Pedal deceptions old and new

TimmyO

That’s true for an initial launch but if you can’t supply and support your product you’d be toast - that internet marketing machine works both ways 

JimmyWings

TimmyO said:

That’s true for an initial launch but if you can’t supply and support your product you’d be toast - that internet marketing machine works both ways 

Supply yes. Support... finite consideration. Look at Strymon.

ICBM

TimmyO said:

Even the venerable Zendrive is a tubesceamer with some different clipping and a control that  just trades gain for low end - but that’s one that shows some deliberate thought at least 

The Zendrive is a Timmy with different clipping components. Both of them are essentially a Tube Screamer with Rat filtering, and although there are quite a lot of component value differences, the basic circuits are identical.

Gulliver

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Talking of voodoo and BS, that 'church of tone' article reminded me of this. A classic! 

Best bit is that Dumble licenced the 'Sonic Fusion Crystal Lattice Dumble Overdrive' which supposedly gave the true 'Dumble sound', using solid state components!

The main thing I took from this was I never knew Alexander Dumble was such a <ADMIN EDIT: Rob Chapman rule...>... I always just assumed he was some thin, paste-y looking bloke who designed amps in his Mom's basement...

darcym

ICBM said:

TimmyO said:

Even the venerable Zendrive is a tubesceamer with some different clipping and a control that  just trades gain for low end - but that’s one that shows some deliberate thought at least 

The Zendrive is a Timmy with different clipping components. Both of them are essentially a Tube Screamer with Rat filtering, and although there are quite a lot of component value differences, the basic circuits are identical.

This really gets my interest. 

I love a good tubescreamer and I like the Zen drive and Timmy (took me a while to learn how to use it) but to me they are totally different beasts, the tubescreamer obviously sounds like a tubescreamer, but the zen and timmy sound totally different into my amp with zero overlap really.

Are the circuits that close that its purely components that make that much of a difference ?

I have the same problem with the JanRay and the Timmy, I really like the JanRay and when people made such a big deal out of it being a timmy with one component changed (or whatever the actual details was) I tried really hard to get them to overlap in sounds and the overlap when I tried was very very minimal, they sounded like two different pedals, so I treated them as two different pedals.

ICBM

darcym said:

This really gets my interest. 

I love a good tubescreamer and I like the Zen drive and Timmy (took me a while to learn how to use it) but to me they are totally different beasts, the tubescreamer obviously sounds like a tubescreamer, but the zen and timmy sound totally different into my amp with zero overlap really.

Are the circuits that close that its purely components that make that much of a difference ?

Yes.

Zendrive:



Timmy:



You should be able to see that the overall topology is identical. Almost every component value is different though. There is a minor difference in that the Timmy has a little gain in the second IC stage whereas the Zendrive is unity gain, but that's all those two 3K3 resistors do. The order of the pot and resistor in the treble cut control makes no difference, and the Timmy has a dual frequency bass rolloff (more like a Rat) rather than the Zendrive's single, but is otherwise doing the same job.

thermionic

Three-ColourSunburst said:

The never ending stream of 'must have' pedals, vintage mojo, 'boutique' this and that, point to point wiring, Germanium diodes and 'bumblebee' capacitors,  'tone wood' fundamentalism (look at the nonsense in the link below)

https://blog.andertons.co.uk/learn/electric-guitar-tonewood-guide

 Christ on a bike, there’s some bullshit in that article. Shame, as there seems to be some useful facts in there as well.

deano

Why isn't it illegal to copy someone's circuit design? Don't we have enough legal protections available, such as patents, copyright laws, intellectual property ownership laws, licensing agreements and so on.

Surely someone building a pedal and who comes up with a unique design can protect that somehow. So why is cloning such an issue?

Actually, can any pedal builder genuinely claim to come up with a completely unique, original design these days? Aren't all circuits derivations of other older ones, but with some changes? Is it possible for someone to create a completely unique drive circuit for example, that owes nothing to a previous design?

Do pedal builders want Maxon (I think it was they who designed that circuit first, and assuming of course they are still in business) to be given legal protection over the TS-808 circuit to prevent anyone from cloning it, or more importantly, to prevent anyone deriving a circuit from it? Nobody will be allowed to change a chip, or a few resistors and capacitors and claiming it is a new product. Do builders want to see that sort of protection?

Do pedal builders need protection from clones, or do they need protection from derivatives? When does a clone become a derivative?

If I were a pedal builder I would want protection from clones, and from people who take my design and change a few components and call it a derivative, because it is still fundamentally my circuit design. How many changes must be made before it is not recognisably based on my design?

preston61

deano said:

Why isn't it illegal to copy someone's circuit design? Don't we have enough legal protections available, such as patents, copyright laws, intellectual property ownership laws, licensing agreements and so on.

Surely someone building a pedal and who comes up with a unique design can protect that somehow. So why is cloning such an issue?

Actually, can any pedal builder genuinely claim to come up with a completely unique, original design these days? Aren't all circuits derivations of other older ones, but with some changes? Is it possible for someone to create a completely unique drive circuit for example, that owes nothing to a previous design?

Do pedal builders want Maxon (I think it was they who designed that circuit first, and assuming of course they are still in business) to be given legal protection over the TS-808 circuit to prevent anyone from cloning it, or more importantly, to prevent anyone deriving a circuit from it? Nobody will be allowed to change a chip, or a few resistors and capacitors and claiming it is a new product. Do builders want to see that sort of protection?

Do pedal builders need protection from clones, or do they need protection from derivatives? When does a clone become a derivative?

If I were a pedal builder I would want protection from clones, and from people who take my design and change a few components and call it a derivative, because it is still fundamentally my circuit design. How many changes must be made before it is not recognisably based on my design?

yeah, but Deano, pedals only cost a "few quid" to build anyway right, so what's the harm?? ;-)

raulduke

deano said:

If I were a pedal builder I would want protection from clones, and from people who take my design and change a few components and call it a derivative, because it is still fundamentally my circuit design. How many changes must be made before it is not recognisably based on my design?

If we are talking overdrives/fuzz/boosters etc. the problem is, similar to there only being a certain number of musical scales/notes (and chord progressions that work well together and sound pleasing), there are only a certain number of ways to amplify and distort a signal in a musical/pleasing way. So where do you draw the line on a circuit being derivative? If it uses a non inverting op-amp amplification stage with clipping diodes does that make it a tube screamer knock off?

The reason why a lot of these circuits look similar... is because there are only so many ways of using the components available to get a desired result that conforms to what people expect an overdrive/fuzz/clean boost etc. to sound like. Look how many valve amplifiers preamp/power amp stages look similar.

Having legal protection is one thing, but having the finances to use that protection to take a case through the full legal system is a whole other ball game, and probably well beyond the means of many pedal manufacturers.

I think the better approach is for customers to spend a little more, and support small manufacturers who are coming up with unique/different designs, have great customer service/support and a cool overall brand/image, rather than going for the cheapest available, knockoff, ten a penny clones.

There is also the 'brand prestige' thing. There are no doubt loads of Zendrive/timmy clones available for sale for on ebay (for very little £). The rational part of your brain knows it is exactly the same circuit, but the irrational part knows that it is still not the real thing (similar to a Strat knockoff not being a real Fender Strat etc.etc.).

Philtre

Same as copyrighting the 12 bar blues.

Adam_MD

.

deano

raulduke said:

The reason why a lot of these circuits look similar... is because there are only so many ways of using the components available to get a desired result that conforms to what people expect an overdrive/fuzz/clean boost etc. to sound like. Look how many valve amplifiers preamp/power amp stages look similar.

I think the better approach is for customers to spend a little more, and support small manufacturers who are coming up with unique/different designs, have great customer service/support and a cool overall brand/image, rather than going for the cheapest available, knockoff, ten a penny clones.

So these small manufacturers who are coming up with unique/different designs, are they using a design that isn't original because there are only so many ways of using the components after all.

It can't be both. If there is nothing new under the sun because all the basic designs have been used already, any small boutique pedal make must be using one of those basic designs to come up with their circuit. So if they aren't coming up with unique designs after all, but are in reality only producing a Tube Screamer clone, then why should they be supported and companies like Joyo rebuffed?

I must admit - although it will not come as a surprise - that I am wary of paying for a "cool overall brand/image".

crunchman

ICBM said:

Slightly tweaked Tube Screamers without the buffering....

I've got one of those on my board.  I know that's what it is because I built it myself.  It's also true bypass, which should make @ICBM's blood boil.

There is undoubtedly a lot of hype and snake oil around.  Some of the "boutique" builders do use more expensive components than the mass market versions, but it is hard to justify some of the prices they charge.

I think there is a difference between "inspired by" and a straight rip-off.  The Thorpy Fallout Cloud makes no secret of being inspired by the Big Muff Pi, especially before the name change, but it isn't a straight clone.  Some of the "boutique" pedals do attempt to improve on the original they are based on.  Is an Analogman worth that much more than a Marshall Bluesbreaker though?  And why don't Marshall reissue the Mark 1 Bluesbreaker circuit?

Anacharsis

deano said:

raulduke said:

The reason why a lot of these circuits look similar... is because there are only so many ways of using the components available to get a desired result that conforms to what people expect an overdrive/fuzz/clean boost etc. to sound like. Look how many valve amplifiers preamp/power amp stages look similar.

I think the better approach is for customers to spend a little more, and support small manufacturers who are coming up with unique/different designs, have great customer service/support and a cool overall brand/image, rather than going for the cheapest available, knockoff, ten a penny clones.

So these small manufacturers who are coming up with unique/different designs, are they using a design that isn't original because there are only so many ways of using the components after all.

It can't be both. If there is nothing new under the sun because all the basic designs have been used already, any small boutique pedal make must be using one of those basic designs to come up with their circuit. So if they aren't coming up with unique designs after all, but are in reality only producing a Tube Screamer clone, then why should they be supported and companies like Joyo rebuffed?

I must admit - although it will not come as a surprise - that I am wary of paying for a "cool overall brand/image".

It really kind of is both. There may be some creative work involved in making a particular drive/distortion/fuzz circuit. But that creative work is unlikely to clear the patent hurdles, particularly that of "prior art" - which means you can't patent something that's too terribly close to what's already been done.

So there's creative work, but not the kind that can be protected by intellectual property law.

In the U.S. at least, a patent lasts for 20 years. Trademarks are for branding, and last much longer. You could cover a PCB design with copyright, but making a new PCB for the same circuit wouldn't be terribly difficult. So with the Tube Screamer, Fuzz Face, Big Muff - and yes, the Klon and Timmy - even if they were patented at one point, those patents would be expired by now.

To me, cloning isn't the thing to which I object. It's misrepresentation. When Peter Rutter of VFE took a range of dirt circuits and "opened them up" with mods and additional controls, he couldn't have been more open about it unless he used trademarked names without permission. He didn't lie and claim to have tuned a pedal side by side an amp he didn't even have, or over the course of years of golden-eared tone study. The Mooer people even use fonts that tell you exactly what they're cloning. No violation of the law, no lie. Now some people still object to cloning that undercuts the original circuit maker, and that's their prerogative.

ICBM

crunchman said:

Is an Analogman worth that much more than a Marshall Bluesbreaker though?  And why don't Marshall reissue the Mark 1 Bluesbreaker circuit?

Probably because they know the market is tiny, and that even if they did it wouldn't be 'boutique' enough for most of the people who are interested in this sort of thing and so wouldn't sell anyway.

raulduke

Chase Bliss are doing new things with established analogue fx circuit design techniques by incorporating the analogue circuits with digital control.

Companies like Catalinbread came up with novel (IMO) overdrive and distortion designs by using (again established) discrete FET design approach (based on the old amplifier schematics) rather than just copying the clipping op-amp overdrive type designs.

Strymon used advancing power in DSP chips to model effects in greater detail than was previously possible in a compact pedal format (again using the same DSP techniques as used previously).

Fairfield Circuitry designed a new (and in my opinion the best I have tried) analogue delay, using a mix of established circuits (random signal/function generator, tilt tone control, clocked analogue delay stage, FET feedback compression stage etc.).

I would wager that none of the above use explicitly new or unique circuits in their designs; but the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

It's back to the same analogy; there only so many chords and so many notes; so how come we keep getting new songs? It's because a small number of people are putting the time and effort into finding a new way to do things; a novel approach, a unique twist.

It's these people I would choose to support, otherwise we would just get the same thing over and over again. No innovation. No fun. No cool stuff

I think that is why Vertex, Freekish Blues etc. attract such animosity. They are distracting and taking attention away from the people who are actually trying to do something different, and are worthy of our £

Danny1969

The thing is if you consider a basic drive pedal based around an opamp (the triangle symbol )then it's always gonna look something like this 





Looks very simple and it is ..... in fact C1, C2, R3 and R4 are only there because it's been modified to run off a battery when in reality opamps are designed for dual polarity supplies originally  ... add a couple of diodes to the above and you have a basic overdrive or distortion circuit depending on where you place them .... ... now the values of R3 and R4 are unimportant as long as they are equal in value .... although too low a value will use more current than needed and be wasteful .... the values of R2 and R1 set the gain of the amp in the formula R2 divided by R1 add 1 ..... so if R2 was 100K and R1 10K then it would have a gain of 11 .... so that's our basic black box of gain we can use to build something

But if you drew out what's inside the opamp it would look something like this  



In fact I think the above is a 741 which is a very old design, even something like a TLO71 is much more complex but you get the gist, all the hardwork in making a high gain reasonably stable amplifier has already been down by the designer of the opamp which has a differential input and will always try to keep it's inverting and non inverting inputs at the same level ... which makes using it a piece of cake. And modern opamps are so good there's literally no point in using discreet small stage circuit design unless it's the very first stage of something very sensitive, like the first stage of a mic pre amp or something similar

When you design a cars electronic ignition system you inevitably use a coil and triacs to provide the HT voltage for the plugs ... you only re invent the wheel if you believe the original one has a fault I spose

Most designs if not copied from others are born out of the reference circuit supplied by the device manufacture. This tends to be a quick and dirty circuit to show you how the device was designed to be used and then you have to add the decoupling, EMF shielding etc  and various other bits of good housekeeping before you have something that's sale-able 

deano

Anacharsis said:

To me, cloning isn't the thing to which I object. It's misrepresentation. When Peter Rutter of VFE took a range of dirt circuits and "opened them up" with mods and additional controls, he couldn't have been more open about it unless he used trademarked names without permission. He didn't lie and claim to have tuned it side by side an amp he didn't even have, or over the course of years of golden-eared tone study. The Mooer people even use fonts that tell you exactly what they're cloning. No violation of the law, no lie. Now some people still object to cloning that undercuts the original circuit maker, and that's they're prerogative. 

If I bought a kit from Fuzz Dog Pedal Parts for a King of Tone clone (I don't know if they sell one or not, I've just picked a pedal at random) for say £40.00 and built the pedal using the kit, then sold the pedal with my label on it as a "Deano Sovereign of Tone" for £250, and gave it plenty of snake oil/buzzwords in the advert, would you see that as okay, or not okay?

After all, I haven't given any indication I bought the kit from someone, they have been given no credit. But it was built by me from a kit. I have added value by building the pedal. Nobody will know that it is from a kit, and I am claiming it to be my work - which it is to a degree because I turned the pile of parts into a pedal. Is that deception?

Where does the line get drawn in all this?

The whole industry is a little bit incestuous to my mind. A pedal maker will take the original Tube Screamer design, and create a derivative of it, saying it was "inspired" by the original design. What a weasel word "inspired" is. If a slightly tweaked version is "inspired by", then an out-and-out clone ought to be a "tribute to" the original design. But it doesn't matter because they will soon be ripped off themselves as someone else is "inspired" by the design that was "inspired" by the original Tube Screamer!

Perhaps it is evolutionary! The Tube Screamer was the original self-replicating pedal. It got cloned but with a tiny modification. That clone got cloned with another tiny modification. The good ones got bought and cloned with more tiny modifications, the bad ones die off, shoved at the back of a cupboard. Eventually we will end up with an super-evolved Tube Screamer that sounds perfect. A Klon perhaps?

raulduke

See my post above. And aren't all industries 'incestuous' in some form or other? How is a VW Golf that different vs a Vauxhall Corsa? They all have an engine, 4 wheels and a chassis.

I don't think its really fair to tar all pedal companies with the same brush.

... but I get the impression from this thread and the 'every pedal only has a few £ worth of parts' you have your mind made up... fair does. They must all be crooks.... out to swindle, scam and make their fortune anyway they can in the lucrative world of... that's right... guitar fx pedals