• 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!

Tekton style like tweeter array good idea?

"The question is part of the doctrine of patent exhaustion which terminates all patent rights at the authorized sale of a patented item. When you purchase a patented product, the patent owner loses all patent rights to it. Included within this doctrine is the right to repair the product to preserve its useful life, and to keep it functioning properly. But you can’t reconstruct it, you can’t fix it to the extent that you create a new product. That would be patent infringement."
 
To me the crossover diagram from the diyAudio forum I referenced in my initial thread post looks plausible (it just lacks the coil parameters). It also matches with the Stereophile vertical vs. horizontal measurement. Please check from legal / copyright perspective before posting anything if it is ok to post such details to avoid any trouble. I am neither sure how this is in the USA nor in Europe.
I missed that the first time around. Pretty well matches Duke supposition.

I see no legal or patent issues here. We are bound by any confidentiality from discussing his products, and in America you can build whatever you want, even your own Ferrari that's an exact copy of one they sell, as long as you don't sell the copy or otherwise make money from it. We're no where's near that point, and if I built one of these arrays it would be for myself, however if I were going to build an array I would need look no further than the Monitor Hyphn for evidence that it should be hard to keep Tekton from stopping me, especially if I used 2" full range drivers.
"The question is part of the doctrine of patent exhaustion which terminates all patent rights at the authorized sale of a patented item. When you purchase a patented product, the patent owner loses all patent rights to it. Included within this doctrine is the right to repair the product to preserve its useful life, and to keep it functioning properly. But you can’t reconstruct it, you can’t fix it to the extent that you create a new product. That would be patent infringement."
This is not correct, at least so far as it leaves out the part about selling the product. It has to be a product that is sold for this to apply.
 
in America you can build whatever you want, even your own Ferrari that's an exact copy
Not if it has a patent. I am named as an inventor 112 patents and have written several drafts and been involved as a technical expert two successful patent litigation. I am not an attorney, but I know it illegal to make a copy a patented device. People do it but can be sued.
 
Not if it has a patent. I am named as an inventor 112 patents and have written several drafts and been involved as a technical expert two successful patent litigation. I am not an attorney, but I know it illegal to make a copy a patented device. People do it but can be sued.
Wow! Interesting, a quick internet search suggests you are right, although it's contrary to my historical understanding of US patents and it makes no logical sense as there would be countless examples of infringement every day, and I haven't found the exceptions that would be necessary to allow for follow-on research or pre-licensing investigations of feasibility. Just insane. But fine, so we look at EA's patents. He actually has been pretty active patenting his designs. Some of the patents appear to be just for the aesthetic design, but others appear to patent the various tweeter arrays. Of those it would be easy to build a pattern that doesn't match the ones he's patented. There's one patent that's pretty outrageous though. Here's the main claim: (US9247339B2)
"1. A speaker comprising: a transducer configured to reproduce a sound generated by a moving and sound-generating portion of a musical instrument, the transducer comprising a moving element, wherein the moving element is limited in mass to approximate the mass of the moving and sound-generating portion of the musical instrument."
How this patent was ever granted is beyond me. It basically patents ever transducer speaker ever made since a heavier moving element from a musical instrument could always be found compared to each transducer in question. The claims from there basically go on to extend this basic idea to even heavier moving elements, and then to some common speaker geometries like 4-driver 3-ways, D'appolito-like arrays, line arrays, and his hexagon arrays of various sizes. I'm disappointed by the incompetence and idiocy of our patent examiners as this patent is neither original nor enforceable in my amateur opinion. I will proceed to build whatever I want and EA can do whatever he wants to come after me and good luck.
 
Wow! Interesting, a quick internet search suggests you are right, although it's contrary to my historical understanding of US patents and it makes no logical sense as there would be countless examples of infringement every day, and I haven't found the exceptions that would be necessary to allow for follow-on research or pre-licensing investigations of feasibility. Just insane. But fine, so we look at EA's patents. He actually has been pretty active patenting his designs. Some of the patents appear to be just for the aesthetic design, but others appear to patent the various tweeter arrays. Of those it would be easy to build a pattern that doesn't match the ones he's patented. There's one patent that's pretty outrageous though. Here's the main claim: (US9247339B2)

How this patent was ever granted is beyond me. It basically patents ever transducer speaker ever made since a heavier moving element from a musical instrument could always be found compared to each transducer in question. The claims from there basically go on to extend this basic idea to even heavier moving elements, and then to some common speaker geometries like 4-driver 3-ways, D'appolito-like arrays, line arrays, and his hexagon arrays of various sizes. I'm disappointed by the incompetence and idiocy of our patent examiners as this patent is neither original nor enforceable in my amateur opinion. I will proceed to build whatever I want and EA can do whatever he wants to come after me and good luck.
I believe there are few exceptions but they apply invalidity, that is, what they claim does not work. Basically you build what they show in the patent and show it doesn't do what is claimed but then you are duty bound to take the evidence to USPTO. Nobody does that because it does not work so why bother. That has quirk that if you want that design for something else that does work but is not claimed. The patent owner now has the right to claim it even though you are one figured it out but can be dicey if the their written specification is ambiguous about support that new use but apparatus does. It can then argued both ways if it is not clear. There is reason that patent attorneys get paid what they do.
 
Wow! Interesting, a quick internet search suggests you are right, although it's contrary to my historical understanding of US patents and it makes no logical sense as there would be countless examples of infringement every day, and I haven't found the exceptions that would be necessary to allow for follow-on research or pre-licensing investigations of feasibility. Just insane. But fine, so we look at EA's patents. He actually has been pretty active patenting his designs. Some of the patents appear to be just for the aesthetic design, but others appear to patent the various tweeter arrays. Of those it would be easy to build a pattern that doesn't match the ones he's patented. There's one patent that's pretty outrageous though. Here's the main claim: (US9247339B2)

How this patent was ever granted is beyond me. It basically patents ever transducer speaker ever made since a heavier moving element from a musical instrument could always be found compared to each transducer in question. The claims from there basically go on to extend this basic idea to even heavier moving elements, and then to some common speaker geometries like 4-driver 3-ways, D'appolito-like arrays, line arrays, and his hexagon arrays of various sizes. I'm disappointed by the incompetence and idiocy of our patent examiners as this patent is neither original nor enforceable in my amateur opinion. I will proceed to build whatever I want and EA can do whatever he wants to come after me and good luck.
Albert Einstein, engaged as 3 thrd. class expert at Schweitzer Patentamt, would have had his own mind on this (and may be garbaged?) ...
 
Albert Einstein, engaged as 3 thrd. class expert at Schweitzer Patentamt, would have had his own mind on this (and may be garbaged?) ...
Hopefully he would have thrown out most of the claims. Virtually everything in the patent has been done before and sold in the public realm years before this patent was granted. How this patent ever got approved is beyond me.

Edit: Obviously others have already read EA's patents and commented on them elsewhere, but seeing this thing for the first time myself I can't help but laugh at some of the BS language in these things. Here's a nugget (underline added for emphasis):

"According to additional embodiments of the invention, one or more array(s) of very small transducers with minimal moving mass ... work in tandem grouped closely together to reproduce the lowest audible frequencies while keeping all related overtones completely intact. In one embodiment a long column of small transducers quickly switches and/or cycles on and off with precision—even switching at speeds faster than that of the speed of sound consecutively so low frequencies can be continually reinforced over the length of the column and quickly be acoustically multiplied"
 
Last edited:
Any chance you would open yours up and take some pictures or make drawings of the crossover? Curious what EA is actually doing inside these. For example, are all 6 getting the same signal or is he truly adjusting for position in the array. He suggests he's doing something different depending on the driver position but I think he's bs'ing.
Yes, I can. I usually do this to most speakers anyway and so I'm also curious. Give me the weekend. I'll post images soon, likely Monday.
 
This patent is really rich. Just beyond words. Right from the opening the BS meter is off the charts:

"According to implementations of the invention, new and improved transducers (a woofer for example) are specifically designed to match or more closely match the mass of the musical instrument producing the music. For example: a woofer is designed to be highly compliant with very low moving mass and a low resonant frequency. Existing known obscure transducers that were never intended to be applied in speakers for this purpose work and have been used experimentally to prove the concept. New transducers may be designed to further extend and prove the concept. For example, current copper-clad aluminum windings of existing transducers could be replaced with copper-clad beryllium windings to significantly reduce the mass of a transducer."

Omg, because they use beryllium in tweeters it must be better, it must be lighter, of course people will replaced aluminum in voice coil windings. Why do we use aluminum? Because it's cheap, has excellent thermal conductivity, relatively good electrical conductivity, and low density. Beryllium has inferior electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity, but lower density. It is not remotely cheap. But given that it has even less electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity than aluminum it would be a poor material to make coil windings out of, nevermind actually fabricating the coil given the toxicity of pure beryllium. Note that if you actually use a beryllium-copper alloy and not just copper-clad beryllium you do get a very strong metal, but the conductivity is still well down from straight copper.

A table:
Element: __________ Electrical Conductivity _______ Thermal Conductivity ________ Density
Beryllium __________ 2.5×10^7 S/m ______________ 2.01 W/cmK __________________ 1.848 g/cc
Aluminum _________ 3.8×10^7 S/m ______________ 2.37 W/cmK __________________ 2.702 g/cc
Copper ____________ 5.9×10^7 S/m ______________ 4.01 W/cmK __________________ 8.96 g/cc
Silver (for fun) _____ 6.2×10^7 S/m ______________ 4.29 W/cmK __________________ 10.5 g/cc

Here's another great blurb to go with the image below (also from the patent):

"FIG. 8 illustrates the benefits of embodiments of the invention. FIG. 8 shows a frequency response chart of an input signal superimposed on frequency response charts of a relatively high-mass transducer and a relatively low-mass transducer. Both transducers used for the frequency response charts are efficient transducers and have linear frequency responses extending to 18 kHz. The input signal is an 800 kHz triangle input, with the fundamental frequency represented by the largest peak. As can be seen from the respective graphs, the relatively low-mass transducer achieves a frequency response that is significantly closer to the original source signal. In contrast, the relatively high-mass transducer is unable to reproduce the original source signal, with a strong low-pass filtering effect being visible, resulting in nearly 10 dB attenuation in the upper frequency ranges. Thus, FIG. 8 illustrates the high-mass transducer's inability to reproduce higher frequencies and the resultant loss to the ear of perceived overtones."

So a triangle, which has a mass approaching half a kilogram, is producing a fundamental at 800 Hz, but the patent says the transducer has a moving mass less than that of the instrument producing the fundamental? So if everything up to a 30" subwoofer has a moving mass less than the triangle, then this patent thinks it's covering any array of drivers except massive subs? If the driver needs to be lighter to produce the harmonics of the instrument, why do we care about the multiple-order harmonics of an instrument vastly heavier than the supposed tweeters that the patent is intended to reference? How this graph was created is beyond me- were the drivers driven with only the fundamental signal from the triangle?? If a tweeter that measures as linear and another different tweeter are both sent a signal to produce a 3 kHz signal, they had better both produce it at the same volume if they have the same sensitivity, regardless of whether the fundamental originated from a triangle or whatever. This is so mind-bogglingly stupid it's insulting.
US09247339-20160126-D00008.png
 
Last edited:
New transducers may be designed to further extend and prove the concept. For example, current copper-clad aluminum windings of existing transducers could be replaced with copper-clad beryllium windings to significantly reduce the mass of a transducer."
Yes this patent is full of rather strange ideas. Of course when one thinks about Berylium and loudspeakers it is about building diaphragms using Berylium and not voice coils;). To my knowledge Tekton doesn't build drivers by its own, so it is somewhat strange to see this in the patent at all.

As far as I know the Yamaha NS-1000M from 1974 was the first one using Berylium dome tweeters and midrange drivers. I had one for testing over the weekend in my youth ~1980 and was not so impressed (I prefered an Electro Voice Interface Beta I also got for testing too). Yamaha has a nice page https://europe.yamaha.com/en/products/contents/audio_visual/ns-5000/history.html showing the history on their speakers and materials.

A nice summary of typically used materials to build drivers: http://www.stonessoundstudio.com.au/stone/diy_speaker_info/diy_driver_types_p3.htm
 
" The commercial use of beryllium requires the use of appropriate dust control equipment and industrial controls at all times because of the toxicity of inhaled beryllium-containing dusts that can cause a chronic life-threatening allergic disease in some people called berylliosis.[10] Berylliosis causes pneumonia and other associated respiratory illness." [Wikipedia]

No good idea to use it in voice coils that can be damaged by scratching ....
 
I believe there are few exceptions but they apply invalidity, that is, what they claim does not work. Basically you build what they show in the patent and show it doesn't do what is claimed but then you are duty bound to take the evidence to USPTO. Nobody does that because it does not work so why bother. That has quirk that if you want that design for something else that does work but is not claimed. The patent owner now has the right to claim it even though you are one figured it out but can be dicey if the their written specification is ambiguous about support that new use but apparatus does. It can then argued both ways if it is not clear. There is reason that patent attorneys get paid what they do.
In the hypothetical situation where an ASR member was to build a copy of a patented Tekton speaker to evaluate that patent further, wouldn’t it be considered “fair use”?

I mean as long as it is not sold for profit…
 
In the hypothetical situation where an ASR member was to build a copy of a patented Tekton speaker to evaluate that patent further, wouldn’t it be considered “fair use”?

I mean as long as it is not sold for profit…
I used think that, but no, the patent owner has complete rights over any use. You can't legally build one to see how it works but I'm sure its done all the time in private. You can build enhancements and get patent on those but then you need both patents to operate. Others have said few if any of Tekton's patents are used their products so its probably okay.
 
In the hypothetical situation where an ASR member was to build a copy of a patented Tekton speaker to evaluate that patent further, wouldn’t it be considered “fair use”?

I mean as long as it is not sold for profit…
No, but if you were sued they surely wouldn't get much from you.
Plus as mentioned they generally must be actively using the patent in products being sold, especially if older.
 
No need to build, plenty of used ones will be hitting the market soon, thanks to clever Tekton marketing. :cool:
 
Here they think about arrays, in many different forms and configurations.

An example exciting example of that is #1427 from nc535 with Peerless TC9 broadband drivers.
This is to experiment with effects regarding SBIR (which I perceived was a thought to reduce the negative consequences of with that design) and at the same time achieve a constant directivity. Design with 16 drivers. TC9 drivers on the front baffle and on the sides. Together with a driver with WG in the middle, which takes care of the highest frequencies:
Sketchup doubled woofers (1).png

3DCT screenshot 8vs16 woofers (1).png


 
Here they think about arrays, in many different forms and configurations.

An example exciting example of that is #1427 from nc535 with Peerless TC9 broadband drivers.
This is to experiment with effects regarding SBIR (which I perceived was a thought to reduce the negative consequences of with that design) and at the same time achieve a constant directivity. Design with 16 drivers. TC9 drivers on the front baffle and on the sides. Together with a driver with WG in the middle, which takes care of the highest frequencies:

XXL thread with various very different ideas. The particular point you are refering to seems to be about using a FaitalPRO HF1440 compression driver in a huge waveguide to do all the treble and most of the midrange (down to ~1Khz I guess) plus an array of woofers. So I think it has little in common with a Tekton style like tweeter arrays, basically the frequency range coverd by the Tekton tweeter array is completly covered by the FaitalPRO HF1440 I would guess. Definitely somethig more suitable for PA than for home audio.
 
XXL thread with various very different ideas. The particular point you are refering to seems to be about using a FaitalPRO HF1440 compression driver in a huge waveguide to do all the treble and most of the midrange (down to ~1Khz I guess) plus an array of woofers. So I think it has little in common with a Tekton style like tweeter arrays, basically the frequency range coverd by the Tekton tweeter array is completly covered by the FaitalPRO HF1440 I would guess. Definitely somethig more suitable for PA than for home audio.
Sorry, missed it. They wrote about tc9 earlier in that thread.:)

Then it will be necessary to take out the slightly larger wallet considering that f seems to cost around $500 each:)


In which case. I thought that DIY thread was interesting in itself.:)
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2024-04-21_132447.jpg
    Screenshot_2024-04-21_132447.jpg
    648.7 KB · Views: 24
The Monacor SPX-20M looks almost ideal for this array. Since it is used on the CBT24, am sitting on enough Dayton ND64-16s to try them. Juggling a few too many projects currently though. Maybe next year…
Rick,

Looking at those drivers, the Monacor looks really pretty and clean, but I do see it has an Xmax of only 0.5 mm, so the lower frequency cutoff of the array would perhaps have to be more like Tekton's in the 600+ range, while the Dayton ND64-16 and the 2" BMR TEBM35C10-4 that I mentioned both have enough Xmax to go down to 300 Hz at fairly high levels I think (didn't do the math). Fwiw, and for purposes of ignoring the Tekton patent I will add that the Monacor has a 1.3 g MM, and the Dayton 2.1 g. The BMR is down around 1.0 g. The Dayton has the highest Bl of these three. I had been looking at all the small Dayton drivers for a desktop speaker and there are a ton of them in multiple series (RS, ND, DSA, PS, CE, and DMA) so it's a bit confusing, but that ND64, with it's customizations for line arrays, seems to be one of the sweet spots in their lineup. I have some RS100's but their center-to-center distance would be too large I think even though they are really ~3" drivers.

Would be interesting to play around with at some point as you said.
 
Based on the data from the DIY thread I did a quick and dirty simulation of a 6+1 array with the SB29RDNC-C000-4 and the given crossover network with VituixCAD. I used VituixCAD for the first time, so the information below may not be 100% accurate or even wrong! I just used the manufacturer on axis SPL and impedance curves of the driver and the approximate relative positions of the drivers. The result is:

Array1+2+4.jpg

First graph shows total SPL on axis, total SPL in listening window (-10...10 degree vert., -30...30 degree horz.), SPL of single tweeter, SPL of one of two (up/down) mid drivers, SPL of one of four (left/right) mid drivers.

Second graph shows plain filter responses.

Third graph shows directivty (+90, +100, ..., +170, +180 degree)

Last graph show single tweeter SPL without crossover for comparision.

On http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/SBA-tweeters.htm you can find a nice independed measurement of the SB29RDC-C000-4 tweeter.

The horizontal directivity plot shows what I would expect. In the frequency area where the drivers play together some kind on cancellation (depending on the listening angle) due to different acoustic centers of the drivers and due to crossover phase shift occurs. Most obvious in the 1-2 kHz region since the wavelength 17-34 cm is close the distance between the drivers (<= ~16cm).

The SB29RDC-C000-4 has rapdily rising k2 distortions below 1.5 kHz, not sure how much different the SB29RDNC-C000-4 would measure.
 
Back
Top Bottom