When designing a pedal circuit...

[one bad monkey]

When does it stop being a "clone" and start being "inspired by?"

I'm really curious and intrigued. I'm one of five people that got a prototype of a new filter by 3leaf Audio to try out and give some feedback to. In the original post, it was mentioned that it was a Mutron III "clone," but later on when Spencer discussed how he went about building it, it did it from the ground up, based on what he was hearing from his modded Mutron. I don't know if he pined over the old technical schematics or reverse-engineered his one he has. I just find this part of making a pedal extremely interesting, and was curious what you guys (especially the avid builders and our sponsored forum folk) consider a "clone" and something that was "inspired by" a pedal.

[smallsnd/bigsnd]

that is a very fine line and a subject that's discussed to death among pedal builders in general...
in my opinion, a "clone" is something that is built, more or less, according to the original pedal schematic, whereas "inspired by" would be something that strives for a similar sound, function, etc. but uses a different topology to get there.

a good example in the situation you outlined:
the mutron is an envelope-controlled filter. as such, there are only so many ways to arrive at that sound...
there's basically two main stages - the envelope generator and the filter (...and other utility stages - buffers, etc). so you could make an envelope-controlled filter that sounds similar to the mutron or shares the same characteristics, but uses a different filter, etc. there are many ways to skin a cat...

realize too, that sometimes a single component change is enough to warrant something moving from the designation "clone" to "inspired by""...

[culturejam]

Oh boy. Can 'o worms.

So far as I know, there is no legal definition of what constitutes a "clone" in terms of small, simple circuits.

Jack Orman has written a very good overview of the situation:
http://www.muzique.com/clones.htm

But your question was more about when something stops being a clone and starts being more of an original design. This is almost entirely subjective, and there are almost as many opinions on it as people discussing it.

I try to evaluate how "clone-ish" something is on a case-by-case basis. It seems clear that some current production pedals are blatant ripoffs of older designs, and yet there are others that appear to be similar but sound so much different that the original. It's a tough call, really.

And honestly, I don't care if certain brands clone other stuff. What I can't tolerate is when they lie about it and try to pass off something old as something new.

[one bad monkey]

realize too, that sometimes a single component change is enough to warrant something moving from the designation "clone" to "inspired by""...

Oh, I believe it. Especially with pedals where the characteristics of the sound it creates are important, changing one little thing I would assume could possibly have a HUGE tonal impact.

Thanks for the input, guys.

[culturejam]

There are a few circuits in which a single component change can make a huge difference (bazz fuss, for example), but not many. The fewer components in a circuit, the more significance each one can have.

Usually what happens when you change just one component is you get a change in filtering (EQ), gain, LFO speed or depth, etc.

For example, you can replace the stock 500K gain pot on a Tubescreamer with a 1M pot, and you'll get a LOT more dirt out of it. But is that an original circuit? I'd say no, because it'll still sound like a TS. It's just a Tubescreamer with a bigger gain pot. But see, that's where opinion comes in.

[one bad monkey]

For example, you can replace the stock 500K gain pot on a Tubescreamer with a 1M pot, and you'll get a LOT more dirt out of it. But is that an original circuit? I'd say no, because it'll still sound like a TS. It's just a Tubescreamer with a bigger gain pot. But see, that's where opinion comes in.

Gotcha. So pretty much at that point, you'd have purists arguing that it's "inspired by" or "based off of" the Tubescreamer, but not a "clone" because it's not exact. Then the other side would be "It's only a gain pot; the rest is exact." Lots of fun there.

[ifeellikeatourist]

I think, also, that "inspired by" can go both ways. Not only by using different circuitry to achieve a similar sound, but also by using similar circuitry to achieve a completely different sound.

For example, I remember Aen saying that one of his pedals (shiva, I think?) is several EXH LPB-1 circuits in a row with many components swapped out. So the result is clearly something completely different from a clean boost, but the circuit used the LPB-1 as a starting point.

[culturejam]

Gotcha. So pretty much at that point, you'd have purists arguing that it's "inspired by" or "based off of" the Tubescreamer, but not a "clone" because it's not exact. Then the other side would be "It's only a gain pot; the rest is exact." Lots of fun there.

Yep. It depends on how finely you want to split hairs.

What really will bake your noodle when you start thinking about it is the fact that there's so much variation from unit to unit. Especially on the vintage "holy grail" circuits. Carbon comp resistors and tropical fish caps and germanium transistors are all mojo parts, and yet they have terrible tolerance ratings (usually 10% or 20%) and they are generally much noisier than their more modern replacements. So the variation between one vintage Fuzz Face and another could be tremendous...to the point that they sound very different.

So if you make a period-accurate clone of a fuzz, you really don't know what you're getting because the parts tolerance is so wide. To do it "right", you'd need several original pedals to find one or two that sound the best. Then you'd have to desolder each part and measure it to find out just how far off the rated spec each part is (up to 20% in some cases). And THEN you could build an accurate clone. But you'd have to source all old parts and measure them and only use the ones that meet the measurements you took from your good-sounding vintage model. It would be a huge investment in time and NOS parts. And still it wouldn't be exactly a clone because I doubt you could find the same NOS potentiometers.

If you really split hairs, there's no such thing as a clone.

[one bad monkey]

[What really will bake your noodle when you start thinking about it is the fact that there's so much variation from unit to unit.

That also brings to mind the ProCo Rat. A friend of mine works at ProCo, and says the amount of variants that the Rat has seen (public, but also in their R&D department) is staggering. A lot of them still consider the very first version THE Rat, and everything else is just "inspired by."

Which incidentally, there's a guitarist in town that has THE original prototype on his effects board. I guess when you build them, you get to keep them around.

[tuffteef]

lol before i run away

gooping
i was watching the fuzz doc the other day and the queens of the stone age tech was talking about people gooping circuits cause they dont want people to know its a clone of something old or inspired by something of the past.
can o worms indeed
correct incorrect
mebe kinda plays into whats being discussed

[smallsnd/bigsnd]

lol before i run away

gooping
i was watching the fuzz doc the other day and the queens of the stone age tech was talking about people gooping circuits cause they dont want people to know its a clone of something old or inspired by something of the past.
can o worms indeed
correct incorrect
mebe kinda plays into whats being discussed

well, yeah... that happens a lot and is pretty unnecessary in my opinion. people are going to figure it out if they want to and furthermore, in this age of information unless you're going digital it's almost impossible to "hide" a circuit.

[Jero]

I can empathize with builders gooping if they have worked hard on a design and don't want it instantly out on the diy sites. People will find out anyway if they really want, doesn't mean builders should make it easy. I know certain ILF builders remove the IC markings.

[culturejam]

I can empathize with builders gooping if they have worked hard on a design and don't want it instantly out on the diy sites.

The only gooped circuit I've seen that turned out to be remotely original was the Klon. I think gooping is mostly done to as a gimmick. It doesn't really hide anything, but it sure does make people think something important or new or amazing is being protected.

The downside to gooping is that if somebody does steal your design (assuming it was at least semi-original to start with), you can't really call them out. If you do, then your goop is now useless because you'll verify what is underneath. So really, gooping is like giving out a free pass to those who would steal rather than do their own design work. But if people want to goop, that's fine with me. It's a waste of money and effort, but if it makes them feel good, so be it.

As I said in previous post, cloning doesn't bother me. But I'd rather see the clones surface as cheaper alternatives (Danelectro, Behringer) rather than more expensive than the original (Love Pedal, and the horde or jerks who make a TS clone and say it's original). That, I think, is an affront to consumers. It's like, "Hey, here's the same old shit, but I'm going to charge you double (or more)." All of the assholes making an Electra Distortion clone fall into this category.

[Jero]

All of the assholes making an Electra Distortion clone fall into this category.

On that note, I'm loving my new Melx2

[culturejam]

All of the assholes making an Electra Distortion clone fall into this category.

On that note, I'm loving my new Melx2

Allow me to rephrase:

All of the assholes making an Electra Distortion clone but are advertising that they created the circuit fall into this category.