Umble Circuit - Seems to have serious design flaws

[mojokorn]

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.

[Kipper4]

Pop corn anyone?

[mojokorn]

Well, I hope there is more interests in this than that.  If not, ok.

[GibsonGM]

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

[PRR]

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.

[mojokorn]

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.

[lars-musik]

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!

[mojokorn]

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 :-)

[PRR]

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.

[mojokorn]

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.

[mojokorn]

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.

[lars-musik]

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...

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!

[PRR]

> 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.

[mth5044]

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.

[digi2t]

Pop corn anyone?

Butter on mine please.

[B Tremblay]

Um... Happy New Year?

[lars-musik]

@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.

[mojokorn]

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.

[mojokorn]

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!

[mojokorn]

... and the "mojo" in my name is only coincidence.  I hate to see the MJ guys get any of this on them