I'm in the process of designing a Dumble clone pedal. I've been reviewing the Run Off Groove Umble circuit and it seems to have some serious design flaws. Has anyone reviewed this circuit? If so, what are your thoughts?
I'm going to breadboard it to verify their design against the fixes that I see need to be made.
Also, is it me or does it seem a bit crazy that the Run Off Groove guys are trying to license an un-patented circuit that is a rip off of a Fender gain stage using FETs and Dumble's tone stack. Are they paying Fender and Dumble licensing fees? If not, then wouldn't this make them hypocrites? I've heard that some guys have been bashed on forums and such for using the ROG designs - seems a bit like a mobster mentality.
Pop corn anyone?
Well, I hope there is more interests in this than that. If not, ok.
Most of the design features of the Umble, like most everything else, are pretty public domain at this point. That's why the tone stack is called the "FMV", Fender/Marshall/Vox. They ripped each other all the time. If you want to CALL it "Umble", therein lies the licensing. Feel free to modify something small and call it something else, if my understanding of copyright law is correct.
I don't recall Raytheon getting a royalty from Fender, as one basic common-cathode gain stage is the same as the next, and they were in play a while before the first instrument amps. Wow, you can change the cathode cap value. You can bypass the anode...not major changes to the basic building block.
Take a look at an early Marshall and Fender schematic, compare them. And wonder in awe why there were so few 'altercations' about the similarity in design...even the mistakes were copied ;)
Welcome!
I'm not sure what "serious design flaws" you see. Does it distort your fine sound? Yes, and that's the idea. Three gain-stages in a row are sure to beat-up any sound. Are there other ways to do the bias? Yes, and many ways to skin the cat. Does it explode or poison your dog? I don't see anything "serious" like that.
The tone-stack is a trivial mod of a Fender design.
Licensing issues should be taken-up with your lawyer. My idiot opinion is that ROG attempts to prohibit you using their work for commercial product. But as you say, their work is strongly derived from Dumble and Fender products. So you could avoid ROG's claims by back-tracking to their sources and deriving your own design. If there are indeed "flaws" then I suppose you would be forced to re-design? OTOH, you are just looking at the "free" license. If you propose a commercial product on this plan, they may be pleased to sell you more rights.
Happy New Year! Peace on earth, and good will toward everybody.
Quote from: GibsonGM on January 01, 2016, 05:32:41 PM
Most of the design features of the Umble, like most everything else, are pretty public domain at this point. That's why the tone stack is called the "FMV", Fender/Marshall/Vox. They ripped each other all the time. If you want to CALL it "Umble", therein lies the licensing. Feel free to modify something small and call it something else, if my understanding of copyright law is correct.
I don't recall Raytheon getting a royalty from Fender, as one basic common-cathode gain stage is the same as the next, and they were in play a while before the first instrument amps. Wow, you can change the cathode cap value. You can bypass the anode...not major changes to the basic building block.
Take a look at an early Marshall and Fender schematic, compare them. And wonder in awe why there were so few 'altercations' about the similarity in design...even the mistakes were copied ;)
I agree wholeheartedly. The thing about the ROG guys is that they are calling dibs on derivatives of work too - for an unpatented design with flaws none-the-less.
The ROG guys "license" their stuff under the creative commons 3.0 terms. These are VERY user and builder friendly, have a look here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ (I got that link from the ROG umble site). They even state that further permission may be granted ("Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be requested.") .
I'd wish that every designer who get "inspirations" from other sources would be so generous with their intellectual property. If you found flaws and manage to fix them, the creative commons rules allow for that under the obligation that "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original."
That sounds pretty neat to me, because all circuits from ROG will thus remain in the public domain, no matter who messes with them.
But then again, maybe I missed some fine print on the ROG site.
Beyond that, if you are able to improve the circuit I am sure all forumites here and the ROG guys would be happy if you share your findings here!
Quote from: PRR on January 01, 2016, 05:35:37 PM
Welcome!
I'm not sure what "serious design flaws" you see. Does it distort your fine sound? Yes, and that's the idea. Three gain-stages in a row are sure to beat-up any sound. Are there other ways to do the bias? Yes, and many ways to skin the cat. Does it explode or poison your dog? I don't see anything "serious" like that.
The tone-stack is a trivial mod of a Fender design.
Licensing issues should be taken-up with your lawyer. My idiot opinion is that ROG attempts to prohibit you using their work for commercial product. But as you say, their work is strongly derived from Dumble and Fender products. So you could avoid ROG's claims by back-tracking to their sources and deriving your own design. If there are indeed "flaws" then I suppose you would be forced to re-design? OTOH, you are just looking at the "free" license. If you propose a commercial product on this plan, they may be pleased to sell you more rights.
Happy New Year! Peace on earth, and good will toward everybody.
Thanks for the welcome. Seems like a cool forum!
By labeling as a Dumble clone, they are holding it to a higher standard than "Does it distort." And based on that, the Umble YouTube videos are far from impressive (compared to the Zed Drive). Also their schemo still shows V1.0. IMO, it sounds like they grunted, squeezed and then fished the design out the toilet - and then called dibs on derivatives that fix the issues that make it sound so unimpressive.
If I enhance (or fix) the circuit and want to take it commercial, then do I have to fend these knuckle-heads off?... just because they called dibs :-) I think not.
In the great words of Jason Freid "Ideas are easy, it's the implementation that hard." A huge part of the "implementation" is the iterative process that comes from wanting make something excellent, AND the folding in customer feedback up-to market acceptance. IMO a schemo with V1.0 isn't even in the same universe as developing a project towards excellence - be it DIY or commercial.
Sorry for coming off like a ton bricks in my first post :-)
I think by posing straw-man attacks on ROG, you make yourself appear to be the knucklehead.
I still don't see these "serious design flaws" you accuse, but at this point, I don't care.
Quote from: lars-musik on January 01, 2016, 05:55:09 PM
The ROG guys "license" their stuff under the creative commons 3.0 terms. These are VERY user and builder friendly, have a look here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ (I got that link from the ROG umble site). They even state that further permission may be granted ("Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be requested.") .
I'd wish that every designer who get "inspirations" from other sources would be so generous with their intellectual property. If you found flaws and manage to fix them, the creative commons rules allow for that under the obligation that "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original."
That sounds pretty neat to me, because all circuits from ROG will thus remain in the public domain, no matter who messes with them.
But then again, maybe I missed some fine print on the ROG site.
Beyond that, if you are able to improve the circuit I am sure all forumites here and the ROG guys would be happy if you share your findings here!
Paying licensing and CC are a bit at odds. Seems they want it both ways.
Two points of reference for me...
1) Way back in 1994 when I worked at TOA, I was put in touch with Dennis Bahn (sp?) lead designer at Furman. I told him his work on the rackmount para-eq was amazing and told him that I'd love to build one. He instantly offered to send me the schemo, I said "Really, isn't that your secret sauce?" He said (I paraphrase) 'That's not the way we look at it, if someone is crazy enough to build audio equipment, then welcome to the Party!' To this day I couldn't agree more.
2) I worked for 5 years as a Licensing Engineer at Dolby. During that time I learned the power of proven technology that is patented. To this day, I think that anyone who develops something new and novel such that it can be protected AND offers an optimized implementation deserves to be rewarded. ROGs design is neither proven nor patented.
I will absolutely share my final schemo here, even if I take it commercial... However, based on the above, I can't in good conscious give ROG licensing or attribution.
Quote from: PRR on January 01, 2016, 06:06:55 PM
I think by posing straw-man attacks on ROG, you make yourself appear to be the knucklehead.
I still don't see these "serious design flaws" you accuse, but at this point, I don't care.
I can be a knucklehead at times for sure - no issue there. My position is not to attack them, but to call them out for attempting to collect licensing on something that is not licensable. It doesn't help their cause that the circuit is not optimized.
Stay tuned, you might find my version of the circuit interesting.
Quote from: mojokorn on January 01, 2016, 06:13:18 PM
Paying licensing ....
I somehow missed that on the ROG site. Could you link to where it says so? ROG were always on the good side in my book...
Quote from: mojokorn on January 01, 2016, 06:13:18 PM
2) I worked for 5 years as a Licensing Engineer at Dolby....
That's great. I am a novice here but nonetheless I take the liberty of welcoming you as another expert to this forum. Due to my limited knowledge in electronics (and law :)) I am dependent on people like you!
> circuits from ROG will thus remain in the public domain, no matter who messes with them.
They are NOT "public domain". That would be unlimited use.
The posted policy excludes Commercial use without permission, but invites contact for further permissions.
The way I understood it - they post their own schematics for the DIY world to use, but they don't want people taking their schematic, boxing it up, and calling it their own, unless they are contacted and give the OK. Frankly, I'm not sure why they should give two shits if you think it sounds good. For what it's worth, I have built the umble a while ago, and I didn't care for it.
"I've heard that some guys have been bashed on forums and such for using the ROG designs - seems a bit like a mobster mentality."
Are you saying that someone should take what ROG provided online for the community and turn a profit with it, without even a not on where it came from? I think that's where this whole licensing business came from to begin with.
Um... Happy New Year?
@Paul: of course you're right. I confused "OK to use" with "OK to make money with" because the latter doesn't concern me (pedal-wise). I'll just shut up where the discussion is focused on law related issues.
@whoever it may concern: I still don't see the point in what is to be criticised on applying CC 3.0 to circuits published by ROG.
@ROG: Happy New Year! Thanks for the great English Channel I built as one of my first pedal to start this nasty addiction.
And the condor that is my workbench test-tube amp.
Quote from: mth5044 on January 01, 2016, 07:24:21 PM
The way I understood it - they post their own schematics for the DIY world to use, but they don't want people taking their schematic, boxing it up, and calling it their own, unless they are contacted and give the OK. Frankly, I'm not sure why they should give two shits if you think it sounds good. For what it's worth, I have built the umble a while ago, and I didn't care for it.
"I've heard that some guys have been bashed on forums and such for using the ROG designs - seems a bit like a mobster mentality."
Are you saying that someone should take what ROG provided online for the community and turn a profit with it, without even a not on where it came from? I think that's where this whole licensing business came from to begin with.
Yeah, from what I've heard on YouTube, I can't imagine many people do care for it. Hence, changes need to be made... and based on the derivatives portion of the so-called licensing model, they want attribution for new and improved models that are created by people other than ROG. That's where I take issue.
Certainly, if someone just boxes up the Umble, the right thing to do is give attribution. Royalties, however, are only due for patented technologies where a court of law can, and will, rule in the inventor's favor. Without a patent, no royalties are legally due... and ROG's model of shaming people who don't adhere into paying royalties is more than a little strange.
The standard for non-patentable technologies is to make money by stocking and selling kits or working as a consultant - not strong-arming people to pay royalties via shame the court of public opinion.
A great example of how it's done right, Mojotone. I love those those guys!
... and the "mojo" in my name is only coincidence. I hate to see the MJ guys get any of this on them :)
I'm confused as to why you came in here on the attack.
Build a pedal you like. Sell that pedal. If it's your idea then take credit. If it's not your idea then give credit. If seems like you're looking for others to clear your conscience.
Quote from: Bill Mountain on January 01, 2016, 08:10:32 PM
I'm confused as to why you came in here on the attack.
Build a pedal you like. Sell that pedal. If it's your idea then take credit. If it's not your idea then give credit. If seems like you're looking for others to clear your conscience.
I've seen some other post out there where people have had to defend themselves against ROG and the court of public opinion. Yes, I plan to build a Dumble-esque pedal, but am concerned that I may fall prey to their so-called licensing model.
And since I seem to have their attention, I'll take a moment to say what model does work...
When the B-Type patent ran out, Dolby offered its use with or without the Dolby name. Companies only had to pay if they wanted to use the name - essentially licensing the Brand of both Dolby and the technology. I'd suggest ROG build a brand and do the same.
As with any pedal, there are people that like them and people that don't. There are reviews on this very site that are positive. When I built it, it sounded like a distortion pedal, and I can see where the appeal might be, but it wasn't my cup of tea. Ideally, you would build and try it before you say it doesn't sound good.
What is mojotone doing correctly, in your opinion? They don't say what they based their only not-clone amp kit on, or even provide a schematic. Probably so other people don't either see what they stole, or so other people don't copy them.
A final thought, you say they call it a dumble clone, but if you read the article, they base it on unproven schematics and modeling amps. They are after a sound that certain guitarists got using the dumble amps, they are not putting a clone of an amp in a stompbox for you.
Im not picking a fight with you, but when you come in with a first post, guns a-blazing, without ever having built the pedal or even listened to one in person, saying you can do it better without any supporting details, you will come off as the bad guy. They aren't trying to patent (why do you keep saying patent?) anything here, they are trying to avoid people taking their hard work (or as you say, taking a shit (seriously?)) and making money off of it. In the spirit of DIY, they request you give them a nod where the circuit came from, as most do when they write their name on a schematic.
Sigh.
I guess they just keep making more of all types all the time and the target demographic keeps turning up here.
(http://econintersect.com/images/2013/9/77031614don-quixote-windmill-380x180.JPG)
Quote from: mth5044 on January 01, 2016, 08:28:11 PM
As with any pedal, there are people that like them and people that don't. There are reviews on this very site that are positive. When I built it, it sounded like a distortion pedal, and I can see where the appeal might be, but it wasn't my cup of tea. Ideally, you would build and try it before you say it doesn't sound good.
As a first level filter, I listen to YouTube links and audio clips before I invest the money in a pedal or the time to build a DIY schemo/kit. It's pretty obvious from the videos and clips (and you opinion) that this is not a well designed pedal and not worth the time or money to buy or build it. Also, if they are going to label it as Dumble, then it better be more than just an standard OD pedal.
Quote from: mth5044 on January 01, 2016, 08:28:11 PMWhat is mojotone doing correctly, in your opinion? They don't say what they based their only not-clone amp kit on, or even provide a schematic. Probably so other people don't either see what they stole, or so other people don't copy them.
Mojotone allows you to build their kits and re-label them anything you want. In fact many a one-man-shop boutique amp company started with their help in this way. MJ's value is in the supply chain, not trying to squat and charge a toll for land that is public domain. A much better and more respectable business model.
Quote from: mth5044 on January 01, 2016, 08:28:11 PMA final thought, you say they call it a dumble clone, but if you read the article, they base it on unproven schematics and modeling amps. They are after a sound that certain guitarists got using the dumble amps, they are not putting a clone of an amp in a stompbox for you.
Yes, "unproven" means that it needs to be "proven" and they are essentially saying 'Hey go and finish our work and make sure we get credit as though we finished it.' This is bad enough from a attribution standpoint, but is really bad when they want to try and enforce royalties.
Quote from: mth5044 on January 01, 2016, 08:28:11 PMIm not picking a fight with you,
I don't see it as a fight, but a honest and raw exchange of ideas and opinions. Like any great forum, this should be welcome (oh how boring life would be with only rainbows and unicorns).
Quote from: mth5044 on January 01, 2016, 08:28:11 PMbut when you come in with a first post, guns a-blazing, without ever having built the pedal or even listened to one in person, saying you can do it better without any supporting details, you will come off as the bad guy. They aren't trying to patent (why do you keep saying patent?) anything here, they are trying to avoid people taking their hard work (or as you say, taking a shit (seriously?)) and making money off of it. In the spirit of DIY, they request you give them a nod where the circuit came from, as most do when they write their name on a schematic.
A little background... I'm a degreed EE with over 22 years experience working for companies such as Dolby and Apple. I built many pedals during my college years and designed the first ever midi controlled effects looper back in 1996 - decided not to bring it to market. I just finished designing and building the 3rd generation of my 4x 6L6 tube amp. Oh yeah, and I've been playing guitar for a mere 35 years. Back to the topic at-hand... I wouldn't take issue if they asked for attribution of their circuit (unchanged), with no royalty. However, asking for attribution and royalties for circuits that require changes in order to make them usable and desired, with strong arm techniques to boot, is simply out of line. I only mention patents, because a patent is required in order to charge royalties - the Dolby B-Type model is a rare-exception.
I'm actually a friendly guy and willing to help DIY and newbies - do it all the time. I just don't care for the ROG business model. Sorry to come off as a ton of bricks.
Quote from: R.G. on January 01, 2016, 08:29:40 PM
Sigh.
I guess they just keep making more of all types all the time and the target demographic keeps turning up here.
Ahhh, the insider quip made by the one of the old-timers (17k posts, impressive!). They have those over at Harmony Central too :)
Quote from: mojokorn on January 01, 2016, 10:00:35 PM
Quote from: R.G. on January 01, 2016, 08:29:40 PM
Sigh.
I guess they just keep making more of all types all the time and the target demographic keeps turning up here.
Ahhh, the insider quip made by the one of the old-timers (17k posts, impressive!). They have those over at Harmony Central too :)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/17/bf/e0/17bfe0bd0e051802def7035ba2253280.jpg)
i'm gonna suggest that 'to me' it seems all of your issues with rog have quickly become simply this...
You want to make a commercial product out of the rog dumble and because you plan some changes or improvements you don't feel you should be required to give them any credit or license anything they have done because ,in your opinion, their circuit is derivative.
you may not want any such thing... if not i apologize.
but if you just want to build one and mod it, then what is the point of any of this?!? you wanna build a pedal they designed and offered for you to build, what a bunch of jerks?!? you wanna build one, but REFUSE to give them credit? who will know...
its only the commercial side of things that offer any point to this line of argument.
so are you planning a commercial product or not? ???
if not, carry on... with my apologies.
if so, your conscience has already told you what you don't want to hear.
final thought: theres plenty of room to do whats wrong within the law... but that don't make it right.
I'm on a phone, and splicing a quoted post is a huge pain, so I'll just take a few sentences.
"It's pretty obvious from the videos and clips (and you opinion) that this is not a well designed pedal and not worth the time or money to buy or build it." - never said it was not well designed, but it wasn't for me. I'm not a huge fuzz face fan either, but I'm not calling that a poor circuit.
"More than just a standard OD" - if it sounds like a Dumble to them, what's the problem? There are plenty of Marshall pedals out there that sound like garbage, but does a pedal that the designer thinks sounds like a dumble somehow elevate it over them? It's not like they are making you pay for this.
"Mojotone allows you to... respectable business model" You can't compare mojotone to ROG in that respect. Mojotone is a shop that sells other people's products, ROG is DIY site that comes up with ideas and posts them for free, with the stipulation you don't steal the idea and sell it. Unsure why you keep mentioning patents, tolls, fees, etc.
"Royalties" No where on the site, or in the CC, are they asking for this money.
ROG business model - it doesn't appear they are even a business to me? What are they selling? Where are they asking for royalties? Where are they saying 'make this better?'. Frankly, we are fortunate that they come up with ideas and post them. If you end up making improvements to the circuit, why are you afraid to give credit where credit is do? Don't use their circuit if you don't like their rules!
Your background is great, and it's great to have you around. Unfortunately (I mean, fortunately) this place is not Harmony Central.
I'll say it this way. I don't plan to use ROG's Umble ckt, but it would be hard to create a circuit that wasn't a jfet version of fender pre-amp. If I do that and they decide that it was a derivative (spin-off) of their ckt, they say they will come after me. Which is a bunch of BS for both the DIY and commercial worlds.
I'm pretty sure I can create a great Dumble-esque pedal and don't need them giving me a bunch of grief just because I cascaded jfeg gain stages and used some of Dumble's tone stack values.
If the project turns out cool, by other's standards not just by mine, then I'll sell kits and assembled versions. I'll post the final version here and then all parties including the "snacks" folks can decide if it was much-ado about nothing or something pretty darn cool.
My hands will be on the breadboard and my guitar this weekend in case you don't hear from me.
Good times, thanks for hosting this conversation :)
Quote from: digi2t on January 01, 2016, 10:25:49 PM
Quote from: mojokorn on January 01, 2016, 10:00:35 PM
Quote from: R.G. on January 01, 2016, 08:29:40 PM
Sigh.
I guess they just keep making more of all types all the time and the target demographic keeps turning up here.
Ahhh, the insider quip made by the one of the old-timers (17k posts, impressive!). They have those over at Harmony Central too :)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/17/bf/e0/17bfe0bd0e051802def7035ba2253280.jpg)
x2!
to slightly soften my previous comment, imho i don't recall any particular mobster type attitude on the rog guys part. i have no reason to believe they are unreasonably claiming ownership of jfet use or tube sim style circuits...
they HAVE i believe put in some hard work on the circuit stages they use regularly in their circuits. but there are many ways to skin a cat. unless you directly copy their circuits or refined gain stages i believe you're on solid ground and don't have to worry about them 'coming after you'.
they ,like many of us, take a certain pride of ownership over their 'babys' and their own hard work and understandably want to protect that intellectual property from theft and general buggery and bastardization. theres plenty of room for a room full of dumbl'esque sounding circuits and they can each stand up and sing so long as someone somewhere digs em. feel free to take a shot (or many) at that tone.
thats the nice thing about circuit designing , there are so many ways to go. just follow your ears and ideas and your never gonna be ripping anyone off. there are a million ways to get to point b. as long as you're interested in finding YOUR way and not copying someone else's map i cant imagine 'accidentaly' taking every single same step as someone else...
Interesting reading! anyway a musical interlude to lighten the mood.....I do look forward to further posts especially to see if your contribution will be as solid and educational as RG's here's hoping I do like to learn and love a wee bit of banter here and there!
Here's a wee avatar suggestion hopefully Campbells won't come after me :icon_wink:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xgaWIL_1BkQ/U-2YKhSB2kI/AAAAAAAABLk/vKS35gwGMGI/s1600/can%2Bof%2Bworms.PNG)
Look....if you play "D C G" and call it "Can't you see by marshall tucker on this here my album, and it's MY song", sing the original lyrics, you violate the copyright/license or whatever. You stole their name and lyrics, their intellectual property.
If you PLAY D C G and write some new lyrics, it is YOURS. D C G is so used, nobody owns it. NOBODY.
ROG owns the NAME they gave the circuit, NOT the gain stage design, etc etc etc. As said - you wanna use their NAME on things and make $, you have to get the license. That's all. To call is something new, you'd need to make a few minor mods and *say* you invented it based on commonly seen gain stages/tone stacks.
A photographer doesn't own Niagra Falls. They take a pic, YOU pay and credit them for use. OR - take your own pic, and it's yours. It's that simple.
Capiche?
worms? not even two pages, and we've already run outta popcorn.
Quote from: duck_arse on January 02, 2016, 09:09:14 AM
worms? not even two pages, and we've already run outta popcorn.
Time for this then...
(http://www.chefkristina.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/sausage-on-a-fork.jpg)
(No wiener pun intended).
When I first started making pedals there wasn't much around on the internet. I'd do my own vero layouts and ROG were one of the few places I could find interesting circuits to have a go at. I even applied the jfet amp sim method myself to a Selmer amp and got a neat overdrive pedal from it.
ROG were instrumental in getting both my own pedal building and IMO the wider pedal building community going. They were happy to email me back with answers to circuit questions and in general get a big thumbs up from me. I don't care about the commercial aspects. This is DIY.
great to see the first sausage of the year... 8)
Breadboard the "generalized" version of any FET gain stage tube simulation and tone stack, make the changes to minimize the shortcomings you find and maximize what you want to hear, and call it the "Rumble" (or "Grumble" or "Stumble"). That makes the modified circuit a one-off design. Knock yourself out and have fun.
My attorneys are currently applying for trademarking the usage of the pedal names "Rumble", "Grumble", and "Stumble". You will have to use something else, or you will be guilty of trademark infringement, which will be pursued to the letter of the law. :icon_wink: (Of course, I am full of crap.)
Happy New Year to All. Peace. :-*
Quote from: mojokorn on January 01, 2016, 08:19:06 PM
I've seen some other post out there where people have had to defend themselves against ROG and the court of public opinion. Yes, I plan to build a Dumble-esque pedal, but am concerned that I may fall prey to their so-called licensing model.
Please post some links to this: Throughout this thread you've referred to ROG "going after people" they deem to have infringed their CC licence, but you then also refer to "the court of public opinion". ROG can't be held accountable for random internet warriors shouting "intellectual property rights infringement!" whenever they see something vaguely resembling a ROG circuit in a $200 boutique pedal.
If I hadn't spent the last ten years browsing diy guitar pedal related forums, after reading this thread I might have got the impression ROG are hawkish, bullying types rather than the community spirited folks they appear to be from the regular posts they leave here and elsewhere.
I stopped using youtube demo vids as a guide to how pedals sound a while back: Everything demo'ed by Andy from PGS sounds amazing due to the recording and playing techniques being employed: All overdrive pedals are played through an already sweet-sounding, slightly overdriven tube amp, nasty gating fuzz pedals are used to play doomy riffs but never to sustain a note, careful mic placement and professional production ensure that ANY pedal sounds good or great. Most ROG demos are just DIY folks recording a quick glimpse at home, often just using a phone etc. I have not tried the Umble so cannot comment on what it sounds like for real, but I know that I didn't bother trying the ROG Trivibe for several years because all available videos made it sound pretty mediocre, but then I actually tried it out and found it to be quite good.
The only company I can think of that blatantly ripped of some ROG stuff was JHS. A known cloner.
Listen...No one owns cascaded gain stages. No one owns boosted mids. No one owns a sound.
ROG has been instrumental in a lot of people's understanding of DIY pedal making. I've built most of their stuff and I learned a trick or two.
I also stole tricks from RG, PRR, Gus, Jack Orman, Craig Anderton (this is who got me into pedals), Teemuk, DIYSB, GGG, Madbean, etc.
You know who else I stole from??? Mike Mathews, Pete Cornish, Roger Mayer, Andrew Barta, Zachary Vex, etc.
Oh and who can forget Leo Fender, Jim Marshall, Hartley Peavey, Larry Hartke, Randall Smith, etc.
Oh shit...there's also Lee De Forest and John Fleming.
Man...When I come to market with my Super Mega Toobey Rumble Pedal that projects a 3D hologram of Stevie I'm gonna owe a shit-ton of royalties.
Quote from: Bill Mountain on January 02, 2016, 12:56:10 PM
Man...When I come to market with my Super Mega Toobey Rumble Pedal that projects a 3D hologram of Stevie I'm gonna owe a shit-ton of royalties.
Tsk Tsk. Trademark infringement. Pay me. ;)
As it's New Year, I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank every one involved with this forum from the owner who started it all, the veterans with years of experience who still give their valuable time and experience, the new users who are just starting out and ask the kind of questions I should have when I started and the friends I've made along the way.
Thankyou for making this such a positive place to visit and learn without the presence of ill feeling or ego.
I raise my glass to you all
The OP gave due props to ROG somewhere on page two. We'll put that first post aside soon, so don't change your handle or anything like that. It was just a bit jarring. ROG is like family.
Now, ROG has this big copper thing.... No. I won't.
Welcome to the forum!
EDIT: Wait a minute! You went after RG? With the two institutions you have slandered, I think you should be reminded to give everyone your respect until they deserve to have it taken away. You could still probably craft a solid retraction before you get more of what Garcho is serving you below. Join us at the table and meet the family before you... Ugh.
Oops sorry, wrong topic
I built the Umble and it didn't work as I expected. I attribute this to some mistake on my part. I'm not going to get into the licensing issues as I'm extremely ignorant on that subject.
I have built the Umble from a commercially available PCB. It sounds fine, although I prefer more British/Marshall-style sounds for guitar.
One thing to mention (and this is true for all amp sim pedals) is that the Umble is NOT an overdrive! It's meant to be a stand alone amp simulation and you can send its output to a mixer board and then to a PA or recording device. You can certainly overdrive a tube amp with it too, but it was not meant to do that. I run my amp sims into a clean solid state amp or (for recording) into a mixer/computer interface. BTW, the Britannia sounds great direct to a computer!
Finally, someone has already modded the Umble (at the link below) to remove the "design flaws"...
http://aquataur.hilpold.net/aquataur/musicstuff/umble.html
I hope the OP will show us his (proposed) design improvements in the spirit of DIY knowledge enhancement...
Quote from: stallik on January 02, 2016, 03:26:56 PM
Oops sorry, wrong topic
is that 25 year old malt kicking in again...hic.. ;)
QuoteI'm a degreed EE with over 22 years experience
I ... designed the first ever midi controlled effects looper back in 1996
I'm pretty sure I can create a great Dumble-esque pedal
So instead of designing a "great Dumble-esque" pedal and bringing it to the forum - surely something mind-numbingly simple for the genius who invented the first ever midi controlled effects looper 20 years ago - you thought it made more sense to talk a bunch of smack without providing fact or source, and tell everyone how awesome you are. Your decades of experience in professional EE audio world taught you to be scared of a DIY guitar pedal website's army of lawyers? Your decades of experience working for Dolby taught you to use ultra low fidelity youtube clips to judge signal processors? So odd.
Quote from: stallik on January 02, 2016, 03:26:56 PM
Oops sorry, wrong topic
I thought it was very fitting. ;D
anyone got change of a a tenner?..
Quote from: Bill Mountain on January 02, 2016, 12:56:10 PM
Listen...No one owns cascaded gain stages. No one owns boosted mids. No one owns a sound.
^This
Quote from: Bill Mountain on January 02, 2016, 12:56:10 PMROG has been instrumental in a lot of people's understanding of DIY pedal making. I've built most of their stuff and I learned a trick or two.
Yeah, seems like ROG is the home team here. No worries :-)
Quote from: Bill Mountain on January 02, 2016, 12:56:10 PMI also stole tricks from RG, PRR, Gus, Jack Orman, Craig Anderton (this is who got me into pedals), Teemuk, DIYSB, GGG, Madbean, etc.
You know who else I stole from??? Mike Mathews, Pete Cornish, Roger Mayer, Andrew Barta, Zachary Vex, etc.
Oh and who can forget Leo Fender, Jim Marshall, Hartley Peavey, Larry Hartke, Randall Smith, etc.
Oh shit...there's also Lee De Forest and John Fleming.
Craig's a bud of mine, done some work for him over the years (yep, nuttin like a little name dropping). He's one of the greatest guys of all time. Come to think of it, I don't recall him having licensing restrictions on his designs ;D
Quote from: Bill Mountain on January 02, 2016, 12:56:10 PM
Man...When I come to market with my Super Mega Toobey Rumble Pedal that projects a 3D hologram of Stevie I'm gonna owe a shit-ton of royalties.
I want one! When can I place my pre-launch order?
Quote from: garcho on January 02, 2016, 04:52:09 PM
QuoteI'm a degreed EE with over 22 years experience
I ... designed the first ever midi controlled effects looper back in 1996
I'm pretty sure I can create a great Dumble-esque pedal
So instead of designing a "great Dumble-esque" pedal and bringing it to the forum - surely something mind-numbingly simple for the genius who invented the first ever midi controlled effects looper 20 years ago - you thought it made more sense to talk a bunch of smack without providing fact or source, and tell everyone how awesome you are. Your decades of experience in professional EE audio world taught you to be scared of a DIY guitar pedal website's army of lawyers? Your decades of experience working for Dolby taught you to use ultra low fidelity youtube clips to judge signal processors? So odd.
Mmmh, I get attacked for being a newbie so I post my credentials. Then I get attacked for being a know it all.
Neither, nor. Just a dude who loves playing through and making great gear.
"Whatever happened to peace love and understanding... ooooh ooh oh oh!"
I've got a few minutes off, so I'll feed my troll...
Quote from: mojokorn on January 01, 2016, 05:10:27 PM
[...] I've been reviewing the Run Off Groove Umble circuit and it seems to have some serious design flaws.[...]
[...] I've heard that some guys have been bashed on forums and such for using the ROG designs - seems a bit like a mobster mentality. [...]
Pure poetry.
Quote from: mojokorn on January 01, 2016, 06:13:18 PM
[...] To this day, I think that anyone who develops something new and novel such that it can be protected AND offers an optimized implementation deserves to be rewarded. ROGs design is neither proven nor patented.
I will absolutely share my final schemo here, even if I take it commercial... However, based on the above, I can't in good conscious give ROG licensing or attribution.
"It seems" or "I've heard" that you're confusing license (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License) and patent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent).
Quote from: mojokorn on January 01, 2016, 05:56:28 PM
[...] By labeling as a Dumble clone, they are holding it to a higher standard than "Does it distort." And based on that, the Umble YouTube videos are far from impressive (compared to the Zed Drive). Also their schemo still shows V1.0. IMO, it sounds like they grunted, squeezed and then fished the design out the toilet - and then called dibs on derivatives that fix the issues that make it sound so unimpressive.
If I enhance (or fix) the circuit and want to take it commercial, then do I have to fend these knuckle-heads off?... just because they called dibs :-) I think not. [...]
Quote from: mojokorn on January 01, 2016, 06:16:25 PM
[...] My position is not to attack them, but to call them out for attempting to collect licensing on something that is not licensable. It doesn't help their cause that the circuit is not optimized. [...]
Oh, really? Why would anyone think you're attacking them?
Quote from: mojokorn on January 02, 2016, 09:16:15 PM
Quote from: garcho on January 02, 2016, 04:52:09 PM
QuoteI'm a degreed EE with over 22 years experience
I ... designed the first ever midi controlled effects looper back in 1996
I'm pretty sure I can create a great Dumble-esque pedal
So instead of designing a "great Dumble-esque" pedal and bringing it to the forum - surely something mind-numbingly simple for the genius who invented the first ever midi controlled effects looper 20 years ago - you thought it made more sense to talk a bunch of smack without providing fact or source, and tell everyone how awesome you are. Your decades of experience in professional EE audio world taught you to be scared of a DIY guitar pedal website's army of lawyers? Your decades of experience working for Dolby taught you to use ultra low fidelity youtube clips to judge signal processors? So odd.
Mmmh, I get attacked for being a newbie so I post my credentials. Then I get attacked for being a know it all.
Neither, nor. Just a dude who loves playing through and making great gear.
"Whatever happened to peace love and understanding... ooooh ooh oh oh!"
So, you're the one that's attacked, dude! NOW it makes sense!
I'm sure that you'll heroically refrain from any hard fact in any of your posts (including the future ones).
You got a 'like' Mr Mojo that's good you never know someone might give you a sausage soon, highly prized around these parts....827 views? you certainly know how to make an entrance
Aw heck! go on 'av some
(http://images.mysupermarket.co.uk/ProductsDetailed/85/280085.jpg?v=5)
in fact have some of these too it's time we saw some of scotland's own square one's lovely with onions!
(http://images3.mysupermarket.co.uk/Products/43/263443.jpg?v=6)
Quote from: mojokorn on January 01, 2016, 08:22:54 PM. Companies only had to pay if they wanted to use the name - essentially licensing the Brand of both Dolby and the technology. I'd suggest ROG build a brand and do the same.
But that's EXACTLY what they do.
I'm not getting what you are complaining about.
Quote from: Hatredman on January 02, 2016, 11:43:21 PM
Quote from: mojokorn on January 01, 2016, 08:22:54 PM. Companies only had to pay if they wanted to use the name - essentially licensing the Brand of both Dolby and the technology. I'd suggest ROG build a brand and do the same.
But that's EXACTLY what they do.
I'm not getting what you are complaining about.
On the ROG website, they ask people to report if someone is using one of their circuits, which is an indicator that they are enforcing the use of the circuit and not just their name.
Seems that a lot of post here totally get the fact that public domain is free to use without royalties or attribution, but a few are confused about this and have an affinity for the guys at ROG.
Bottom line, I'm glad the conversation is taking place... even with the occasional dig and/or inside references to poke fun at me.
I'll have facts soon enough... in the form of Ids, Vgs, gain stages as well as LPF and HPF calculations.
Quote from: mojokorn on January 03, 2016, 12:30:15 AM
On the ROG website, they ask people to report if someone is using one of their circuits, which is an indicator that they are enforcing the use of the circuit and not just their name.
Still, I did not read anywhere on their site they are charging people royalties.
Quotethey HAVE i believe put in some hard work on the circuit stages they use regularly in their circuits.
Really? Copying a gain stage from tube amp, substituting the tube with J201, and replacing plate resistor with a 100K trimmer is "some hard work"...?
Did they ever even try to design a FET circuit that has consistent tone without hand picking/matching each FET ...or that would even work remotedly like the supposedly "equivalent" tube gain stage? e.g. Why "center bias" for FET drains (and resulting symmetric clipping characteristics) when most tube gain stages they try to mimic are deliberately NOT center biased, which results to distinctly asymmetric clipping characteristics...? Did they ever make any decent effort in simulating power amps stages of those classic amps? All little details making it evident that ROG put little or no effort in actually trying to emulate the amps. They just copied an existing tube amp circuit, substituted tube with J201, chose probably the most inconsistent biasing method for them and simply hoped for best.
Why doesn't someone summarize this whole thing and send it off to ROG? ASK them what they think is *the deal*? *cough original poster *cough stirring the pot *cough
To ROG: "Do you think you own the CIRCUIT as drawn, or only the drawings and names?"
"Are you claiming ownership of a tube circuit redesigned to use FETs? At what point would you consider legal action should you see said circuit being reproduced under your name? Or another name? What would happen if I modify your design only slightly and then go commercial?"
"Do you hold any patents for the re-creation of tube circuits using solid-state devices? If not, why do you suppose that you have any right to complain if someone lifts your design (NOT your artwork), IF you in fact WOULD complain? Don't others already use JFETs as "tubes" and market 'old circuits' as something new, as well as offer them freely? "
Names and drawings are already, by nature, copyrighted and not kosher to use without credit, as is commonly known. DESIGNS must be patented, which means they must differ enough from what's already out there to pass muster. A gain stage isn't going to do that, I don't think...nor would active filters using opamps, etc.
Until someone hears from ROG, this is really kinda behind-the-back stabbery, isn't it? If this was about me, I'd probably take the sh(t off my site now and let the newbies learn from old books.
Why is this only about ROG? Curious about that - lotsa places do this, and we know sites that for sure do the same with ACTUAL tubes (A*8*....etc), using ACTUAL circuit derivatives...they just ask to be mentioned...
what's better, looking down on others, or others looking up to you? post your own superior circuits or STFU.
I think the sensible thing would have been to contact ROG, tell them what you're intending to do and checking they're ok with it. Given that it sounds like you're just using similar means (cascaded gain stages/tweaked tone stack) to make a circuit that sounds more like a Dumble to you than theirs does I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue.
Signing up to a forum where ROG are major contributor and having a pop at their design and your perception of their practices has clearly not resulted in you getting the best of welcomes.
Technical knowledge is great - I've got 30+years as an EE, I'm allowed to put CEng after my name, which is all well and good but I've increasingly found that being able to interact and communicate effectively with people is far more valuable. Start again with a PM to ROG.
Someone's probably already said this, I got bored half way through the thread. The CC license covers the copyrighted material on the ROG website nothing else, there's nothing in the license that stops you building the circuit and doing whatever the hell you want with it there's also nothing stopping you taking the circuit and redrawing it or modifying it and publishing your new circuit.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode)
Quote from: teemuk on January 03, 2016, 06:12:08 AM
Quotethey HAVE i believe put in some hard work on the circuit stages they use regularly in their circuits.
Really? Copying a gain stage from tube amp, substituting the tube with J201, and replacing plate resistor with a 100K trimmer is "some hard work"...?
Did they ever even try to design a FET circuit that has consistent tone without hand picking/matching each FET ...or that would even work remotedly like the supposedly "equivalent" tube gain stage? e.g. Why "center bias" for FET drains (and resulting symmetric clipping characteristics) when most tube gain stages they try to mimic are deliberately NOT center biased, which results to distinctly asymmetric clipping characteristics...? Did they ever make any decent effort in simulating power amps stages of those classic amps? All little details making it evident that ROG put little or no effort in actually trying to emulate the amps. They just copied an existing tube amp circuit, substituted tube with J201, chose probably the most inconsistent biasing method for them and simply hoped for best.
Exactly! It does seem that they just popped in a J201 in place of a 12AX7. The biasing is all wrong, allowing only a 0.14 V input signal at the first stage before clipping occurs. Typical guitar signal is between 1V and 2V. And this is just one of many issues.
Quote from: Jay on January 03, 2016, 12:39:26 PM
I think the sensible thing would have been to contact ROG, tell them what you're intending to do and checking they're ok with it. Given that it sounds like you're just using similar means (cascaded gain stages/tweaked tone stack) to make a circuit that sounds more like a Dumble to you than theirs does I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue.
Signing up to a forum where ROG are major contributor and having a pop at their design and your perception of their practices has clearly not resulted in you getting the best of welcomes.
Technical knowledge is great - I've got 30+years as an EE, I'm allowed to put CEng after my name, which is all well and good but I've increasingly found that being able to interact and communicate effectively with people is far more valuable. Start again with a PM to ROG.
Most forums are about wringing the truth out. I have a hard time believing that ROG is immune to criticism for poor work and an unorthodox business model just because they are a major contributor.
Quote from: garcho on January 03, 2016, 11:27:45 AM
what's better, looking down on others, or others looking up to you? post your own superior circuits or STFU.
As noted, I will post my version of a Dumble box, but good things take time. Hang tight.
PS. I typically find "STFU" is used on forums when someone is out of constructive things to say.
QuoteIt does seem that they just popped in a J201 in place of a 12AX7.
QuoteThe biasing is all wrong...
Quote...this is just one of many issues.
Then design, test, build and present to the forum a "great Dumble-esque" guitar effects pedal as the ultimate "gotchya" instead of starting a thread about non-existent intellectual property issues and straw-man-ing until it becomes "look how stupid this other guy is"
sorry to get combative, leaving this thread, cheers
tl;dr version
1: Yes, Umble isn't very elegant or accurate. Some builders love it and that makes me happy.
2: Anyone can commercially use our work without permission to the extent that their conscience and the marketplace allows. We won't come after you.
----
Originality
Long-time members of the this community may remember the initial heyday of FET-based distortion circuits inspired by classic amps. At that time - nearly 12 years ago - runoffgroove.com released several of those circuits. They generally followed a FET-by-numbers approach that others have astutely summarized as plugging in a J201 and a 100k trim in place of a tube gain stage. There wasn't much refinement. The goal was for them to sound good to our ears and maybe have a passing resemblance to the amp that served as inspiration. They were "good enough" and fun. Other builders enjoyed them and some still do. That's why three of those first generation circuits are still included as projects on the site, even though I would be fine with mothballing them. Our recent work (Thunderbird, Britannia) is much more important to me and miles ahead of circuits like Umble or Thunderchief. Still, we wouldn't have made it to where we are without them.
We recognized that those early, crude circuits were not accurate to the target sound and that also, anyone could draw one in the same manner. If two "designers" chose the same classic amp as inspiration and used the same FET-by-numbers approach, the resulting circuits would be quite similar, if not identical. We found ourselves in a couple situations like that and chose to focus on other work. Yet, we were still intrigued by the idea of an amp-in-a-box and returned to that realm a few more times, applying new knowledge and skills that would hopefully get us closer to the goal.
Licensing
None of runoffgroove.com would exist without the DIY-fx community that freely exchanged schematics, ideas, tips, and tricks. People like Aron Nelson, RG Keen, Jack Orman, and JD Sleep shared information that I found invaluable and I hoped to emulate them by giving back to the community. That was the genesis of runoffgroove.com. At that time, I never thought that I'd someday be contributing anything more than a hamfisted sound clip and voltage readings of a vintage fuzz. But then the community led me to collaborating with Gary Burchett and later Sebastian Tepper. That team was able to truly contribute to the community with new, unique circuits that we shared freely. We didn't spell out any terms of use because we didn't see beyond the community to the coming bootweeker revolution.
The value of those circuits was backhandedly made apparent when they appeared in boutique pedals with no attribution to us and seemingly no regard for making money off our hard work. Some would want to interrupt me here to say that I was incredibly naive to think that builders wouldn't pass off our work as theirs and they would be right. Lessons are everywhere just waiting to be learned, I guess.
Other builders (the majority) found value in the circuits and wanted to license them for commercial use - even those clumsy ones that we'd moved away from! So we figured out some terms for that situation.
Ultimately, those licensing terms are based on the honor system. Some people have no ethical concerns about appropriating our work as theirs and setting out to make big, big money. We've never "gone after" anyone more than having civil email correspondence. The few arrangements we have made have seemed to be mutually beneficial, but it's certainly not our priority. That continues to be making stuff that we like and sharing it with friends.
Mr. Tremblay,
Thank you for responding. I totally understand your predicament and am glad to offer ideas and solutions that make sense for you, the DIY community and potential commercial users...
There are two approaches to protecting works in technology. A) Patent and B) Trade Secret. Both depend on the work being novel enough to protect. As you note, some of your work is novel and some is not - no judgement here on which is which.
I know patents are expensive and time consuming. Furthermore, they are only as good as your ability to protect them. Hence, for a niche market (like stompboxes) patenting may not make sense. On the other hand Trade Secrets won't allow you to publicly post the schematics for the DIY community. What's a guy to do?
The prevailing model in the software industry is to give it away as a loss-leader in order to establish yourself as domain expert and in turn marketing your design services. I suspect this model would fit well for ROG. I estimate that one or two consulting contracts would generate 100x-1000x the royalty revenues of a niche market - even if everyone paid.
Actually this model has been around for a while... Craig Anderton is a living, breathing example. His designs established him as a true expert and he's been able to make a good living consulting as well as mixing and mastering tracks. Which eventually lead to his current VP position at Gibson.
The thing I took issue was is the underlying flavor of "we will find you" message on your site. Even guys with patents don't publicly post that kind of messages. Compounding the issue, was that the Umble ckt was not novel or your best work (by your admission as well).
All food for thought.
I am in the process of creating my own Dumble ckt and the DIY community and commercial users are free to use it in anyway that they want. I just didn't want to feel that I might be hunted down for doing so.
No hard feelings, I hope.
B. Tremblay has nothing to prove.
Mojokorn, on the other hand...
Quote from: R.G. on January 03, 2016, 07:48:23 PM
B. Tremblay has nothing to prove.
Mojokorn, on the other hand...
...to prove on this forum, I agree.
Unfortunately, given the way you've gone about it, should your work prove to be without peer, unique and without fault, easy to build and adjust, reliable as a stone and have the voice of an angel, it's still likely to be utterly condemned here.
Quote from: stallik on January 03, 2016, 09:30:25 PM
Unfortunately, given the way you've gone about it, should your work prove to be without peer, unique and without fault, easy to build and adjust, reliable as a stone and have the voice of an angel, it's still likely to be utterly condemned here.
ROG posted what sounded like a threat on their site. I was afraid to do any work on the project until I had confirmation that it was safe.
if you don't want to use, or proof-out, my circuits, then ok. The interesting thing is that quite a few members submitted posts that backed-up my findings, both on the quality and the licensing front.
If this site is about protecting your own over finding truth and working towards excellence, that it shall be.
I've always done DIY because the store-bought stuff didn't offer what I wanted, or wasn't good enough. Peeling back the layers of this thread and other threads you may not agree with, I hope that's why we are all here.
Quote from: stallik on January 03, 2016, 09:30:25 PM
...to be without peer, unique and without fault, easy to build and adjust, reliable as a stone and have the voice of an angel...
Thank you for the check list of quality items. Being new here, I don't know the expectations of the audience. I'll do my best not to disappoint. If I do, then the community will either help me proof-out the circuit, or I'll take crickets as a sign that I should go quietly into the night.
However, if the community (or a segment of the community) decides to help out, we will end up with a highly desired pedal :)
The really cool part is that this topic is interesting enough for members on both sides to chime in.
you dont have to please the audience...just yourself. if others like or dislike, thats fine..
'the sound' is very subjective...
btw you could have breadboarded and tweaked the umble by now... ;D
get on with it.. ;)
Quote from: mojokorn on January 03, 2016, 03:05:22 PM
Most forums are about wringing the truth out. I have a hard time believing that ROG is immune to criticism for poor work and an unorthodox business model just because they are a major contributor.
Still, you're on a forum. Still, I don't get what's the "unorthodox business model" you're suavely whispering about.
Quote from: mojokorn on January 03, 2016, 07:30:55 PM
Mr. Tremblay,
Thank you for responding. I totally understand your predicament and am glad to offer ideas and solutions that make sense for you, the DIY community and potential commercial users... [...]
I'm anxiously biting my nails in expectation...
Quote from: mojokorn on January 03, 2016, 07:30:55 PM
[...] The thing I took issue was is the underlying flavor of "we will find you" message on your site. Even guys with patents don't publicly post that kind of messages. Compounding the issue, was that the Umble ckt was not novel or your best work (by your admission as well).
All food for thought.
I am in the process of creating my own Dumble ckt and the DIY community and commercial users are free to use it in anyway that they want. I just didn't want to feel that I might be hunted down for doing so.
No hard feelings, I hope.
Quote from: mojokorn on January 03, 2016, 09:49:29 PM
[...] ROG posted what sounded like a threat on their site. I was afraid to do any work on the project until I had confirmation that it was safe. [...]
OK, I thought. Then I thought some more. Nope. No idea what you're talking about. Are you talking about the following text?
Quote from: runoffgroove.com link=http://www.runoffgroove.com/articles.htmlrunoffgroove.com projects are provided free-of-charge to builders for personal, non-commercial use. We do offer licensing for builders who wish to sell pedals based on, in whole or in part, our projects. As part of the licensing agreement, the builder must clearly state that the circuit was developed by runoffgroove.com, both in promotional literature and on the circuit board. If you see a pedal for sale that seems to be based on a runoffgroove.com project and does not credit us, the builder may not be officially licensed by us and therefore, not compensating us as the developer. Please contact us with the information and we will investigate the situation. Thank you.
Maybe the "If you see a pedal..." part made you afraid of ROG's mob pitchforks. I know I want to know if somebody uses my work, as bad as it may be.
You pretend to be in process of making a dramatically improved Umble, which, therefore, would not an Umble anymore.
Even better, since it is such a flawed schematic, you could bypass the runoffgroove project entirely and start from the Dumble schematic.
Quote from: mojokorn on January 03, 2016, 07:51:35 PM
Quote from: R.G. on January 03, 2016, 07:48:23 PM
B. Tremblay has nothing to prove.
Mojokorn, on the other hand...
...to prove on this forum, I agree.
So, there is a place where you contributed? With public access, maybe?
Quote from: deadastronaut on January 04, 2016, 06:28:31 AM
[...] btw you could have breadboarded and tweaked the umble by now... ;D [...]
That.
DA is right, the troll is well fed by now.
Caution: Rant ahead.
Wouldn't all this bullshit here have been avoided with a simple email to ROG? I mean... really?
It never ceases to amaze me how common sense can escape the sharpest minds. I mean, you come in here all %^&*ed up, guns blazing, and for what? Then of course, ego MUCH too big to just say "Sorry, I misunderstood the jist of they're mission", you veil it with "Getting a conversation going". That would be akin to me setting my neighbour's house on fire, hoping to get a "Good morning" as he runs out.
You could have had this conversation privately with ROG, and saved yourself from looking like a complete ass here.
I may not know much about patent, or intellectual property law. I'll never be on par technically with most of the folks that frequent these parts. But, I do know what a skunk looks like, and which end I shouldn't be poking. And if ever I do decide to poke it, I know better than to blame the stick for the result.
Common sense. Look it up. Embrace it.
Quote from: GibsonGM on January 03, 2016, 10:12:48 AM
Why doesn't someone summarize this whole thing and send it off to ROG? ASK them what they think is *the deal*? *cough original poster *cough stirring the pot *cough
To ROG: "Do you think you own the CIRCUIT as drawn, or only the drawings and names?"
"Are you claiming ownership of a tube circuit redesigned to use FETs? At what point would you consider legal action should you see said circuit being reproduced under your name? Or another name? What would happen if I modify your design only slightly and then go commercial?"
"Do you hold any patents for the re-creation of tube circuits using solid-state devices? If not, why do you suppose that you have any right to complain if someone lifts your design (NOT your artwork), IF you in fact WOULD complain? Don't others already use JFETs as "tubes" and market 'old circuits' as something new, as well as offer them freely? "
Names and drawings are already, by nature, copyrighted and not kosher to use without credit, as is commonly known. DESIGNS must be patented, which means they must differ enough from what's already out there to pass muster. A gain stage isn't going to do that, I don't think...nor would active filters using opamps, etc.
Until someone hears from ROG, this is really kinda behind-the-back stabbery, isn't it? If this was about me, I'd probably take the sh(t off my site now and let the newbies learn from old books.
Why is this only about ROG? Curious about that - lotsa places do this, and we know sites that for sure do the same with ACTUAL tubes (A*8*....etc), using ACTUAL circuit derivatives...they just ask to be mentioned...
+1,000,000
"To ROG" would have been coming from the original poster, not me.
I like ROG, have learned tons by their projects over the years, and have no trouble comprehending why they'd want the hours and days of their brain power to be credited when openly sharing their intellectual property, LOL.
Quote from: mojokorn on January 03, 2016, 12:30:15 AM
Bottom line, I'm glad the conversation is taking place... even with the occasional dig and/or inside references to poke fun at me.
I'll have facts soon enough... in the form of Ids, Vgs, gain stages as well as LPF and HPF calculations.
It is as I've already said certainly interesting.....not from the legal obligation point of view.....I had a look at the complete license and fell asleep about a quarter of the way through.....but it has led to some good discussion regarding circuitry (as a by product and of course not from your invisible one) which as a 100% hobbyist I'm always interested in, I do look forward to seeing your improved circuit eventually.
You did come in like a Tasmanian devil initially when perhaps it would have been a better idea to do your work on the circuit first and title your post ROG Dumble circuit revisited? give credit where it's due and let people applaud or constructively criticise it for themselves.
Look at Mr Tremblay's response as an example honest, open and not a jot of sarcasm that is the proverbial way to do it if you ask me.
and yes I've never built a ROG circuit but I've learnt a whole hellava lot from the site which served to inspire confidence and understanding.
The only real thing that annoyed me was your sarcastic response regarding RG who we all know along with many others has made a potentially difficult hobby so much easier to understand for us mere non EE mortals and he continues to share his knowledge and help us all......and please don't say he started it.
Perhaps one of these is in order you do after all seem to keep digging I obviously don't know you personally you do come across in parts as having a sense of humour but then come across as self influential and slightly arrogant when you refuse to let go, credit yourself and try to teach us about 'business models' etc maybe you should just hold your hand up and start again I for one don't think if your work is as good as you purport it to be it'll get shredded without justification :
(http://www.trapman.co.uk/trap-images/shovel-bird-spikes.jpg)
Oh and here's my improvements to the circuit as you can see it's very similar to yours and please remember I published first you can read the terms of my license if you wish to use it!:
(http://commons.trincoll.edu/admissions-alexandra1/files/2014/09/blank-sheet-of-paper.jpg)
OK, after 5 pages of posts, here's my take...
1. Most everyone who has built and tried the Umble doesn't care for it. Proof that it's not well designed
2. ROG posts the following on their site... "If you see a pedal for sale that seems to be based on a runoffgroove.com project and does not credit us, the builder may not be officially licensed by us and therefore, not compensating us as the developer. Please contact us with the information and we will investigate the situation." Sounds like they are on the hunt for royalties.
3. ROG does not have a patent on the Umble circuit, and many people on this forum agree that cascading gain stages and a tone stack is public domain, hence not patentable
4. It is impossible to collect royalties on something that is not patentable. Seems some people here are confused on that point.
5. Putting this all together, ROG is posting ominous messages on their site about licensing and compensation for technology that is public domain. And to boot the technology is not even that good.
I'm getting a lot of "Hey, you're picking on my friend" type messages and noting ROG are nice guys here on the forum. Neither precludes them from adhering to proper business practices. And if I have to take a few bullets to call a spade a spade, the so be it. My apologies if I come off as "arrogant."
And to answer why I didn't PM ROG... There needed to be a public record of a discussion on this issue so that other people could understand it. If I sent an email and ROG responded with the same text as they did in this post, then I would be the only one to have it.
I'm in the process of designing a new circuit. Proper simulation and ordering specific parts takes time, weeks not days. As noted in prior posts, hang tight.
just when i thought i was out they pull me back in...
someone who has "20+ years EE experience" is
this interested in a beginners DIY guitar pedal project from years ago? if it smells like a duck...
someone who has supposedly worked for Dolby (monied work, unlike music) and played the guitar for decades
must have an unbelievable amount of gear. In all that stuff, all those inventions you created before anyone else, all the mind-blowing circuits you've designed, you don't have... ...a JFET overdrive?
QuoteROG posted what sounded like a threat on their site. I was afraid to do any work on the project until I had confirmation that it was safe.
in all your decades of professional experience you've learned that intellectual property rights get hashed out in public by anonymous people on an internet forum and are legally binding. impressive. can't wait to see what projects you bring to the forum if they're as well thought out as your work in this thread.
from RoG:
QuoteWe opted for the preamp section only, since the "precision power amp" is intended to be clean and not readily distort
so there goes the "they're so dumb they didn't even put a power amp section in it" argument.
QuoteLooking closely, we can see what amounts to a few Fender-style gain stages and an odd looking Fender-style tone stack. There is nothing revolutionary about the cascaded gain stages...
so you read RoG's terms of acceptance but you didn't read anything else they wrote about this? like, how they address the "issues" you've brought up, years later?
QuoteOur advice is to try the Umble as it is drawn. If you think you would like something a little different, "customize" this circuit after looking at the amp schematics.
what's your problem again?
Quote from: garcho on January 04, 2016, 11:39:35 AM
just when i thought i was out they pull me back in...
(https://www.sausagedogcentral.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/smiling-6.jpg)
Quote
There needed to be a public record
No there didn't. If you had entered into a conversation with ROG and were unhappy with the outcome then perhaps. But instead, you decided to do it within a forum of friends.
I have seen some of your posts on other topics and you are clearly knowledgable and willing to help. That is what this place is about, not this cr*p. Let it go man
@ digi2t
Nice one. First time I've smiled while viewing this thread :) :)
Quote from: stallik on January 04, 2016, 11:51:27 AM
Quote
There needed to be a public record
No there didn't. If you had entered into a conversation with ROG and were unhappy with the outcome then perhaps. But instead, you decided to do it within a forum of friends.
I have seen some of your posts on other topics and you are clearly knowledgable and willing to help. That is what this place is about, not this cr*p. Let it go man
Consider it "let go-ed" :)
Thank you and welcome :) :)
ROG projects are really nice and many of them actually have decent tone too.
...But with most of them you need to acquire the state of mind that only similarity to original units is their name. They don't sound really like the units that inspired them, and with the incosistency introduced by traim trimmer bias each build will end up sounding different from another.
As for realism of the "simulation".... Just look at "Mockman". This is supposed to sound similar to Rockman units. Original Rockman units had compressor implemented to an opamp gain stage with clipping diodes in feedback loop. It had pretty unique ovedrive characteristics because of combining gain compression and soft clipping. Other key points in design were BBD-based time based effects (MAJOR part of the tone, really) and a built-in cabinet simulator.
Quote from ROG website:.
QuoteThe Mockman sounds uncannily reminiscent of this sound as it is based on the Scholz Rockman's distortion section. Distortion is created by overdriving the op-amps, similar to the Sansamp units
Which means it's not even remotedly based on Rockman distortion section. Hard opamp overdrive, no built-in gain compression, no BBD effects, no cabsim. Entirely different overdrive characteristics, entirely different response alltogether. It's nothing like a Rockman, doesn't sound like a Rockman. They may feel it does, but it really doesn't. Not even a bit.
But of course anyone can CLAIM anything. Personally I'd just take claims on ROG website with a grain of salt.
As is the Mockman may have a nice tone of opamp overdrives. Unique in its own right. Point is that the unit's tone is not similar to Rockman tone although everything on the webpage suggests towards that. I lump most of their FET-based amp sim pedals to same category. Nice tones, but often not even vaguely similar to units that supposedly inspired the design.
As for their scheme to emulate tubes with FETs. Sigh. Just look at AMT designs (or alike) for examples of putting some real thought on accurate tube characteristic emulation with FETs. Look at commercial amp designs with FET gain stages for ideas how to implement bias schemes mile ahead of inconsistent drain trimmers. It's all out there and in that light most ROG designs just happen to look really amateurish.
But obvious issues excluded they can be nice, simple projects, which sound pretty good as is.
Quote from: stallik on January 04, 2016, 11:52:55 AM
@ digi2t
Nice one. First time I've smiled while viewing this thread :) :)
You're welcome Kevin, but all credit for the inspiration goes to Gary.
I'm glad to see this let-go'ed'ed. 8)
Quote from: mcknib on January 04, 2016, 10:21:16 AM
The only real thing that annoyed me was your sarcastic response regarding RG who we all know along with many others has made a potentially difficult hobby so much easier to understand for us mere non EE mortals and he continues to share his knowledge and help us all......and please don't say he started it.
When I served in the navy, in foreign ports, we always sortied in groups of at least 3 or 4 when allowed shore leave. This way, when faced with any local knuckleheads, we could at least depend on "If you @#$% with me, you @#$% with the whole table". That alone would generally provide enough deterrent to ensure a pleasant, uneventful evening.
Glad to see that kind of camaraderie, albeit in a virtual form, exist here. :icon_biggrin:
Quote from: mojokorn on January 04, 2016, 11:07:07 AM
4. It is impossible to collect royalties on something that is not patentable. Seems some people here are confused on that point.
Legally that may be true but within the community people are happy to pay "licensing fees" if they sell pedals based on people's designs. I've never put any restrictions on what people can do with stuff I've published but I've had a number of people voluntarily offer to pay me for using my stuff, I assume other people have had similar experiences.
On that basis I don't think it's unreasonable for ROG to contact people who are using their designs for profit and discuss this with them.
The issues you've raised here aren't new, they've been discussed and debated many many times and most people understand where they stand legally. As people have pointed out though there's more to it than just what's legal, some people get this others don't.
Quote from: garcho on January 04, 2016, 11:39:35 AM
just when i thought i was out they pull me back in...
someone who has "20+ years EE experience" is this interested in a beginners DIY guitar pedal project from years ago? if it smells like a duck...
As a guitar player, I have long been waiting for the the ultimate DUMBLOID pedal design...can't wait! ;D
(BTW, the jfet-based amp stage designs like the Umble can be found today in numerous well-regarded commercial pedals e.g. Plexidrive. Unfortunately, you have to pick through a pile of fets to find ones with the appropriate Vgs(off) and Idss for your design. It's not that hard to do...)
Quote from: deadastronaut on January 04, 2016, 06:28:31 AM
you dont have to please the audience...just yourself. if others like or dislike, thats fine..
There is a lot of work that goes into formatting and organizing a project that is shared with the community/public. The fishing for "is anybody interested?" is well justified in determining whether the extra effort will be widely appreciated enough to be worthwhile. I get this.
As for the public challenge to ROG I think others have said enough -- I don't have any desire to fuel the flame.
Just so nobody is guessing where I stand on the issue, I have come to have a genuine respect and appreciation for ROG over the years of being involved in this forum.
It is true it's a catch-22 about revealing your credentials, so unless you really are a noob you have to pick the lesser of the 2 evils. I (I hope I have finally learned this for myself) would rather be considered a noob than one of these:
(http://thebrewermagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Arrogant_Bastard.jpg)
(for those of you not from West Coast United States, that is the Stone Brewing Company "Arrogant Bastard" Ale trademark..damn good beer too, by the way...if I am what I drink, so be it).
QuoteI have long been waiting for the the ultimate DUMBLOID pedal design...can't wait! ;D
I'm also looking forward to what comes out of this, but please start a new thread in a few weeks when you have finished. With all these pages it's going to be hard for anybody to get to the meat of the project itself.
Quote from: slacker on January 04, 2016, 01:14:32 PM
Quote from: mojokorn on January 04, 2016, 11:07:07 AM
4. It is impossible to collect royalties on something that is not patentable. Seems some people here are confused on that point.
Legally that may be true but within the community people are happy to pay "licensing fees" if they sell pedals based on people's designs. I've never put any restrictions on what people can do with stuff I've published but I've had a number of people voluntarily offer to pay me for using my stuff, I assume other people have had similar experiences.
On that basis I don't think it's unreasonable for ROG to contact people who are using their designs for profit and discuss this with them.
The issues you've raised here aren't new, they've been discussed and debated many many times and most people understand where they stand legally. As people have pointed out though there's more to it than just what's legal, some people get this others don't.
My wife is a photographer...she runs into copyright issues now and then (mostly like this here, watching them evolve from afar over the net). What I've learned from her about 'intellectual property' is this:
If you DRAW anything, lay out a pedal (even a Dist +!), and put that on the net (or anywhere)...people need permission to take that drawing and use it on their web sites, in their kits, and so on. They CAN redraw it, as you don't have the patent, only the copyright on that 'artwork'. You made it, you own it forever.
Much of the "claims" attributed to ROG can be attributed to the desire to not have their actual artwork copied without credit (as we often see, around the internet...new web page using someone else's schematics).
I say this not to 'keep it going' or anything, just to put that out there - if I redraw a Marshall 18W, THAT picture is MINE, my copyright.
If I add some anode bypass caps, different value coupling caps, and tweak the tone stack, guess what? The WHOLE IDEA is mine as that type of cascaded gain stage amp is so common.
I'd be more smoked about someone taking my physical drawing of the circuit, and could be pressed to put out a *warning*... just sayin', it's not important.
Quote from: Quackzed on January 02, 2016, 12:27:18 AM
i don't recall any particular mobster type attitude on the rog guys part.
Well, one time they *did* remind me that they knew where my wife & kids lived when I suggested a transistor substitution for one of their projects, but otherwise no...
I always seem to come into these things after they've been let-go'ed. :( Although to be fair, that still didn't kill the Burst Box :icon_twisted:
Although I did have a good laugh in the banana amp thread before that one finished, that one was pretty good. ;)
Is there any popcorn left? If deadastronaut never got the change for his tenner I do believe I owe him a bag of popcorn, and sausages for everyone are on me! ;D
Excuse me,
But I think that it would be really awesome if mojokorn built me an Umble, but with a burst button switch.
Thanks,
Jack
Yay!
I love me a good Troll, sign me up for this... I'm ready for some Scarlett!
(http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/1300000/Troll-Doll-troll-dolls-1353646-302-450.jpg)
Still waiting.
Quote from: george on February 08, 2016, 09:45:18 PM
Still waiting.
Popcorn refills, get your popcorn refills! Popcorn refills right here!
we've all got our seats and popcorn, but what time does the matinee start?
Maybe he's filing his patent first. I hope we haven't missed the previews... *munch* *munch*
^ yeah, the lawyers must have his JFET overdrive guitar pedal all tied up in the IP dept.
"Those that can, do; Those that can't..." ;D
Quote from: Frank_NH on February 09, 2016, 12:20:49 PM
"Those that can, do; Those that can't..." ;D
..., teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym.
I'll get my coat.
Quote from: Jack White on January 25, 2016, 03:57:43 PM
Excuse me,
But I think that it would be really awesome if mojokorn built me an Umble, but with a burst button switch.
Thanks,
Jack
I'm waiting to see if he misses the opportunity to build a custom pedal for our most famous forumite.
Quote from: garcho on February 09, 2016, 10:14:13 AM
^ yeah, the lawyers must have his JFET overdrive guitar pedal all tied up in the IP dept.
Patience, you know...it's something never-before-seen in the musical effects world - it will take time to sort out just how it all works!
I imagine they're having it sent to Roswell for reverse-engineering...
Quote from: mojokorn on January 01, 2016, 09:03:36 PM
Dolby and Apple
I work in the extended circle that is bay area audio companies and this says a lot right here, if your attitude on this messageboard hasn't said enough already.
it would probably sound better in dobly... ;D
;D
Only when set to 11
For those who like jfets... the Roland Cube 60 from around 1984:
(http://www.freeinfosociety.com/electronics/schematics/audio/pictures/rolandcube60.gif)
Best regards, Jack
Actually Jack - my main gigging amp right now is a "vintage" 90's era Roland Blues Cube BC-60. Awesome amp! Maybe it is the JFETs... :icon_mrgreen:
(Sorry for the thread derail - now back to the latest episode of "Umble Watch")
Quote from: deadastronaut on February 09, 2016, 05:17:19 PM
it would probably sound better in dobly... ;D
.... and then he'll probably want "....... sausag
es".
didn't dobly have some serious flaws as well?
I'm curious to see how JFETS can more accurately be biased.
I hope this guys unorthodox posting model pays off.
^ more "accurate" bias?
Quote from: amz-fx on February 09, 2016, 06:50:00 PM
For those who like jfets... the Roland Cube 60 from around 1984:
Best regards, Jack
Looks cool. How does it sound?
Quote from: garcho on February 12, 2016, 09:29:00 AM
^ more "accurate" bias?
I have a spreadsheet which calculates the DC bias and does a general circuit analysis for a self-biased JFET gain stage. There are four different bias points that are calculated, asumming known JFET characteristics (idss, Vp) and supply voltage: (1) midpoint bias, where the drain current = idss/2 and the drain voltage = Vp/2, (2) fixed source resistance and drain voltage, (3) fixed source and drain resistances, and (4) Fezter valve JFET bias.
In case (1), source and drain resistances are calculated to satisfy midpoint bias. In case (2), the drain resistance is calculated. In case (3) the drain voltage is determined for the given source and drain resistances. And for case (4) the ROG Fetzer equations are used to determine source and drain resistances. Note that in all cases, the full analysis calculates all voltages, currents, gains (DC and AC), transconductance (gm), etc.
So, the point is that there is no "accurate" bias - just different bias points which result in different voltages, currents, and gains. I should note that for a given JFET, the Fetzer bias has a more modest gain than choosing other source resistors. Also, for many amp sim circuits (like the Umble) where JFETs replace tubes, the designers generally retain the original tube circuit's source resistance. I suppose there is no rule that you have to do that if want to replicate the original circuits tonal "character" as long as the tone stacks and other tone filtering elements are similar. IMHO that's where the magic mojo is to be found... :)
Somebody spilled coke in my lap. Think there's time to go home and change before the show?
if your quick...
got my beers in ready...
Quote from: Transmogrifox on January 04, 2016, 02:21:49 PM
Quote from: deadastronaut on January 04, 2016, 06:28:31 AM
you dont have to please the audience...just yourself. if others like or dislike, thats fine..
There is a lot of work that goes into formatting and organizing a project that is shared with the community/public. The fishing for "is anybody interested?" is well justified in determining whether the extra effort will be widely appreciated enough to be worthwhile. I get this.
As for the public challenge to ROG I think others have said enough -- I don't have any desire to fuel the flame.
Just so nobody is guessing where I stand on the issue, I have come to have a genuine respect and appreciation for ROG over the years of being involved in this forum.
It is true it's a catch-22 about revealing your credentials, so unless you really are a noob you have to pick the lesser of the 2 evils. I (I hope I have finally learned this for myself) would rather be considered a noob than one of these:
(http://thebrewermagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Arrogant_Bastard.jpg)
(for those of you not from West Coast United States, that is the Stone Brewing Company "Arrogant Bastard" Ale trademark..damn good beer too, by the way...if I am what I drink, so be it).
QuoteI have long been waiting for the the ultimate DUMBLOID pedal design...can't wait! ;D
I'm also looking forward to what comes out of this, but please start a new thread in a few weeks when you have finished. With all these pages it's going to be hard for anybody to get to the meat of the project itself.
OOT : that Arrogant Bastard pict maybe good for etch the finished dumbloid clone :icon_mrgreen:
SOrry to necro this but, what ever happened?... did this turned into something tangible at least in schematic snippet or was it all "vaporware" ?
Quote from: Voltron on November 01, 2016, 07:39:09 PM
SOrry to necro this but, what ever happened?... did this turned into something tangible at least in schematic snippet or was it all "vaporware" ?
Nope, nothing ever happened. Apparently OP discovered talking about circuits is a lot easier than designing and building them.
I got almost as excited as when I see a new post in the Burst Box thread that something happened here :'(
what's this? the umble's been fixed? at last! where's the [new, improved, flaw-free] circuit?
Quote from: duck_arse on November 02, 2016, 10:20:40 AM
what's this? the umble's been fixed? at last! where's the [new, improved, flaw-free] circuit?
I think the final consensus was that the ROG circuit is fine. I've never had any problems with ROG stuff and I don't see why ROG's design will explode or poison your dog.
My dog died from ruptured gall bladder a couple of years ago and this circuit existed back then. He seriously did. But, could the poison from this circuit have done it? Do I have a case?
Does anyone how I can build a circuit box with a burst button switch.
^ yes of course , heres the schematic
in.............switch/burst................out.
you might want to add a few resistors, caps, trannies etc..
but you get the drift.. 8)
Quote from: deadastronaut on November 03, 2016, 12:45:09 PM
^ yes of course , heres the schematic
in.............switch/burst................out.
you might want to add a few resistors, caps, trannies etc..
but you get the drift.. 8)
Quote from: duck_arse on March 25, 2015, 10:36:25 AM
Quote from: Jack White on September 27, 2013, 11:52:04 AM
Quote from: FooFighters123 on June 04, 2009, 04:24:00 PM
HI, I don't thing the switch will work because i want to run a mic through 1 effect pedal then a guitar through another effects pedal (the pedals are hand operated) look at diagram
(MICROPHONE) (GUITAR)
| |
| |
(EFFECTS PEDAL)----------(circuit box with a burst button switch)----------(EFFECTS PEDAL)
(THE CIRCUIT BOX IN BETWEEN TO PEDALS SO THE SINGAL PASSES THROUGH TO THE AMP
|
|
(AMPLIFIER)
wait a minute, "the pedals are hand operated"? what sort of hipster bicycle is this?
the temptation proved too much. I blame wavley
It seems that we may have crossed the streams.
OK, What about the building a circuit box?
crossed streams, yeah. DA (the other), I'm not really getting your dia, maybe you should start a new thread so's you can explain it better [ .... he ducks out of the way].
^ try it without the switch in the middle..
it should be utterly pointless then. :D
A kill switch kills your guitar, I don't want that
Quote from: garcho on November 04, 2016, 01:17:56 PM
A kill switch kills your guitar, I don't want that
Me neither, I want something that makes my guitar louder and more Umble-like.
LEMON CURRY?!
Fine get two zvex tremolo probe the hook them up then (what)
Quote from: garcho on November 04, 2016, 03:22:52 PM
Fine get two zvex tremolo probe the hook them up then (what)
I have no clue, I'm just waiting for the pictures of ScarJo to start showing up.
I found out a burst button is just a kill switch, Jack White must connect it to the circuit box
... I woke up a beast. :icon_confused:
Quote from: Voltron on November 07, 2016, 10:36:55 PM
... I woke up a beast. :icon_confused:
You did indeed ;D
Which reminds me, does anyone remember these things? It was a while back now. I would write the actual name, but I'm afraid his google adwords would summon the guy again :P
(https://ksr-ugc.imgix.net/assets/002/446/145/7757f55bbafb7807e14a9fa2b298a3f5_original.jpg?w=680&fit=max&v=1408256743&auto=format&q=92&s=2b85a579d9879333986f489231080a98)
What the hell is that?
Quote from: chuckd666 on November 07, 2016, 11:57:01 PM
What the hell is that?
Found the thread :P Wow, hard to believe that was two years ago. It's a pretty good read, actually a little more educational than the Burst Box thread (Paul and RG were both involved), but only 12 pages ;D
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=108556.0
Wow, yeah, entertaining. Loved the twist on the end "In fact, since our Banana Jack Amps didn't get funded, we've decided to give the art business a shot: ".
Yay crowdfunding :icon_rolleyes: , and that one didn't work out, so he tried to get funding for a christian record, with his own songs which are great, apparently. A man of many capabilities.....
In all fairness though, with my active basses I do run out of headroom quickly (more related to the Flipster circuit, which is similar). Would like to give it a try using either higher rails or run the circuit from bipolar rails (+9v / -9v).