small companies and indepedent developers that are trying to bring innovative solutions with limited marketing skills. And then there are vulture companies who wait to see if any of them look like they are taking off, and just copy the features, technology, idea into their product and use the large established they have to drive the small developer out of the market. Zynga was a famous example of this with his CEO's message asking his employees to do this was published. Apple itself has been accused of incorporating things (that were market tested by a smaller company and therefore the market risk removed) into their software driving that small company out of business. And all this is because there aren't good safeguards for protecting software, innovative ideas in software, etc.

The reason there aren't good safeguards is because there are no metrics as what qualifies as a "good safegaurd for innovative ideas in software". Like what would be a "good safeguard" definitionally speaking with an example that always yields pragmatic benefits to society? We're still at the stage where we don't know what can be patented.. What would be "good" with respect to a corona virus vaccine in terms of safegaurds for example? Or what about copyrighting all melodies, how exactly would things like this be handled in your ideal conceptualization?

There is a part of the ecosystem that does not believe in any software protections. Many still in the pig-tailed 1960s culture where people do software for the love of it. They get support because IP laws by nature protect the few (the creators) from the majority that would benefit (in the short-term) with no protections. If someone worked hard to create an application that people were willing to pay $10 for, only to see someone make a clone (and so not have to go through the trial and error process of seeing what works and what doesn't, which is the price of innovation) and sells it for $1.99, consumers would benefit and cheer for no protection that would deprive them of those cheap goods. But that would be very short-sighted.

I'd need convincing of this being the case. Seeing as how most things of value that can be owned by a large enough conglomerate are already depriving the market either way even in this current system. Most of the costs involved is all the middle-manning and legal nonsense that needs to be built into the cost (as profit has no limit, thus nothing decentivizes chasing the highest possible by any legal means, or actually illegal if you're big enough to pay the constant fines). I don't see much of a difference to be honest between either system as long as globalized capitalistic economic policy exists. Most IP law is just an annoyance and a legal structure that prevents much change (as all legal systems are and have historically existed for such reason).

Again, this hypothetical you invoke holds no pragmatic water. In the example what would actually occur is the idea would get bought out. So the owner doesn't actually have to do mcuh work after demonstrating a viable Proof of Concept. Socially speaking, the difference is non existent. I also don't hold to the idea innovations are mainly driven by profit incentives (small timers hitting onto big ideas is usually the result of passion projects, and random luck, I've not seen much in the way of innovation from corporate structures to be honest, just refinements in the same way a movie studio can improve production values, but can't really come up with compelling world-building in accordance to stories that writers and artists do. You may hold to the opposite and think the profit motive is the main driver though, so idk what to say on that front without opening up a new debate.

If say Schiit or PS Audio were free to reverse engineer an SMSL or a Topping or an Okto than spend their R&D to make their competing products and rely on brand recognition to flood the market at half the price how would the Oktos of this world survive?

Well in audio you don't have to worry about that, because you can offer them advice on how to get that performance and they still wouldn't take it due to some superstition or another. As for how would Okto survive? They wouldn't if price was the only consideration. Also most people don't take kind to direct copies (not that any IP laws prevent from nearly 90% of DACs all functioning nearly identical and being identical in hardware as well). The way Okto would survive is the same way it survives now, not appealing to mass-market, and forming a community that like it for it's specificity.

Competing products already exist. One could argue the Okto is just a less impressive enclosure of a Matrix Audio SABRE Dac or Element X. IP laws or anti-reverse engineering won't help seeing as how you wouldn't be able to even realize if they reverse engineered it or not (they can change a few things here and their to throw off public perception to the notion).

To solve questions like how Okto would survive, you need to decouple cyclical consumption paradigm from the global economic market that operates on an infinite growth paradigm (suicidal seeing as how we live on a finite planet, finite here meaning resources replenish slower than are depleted). I grant that removing IP laws and holding all else constant would be pretty bad. For something as drastic as removing all IP laws, you would need a complete economic re-imagining. A resource based economy, where companies exist as social well-being mechanisms explicitly, (naturally this is instantly labeled "communist" or "utopian" or whatever other pejorative). Okto as a company doesn't need to survive. But people working at Okto, sure we'd want those people living without threat of starvation, which can be achieved with the economic shift (one which IP laws even if you wanted to use them, would serve no purpose anyway).

It is better to look at imperfections in the system and discuss how to fix them than make narrow (and false) conclusions that it is only enabling the monopolies. The latter may make big news but there is a huge ecosystem in every area that would fall apart if IP laws were weakened with the pretense of some abuses. The people who would benefit are the predators happy to clone/copy for short-term hit and run, consumers in the short-term when clones flood them until no one had an incentive to innovate any more and everyone is waiting for another to innovate so they can copy. No funding, no next startup.

Well sure, as I said, if all else held constant, removal of IP laws is stupid. To remove IP laws as I allude to previously, the entire economic system would need to change (though before this, cultural values would need a change, which in my view is tougher than changing the world economy itself even). If the sole benefit to IP laws is the supposed notion of "protection" of startups and the smaller guy, then you just feed the top players virtually cheap innovation streams since you get bought out anyway. They still benefit the most, while as you say, the majority benefits as well, but not to the same degree, not even close.
 

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,409
Likes
1,923
I think we should take this to PM after this if we keep going. I have a bad tendency to veer too far off topic in threads.

I am done because this is going way off into tangential arguments. For example, the exit strategies of startups have nothing to do with whether they need and have defensible IP and the need for the latter to get funding. I am not going to try to untangle every non sequiturs here.

My simple response to all of this is that it is the same "manufactured nihilism" arguments (as an analogy) aired at the pandemic shutdown and/or mask wearing. The shutdown (and the related social distancing and mask wearing) was necessary to get the pandemic under control. When it is done, the curve heads down, but people started to point at every possible negative aspect of a shutdown (however disproportionate it was to the problems of the contra-factual) to clamor for opening which would actually make things worse. The curve heading down was used to argue that we didn't really need the shutdown or the masks. But it is difficult to prove shutdown works until we had to, unfortunately, open up and see the curve heading up. Same thing with IP protection if it is lifted. People don't see the impacts of it being there.

If people who innovate, put in a lot of effort with hard work to create a product with IP, say the Okta folks come out and say they are fine with someone else reverse-engineering their stuff and selling it at half the price "because there are problems with IP laws", then I will give it credence. Not otherwise.

That is all I have to say in this thread.
 

SMSL-Mandy

Senior Member
Audio Company
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
304
Likes
688
SP200.jpg

QQ图片20200801092815.jpg

We have got this item and have some text on it.
This is our test result. It is not recommended to use, op-amps and capacitors are fake. Use a lot of fake accessories.
1596245479269.png
 

JohnYang1997

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
7,175
Likes
18,292
Location
China
  • Like
Reactions: trl

SMSL-Mandy

Senior Member
Audio Company
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
304
Likes
688
Sigh... As expected. Is there anything that you guys can do to deal with this?
What about 5Vrms output and using the same test condition FFT length for example.
We have sent the product to the THX company and need to wait for negotiation.
 

Racheski

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
1,116
Likes
1,699
Location
Chicago
I can't believe Drop.com sold this crap; I thought they had more integrity. Really annoys me especially since they have featured plenty of SMSL products in the past.
@SMSL-Mandy - maybe you should contact Drop.com and tell them that the measurements provided to them for this product are fake? Also can you share the rest of your measurements of the AM01?
 

JohnYang1997

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
7,175
Likes
18,292
Location
China
I can't believe Drop.com sold this crap; I thought they had more integrity. Really annoys me especially since they have featured plenty of SMSL products in the past.
@SMSL-Mandy - maybe you should contact Drop.com and tell them that the measurements provided to them for this product are fake?
That's two things.
Drop has been selling crap that's arguably even worse since like forever.
It's not that being measuring poorly that makes it bad. It's a cheap(er) knock-off in the first place. Even without the measurements or same good measurements, it's still fucked up. Making DIY kit for discontinued products even it's cheap knock off is probably fine in my book. Making knock-off of a product that's released less than a year ago, and which is still active, is really fucked up. ESPECIALLY, they are trying so hard to push to linsol, drop in order to make quick money on this. Every distributor will have a cut. So you know that how cheaply these are made. That's a double fuck-up.
 

Racheski

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
1,116
Likes
1,699
Location
Chicago
That's two things.
Drop has been selling crap that's arguably even worse since like forever.
It's not that being measuring poorly that makes it bad. It's a cheap(er) knock-off in the first place. Even without the measurements or same good measurements, it's still fucked up. Making DIY kit for discontinued products even it's cheap knock off is probably fine in my book. Making knock-off of a product that's released less than a year ago, and which is still active, is really fucked up. ESPECIALLY, they are trying so hard to push to linsol, drop in order to make quick money on this. Every distributor will have a cut. So you know that how cheaply these are made. That's a double fuck-up.
Yes I totally agree there is a lot of fuckery to go around here. I'm interested in the measurements because the numbers on Drop.com match the SP200 exactly, which could be fake as well if what SMSL just posted is accurate. If the measurements are fake, this could be considered fradualent and Drop.com could take legal action depending on their contract with the seller.
 

JohnYang1997

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
7,175
Likes
18,292
Location
China
Yes I totally agree there is a lot of fuckery to go around here. I'm interested in the measurements because the numbers on Drop.com match the SP200 exactly, which could be fake as well if what SMSL just posted is accurate. If the measurements are fake, this could be considered fradualent and Drop.com could take legal action depending on their contract with the seller.
That's a good point.
(Edited)
 

3125b

Major Contributor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,352
Likes
2,204
Location
Germany
Oh, that's horrible. It's like they tried to unmatch the channels or something.
Drop should really not sell this horrible knock-off.
 

JohnYang1997

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
7,175
Likes
18,292
Location
China
Oh, that's horrible. It's like they tried to unmatch the channels or something.
Drop should really not sell this horrible knock-off.
It's clipping. So it's likely not as bad when in operating range. But still bad.
 

ssips

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10
Likes
3
Still keen to see a full measurements test on this if possible!
 

antdroid

Active Member
Reviewer
Joined
Apr 1, 2018
Messages
111
Likes
250
Location
Seattle
@amirm if you are interested in this fake thx amp, I can send you my review sample unit. I got it back recently from a local friend who was borrowing it for a while.
 

trl

Major Contributor
King of Mods
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,967
Likes
2,523
Location
Iasi, RO
This is our test result. It is not recommended to use, op-amps and capacitors are fake. Use a lot of fake accessories.
Like @JohnYang1997 said, this amp seems to be clipping. Can you please retest it for lower output voltage? Or maybe the input stage is clipping?
It's clear to me that the background noise is way higher than SMSL SP200, but I expect the harmonic profile to have a lower footprint when lower output volume.
 

MalinYamato

Senior Member
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
420
Likes
218
Location
東京都世田谷区
so, I better not rely on Drop anymore?
 

trl

Major Contributor
King of Mods
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,967
Likes
2,523
Location
Iasi, RO
so, I better not rely on Drop anymore?
I think 789 THX, HD6xx etc. etc. etc. were perfectly good amps and headphones, so why not relying on Drop anymore? Because some company were able to list one of their fake products there? Just report this to Drop and they will deal with that.
 
Top Bottom