Page 3 of 20

PostPosted: 03 Oct 2007, 22:11
by bajaman
Who was it that said DIYstumpboxes is the Zvex R&D department :?: :roll: :wink:
bajaman

PostPosted: 03 Oct 2007, 22:13
by MoreCowbell
DougH wrote:
MoreCowbell wrote:The comparison comes from the fact that the BOR uses a Big Muff tone stack with the BSIAB2 values.


I've heard that before too, and based on that alone IMO the claim that the BOR is a "BSIAB2 clone" is tenuous. My guess is Zvex saw how popular all the "amp sim" jfet circuits were and decided to take a stab at that approach with his beloved MOSFET.


Agreed, 100%

Taking one small portion of a circuit certainly doesn't make it a copy / clone / etc.. The tone stack and position within these two circuits certainly do give them a somewhat similar voicing, but if people were to listen to them side by side, I think the differences would be evident.

All in all, probably 85-90% of boutique stompboxes are cobbled together bits and pieces of other existing stompbox circuits. I know some of mine are. I have a few that are "out there", but the reality is that most of the older designs, especially with regards to OD's, fuzzes, distortions, and boosts can be easily tweaked to give better performance. Developing from scratch is a great thing, but there are times when an old circuit is just so close to the sound you're hearing in your head, why not start from there ?

Man, I just went off on a tangent...

I guess I'm trying to say that Z gets a lot of mileage from the SHO circuit as a "building block" because he can.

PostPosted: 03 Oct 2007, 22:16
by MoreCowbell
Torchy wrote:When I first saw the BOR my mind did a double-take and I thought of this ...

Image


Yep.

PostPosted: 03 Oct 2007, 22:30
by markm
MoreCowbell wrote:I guess I'm trying to say that Z gets a lot of mileage from the SHO circuit as a "building block" because he can.


Damn!
That's what I wanted to say!!
I know others here who do not like the SHO but, I have always liked the tone. I don't particularily like his other creations that use it but, I like the circuit on it's own.

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 16:45
by DougH
Image

1. ROG are nice people but you guys give them way too much credit.

2. Diystomp is not the nexxus of the universe for pedal ideas.

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 17:27
by B Tremblay
DougH wrote:
1. ROG are nice people


Compared to who? :)

DougH wrote:but you guys give them way too much credit.


True!

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 17:33
by markm
:lol:

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 17:36
by DougH
Hey Brian, good to see you. :D

No harm, no foul. I just think it's funny how when these "X stole the idea from Y" discussions come up, "Y" is usually 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation already. Most of this stuff can be found in the usual places, app notes, old amp schematics, electronics tutorials, etc. Sometimes ideas are developed in parallel. Assuming that something that resembles something else had to be "pilfered" from a diy internet site is narrow and simplistic.

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 18:01
by modman
DougH wrote:
1. ROG are nice people but you guys give them way too much credit.

2. Diystomp is not the nexxus of the universe for pedal ideas.


Thanks for this correction, Doug. Concerning ROG, the conclusion seems that even they are fairly new to the game (2001?) they are perceived as important orginators because the have a clear and well structured web page giving newbie builders everything they want without having to wade through endless posts.

Maybe instead of analyzing boxes, we'd better make a topology of all interesting stages so everybody could start puzzling, as suggested already here

Besides diy and ampage I don't see any other important international forums discussing stompboxes. Nexus or not, I don't know. I think Bajaman CX3 project and Vanessa's Deacy Amp illustrate that inspiration might very well come from a variety of fields, not just other guitar effect devices...

And didn't I post that Hammond distortion preamp with subminiature tubes yet? If I only got round to breadboarding it ....

j

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 18:17
by DougH
modman wrote:Thanks for this correction, Doug. Concerning ROG, the conclusion seems that even they are fairly new to the game (2001?) they are perceived as important orginators because the have a clear and well structured web page giving newbie builders everything they want without having to wade through endless posts.


I agree they are great sites with helpful and easy to find information for builders. But you can't judge the history or origins of something based on a site like that. Web sites come and go on a daily basis. Before ROG there was ampage, alt.guitar newsgroup, leper's abode, etc. A lot of those were before my time of involvement on the internet with this stuff. Jack Orman has had several forums and different incarnations of his site.

Furthermore you can't really discern the history of a circuit based on the internet alone, as the net is pretty shallow. It's kind of like trying to learn world history with Paris Hilton as your only resource. :D You have to look outside the box at app notes, older circuit examples, books, libraries etc. I'm not saying I have the complete picture because I sure don't and I don't spend time researching it. All I know is my experience. But you have to be careful about assuming something was "stolen" from somewhere else just because there is a website with something similar. Where did the website get its idea, for example? Most of these circuits, esp the "amp pedals" are just variations on a theme, AFAIC. There's not really a whole lot of ideas that are completely unique, IMO, just bits and pieces that keep getting re-synthesized in different (or not so different) ways.

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 18:19
by modman
B Tremblay wrote:
DougH wrote:
1. ROG are nice people


Compared to who? :)

DougH wrote:but you guys give them way too much credit.


True!


Just replied to Doug, didn't see the replies in the meantime!
Welcome!

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 18:38
by MoreCowbell
DougH wrote:
modman wrote:

Furthermore you can't really discern the history of a circuit based on the internet alone, as the net is pretty shallow. It's kind of like trying to learn world history with Paris Hilton as your only resource. :D You have to look outside the box at app notes, older circuit examples, books, libraries etc. I'm not saying I have the complete picture because I sure don't and I don't spend time researching it. All I know is my experience. But you have to be careful about assuming something was "stolen" from somewhere else just because there is a website with something similar. Where did the website get its idea, for example? Most of these circuits, esp the "amp pedals" are just variations on a theme, AFAIC. There's not really a whole lot of ideas that are completely unique, IMO, just bits and pieces that keep getting re-synthesized in different (or not so different) ways.



Wasn't Randall (?) using jfet preamps in the early 80's in a manner consistent with the "swap a jfet for a tube" theory ?

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 19:14
by DougH
I don't know about Randall but Yamaha was. I still have my G50-112 SS amp with the JFET distortion channel. The "JFET subbed for a tube" idea was in vogue at the time.

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 20:03
by pz
MoreCowbell wrote:Wasn't Randall (?) using jfet preamps in the early 80's in a manner consistent with the "swap a jfet for a tube" theory ?


According to this schem - yes. Old Roland Cube series amps also used Fet preamp stages. There was a SeymourDuncan Convertible 100W Amp, one of the modules was FET based...

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 20:33
by MoreCowbell
DougH wrote:I don't know about Randall but Yamaha was. I still have my G50-112 SS amp with the JFET distortion channel. The "JFET subbed for a tube" idea was in vogue at the time.


Thats who I was thinking of...Yamaha. I knew that one of the major manufacturers was doing it 25 years ago.

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 20:34
by MoreCowbell
pz wrote:
MoreCowbell wrote:Wasn't Randall (?) using jfet preamps in the early 80's in a manner consistent with the "swap a jfet for a tube" theory ?


According to this schem - yes. Old Roland Cube series amps also used Fet preamp stages. There was a SeymourDuncan Convertible 100W Amp, one of the modules was FET based...



Cool...thanks for the schemo.

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 21:30
by B Tremblay
The runoffgroove team has always tried to be very clear about giving credit for all the information we've utilized during our circuit development.

It seems that once a person attempts to delineate the point where an idea or approach is "new," they could effectively deconstruct a circuit to a concept that is so broad that nobody can take sole credit for it. Maybe there is some validity to the belief that nothing is truly new, but that mindset can easily become hyperbole.

It's best to not take things too seriously, I suppose. By the time you determine the meaning of life, you've already died...

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 21:32
by bajaman
sometimes good ideas are ahead of there time and not appreciated fully until 20 years later :wink:
For example - Gibson Flying V, Explorer and Moderne guitars had to wait until death and heavy metallers came along much later than their original release date :lol: :lol:
bajaman

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 21:47
by MoreCowbell
I think that its fairly safe to say that ROG "popularized" the technique with regards to DIY Stompboxes.

PostPosted: 09 Oct 2007, 23:22
by markm
MoreCowbell wrote:I think that its fairly safe to say that ROG "popularized" the technique with regards to DIY Stompboxes.


Absolutely.