alt Hacker NewsI watched the original video (big fan of Mark), and it was a perfectly ordinary repair video, albeit for a ridiculously overpriced piece of audiophile equipment. There was absolutely nothing in there I remember that could infringe copyright, unless simply opening up and taking a video of the inside of a piece of equipment can now infringe. He didn't even disparage the preamp. Unlike much audiophile nonsense, he noted it was genuinely properly designed electronics (albeit very very expensive).
Edit: I'm now seeding https://archive.org/details/the-gbp-25-000-pre-amp-that-went... Enjoy your Streisand Effect.
Replies
Here's the magnet link:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:600efecbcd0e270661c3f4ca0604b03a3b4adabd&dn=the-gbp-25-000-pre-amp-that-went-wrong-tom-evans-mastergroove-sr-mk-iii-rjbp-fsfzi-i&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fbt1.archive.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fbt2.archive.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&ws=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.org%2Fdownload%2F&ws=http%3A%2F%2Fia601500.us.archive.org%2F17%2Fitems%2F&ws=http%3A%2F%2Fia801500.us.archive.org%2F17%2Fitems%2F
Watching the repair video, at 13:25 he states that the resistors have to be have well matched for the circuit to work.
I posit that you could use 10% resistors, and it would work just as well. The individual gains don't have to be exactly the same, since they're all being summed anyway.
Oh, and those plastic stand-offs really need to go.
This reminded me of an old advertisement which compared a component stereo amplifiers specifications to that of a piece of wire. I spend almost an hour looking with google, etc., and I can't find it. 8(
I'm getting "The item is not available due to issues with the item's content." on the archive.org link
Thanks for the archive link. I wonder what the DIP switches were for in the end?
I'm guessing part of the embarrassment is from this part:
> which the manufacturer claimed ‘could not be fixed’
which Mark definitively proved wrong. But also, he doesn't have to explicitly disparage the equipment if people can just look at it and make their own conclusions. Even if the actual design is sound (I'm not remotely qualified to judge), you have to admit it looks a bit janky.
As for valid copyright claims, you're probably looking for reason where none exists.