• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Acoustic USA 360 / 361

Status
Not open for further replies.
#321
The distinction there is that the only piece that needs UL cert is the power supply. That's the #1 reason so many internationally-sold products use wall warts--the device itself doesn't need UL certs, all they have to do is supply a pre-certified wall wart.
 
#322
Exactly BM.

The UL doesn't actually do all the testing anymore, you have an accepted private lab do your testing and write up the details of the results and then SUBMIT to the UL these days.

With switching supplies, they all need FCC acceptance from an RF lab to make sure they meet the emissions numbers. I have a buddy who is a power supply engineer owns his own company and travels to the RF lab in Wisconsin for his clients' projects all the time.

Probably has taken 25 new products through the UL process.

I used to sell and service a brand of computer before there was an IBM PC. It was not Ul approved. This meant you could sell it to residential and commercial customers but not GOV and Educational type of customers. For UL approval This is almost a direct quote of the president of the company. SO to crack that lucrative educational market we had to get UL approval. For us that meant removing the internal power supply and using one of those GIANT wall wart supplies to power the computer. Never mind you can light a cigarette on the wall wart, its running within its ratings, butwe now we have UL approval and you have a product you can sell in schools and to governments; the part number is the standard SKU plus a dash and the letters UL...

At that time UL cert was only required for certain market segments.

BOB
 
#323
wcriley said:
Hi, MichaelRClassic.
George had invited me up to meet you, but I had other things to do on Saturday.
I'm surprised you liked the horn, since you seem to prefer an old-school sound.
I prefer a full range sound, but I needed to keep it turned off (or the treble rolled WAY down) on the cabs I played through.
Click to expand...

BTW just for edification this man is not talking to himself. I have known him a couple years now. He is highly intelligent and not given to falling for BS.
I am NOT a first time poster. ;)
 
#326
Yup 9 pages of nothing..... This may be more credible at this point:smug:
 

Attachments

  • Clinton_alien.jpg
    Clinton_alien.jpg
    28.5 KB · Views: 50
#327
Sliderbass said:
AND...

Dosen't any device sold here need a UL Cert, even the imported Chinese stuff???

I seem to remember something about "if it plugs into a wall outlet, then it needs UL certification" from one of my past jobs where I was responsible for UL certification.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Don't need a UL cert at all. Not required by the government one bit.

There are one group of folks who'll want you to have one though - your insurance company, who will likely refuse to cover the device if not UL certified - and that IS a big deal.
 
#330
My theory (implied by others) - amps and cabs exist, and may even be ready for production. The problem is that licensing terms for the Acoustic mark are still being negotiated, hence the pictures getting pulled. Companies like GC don't appreciate their marks being infringed.

Could be wrong, but following occam's razor, that is my bet. I believe these people who say they've played the amps. But there is a reason they aren't for sale and no pics are being allowed...
 
#331
nostatic said:
My theory (implied by others) - amps and cabs exist, and may even be ready for production. The problem is that licensing terms for the Acoustic mark are still being negotiated, hence the pictures getting pulled. Companies like GC don't appreciate their marks being infringed.

Could be wrong, but following occam's razor, that is my bet. I believe these people who say they've played the amps. But there is a reason they aren't for sale and no pics are being allowed...
Click to expand...

That is a very believable reason for this sort of delay.

UL certification is not.
 
#333
nostatic said:
My theory (implied by others) - amps and cabs exist, and may even be ready for production. The problem is that licensing terms for the Acoustic mark are still being negotiated, hence the pictures getting pulled. Companies like GC don't appreciate their marks being infringed.

Could be wrong, but following occam's razor, that is my bet. I believe these people who say they've played the amps. But there is a reason they aren't for sale and no pics are being allowed...
Click to expand...

I don't know why George had the pictures pulled. But...
The current prototype heads have the Acoustic logo on the faceplate. The cabs have Acoustic badges and there are about 100 self-stick badges packaged in the shop. The OEM speakers all say Acoustic. Seems like an awful lot of money to spend to perpetrate a ruse.
 
#334
wcriley said:
I don't know why George had the pictures pulled. But...
The current prototype heads have the Acoustic logo on the faceplate. The cabs have Acoustic badges and there are about 100 self-stick badges packaged in the shop. The OEM speakers all say Acoustic. Seems like an awful lot of money to spend to perpetrate a ruse.
Click to expand...

No suggesting a ruse - merely wishful thinking or jumping the gun. I can certainly imagine someone going into the project, having a verbal agreement with GC about using the Acoustic mark, going forward with graphics and logos, then having GC come back and say, "oh by the way, we need another $1M for the licensing rights..." Then the project gets stalled while the lawyers go back and forth.

This kind of thing happens a fair amount, and often small business owners will leap before they fully look. Not saying that is the case, but to me this is the most plausible explanation given the data at hand. Normally manufacturers like photos being out there to promote a buzz. But that is when they aren't infringing a mark.

Just a theory...
 
#336
I will at least try to explain what I know about the secretive nature of the release of the New Acoustic line of amps.
1) George can not pre-advertise or even present views of the new line until UL listing is approved, due to licensing agreements made between GC and his stake in the trademark, and there has been a couple of small changes required to placement of certain accessory ports on the chassis, which required re-manufacturing chassis cases with those approriate changes. Chassis cases are not produced in one or two quantities for re-testing. UL testers try to blow up the power supplies, but are unsuccsessful and it makes them try even harder.

2) The reason for this extensive UL testing is these are for the global market, not just the US marketplace, a BIG difference in proceedure and nit-picking, plus they are not pre-approved amplifiers and pre-amplifiers picked out of a catalog and re-named as a new product like some of the made in China companys would have you believe.
3) All models will be released as a complete line for product launch at the same time, not piece meal. If it were my choice, I would do it the same way.
4) There are stacks of raw speakers in Georges R & D facility waiting to be installed in the cabinets when the go ahead is given. Completed cabinets also.

I wish I could be allowed to address all of your concerns and skepticism, but the fallout would be detrimental to George's goal of building the best amp on the market by the original Acoustic designers with a myriade of almost impossible in this fashion improvements. Example: designer wants component made to his exacting specs, but NO ONE makes it like that anymore, so it is custom crafted to the exact requirement.

I feel these things should be known just to make it clearer of the intent to provide the very best there is, but I have not been authorized to explain the things that I know about this, and may catch hell about it, but I'm 50 years old and can take it. Michael R. Winter, Newton IL.
 
#338
MichaelRClassic said:
George can not pre-advertise or even present views of the new line until UL listing is approved, due to licensing agreements made between GC and his stake in the trademark
Click to expand...
I 100% believe you that that's what George told you. ;)

Maybe I should address George with these two questions:

1) If the above statement about contractual restrictions from GC is true, then why not just say so, early on? Couldn't all of this jabbering and doubting have been averted if you had just told us at the beginning what was going on?

2) If you are contractually prohibited from promoting your goods, then are you not violating that contract --repeatedly-- by allowing testers to go onto forums and promote the goods for you? Wouldn't it be necessary to have them sign a nondisclosure agreement in order to meet the terms of your contract?
 
#340
By views, I mean pre-advertising pics, or to be more succinct, (pre-advertise with pics, or present pics), not opinions on how bassists allowed to test the products with instructions not to divulge the nature of hurdles that had to be overcome to get this close to product launch. Everyone has an opinion, no one can censor that by 1st ammendment law. Almost all of the pics have been privately leaked with at least one exception, and I did not get to take any.
Specifically about the latest, UL is still trying to blow up transformers and needed more samples. They are specially made components and George already sent them all extras made to designer specs like a great deal of the components were that I before mentioned, and more had to be custom made and sent for testing. Only a few were made in the first run. You don't want a warehouse full of a component that there is a chance that UL might reject, because it is not an off the shelf item, then you have an expensive bunch of worthless components and have to remake it.
One of the chassis case changes is due to the fact that the preamp provides the AC power for the amp in the bottom of the cabinet like the original 360/361pp, and UL required moving the remote accessory plug in location and earlier had changed the original type external fuse location to inside.

I've seen all these chassis case changes and both versions of the chassis, so you can speculate all you want, but it won't change the facts. Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back