Jump to content

Power star mini - copy of BDSv3


Dre Rivera

Recommended Posts

The Senator hit the nail on the head.  Inside they are very different.  From the website:

"The Power Star Mini features PSC’s exclusive Silent Power Technology™ designed to filter out unwanted switch mode noise and RF interference from your power lines. These exclusive PSC filters will ensure you of clean, quiet recordings in the field by minimizing unwanted inter-modulation noise, RF interference and other noise sources. Our RF filtering will provide better than 34dB of RF isolation between outputs, the best in the industry. In addition, each of the PSC Power Star Mini’s six output connectors are individually polyfuse protected and monitored for short circuits. Six convenient front panel status LED’s indicated an overloaded output."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who are not aware, I am the owner of Remote Audio, and ultimately responsible for the designs and construction of the products we manufacture. Though it’s no secret, I normally choose to not publicize that fact out of respect for our dealers who might compete with Trew Audio, which I also own. But there seems to be some confusion and misunderstanding in this thread that I can best clarify. With that in mind…

The Senator hit the nail on the head, alright: It is a rip-off, inside and out.

If imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, then the staff at Remote Audio and I should be truly flattered. But we are mostly disappointed and bewildered that PSC would stoop to such a blatant rip-off. Though the legality of it is questionable, it is clearly theft of an original design that has been on the market just one year. The BDS system has evolved over many years, and the latest version, the “BDSv3” took 18 months to design, manufacture, and get to market. It was the result of a lot of hard work, financial risk, field experience, and creativity evidently lacking at PSC.

Not only are the exterior dimensions, box design, and component layout identical, but contrary to Ron’s denial, the internal connectors, switch, relay, diode, fuses, and active circuit design are the same. Make no mistake; it is a rip-off, though not a very good one…

For starters, well-hidden under the ripped-off diode on the PSC circuit board is a shortcoming (unintentional but appropriate pun) in a fairly large “oh-shit” wire (a term referring to a crude jumper wire used to fix circuit board design deficiencies). The problem here is that, not only does this wire carry all of the positive current to three of the connectors, it also lays directly on top of the board, crossing the negative trace, relying only on the solder mask for insulation, dangerously close to becoming a short circuit. The traces on the PSC circuit board used to conduct the current are very small, about 90% smaller than the Remote Audio circuit board. Though the metal chassis design is a direct rip-off, it is made with thinner gauge aluminum, much more prone to flexing and bending.

For some reason Ron decided to not rip off the remote control and meter functions of the BDSv3, like he did with the Power Star, another rip-off almost as blatant (compare it to the Remote Audio Hot Strip, introduced one year earlier), except that the PSC version requires its remote meter in order to function, meaning that if your cable fails, or is damaged, or is forgotten, your power supply will not work. The Remote Audio Hot Strip, like the BDSv3, will work with or without the optional remote meter.

About those filters: THEY DON’T WORK to accomplish anything that will have an impact on a film/video production audio rig. The “exclusive filters” installed in the PSC box are hardly exclusive, as they are available to anyone for 69-cents each (literally, $0.69) from the typical suppliers. They are just a simple classic LC circuit using ferrite (instead of coils) and a capacitor. Though these would normally at least do no harm, they are a tiny surface mount device (barely more than 1/8th-inch) through which all current must go, seriously increasing the probability of a failure in the field. Over critical? Hardly… In the box we evaluated, one of these filters actually lifted off the circuit board when removing the cover-up paint used to hide the construction details. When this happens, the output no longer works (which would not be indicated by the LEDs). If a device like this is used in this circuit, it would be much better if it was a through-hole device, hand-soldered. So the reason these filters are not found in the Remote Audio BDS box is that they reduce reliability in the field while doing nothing to solve noise problems an ENG audio rig might have. Further, they are centered around a UHF frequency that would have nothing to do with DC-DC converter intermodulation, which PSC claims these filters are for. A year or so ago, I made a public offer of $100 for the first ten film/video production sound configurations with noise problems that could be demonstrated to be solved with PSC’s power devices. So far, there have been zero responses. With over 5000 Remote Audio BDS boxes in the field, I think it’s fair to say that we’ve been aware of more audio configurations using a common power source than anyone, and of the scenarios that created noise problems, none would have been fixed by having these filters inside the box. NONE. The noise problems some may have experienced when using a common power source for multiple pieces of audio equipment would still occur when using the PSC copy, and are always correctable with proper equipment setup, cabling, or grounding schemes.

The LED indicators on each output of the PSC box should not affect reliability (unlike the in-line filters). They are a simply an LED across each poly fuse. We thought about using this same design a couple of years ago but opted not to because the equipment being powered is a better indicator that the output is working. No harm though, and the lights may impress some.

One more thing… Beware of a cable flaw: The power cables sold by PSC for devices with a 2.1mm center conductor (Lectrosonics, and many others) have a positive contact that is not recessed into the plug as it should be, which is another serious shortcoming (who can say that pun isn’t funny?!). This means that a short circuit can easily happen with a connector end coming in contact with the surface of an audio device. So, though PSC claims they are compatible with the Remote Audio BDS system, and may work, they should be used with extra caution regardless of which box is used, making sure that the ends do not contact the chassis of your audio equipment.

Aside from the rip-offs, reliability, and misguided use of filters, the issue becomes price and functionality, both of which favor the Remote Audio system. The Remote Audio BDS box has been available for over a month now in a version called the “BDSv3-N”, which does not have the RM remote meter port, and is less expensive than the PSC copy. The BDSv3-N can be upgraded later with an RM remote meter port (current price is $40). While the full BDSv3 is a bit more expensive, it has the ability to be remotely controlled (ON/OFF) and display volts and amps with a single meter. The PSC copy does not have this ability.

Lastly, the prices of the most commonly used Remote Audio BDS cables are now the same or lower than those offered by PSC. For the record, the price change is not a result of this thread, but was planned last month.

Hopefully, regardless of what opinions are formed and which choice is made, they can now be made with more complete information.

Glen Trew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glen,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to make up your own facts.

Professional Sound Corporation has been manufacturing audio equipment and accessories including power supplies and power distribution products since 1986.  Over this nearly 25 year period of time, we have manufactured many different power distribution systems including our: Nagra Power supplies, Vega Power Supplies,  PSC Modupak,  PSC Cart Power AC, PSC Power Station, PSC PowerMax, PSC PowerMax Ultra, PSC Cart Power and our PSC PowerStar.  During the last 12 years (2 years before Remote Audio was in existence) we included the feature of  NP-1 battery power distribution built into several of our audio mixers.  While this served our mixer customers well, it left the users of other brands of mixers without an NP-1 power distribution system from PSC. 

Though we had received many requests over the years to build an ENG sized power distribution system, we stayed out of this portion of the business for nearly a decade out of respect for Peter Engh who had been building his own version for many years.  Peter and I always had a gentleman’s agreement not to compete with each other’s products. Last year, Peter stopped making his version of an ENG power distribution system so we decided to think about offering one.  (Peter’s Box, by the way, contained filters on the outputs)  We then set about investigating other products on the market.  To our surprise we found that our competition was a simple box containing a few connectors, a power switch, 3 poly fuses, a few resistors and a relay and yes, A FEW OF THEIR OWN PCB SHORTCOMINGS AS WELL!  This is not exactly rocket science and certainly not new technology.  We have in fact built DC power distribution products using connectors, power switches, poly fuses and relays for nearly 25 years and the technology existed long before that time.    We were amazed at the price our competitor was charging for their box and cables.  It seemed to us that a better box could be made and sold to our customers for far less money.  The cable prices were exceedingly high in our opinion.  Only after our box and cables came on the market did they lower their prices to a more reasonable level.  While their new lower prices have been available for over a month, what about the “5000” existing customers who paid the higher prices. 

No one within our industry wants any box to be bigger or heavier than absolutely needed.  The PSC PowerStar Mini is built to be as small and compact as possible in consideration of the included filters, 7 Polyfuses and 6 monitoring LED’s.  Our housing design is not “identical” as stated by Glen.  Its design was keep to a minimum size and weight while allowing our additional circuitry to be housed inside.  I have no idea if our box uses thinner gauge aluminum, but I can say it is very strong and is not “prone to flexing and bending”  Did we use the same Switchcraft power connector, yes, but then again, we have been using this same Switchcraft power connector in several of our products for nearly 25 years. 

Let’s talk about the parts used:  The NKK mini lighted toggle switch in the PSC PowerStar Mini was first used by PSC in our Miranda Mixer prototype back in 2004.  It was next seen on the Cooper 306 mixer a few years later.  Remote audio is but one of many companies using this switch on audio products today.  The use of a reverse polarity power protect diode along with Polyfuses has been common practice at PSC for decades.  This is not some new technology invented at Remote Audio.  The photomos relay used in both boxes was used in several of our older product designs dating back years before Remote Audio incorporated it.  I was not surprised to see it used in their box as it is a good part for the application in that it is small, compact and efficient…….if you operate it within its design limits of 5 amps, NOT 6 amps as advertized by them until recently.  Our individual output polyfuses are not the same as Remote Audios’s.  Ours are rated at 2.5 amps, because a 3 amp polyfuse will typically trip at about 4.5 amps depending on ambient temperature.  This 4.5 amps is just about the same as the trip point in most NP-1 batteries self protection.  What does that mean to you?  It means that the NP-1 battery is just as likely to shut off as any individual output on our competitor’s box.  Keep in mind if the NP-1 shuts off, your entire sound package shuts down as opposed to an individual output!  What about our PCB trace widths?  Our trace widths are not 90% smaller than theirs.  I can assure you that I know how to calculate PCB trace power loss in circuit board layouts.  I have been doing it for over 20 years.  If our competitor is so worried about power loss and possible over heating issues, then they should be looking at their own product line which contains several products rated at 24 amps while using a connector rated at 6 or 8 amps.    I don’t think they understand that the “Absolute Maximum” ratings on part’s manufactures specification sheets are not just friendly recommendations.

If surface mount components are not reliable, then we should all just quit the business.  Every single audio equipment manufacturer today uses surface mount components.  If Glen broke one of these parts while disassembling one of our boxes, then that is simply because he broke it plain and simple.  Our PowerStar Mini’s do NOT contain “cover-up paint used to hide the construction details”  I know this as I personally built every one of the PowerStar Minis produced so date.  If anyone local wants to stop by and look at one, I will open it up for them to see.  Maybe the box Glen has is “special”.

The comment about the differences in the cables is nonsense.  Remote Audio charging upwards of $30 and $40 each for a molded cable is (was) ridicules.

If our box is a “rip off” of theirs, then why does our box have proper sized Polyfuses, six Polyfuse monitoring LEDs, Individual output filters, and a power switch that lights up Red if the main polyfuse should ever trip?  If our box and cables are such a “rip off” then why did a typical setup from Remote Audio cost nearly $100 more than ours when ours has all of the additional features?  Who really was getting ripped off all these years? 

I am very sorry if Glen does not like having competition and was forced to lower his pricing as a result.  If you think his box is better built then please buy it.  If you think ours is better built then go that route.  In the end, this is all good for the consumer.

For those who want to know more about why we uses filters, check out our website:

http://www.professionalsound.com/manuals/PowerStar_mini_filtered_outputs.pdf

Respectfully

Ron Meyer

Professional Sound Corp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now just a minute-

As I look at the two circuit boards, they do look quite similar. The connectors are the same and are laid out in an identical pattern. The exact position of resistors and other components is a bit different but the elements are clearly very similar.

But, this doesn't mean that one design is stolen or lifted from the other. As Ron says, this isn't rocket science and the switches and components used in this kind of product are likely to be pretty similar from one design bench to another. In fact, both designs look pretty similar, to me, to distribution boxes available from Hawk-Woods. Even the orientation of the connectors, in a staggered array, doesn't really suggest design theft; it's a natural design choice if one is trying to cram the maximum number of connectors in a small space and still permit access.

I've known Ron for quite a long time, since he was working for ASC (now LSC) and before he split off to form PSC. I've always known him to be honest, helpful and cooperative. I don't think he needs to steal ideas.

I've also found his products to be well made and reliable. I've been using a Power Station battery for more than ten years without any difficulty. I've also used some other products and have always been satisfied. Now, it is true that he builds products to a price point so his mixers are not as solid (or heavy or expensive) as something like the SQN (whose very name tells you they spare no expense). But if any product fails to work as expected, Ron is always ready to do whatever he can to make it right. And actual performance has always been solid - at least, that's been my experience.

I've also known Glen Trew for a few years - not so long as Ron but awhile. I've also found him to be honest and capable.

I think this is an instance of jumping to conclusions. Glen jealously protects his proprietary designs and may be just a bit hair trigger in making an accusation. Glen, unless you can show something special - not similarities in obvious components - I think you owe Ron an apology.

Of course, if you've seen Ron lurking about your facilities with a Minox, that's another matter.

David Waelder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I'm sorry to say but PSC makes crap.  I've used there stuff and always ended up disappointed.

I disagree my first mixer was a PSC M4+ Mixer ( Early Version of Wendt) with a serial number under 200. It is old and beat up but still works I keep it as a back up mixer and just rented it to someone last week who said it preformed great.  Ron knows how to build things to last just like Remote Audio I enjoying using both companies equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by the way , remote audio didn't build any audio high qoality  related products except Meon ( which i doubt if was designed in house  but let say it was )  ---SNIP---

from 1 hand there is a box shipper who did few simple things on the side to increase the money bank account by inside products , on other hand real manufacturer . ---SNIP---

by the way  for these who find the meon is fascinating by the  price and weight  ;-)

RemoteAudio has made many high quality products over the years --- you're on tender hooks, Oleg, making grand statements about either RemoteAudio or PSC. I would also appreciate it if you stop using the term "box shipper" since it is not an accurate description of any of the manufacturers or dealers we are talking about.

No one is fascinated by the price and/or weight of the Meon and I think your constant prodding to everyone to seek out basic battery suppliers with the suggestion build their own does not apply to many of our members here. Those that are capable of putting something together that is competitive with the various products we are discussing will just go ahead and do it.

My overall advice regarding this PSC vs. RemoteAudio "discussion" is that we need to take it down a notch, possibly encourage both Glen Trew and Ron Meyer to have a private conversation about all of this, and let the rest of us just get on with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whitney, I should have mention that I have not used all of there products.  I have used there mixers and they suck balls.

Jeff,  Oleg has the right to say whatever he likes.  I do agree he comes on here to stir shit up.  But it at least it gets me thinking.

I'm sorry Glen but I tend to agree with Oleg on Remote Audio.  I have spent lots of money with your company.  I have also spent a lot of money having my "cable guy" fix all the issues I've had with my remote audio cables.  But, I do love my BDS v2 and v3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree my first mixer was a PSC M4+ Mixer ( Early Version of Wendt) with a serial number under 200. It is old and beat up but still works I keep it as a back up mixer and just rented it to someone last week who said it preformed great.  Ron knows how to build things to last just like Remote Audio I enjoying using both companies equipment.

Whitney, the M4A+ mixer was built by Bob Wendt.

gt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whitney, I should have mention that I have not used all of there products.  I have used there mixers and they suck balls.

Jeff,  Oleg has the right to say whatever he likes.  I do agree he comes on here to stir shit up.  But it at least it gets me thinking.

I'm sorry Glen but I tend to agree with Oleg on Remote Audio.  I have spent lots of money with your company.  I have also spent a lot of money having my "cable guy" fix all the issues I've had with my remote audio cables.  But, I do love my BDS v2 and v3.

Justan,

I disagree with most of the things you said.  I have purchased from both Remote Audio and PSC and have found they both, for the most part, make quality products and both strive to take good care of their customers.  I'm sorry your experiences have been problematic.

On another of your points, no one has the right to just say anything they want here, unless it's Jeff. 

Jeff runs this forum as a service to the sound community, but it is HIS forum, and if he wishes to impose parameters on those posting here, it is his forum to do so.  He works quite hard to be fair and even-handed, but when a given individual has a primary goal of stirring up dissent and contention, it is well within Jeff's purview to prevent this from becoming RAMPS II.

If you require an Oleg in your life to get you thinking, you certainly have a huge amount of growing to do.  Most of the rest of us are capable of learning tons without an ill-trained Shih Tzu nipping at our heels.

John B., CAS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  One thing that has always stood out to me about sound people, is that we try to help each other.  When I meet another cool sound recordist I pass them jobs, I tell other clients how great they are, and it comes back to me when I get a ref from them.  I daresay I would not be where I am if other sound people didn't pass my name along.  Unlike say the vanities, sound folks are all bonded by the fact that we're the only people who care about sound on a set!  (Okay maybe a director or editor here or there cares also.)

  I happily use both Remote Audio and PSC products and I haven't had either fail!  I would think this conversation could be more civilized like Ron's response was, without "ripped off" or "stole" being used, but I don't want this to become private!  I enjoy seeing people's passions in text.

  Dan Izen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justan,

I disagree with most of the things you said.  I have purchased from both Remote Audio and PSC and have found they both, for the most part, make quality products and both strive to take good care of their customers.  I'm sorry your experiences have been problematic.

On another of your points, no one has the right to just say anything they want here, unless it's Jeff. 

Jeff runs this forum as a service to the sound community, but it is HIS forum, and if he wishes to impose parameters on those posting here, it is his forum to do so.  He works quite hard to be fair and even-handed, but when a given individual has a primary goal of stirring up dissent and contention, it is well within Jeff's purview to prevent this from becoming RAMPS II.

If you require an Oleg in your life to get you thinking, you certainly have a huge amount of growing to do.  Most of the rest of us are capable of learning tons without an ill-trained Shih Tzu nipping at our heels.

John B., CAS

You have made some excellent points.  I will consider them all :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, why private? we;re all adults here. more than. if there's anything more to be said, let's hear it both ways, and why not?

I totally agree.  We should be able to discuss whatever we like and respect everyone's opinion.

I would like apologize for my comments earlier.  They were harsh. I could have said them in a more respectable manor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"  I have used there (sic) mixers and they suck balls. "

pretty broad sweep...

over the years PSC has manufactured and marketed a number of mixers in various formats and price ranges.  While I have not used them all, the ones I am familiar with have always been excellent values, and well respected in their market segments.  PSC has also upgraded their models, kept the prices competitive and provided service and support for their products at the highest levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree that if two skilled engineers build two products that perform essentially the same task, for the same small group of consumers, that the products are going to be VERY similar and will contain MANY of the same components.

Knowing Ron personally, as well as owning PSC Phantom Power Supplies, a PowerStation, a Cart Power, a PowerMax Ultra, a Solice, and a handful of cables made by the team at PSC, I can tell you that Ron, his products and his customer service are all top notch.

While I do not know Glen, I expect that his products perform their tasks well also.  I'm sure if I lived 2 miles from Trew Audio and not 2 miles from PSC, I might own more of Glen's stuff.  I have heard nothing but positive reviews for Remote Audio's gear and for PSC's gear.

In this tough economy, I can see where there might be some bitterness towards competitors.  It's pretty normal.  And I expect that Glen probably feels a bit of remorse for the anger represented in his initial post.

As long as each company continues to think of innovative products, and builds them here in the USA, I can't see that there is any problem for us consumers.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess Glen should take the similarities as a compliment, such as when Behringer  compliments other companies products.  I assume the bottom line comes down to what a patent Lawyer/judge has to say,rather then ethics.  Maybe if there are no faults with the similarities, then all's fair game.  Open the flood gates and remake each others products, (they both offer very useful products) maybe we will get some cheaper prices as consumers- and we'll have some rather interesting reading at jwsound.

I for one was very taken back of the similarities, not what I expected would be allowed to be promoted as a "new product"  from a different manufacturer.  But hey I'm not a patent guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that although I own products from both companies, I clearly understand the idea that the product that was first to market would have a beef with an other company coming out with the same unit a year later, for less $.  I mean really guys, can you not see one is a copy of the other?  It was not like they were both built in private and they came to market at the same time.  If you were starting with a blank slate with a new product, wouldn't you go out of your way to make it stand out from the others visually?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a world of copycat TV shows, movies, and news programming I do find it disappointing that PSC chose to make a product that looks exactly like the Remote audio product on the outside.  Although PSC doe have every right to compete in the market, I feel they need to come up with their own design regardless of how it works on the inside.  I would be upset if all my time, research, financial investment and plain hard work over the years is purchased , measured and copied without any thought whatsoever. 

I have no ill will to either company, as they both provide excellent products, but the copy cat look alone is just disappointing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...