Ethics around what makes a circuit an original circuit, anybody know?

[Otbaudio]

Hi all,

I've not long been in the game of making circuits, and I'm just curious to know what constitutes an original circuit. I've got the hang of components and all the algebra to make a circuit work, but I know very little about what circuits are already out there. My goal is to one day design circuits I can call my own.

So basically I started off with a really basic Bazz Fuss circuit on a breadboard, just to get my head round the practical side of circuits. From there I've just been experimenting, adding things, changing components, trying different filters, switching the polarity of the circuit etc etc. Eventually I stumbled onto a fuzz tone that I absolutely love and sounds completely different to the original bazz fuss circuit, so I was just wondering at what point does a circuit become original?

Is what I've made just a modded bazz fuss, or is it something all together different? Basically I don't want to go calling a circuit mine if really it belongs to someone else, but I don't really know where the line is because when I look at circuits I just see different combinations of filters, voltage dividers, and components, not sure what about them makes them original.

Would really appreciate your insight!

Thanks

Oli

[stallik]

Let met try a few changes to this paragraph.

So basically I started off with a really basic Bazz Fuss lick  on a breadfretboard, just to get my head round the practical side of circuitsmusic. From there I've just been experimenting, adding things, changing componentsnotes, trying different filterstiming, switching the polarity of the circuit etcbends,slurs etc. Eventually I stumbled onto a fuzz tonenew
Lick that I absolutely love and sounds completely different to the original so I was just wondering at what point does this lick become original?

Every note has been played before. In every order. But that's not everything that makes the music. Musicians have been taking what they hear, adding their own influences and passing it on for years. In the same way, every component has been used before. And in every order. They way you've chosen to string your components may not be original but it could very well result in something unique. And like musicians who can recognise the influence in a modern piece, builders may well recognise where your influence came from

So, to answer your question. I haven't got a clue. But well done for finding something different that you like.

[Mark Hammer]

The debate around what constitutes a "design", an "original design", a "mod", or intellectual theft, has been had here many times over.

The general understanding is that:
a) All the greats have adapted/borrowed/stolen ideas from the other greats
b) All designers/manufacturers will impose limits on themselves for what features and control ranges to include.  They may not include a feature or mod in their design, but that doesn't mean they haven't already thought of it.
c) It is always considerate to give credit where it is due and acknowledge sources; even if those sources themselves have their sources.
d) People get concerned about their "designs" because they mistakenly think there is some sort of money connected with it.  There isn't.  People make money because they are astute in business and are able to generate a consistent and reliable product to an eager market in a manner that is profitable after all overhead costs have been met.  That doesn't happen very often, and even when it does, it requires long-term commitment, and frequently a very understanding and dependably-employed spouse/partner.

Finally, there isn't all that much that is new under the sun.

If one HAS an "original" idea, and happens to post it here, others will very quickly compliment the person on the idea, and THAT will identify it as original.

[Otbaudio]

Thanks guys that's really helpful, I just hate the idea of accidentally ripping someone off. I suppose good music is about collaboration not independence! I'll just endeavour to create something that sounds good and go from there.

[GibsonGM]

Don't feel you need to re-invent what has already been invented...the 'sources' you find, and get your 'inspiration' from...have already used OTHER sources to provide you with what you're looking for.   

Not a whole lot is new under the sun, in other words...

[Ben Lyman]

Maybe it's okay if you just add or subtract one part, for example:

Original Dan Armstrong Green Ringer


Original Earthquaker Devices Tentacle

[patrick398]

Fancy graphics + difficult to pronounce name = original design

[EBK]

You can also goop a Joyo, repaint it, and charge a sizeable markup for your "original", until you get caught and people start shaming you mercilessly. 

[patrick398]

You can also goop a Joyo, repaint it, and charge a sizeable markup for your "original", until you get caught and people start shaming you mercilessly. 

who'd that hapen to?

[EBK]

You can also goop a Joyo, repaint it, and charge a sizeable markup for your "original", until you get caught and people start shaming you mercilessly. 

who'd that hapen to?

https://www.cheaperpedals.com/blogs/articles/8384557-freekish-blues-pedals-are-really-repainted-joyos


More than one pedal maker did this, apparently.
http://revolutiondeux.blogspot.com/2012/02/toxic-pedals-muddy-drive-another.html?m=1

[anotherjim]

If you still have this base bias from collector via the diode, to me it's still a BazzFuss, everything else you do to it makes a variant.
Sometimes the names given are a convenience for the community and not necessarily indicating an original invention. More often, we name things after something widely recognised as a typical example. A Tillman piezo pre-amp is a very ordinary JFET common source stage and not an original concept.
Fuzz Face is a textbook arrangement of 2 transistors, it wasn't even the first guitar fuzz to use it. However, if you design something around that, it will be called a Fuzz Face variant whether you like it or not.

[Mark Hammer]

Argentinian short-story master Jorge Luis Borges had a techique/style in which he would review books that didn't exist.  As he noted in interviews, he admired authors like Robert Louis Stevenson but was himself too lazy to write a 500-page book.  So, he would dream up the book and "review" it, to be able to present the essential plot, characters, and message of the book in 8-10 pages.  The "reviews" seemed remarkably authentic and scholarly, complete with references, real and imaginary.

He has a famous one about an imaginary author who essentially "rewrites" Don Quixote, word for word ( hispanlit.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/files/2011/06/Borges-Pierre-Menard.pdf ).  The imaginary author, when taken to task that he has simply copied Quixote, says that while the words may be identifiably the same, he meant something different via those words, and hence it is a different book.

We freely take subcircuit ideas from many sources, but we "mean" something different by them.

The example above of the Tentacle vs the Green Ringer, is a perfect example of how a very simple mod was used to improve the performance of an existing design.  Incidentally, for those building one from the schematic, use Schottky diodes for better octave tracking down to lower frets.

[Digital Larry]

The example above of the Tentacle vs the Green Ringer, is a perfect example of how a very simple mod was used to improve the performance of an existing design.  Incidentally, for those building one from the schematic, use Schottky diodes for better octave tracking down to lower frets.

All I can see added is a polarity reversal protection diode, inserted in a way designed to blow itself and/or the power supply up in the case of a reversal, and probably not even necessary as there are no ICs in the design.  But don't quote me on the last part.

While I'm fairly sure that schematics can be copyrighted, AFAIK there is nothing to prevent you from transcribing a schematic and using it as your own.  Is this good "ethically" or not?  I guess I'm on the fence.  As an electrical engineer I can tell you that one of the first things you look for when trying to implement an idea is "has anyone done this or something close before"?  You don't want to reinvent the wheel if you can avoid it.  Have any of my circuit design ideas been ripped off?  No way of knowing, but there again I don't recall ever doing anything novel at the circuit level.  The challenge in product development again boils down to whether or not your final product can be built cheap enough for people to want to buy it. 

[Cozybuilder]

And that pesky little 100pF on the input

[Gus]

Here is a link to something different that was not used before piggyback transistors  http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=21245.msg132979#msg132979

Next a link for the ASDF circuit I posted at the forum, lets use this as an example of what circuit ideas/fragments were used for the design of the circuit.
The ASDF uses a gain control that adjust both stages. Marshall Bluesbreaker used a control like that. What is different is it uses two NPN transistors instead of a dual opamp. The gain stages use the textbook biasing you see in other effects. The RCs are adjusted for EQ and the mix of the two stage gain is controlled.
Was any part of this not done before? however has anyone seen a fuzz schematic like this before?
That is why I named it "A Somewhat Different Fuzz"
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=104029.0
Is it original? does it matter?