Sorry if the pots are in the wrong direction, I was a little lazy with that. I can edit and repost if people want.As I got from my TIM pedal, bass cut seems to be reversed. Lug 1 is going to 39n.
And lug 3 is connected to lug 1 of gain pot. Now I'm confused.
Jun
Paul Cochrane - Timmy [traced]
-
celadine
- Solder Soldier
-
Goop_buster
- Solder Soldier
Nice update celadineceladine wrote:Its a redraw of Goopbuster's schem, so its Goopbuster's call on the name. I wouldn't feel comfortable calling the schematic 'Timmy', because that is the name of your pedal. (not sarcastically-) Feel free to post a 'Timmy' schematic yourself, to fully clear the air.If you're going to keep that schematic up you should change the name to "timmy" since that's what it is. I'd rather it wasn't posted, but since i can't stop that I'd like it known it's not based on the reamer - it's based on the TIM which is 10 years old.
Ok, redrawn schem with backup link:
https://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc7 ... tream2.jpg
The "Reamer part" of the name is actually only there because I used the tube reamer schematic (from ROGs site) with some picture edits to draw the schematic. The tube reamer was close enough to be convinient starting point when no schematic drawing software was available at the moment.
"Reamer" is not there as a reference to where the circuit is taken from and I am not trying to implicate anything with that.
Best regards
-
briggs
- Tube Twister
Information
That is exactly the point. 99% of the people who buy a tim/timmy buy a tim/timmy because of it's name and reputation - nothing to do with the circuit. Another bloke can take the scheme, reproduce it any way he wants but it's still not a tim/timmy. Is it? You sell a sound not a circuit. In the long run a pedal can be based on the timmy or not, that's the easy part, selling the thing and creating it's rep is the tricky part.But what makes the difference, really? If it's a nice combination of parts and ideas and people like the sound, that's all that matters.
So if someone takes the timmy scheme and makes an even greater version - kudos to him. It's the simple process of progress and evolution. Thank F$%k the guy who invented the wheel didn't shroud it in a curtain every place he went!
I stuck a compressor scheme up that I've been working atAny of you armchair quarterbacks have schematics of your own you want to share? Maybe you've been hanging in the diy sections of the forum and I just missed it. Let's see what you got.
Currently got a killer OD on my board, but that's not quite ready for the world/the world's not quite ready for it 
I am Klon.
-
Skreddy
- Resistor Ronker
Information
Bad. If you take those wires and bend them back and forth about 40-50 times, they might break. Also, if you heat everything up to ~400*F, everything would probably come loose! 
-
seniorLoco
- Resistor Ronker
Nice pedal !
what ?? its not a Fuzz
![[smilie=a_upsidedown.gif]](./images/smilies/a_upsidedown.gif "a_upsidedown")
what ?? its not a Fuzz
-
paulc
- Resistor Ronker
Information
Look – I’m sorry for causing a bunch of drama here. I’m a pedal guy like all of you, and I love to talk shop with people. I relax by geeking out with people talking circuit design. This site just totally blindsided me, and because of the nature of the thread where the link to this place was posted I was already expecting the worse.
I think what set me off was not so much seeing a partial schematic, but seeing some of the comments that I felt were really coming down hard on me. Put yourself in my place for a second. It’s a very hard thing to deal with when you see people who you have no idea who they are questioning your motives and abilities. To see claims of your work being taken from “younger” designs, and even claims that I wasn’t honest about when I made the pedals freaked me out. I should have looked at it from the other side by thinking that it’s easy to think that because they just didn’t know. The thing to have done was to try and make positive corrections and join the gang instead of jumping right in on the defense. It wasn't so much about the schematic being posted, but there is something i find odd dealing with that. People feel it's o.k. to reverse a pedal and post a schematic, but they don't want you to post "THEIR" drawing of that schematic. On the analogguru site he's got this on the top "By downloading any of the schematics from this website you agree not to alter the schematic, redistribute it on CD/DVD or on a website or publish it in printed form without a written permission." That's strange to me. it's O.K. to post designs without permission, yet it's not O.K. to post a drawing of that design without permission. "If it's mine you can't use it, but if it's yours I can do whatever i want with it... "
I do still feel to a degree that some people here are on a witch hunt. That last post by analogguru is just out there. It’s as if he’s on a mission. Look – nothing in any of these pedals is beyond 3rd semester electronics. I don’t care what they are – the electronics are simple. Ideas are the hard part. Everybody here has slapped their foreheads a hundred times thinking “why didn’t I think of that – it’s so simple”. Just because it’s simple to make/understand doesn’t mean “That this combination has not been used before doesn´t give it a proof of originality or ingenuity”. What else could it mean? There were goals involved in the design of the pedal. Those combinations were what allowed me to reach them. Just because you found a schematic from the 70’s doesn’t mean I saw that same thing…
Here’s the thought behind it AG so you can see what I was thinking. I’m really not trying to be confrontational with this, but I really want you to see that there was some thought behind this design. I don’t want to be put into your “"boutique-pedal-designer" folder! I wanted something that could be a flat booster first, and then get up to crunchy/rhythm levels of distortion. We all know that to get good distortion you’ve got to do some common things – roll off the bass pre clipping to keep things from being flubby, and then roll off the high-end after the clipping to smooth things back out. If you don’t do that you’ll get some nasty sounding overdrive. The common thing is to preset this so things never sound bad, but then things will never sound flat for the clean boosting side of things. So while there are things out there with pre this, and post that controls there are not many (and none that I knew of when I made the design) that have both. They’re pretty much one or the other – you don’t see a lot of designs with tone controls split up into different areas of the circuits. I did this because it allowed me to have a flat response when I needed it, and yet I could still shape the EQ pre/post for the clipping sounds. The other thing is I didn’t want the type of bass control that changed the gain as I was rolling out the bass. That’s where the cap mixer on the opamp came from. It’s different from the fatscreamer article you posted, and it also predates when you saw it. Another big difference is it’s a shelf type filter instead of a first order type. While there are cap mixers out there i never saw one on an opamp - they all used things like you showed. throw me a bone here, I didn't pull that off of anything - i thougt about it based on what i needed in a bass control. I'm curious about what Ibanez pedal you were talking about with a pre clipping control though. All the super tubes i've seen didn't have those - just a fixed roll-off like a screamer.
Yeah the treble control is like what you find in a rat, but again there was thought behind why I used that. That’s a very common thing that I saw in books at school long before I tweaked my first pedal. I was trying to keep noise under control. I didn’t want any active boosting of EQ. My degree is in audio engineering with minors in electronics and acoustics. A major rule in audio is “cut before boost”. I never needed more treble than what I had. If I needed it to sound brighter I’d roll off the bass instead of boosting the treble. In something like a screamer the highs are rolled out to smooth out the distortion, but then there’s an active treble control to bring the highs back in. The problem is that’s boosting noise along with the highs. I wanted a control that if I needed things brighter I wouldn’t boost anything – I just wouldn’t take them out to begin with. A simple 1st order variable filter fit the bill. There was no need to try and find something that would impress people more.
Is it a simple design? Yes – and I’ve always said so, and charged based on that. I’ve never hyped it up, or increased the price to ride the hype. I've never tried to hype myself up by calling myself a "guru". I just do what I do without trying to compete with anybody, and if somebody wants one I’ll make them for them. Why the desire to bust on the design?
Analogguru - I don’t need your help with a PC board, but thanks for the offer... I’m able to make those myself if I wanted them. The reason I don’t have them is because of silly rumors. A couple of years ago I said I was going to switch over, but then a ton of guys contacted me asking that I make theirs the “old way”. I didn’t want to deal with the “buy the proto board ones – they’re better than the PC ones” talk like you see all the time. I always said for the next products I will though.
That’s about it – nothing else to say other than sorry again for the drama, but I hope some of you guys can see how things can be taken on forums. I felt attacked by posts like AG's, and I bitched about it (to much I admit).
Later, PaulC
Heritage amps/Tim & timmy pedals
I think what set me off was not so much seeing a partial schematic, but seeing some of the comments that I felt were really coming down hard on me. Put yourself in my place for a second. It’s a very hard thing to deal with when you see people who you have no idea who they are questioning your motives and abilities. To see claims of your work being taken from “younger” designs, and even claims that I wasn’t honest about when I made the pedals freaked me out. I should have looked at it from the other side by thinking that it’s easy to think that because they just didn’t know. The thing to have done was to try and make positive corrections and join the gang instead of jumping right in on the defense. It wasn't so much about the schematic being posted, but there is something i find odd dealing with that. People feel it's o.k. to reverse a pedal and post a schematic, but they don't want you to post "THEIR" drawing of that schematic. On the analogguru site he's got this on the top "By downloading any of the schematics from this website you agree not to alter the schematic, redistribute it on CD/DVD or on a website or publish it in printed form without a written permission." That's strange to me. it's O.K. to post designs without permission, yet it's not O.K. to post a drawing of that design without permission. "If it's mine you can't use it, but if it's yours I can do whatever i want with it... "
I do still feel to a degree that some people here are on a witch hunt. That last post by analogguru is just out there. It’s as if he’s on a mission. Look – nothing in any of these pedals is beyond 3rd semester electronics. I don’t care what they are – the electronics are simple. Ideas are the hard part. Everybody here has slapped their foreheads a hundred times thinking “why didn’t I think of that – it’s so simple”. Just because it’s simple to make/understand doesn’t mean “That this combination has not been used before doesn´t give it a proof of originality or ingenuity”. What else could it mean? There were goals involved in the design of the pedal. Those combinations were what allowed me to reach them. Just because you found a schematic from the 70’s doesn’t mean I saw that same thing…
Here’s the thought behind it AG so you can see what I was thinking. I’m really not trying to be confrontational with this, but I really want you to see that there was some thought behind this design. I don’t want to be put into your “"boutique-pedal-designer" folder! I wanted something that could be a flat booster first, and then get up to crunchy/rhythm levels of distortion. We all know that to get good distortion you’ve got to do some common things – roll off the bass pre clipping to keep things from being flubby, and then roll off the high-end after the clipping to smooth things back out. If you don’t do that you’ll get some nasty sounding overdrive. The common thing is to preset this so things never sound bad, but then things will never sound flat for the clean boosting side of things. So while there are things out there with pre this, and post that controls there are not many (and none that I knew of when I made the design) that have both. They’re pretty much one or the other – you don’t see a lot of designs with tone controls split up into different areas of the circuits. I did this because it allowed me to have a flat response when I needed it, and yet I could still shape the EQ pre/post for the clipping sounds. The other thing is I didn’t want the type of bass control that changed the gain as I was rolling out the bass. That’s where the cap mixer on the opamp came from. It’s different from the fatscreamer article you posted, and it also predates when you saw it. Another big difference is it’s a shelf type filter instead of a first order type. While there are cap mixers out there i never saw one on an opamp - they all used things like you showed. throw me a bone here, I didn't pull that off of anything - i thougt about it based on what i needed in a bass control. I'm curious about what Ibanez pedal you were talking about with a pre clipping control though. All the super tubes i've seen didn't have those - just a fixed roll-off like a screamer.
Yeah the treble control is like what you find in a rat, but again there was thought behind why I used that. That’s a very common thing that I saw in books at school long before I tweaked my first pedal. I was trying to keep noise under control. I didn’t want any active boosting of EQ. My degree is in audio engineering with minors in electronics and acoustics. A major rule in audio is “cut before boost”. I never needed more treble than what I had. If I needed it to sound brighter I’d roll off the bass instead of boosting the treble. In something like a screamer the highs are rolled out to smooth out the distortion, but then there’s an active treble control to bring the highs back in. The problem is that’s boosting noise along with the highs. I wanted a control that if I needed things brighter I wouldn’t boost anything – I just wouldn’t take them out to begin with. A simple 1st order variable filter fit the bill. There was no need to try and find something that would impress people more.
Is it a simple design? Yes – and I’ve always said so, and charged based on that. I’ve never hyped it up, or increased the price to ride the hype. I've never tried to hype myself up by calling myself a "guru". I just do what I do without trying to compete with anybody, and if somebody wants one I’ll make them for them. Why the desire to bust on the design?
Analogguru - I don’t need your help with a PC board, but thanks for the offer... I’m able to make those myself if I wanted them. The reason I don’t have them is because of silly rumors. A couple of years ago I said I was going to switch over, but then a ton of guys contacted me asking that I make theirs the “old way”. I didn’t want to deal with the “buy the proto board ones – they’re better than the PC ones” talk like you see all the time. I always said for the next products I will though.
That’s about it – nothing else to say other than sorry again for the drama, but I hope some of you guys can see how things can be taken on forums. I felt attacked by posts like AG's, and I bitched about it (to much I admit).
Later, PaulC
Heritage amps/Tim & timmy pedals
Last edited by paulc on 21 Nov 2007, 19:35, edited 7 times in total.
-
madbean
Information
Paul,
Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on your design process. Once again, you've shown yourself to be a "gentleman". It's easy for things to get heated when people start poking at each other and emotional things like family and money come into play.
I rethought some of my comments from yesterday and actually edited them out before reading this latest post. IMO, the greatest danger to this forum is that it will take on a level of arrogance towards people who are genuine booteekers (meaning small operations like yours that do business the honest way). That's the bread and butter of being a real craftsman (or woman).
Anyway, I look forward to whatever you come up with next. But, please, get a website together for your next product launch!
Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on your design process. Once again, you've shown yourself to be a "gentleman". It's easy for things to get heated when people start poking at each other and emotional things like family and money come into play.
I rethought some of my comments from yesterday and actually edited them out before reading this latest post. IMO, the greatest danger to this forum is that it will take on a level of arrogance towards people who are genuine booteekers (meaning small operations like yours that do business the honest way). That's the bread and butter of being a real craftsman (or woman).
Anyway, I look forward to whatever you come up with next. But, please, get a website together for your next product launch!
-
paulc
- Resistor Ronker
Information
I wouldn't say that! Believe me - I wanted to go "toe to toe" a couple of times here. My nature is to come out blasting - I've got to work on the being a gentleman part.madbean wrote:Paul,
Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on your design process. Once again, you've shown yourself to be a "gentleman".
Later, PaulC
Heritage amps/tim & timmy pedals
-
analogguru
- Old Solderhand
Information
Yes and there are good reasons for this:On the analogguru site he's got this on the top "By downloading any of the schematics from this website you agree not to alter the schematic, redistribute it on CD/DVD or on a website or publish it in printed form without a written permission." That's strange to me.
I don´t like that old (and preliminyary or wrong) schematics are circling around. One example is the BigMuff-OP schematic. I drew a PRELIMINARY schematic I believe in 2003. This you can find on different websites now. Since several years the FINAL (correct) schematic is out but the circling of the PRELIMINARY doesn´t dissapear. On my website you can be sure to get all the time the latest schematic.
I think it is my right as "schematic artist" and copyright holder of the schematic drawing itself (not the content) to secure that only correct schematics are around or those where I m satisfied with my work.
Then:
As you can see here:
http://aronnelson.com/gallery/v/WAH-ARC ... CHEMATICS/
and here:
http://aronnelson.com/gallery/v/WAH-ARC ... ?g2_page=2
somebody is offering three of my schematics on his website - even that there is witten a copyright message - without a permission.
Also here:
http://experimentalistsanonymous.com/diy/
you can find my schematics without a permission.
then you can find altered schematics like this:
https://img526.imageshack.us/img526/880 ... ticrn0.jpg
or even with removed copyright message and presented as their own.
And finally i got information that my schematics are offered for sale and somebody is doing business with my work.
As you can see, I didn´t take any legal steps against this copyright violation, but people should at least know that i disagree with their behaviour. And I think at least this is my good right.
Sorry, but we have international rights about patents, trade saecrets, designs and copyright and there have been long discussions about it. For further reading I would recommend this article:it's O.K. to post designs without permission, yet it's not O.K. to post a drawing of that design without permission.
http://www.muzique.com/clones.htm
And after reading it, if you like it or not:
Yes it is O.K. to discuss/post/reveal a design and to claim at the same time the copyright for a schematic drawing.
I am the "artist" who decided which symbols will we used, where they will be placed which size and which orientation, which color and for this reason I am the copyright owner of the drawing and it is my right to decide who is allowed to use it, where and under which circumstances.
If somebody wants to use the "content" without my permission he can redraw the schematic in his "art" or in his way of doing. But from a legal/ethic viewpoint he is not allowed to use my schematic in full or partly.
Sorry, I didn´t use any of "your" schematic drawings, I never have seen one - I can draw my own schematics and if you don´t believe, it visit my homepage."If it's mine you can't use it, but if it's yours I can do whatever i want with it... "
Maybe you won´t believe it, but I even can draw pcb-layouts:
http://www.phpbbserver.com/freestompbox ... stompboxes
and release them to the public.... yes, the copyright-message again has been removed.
On my HP you can also find several of my designs "revealed" so your "thesis" is without any background.
And I can´t see any reason or duty to post all designs of my life to the public. If you find one, reverse it and draw your schematic it is fine with me if you post it on your HP.
And believe me, there are a lot of interesting and sophisticated designs which I made in my life - stompboxes-designs are only for relax.
20 years ago a lot of my designs even where published in the german magazines ELRAD (ETI), Gitarre & Bass, Keyboards and db and others. This is one of it - published before the first H&K Red-Box (or similar unit) existed:
http://analogguru.an.ohost.de/193/schem ... ter-DI.gif
So......what now ?
analogguru
There´s a sucker born every minute - and too many of them end up in the bootweak pedal biz.
-
paulc
- Resistor Ronker
Information
Analogguru,
I'm at a loss here (not the first time). You talk about my "thesis", and yet you are the one who felt the need to write a huge post picking my design apart, and talking about putting me into your "boutique builder folder" as if that's a bad thing. Maybe I'm reading things wrong, but it really seems like you have a problem with what I do. There's little remarks in your writing that make me just sit back and go "What the hell??? why is he going on about this like he is?" I just don't understand why you've gone to the lengths you have in your writing to show my work as being mediocre.
The schematic you've shown looks cool, but what's the point? I've messed with variable 2nd order filters just like that, and I've made active balanced DI's like that. I never put the two in the same box though, but going by what you wrote using a combination of common things doesn't give it a proof of originality or ingenuity. I'll give it to you that making that combination was cool - I didn't think of it, so why is it not the other way around when being applied to me? We did the same thing...
I understand about copyright laws. Had classes in that to. It was part of my education where I had to take legal classes dealing with the music industry. Copyright/trademarks/patents etc... But i always thought it was odd that a drawing gets more protection than an electronic design. Even if i made the next active device it would only be protected for about 20 years while a drawing can go past 75. Making a better opamp symbol has more protection than the design using it. It's the law, but it doesn't mean it's based on any sense of right or wrong. It's based on what's important.
A drawing is not important. The gov doesn't really care about that. It wont solve any problems with living. A copyright is easy to get because it's no big deal. Patents are another thing. The gov wants technology to be used by the people. they don't want things being invented, and then not used. If you made a new active device or something you only have 1 year to file for a patent once it's shown. If you don't it's public domain. Once you get a patent you must make the thing available or it becomes public domain. You only have about 20 years to call it your own and then it's public domain. It can cost over $10K to file, and you don't get that back if it's not granted. The gov wants technology to be used, so they give it a limited amount of protection. They don't care about "art" so they'll let you control it for a life time. This isn't to take anything from your ability to make a nice schematic - it's just the reality of it.
A drawing/song is covered the moment it's done, and to get an official copyright notice costs as much as a dinner.
I know it's your right by law to say what gets done with your drawing. It's just really odd to me that you can control how your drawing of the work belonging to somebody else is protected more than the actual item.
Look - I didn't have any problems with you. i just don't understand the attitude that has come across in your talk about what I do. If I've read things wrong then please correct me, and I'll stand here in front of everybody and say "my bad". I've done it before...
Later, PaulC
Heritage amps/Tim & timmy pedals
I'm at a loss here (not the first time). You talk about my "thesis", and yet you are the one who felt the need to write a huge post picking my design apart, and talking about putting me into your "boutique builder folder" as if that's a bad thing. Maybe I'm reading things wrong, but it really seems like you have a problem with what I do. There's little remarks in your writing that make me just sit back and go "What the hell??? why is he going on about this like he is?" I just don't understand why you've gone to the lengths you have in your writing to show my work as being mediocre.
The schematic you've shown looks cool, but what's the point? I've messed with variable 2nd order filters just like that, and I've made active balanced DI's like that. I never put the two in the same box though, but going by what you wrote using a combination of common things doesn't give it a proof of originality or ingenuity. I'll give it to you that making that combination was cool - I didn't think of it, so why is it not the other way around when being applied to me? We did the same thing...
I understand about copyright laws. Had classes in that to. It was part of my education where I had to take legal classes dealing with the music industry. Copyright/trademarks/patents etc... But i always thought it was odd that a drawing gets more protection than an electronic design. Even if i made the next active device it would only be protected for about 20 years while a drawing can go past 75. Making a better opamp symbol has more protection than the design using it. It's the law, but it doesn't mean it's based on any sense of right or wrong. It's based on what's important.
A drawing is not important. The gov doesn't really care about that. It wont solve any problems with living. A copyright is easy to get because it's no big deal. Patents are another thing. The gov wants technology to be used by the people. they don't want things being invented, and then not used. If you made a new active device or something you only have 1 year to file for a patent once it's shown. If you don't it's public domain. Once you get a patent you must make the thing available or it becomes public domain. You only have about 20 years to call it your own and then it's public domain. It can cost over $10K to file, and you don't get that back if it's not granted. The gov wants technology to be used, so they give it a limited amount of protection. They don't care about "art" so they'll let you control it for a life time. This isn't to take anything from your ability to make a nice schematic - it's just the reality of it.
A drawing/song is covered the moment it's done, and to get an official copyright notice costs as much as a dinner.
I know it's your right by law to say what gets done with your drawing. It's just really odd to me that you can control how your drawing of the work belonging to somebody else is protected more than the actual item.
Look - I didn't have any problems with you. i just don't understand the attitude that has come across in your talk about what I do. If I've read things wrong then please correct me, and I'll stand here in front of everybody and say "my bad". I've done it before...
Later, PaulC
Heritage amps/Tim & timmy pedals
There is no reason to give them credit just because "they didn't know". If "they didn't know" they shouldn't have questioned you or made false statements as fact in the first place. You have been nothing if not a Gentleman in all respects.It’s a very hard thing to deal with when you see people who you have no idea who they are questioning your motives and abilities. To see claims of your work being taken from “younger” designs, and even claims that I wasn’t honest about when I made the pedals freaked me out. I should have looked at it from the other side by thinking that it’s easy to think that because they just didn’t know.
So.....you're an artist but Paul is not?"schematic artist"
-
analogguru
- Old Solderhand
Information
I was talking about this (your) "thesis":paulc wrote:Analogguru,
I'm at a loss here (not the first time). You talk about my "thesis",
which simply is not true, an I explained (and proofed) why.paulc wrote:That's strange to me. it's O.K. to post designs without permission, yet it's not O.K. to post a drawing of that design without permission. "If it's mine you can't use it, but if it's yours I can do whatever i want with it... "
It´s not a bad thing, I only demonstrated the power and what can be achieved with my "boutique-pedal-designer"... and yet you are the one who felt the need to write a huge post picking my design apart, and talking about putting me into your "boutique builder folder" as if that's a bad thing.
with the Pro version this is done randomly.....But this has nothing to do with you or your pedals personally.... I am only full of the claims of the scene whene "little boy" comes, yesterday couldn´t holds a soldering iron, today he uses a 47n instead of a 100n capacitor and claims to have invented a new "his" design - now he want´s to have invented "tubescreamer-variation No. 849".....
This can be done automatically.....
No I don´t have... I even wrote that I closed you into my heart...Maybe I'm reading things wrong, but it really seems like you have a problem with what I do.
I like the coloring of your pedal and I respect that you still using perfboard instead of pcb´s to satisfy the demand of your customers. Also The price you charge(d) is ok....
I would do some things different (as described) for example the diodes.... but does it really matter if you believe in a sound difference with the crosswire or the paralleling of the diodes ? If I would build a "clone" I would short 2 of the diodes and save assembling time, the diodes itself are only $ 0.05,--...
I also don´t like the height of the pedal-case of Tim, but that´s my personal taste....
Mhhhh..... maybe you got something wrong....There's little remarks in your writing that make me just sit back and go "What the hell??? why is he going on about this like he is?" I just don't understand why you've gone to the lengths you have in your writing to show my work as being mediocre.
Sorry, that I can´t perceive your work as the "philosopher´s stone" and maybe we can agree, that the introduction of e.g. the BigMuffPi-circuit brought more "news" to the stompbox-scene (at that time) from a technical viewpoint, even when a similar design existed long time before (for telephone applications)? (The interested one should have a look at US. Pat. 3.223.936, filed Oct. 23, 1962)
Again it appears that you got something wrong:The schematic you've shown looks cool, but what's the point? I've messed with variable 2nd order filters just like that, and I've made active balanced DI's like that. I never put the two in the same box though, but going by what you wrote using a combination of common things doesn't give it a proof of originality or ingenuity.
I didn´t refer to this schematic to claim originality or ingeniuty, I referred to this schematic to proof that your "thesis" is wrong and doesn´t apply to me because I didn´t keep this design secret - instead it was published in "Gitarre & Bass" in 1987. And in this time the concept was new and i didn´t "hide" it. So your thesis - as far as it concerns me - is absolutely wrong.
This was not the point of discussion, see above.....I'll give it to you that making that combination was cool - I didn't think of it, so why is it not the other way around when being applied to me? We did the same thing...
My drawing is nothing else than a (technical) description of what a specific unit is doing (sometimes even with wire-colors) - and most of the time more accurate and honest than the description and fantasy claims found on the manufacturer´s sites.I know it's your right by law to say what gets done with your drawing. It's just really odd to me that you can control how your drawing of the work belonging to somebody else is protected more than the actual item.
Why should there be a protection that an actual item can´t be described by somebody else than the manufacturer ?
You can do this also with my products/designs (or somebodies else).
same with me...Look - I didn't have any problems with you. i just don't understand the attitude that has come across in your talk about what I do. If I've read things wrong then please correct me, and I'll stand here in front of everybody and say "my bad". I've done it before...
Later, PaulC
Heritage amps/Tim & timmy pedals
1.) When you look exactly you will find that the term is used in doubl quotes, which means that it shouldn´t be taken word by word....Deric wrote:So.....you're an artist but Paul is not?"schematic artist"
2.) I can´t say if Paul is an "schematic artist" saince I don´t know if he is drawing schematics - I haven´t seen one. Sorry that I am unable to judge about this matter or to have at least an opinion.
analogguru
There´s a sucker born every minute - and too many of them end up in the bootweak pedal biz.
Thank you Paul C for all your explanations, and for your honesty and generosity.
It is nice, refreshing, and so rare.
For the rest, AG, trying to make musicians / consumers aware of the blabla shit of boutique builders, who charge a lot of money for a clone with one diode drop is one –good- think, but it doesn’t mean that all the people who work on a small basis are the same.
I never read or heard from Paul C that the tim/timmy was totally original, but have read from a lot of people that it sounded really good, and different, which seems the important thing to me.
You know, my car has an engine, a wheel, tires, seats and so on (hopefully). It is not very original, and yes you can see this in a lot of cars. But it works for me and thousands of other people, and there are some improvements compared to previous models and other brands.
This to say that the never ending “come on, this was seen in that” is a bit sterile considering that, as Paul says, sometimes it’s just putting two simple ideas together that makes something brilliant. One doesn’t invent the wheel everyday. Again, if it’s for educational purpose –like the article of RG on the technology of T S -, great, if it’s to disparage someone – in a rather aggressive way - who is trying to do a good job offering nice products, I find it really sad and counterproductive…
Olivier.
It is nice, refreshing, and so rare.
For the rest, AG, trying to make musicians / consumers aware of the blabla shit of boutique builders, who charge a lot of money for a clone with one diode drop is one –good- think, but it doesn’t mean that all the people who work on a small basis are the same.
I never read or heard from Paul C that the tim/timmy was totally original, but have read from a lot of people that it sounded really good, and different, which seems the important thing to me.
You know, my car has an engine, a wheel, tires, seats and so on (hopefully). It is not very original, and yes you can see this in a lot of cars. But it works for me and thousands of other people, and there are some improvements compared to previous models and other brands.
This to say that the never ending “come on, this was seen in that” is a bit sterile considering that, as Paul says, sometimes it’s just putting two simple ideas together that makes something brilliant. One doesn’t invent the wheel everyday. Again, if it’s for educational purpose –like the article of RG on the technology of T S -, great, if it’s to disparage someone – in a rather aggressive way - who is trying to do a good job offering nice products, I find it really sad and counterproductive…
Olivier.
-
indyguitarist
- Resistor Ronker
you need to do that here:teller wrote:Test...forum software is stopping my response, so this is a test...1234!
Hello!
http://www.phpbbserver.com/freestompbox ... stompboxes
bw
Paulc
fantastic guy. I bought 5 pedals from him.
2 times he gave me a discount, $80 for a timmy.
Why? Because he felt bad for the wait time.
He is such a great guy, builds a great product, its original in the sense that its packaged with all these features. He had the idea to put them all together.
Tomato sauce is tomato sauce
Cheese is cheese
Flour is flour
The guy who put them together and made pizza, what a smart MOFO.
Picking apart the TIM and Timmy, kind of pointless. Its a bunch of good ideas just packaged together at a great price, built with what many like to label as mojo(hand) what a great deal.
Paulc is doing more than any other builder I have seen.
The only other guy who gets close is dave barber, quality products at killer prices.
If it wasn't for the wait times there would be no need to clone it, its nicely built and too nicely priced to clone it or build your own.
I am hoping to get a custom TIM at some point, I am sure I could Build my own but why?
Paul is a good guy, just spend 5 minutes with the guy on the phone and you will see.
fantastic guy. I bought 5 pedals from him.
2 times he gave me a discount, $80 for a timmy.
Why? Because he felt bad for the wait time.
He is such a great guy, builds a great product, its original in the sense that its packaged with all these features. He had the idea to put them all together.
Tomato sauce is tomato sauce
Cheese is cheese
Flour is flour
The guy who put them together and made pizza, what a smart MOFO.
Picking apart the TIM and Timmy, kind of pointless. Its a bunch of good ideas just packaged together at a great price, built with what many like to label as mojo(hand) what a great deal.
Paulc is doing more than any other builder I have seen.
The only other guy who gets close is dave barber, quality products at killer prices.
If it wasn't for the wait times there would be no need to clone it, its nicely built and too nicely priced to clone it or build your own.
I am hoping to get a custom TIM at some point, I am sure I could Build my own but why?
Paul is a good guy, just spend 5 minutes with the guy on the phone and you will see.
-
Uma Floresta
- Breadboard Brother
My personal opinion is that if someone came out with a Timmy clone for sale, it wouldn't hurt your sales, because a) the Tim/Timmy have a good rep, b) they're already priced very affordably, and c) without a huge monetary incentive, people tend to want the real thing over a copy. For example, the German Klon copy that came out a while back cost nearly as much as the real thing, but had none of the big resale value of the original. I think the same would go for the Timmy, and short of Behringer or Danelectro, no one is going to be able to produce them for significantly less money.paulc wrote:It's not about reversing to learn something. I don't have a problem with that if you keep it to yourself. The problem is reversing, and then posting for all the world to see on the net. Like I said - you might not try to make it for profit, but others will. You are making it easier for them to take my family income away. I've only got the one design that I sell in two forms. If this thing were to crash and burn we'd be out of our house. It's not about guys making a 1:1 clone. It's about guys taking any tricks (be they mine/klons/BJF/skreddy etc...), and then trying to take biz away from them. Make them read a book and go to school for electronics like i did if they want to take work away from me. Don't make it easy for them by posting schematics... Make them earn it.briggs wrote:Indeed it is. I still don't understand why the pedal industry is so against reverse engineering!? Every other industry does it.. Why shouldn't the boutique? Business size? Morals? Pha!
What I find really messed up is how a lot of you guys wont post your own schematics because you don't want to be ripped off, and yet you have no problem posting those of others.
If it's your design do what ever you want with it. When it comes to the work of others have a little respect.
PaulC
Heritage amps/tim & timmy pedals
Just my opinion, of course. I've never run a business, so what do I know?
You might be correct about Tim sales, although Paul's business is stable now, and sometimes clones change stability, hence a little more scary for Paul than fro the rest of us onlookers. I might get a little fight or flight too if i felt like there was a possible threat.Uma Floresta wrote:My personal opinion is that if someone came out with a Timmy clone for sale, it wouldn't hurt your sales, because a) the Tim/Timmy have a good rep, b) they're already priced very affordably, and c) without a huge monetary incentive, people tend to want the real thing over a copy. For example, the German Klon copy that came out a while back cost nearly as much as the real thing, but had none of the big resale value of the original. I think the same would go for the Timmy, and short of Behringer or Danelectro, no one is going to be able to produce them for significantly less money.paulc wrote:It's not about reversing to learn something. I don't have a problem with that if you keep it to yourself. The problem is reversing, and then posting for all the world to see on the net. Like I said - you might not try to make it for profit, but others will. You are making it easier for them to take my family income away. I've only got the one design that I sell in two forms. If this thing were to crash and burn we'd be out of our house. It's not about guys making a 1:1 clone. It's about guys taking any tricks (be they mine/klons/BJF/skreddy etc...), and then trying to take biz away from them. Make them read a book and go to school for electronics like i did if they want to take work away from me. Don't make it easy for them by posting schematics... Make them earn it.briggs wrote:Indeed it is. I still don't understand why the pedal industry is so against reverse engineering!? Every other industry does it.. Why shouldn't the boutique? Business size? Morals? Pha!
What I find really messed up is how a lot of you guys wont post your own schematics because you don't want to be ripped off, and yet you have no problem posting those of others.
If it's your design do what ever you want with it. When it comes to the work of others have a little respect.
PaulC
Heritage amps/tim & timmy pedals
Just my opinion, of course. I've never run a business, so what do I know?
The clone would hurt Pauls already very small profit margin, because taking phone calls, emails and forum questions about the clone VS. Tim, does take up Pauls time, yet without raising the price of the Tim, he would then be making less for the amount of time he works , as phone time, email etc are part of his biz, that part we can't fix for Paul with forum chat.