"Cloned" or "inspired by:" where do you draw the line?

[earthtonesaudio]

Preface: This may be Lounge material, but I think it fits here too.


It bugs me a little when I see circuits that contain part-for-part copies of existing circuits, yet the builder is claiming originality.
However, I understand that stompboxes are pretty simple circuits, and use available components, and there is a good chance of repeating someone else's design even when substituting parts and tuning by ear (fuzz face derivatives anyone come to mind).

I guess what I would like is some concrete definition of what a "clone" is, as it applies to stompboxes and guitar gear in general.

For instance, if fewer than 3 parts are changed, would that mean it is a clone? 
Or would it be better to say something like "if it's 97% the same or more," then it's a clone?

What about if you have a 100% clone, plus something else in one box?  What the heck is that?  A superclone?


If the DIY community can come to a consensus on this, I'd be surprised, but I'd still like to see what people have to say.

[Barcode80]

well, if you want to get technical, a clone would have to be a part for part replica of the original circuit, or else you would really need to say it was inspired. but, both can be rip offs...

[stumper1]

a clone would have to be a part for part replica of the original circuit, or else you would really need to say it was inspired. but, both can be rip offs...

Nicely said!

[frankclarke]

A clone would have the same part values as the original. Of course, semiconductors and cap selection may prevent it from being a sonic clone.
There won't be much agreement on definitions .
There are plenty of clones in original's clothing.

[Ed G.]

Where's that put the Landgraff? It's NEARLY part-for-part, but it's more than just inspired by the tube screamer. I'd call it a modified clone, I guess.

[darron]

depends on where you started. my only current and decent design at the moment is a tremolo that started from a fading led schematic i found. it started passive and then became active. in the end, it's almost exactly the same as a tremulus lune but with different values. i also made an opamp clean boost (by cloning the basic theory). 'oh no. that's an mxr micro amp now, isn't it?'      let's give it more gain, put some diodes and a volume control at the end. 'ahh.. now it's just a distortion +... screw it'

inspired sounds much nicer than cloned. my way of saying it, which i think sounds nicer, is "modelled from the original 70's X pedal"... except that i added higher quality parts, a power filter, true bypass, blue led, hammond box... etc. .. etc..... ..... . zzz  ZZ  zz  ZZZZZzzzzZZzz zz  zz 

[dschwartz]

i had that issue with the burning crunch..is simply a modded krank distortus maximus..that made me feel like i was ripping off, and maybe i am... that´s why i repeatedly mention that it is a modded krank. but i can also say that it could be a modded grace/ big daddy, or a ruby, etc..

from my point of view, the the ethic comes in when you intend to imitate the real thing, and claim it your own, or even worse when you use the trademark and logo of the original..

trademarks and logos are protected by IP, PCB´s artwork are also..circuits, only a few of them..

IMHO circuits are like ice cream flavors..they are there, readily available, anyone can make them with the appropiate knowledge and tools, and even mix them to make new recipes..can you claim IP for a "chocolate + vanilla"?? or a "cream+strawberry"?? ..i dont think so.. ocassionally you can protect a recipe when it gives you a competitive advantage and it´s complex enough to not be reversed-engineered easily..you can protect your brand, your slogans, your artwork...but protecting the recipes..is another issue...

Think of Coca cola....its recipe has been secret for many years, BUT it is being physically and culturally  protected, not legally protected, anyone who could make an exact copy has all the right in the world to sell it, without need to mention coca cola, but not using the brand,  the trademarks or the registered artwork of coke..

A product is much more than the parts and part values inside of it..Do MXR worries when we make a distortion plus?? Not a bit...do they worry when someone makes a dist+, use their logo, look and brand, make several units and sell them? well.. A lot...

why? because the money supossed to go to them goes to the cloner? NOT AT ALL..

because the clones have not the same quality standards than them and if the clone fails or sound not as good as the original, it harms the brand and the model? YES....


let´s think of zvex.. why zack defends so much his creations in this forum (and others)??
Because his products are perceived as "custom" or boutique, really special and original units (and they are), he has made a big name and reputation making musicians all over the world feel they have a special unit, something made by hand with special love and care, and only few other people have the same unit on their pedalboard.. he identified the need of "uniqueness" (is that even a word?) that artists have, and made a product that satisfies that need..
So when someones make a clone of any of his products, it has the same emotional characteristics that musicians search..uniqueness, custom, boutique, hand made, love and care...BUT if it doesn't have the same quality standards that Zack haves, it can, and will, harm his brand and company..that pedal could be used and tested by many players that will never buy or recommend a zvex if they don´t like it..

that´s my POV....
greetings from chile..

[darron]

reading the word clone so many times, it made me think someone should make a pedal: billy and the cloneasaurus

[DougH]

It depends on how high the 'clone' knob is set...

For me, there's no "line". Everything is a case by case basis. And it's not a question of "what is a clone". It's a question of "what bugs me or not". And the amt of hype always factors in. Someone who claims they 'created' the "last pedal you will ever need", which turns out to be an exact clone or a TS with a filter cap or even a few parts changed bugs me. OTOH, someone who just says, "this is something I like, you might like it too" and does a good job doesn't bug me- even if it's a part-for-part clone. I guess the honest approach trumps a lot of things for me.

[Boogdish]

reading the word clone so many times, it made me think someone should make a pedal: billy and the cloneasaurus

[petemoore]

  "In the Sand"
 

[Mark Hammer]

Cloned means you follow their car down the same streets to reach the same place.  Inspired by means you take a different route to reach the same sonic destination, OR you take the same streets but just keep going long after they've stopped.

Keep in mind that a further development of a design can also permit you to replicate what the original does, too.  Cloning the sound is, of course, not the same as cloning the design.

[joelap]

At the end of the day, I have nothing but the utmost respect for people who can make a living off this stuff... whether CLONES or ORIGINAL.

200-300 for a TS clone sounds about right when you figure extra time answering emails because customers expect extra service spending extra money, fixing pedals when they come back defective, dealing with dissatisfied customers, maintaining a website, keeping a stock of parts, marketing, etc. etc. etc.  Not to mention putting food on the table.  And that doesnt even take into account insurance...

[DougH]

Some of the "names" don't make a living from this. It's a side job for them. That never seems to get mentioned when the business side of things is discussed (not your post Joelap, just in general on this forum). It's not always financially an "eat or starve" "do or die" situation. At the same time, I do think the "avg going rate" is reasonable and justified. There are a few products that are priced beyond the normally expected "reasonable" price point. But if those guys can market themselves in a way to create the demand, I say more power to them.

I don't know about anyone else, but my time is worth money - especially my free time...

[Skreddy]

Honestly, the only thing that bugs me is when someone uses the name of the original thing in their marketing, claiming their thing to be a "clone" when they don't even bother to use the same parts to get the same sound.

[DougH]

Yes, and I think that's why it's really important to work hard at protecting your name. IMO it's more important than protecting the design (which you can't protect anyway). You want control of the name and don't want it associated with junk.

[Mark Hammer]

Honestly, the only thing that bugs me is when someone uses the name of the original thing in their marketing, claiming their thing to be a "clone" when they don't even bother to use the same parts to get the same sound.

Then perhaps the distinction that needs to be made is that between "clone" and "reproduction".  EVERY similar-shaped guitar that sells for $70 online is a Strat "clone", but none of them are "reproductions" of a 57 or 59 or whatever.  What makes the latter reproductions is the use of identical materials and perhaps even identical manufacturing techniques.  We might consider something that takes the schematic and plunks the parts on a PCB to be an 18W Marshall "clone", but we would expect use of the same fabrication techniques (p-2-p) for a "reproduction".

[slacker]

Like other people have said to me a clone means you're trying accurately recreate a certain pedal or circuit. I'd say you could add modern or boutique "improvements" like truebypass, DC jacks, LEDs etc and still refer to it a a clone so long as the basic circuit remains faithful to whatever you're copying.
As to how much you can change it before it's not a clone I think it depends on the circuit involved. With the Tube Screamer for example you can change one or 2 components to flatten out the mid hump. Then in my opinion it's no longer a Tube Screamer, because you've altered the defining characteristic of the pedal. That's not to say you could claim it's an original design but it wouldn't be a clone either.
With something like the Fuzz Face you could within reason change every component and it will still sound like a Fuzz Face. It won't be an exact clone of a specific model but it's still essentially a Fuzz Face.

[earthtonesaudio]

As I hoped, the opinions seem to be all over the map on this issue.   
I like Mark Hammer's "car/road" analogy.  I tend to take a lot of one-ways the wrong way, by that reasoning. 

And I agree on the price concept.  It's nearly impossible to make a profit in electronics for the small-timer.

[joelap]

Some of the "names" don't make a living from this. It's a side job for them. That never seems to get mentioned when the business side of things is discussed (not your post Joelap, just in general on this forum). It's not always financially an "eat or starve" "do or die" situation. At the same time, I do think the "avg going rate" is reasonable and justified. There are a few products that are priced beyond the normally expected "reasonable" price point. But if those guys can market themselves in a way to create the demand, I say more power to them.

Oh definitely.  I'm sure there are some guys out there who have found a way to turn this into a full time job.  I seem to remember reading somewhere than an amp or pedal guy had fallen ill and needed some type of treatment recently, but due to running his own business, did not have insurance to cover it.  I would love nothing more than to do stuff like this full-time.... but its not entirely feasible.  I wish I could spend even remotely the amount of time I'd like to on this stuff... but between working full time AND taking a full-time course load of EE courses, maintaining a band, AND a girlfriend... I'd be lucky to have enough time to do even a single pedal a week.

I think at the end of the day, you get more respect as a builder by NOT gooping your circuit.  Those who want to clone your pedal probably will not end up buying your pedal anyways...  plus, if something goes wrong, you dont need to replace the entire board.