Train Wreck vs Bad Cat

[LeftyStrat]

I'm going to weigh in here, when I probably shouldn't, but my wife is feeding me vodka and vitamin water shooters (wonder what she has in mind?) and I'm really loose right now.

I kind of have to take both sides on this, because I feel that all things are really grey, black and white is reserved for those that want to take sides and fight.

Marshall can afford to ignore the cloners, simply because the brand is established and the sales are probably not hurt by cloners. I also feel that Marshall would hurt themselves by going after cloners of say a jtm45, since it was stolen from a bassman.

The boutique builders don't have that luxury. The margins are small when competing with chinese labor. I think that Hogy produces a work of art. I've never seen better build quality.

But, unless I win the lottery, I will never, ever be able to afford a trainwreck or Komet or Connie, so I feel it is okay for me to build a clone, since I am not subtracting revenue.

However, the problem, is that if a Komet or Constellation is extremely well documented here, someone else will start selling clones. I may only build for myself, but others might use this info to sell a competing product.

I want Hogy and Komet (and Ken) to profit from the build quality and designs. I want that available even if I can't afford it, because if it isn't there, there is no profit to creativity and so new designs won't happen.

You know it is funny, I am in love w/ the sounds of the Constellation, but rather than ask for a schematic, I simply took the description of the topology and started tweaking, no tone controls, one 12ax7, one 6sn7, 12ax7 pi, fours el84s. Did I clone a Constellation? No. But I learned more from tweaking than I would have copying a schematic.

I build clones to learn. Why do players consider a TW or Dumble the holy grail? I have to build one to know, but I want to learn in the process in hopes of coming up with my own holy grail. If cloners kill the market, then why shoulds I even try.

I remember a quote from Ken "Hey, have you guys come up with any good ideas that I could use?"

So my general rule of thumb(s):

- 5 year old or older designs are okay to clone AND document on the web.
- Current product amps are okay to clone but NOT document on the web.
- You'll learn more from a little info (I have a clone of a Germino Club 40 that is spot on, only from the description on the web site), than complete info.
- I am full of shit and maybe you shouldn't listen to me.

Your mileage may vary....

[Omar]

Well said, LeftyStrat! Most of what he said sums up my feelings. I think that we need to be aware of the slippery slope that cloning can go down. While the intention of this board is for building clones for personal use per Ken's wishes, I can tell you that I, as well as other members, have been contacted about building Trainwreck clones for sale. I have refused out of respect for Ken's wishes and have no desire to build and/or sell clones.

Saying that Hogy won't be affected by individuals who can't afford a real Komet so they clone his amp is true. But what assurance does he have that those who clone his amp won't sell to potential Komet customers who think that they can get what they think is the same for less. We can all give our word that we wouldn't do that, but talk is cheap. As Hogy said, he has no problems with us discussing Komets - it's the blantent advertising and documenting of the cloning of his amps. It opening the proverbial can of worms. There is a fine line we need to respect. It's not a black and white issue. There needs to be some judgement and common sense.

Omar

[teleamp]

Schematic Heaven has a Hot Cat 30 and Matchless DC 30. The Matchless DC 30 is very close the the Black Cat 30.

If an amp has no patent, it is not an original design, it is made up of already existing circuit formulations, period.

Anybody got a schematic for a MAZ 18 w/Reverb?


Iv'e even bought and sold an amp just to "research". I'll build anybodies amp for myself. I even sell a few.

MikeY

[teleamp]

LeftyStrat wrote

I remember a quote from Ken "Hey, have you guys come up with any good ideas that I could use?"

Bingo! Is there anything else that needs to be said.

MikeY

[Bear]

We're talking about the realm of "trade secrets" - nice little bits of IP to have, but hard as hell to keep in a bottle in the world of tube amps without gooping. Trade secrets are only protectable through non-disclosure agreements, so anybody who sees the product and can figure it out has it and the cat is out of the bag.

KF has had an edge for a while because he was playing with things like layout, lead dress, and component choice - basically stuff you don't necessarily understand right off when you see it compared to the schematic-level understanding. The builders who depend on the schematic to make them special are a bit more screwed. Sometimes they get runs of components without values labeled or they scratch off or paint over the values. Sometimes they goop. Or sometimes they make hollow threats of suing people who post the schematic of what is a modified Hammond reverb amp.

KF deserves some respect because of the help and info he has provided to the DIY community (without trying to give away everything - understancable). Then there are those you leave alone because its easier that way - costs too much to stand up and say a suit is meritless.

Bear

[Darkbluemurder]

Back on subject...Compaq, here you go.

Interesting ... I would have thought that the Hot Cat was a 4 gain stage design by the massive amount of OD you can get from it. I am a bit surprised to see a Vox style tone stack - my bet was it had a Baxandall type stack from the midboost it gives when both Treble and Bass are turned down.

[toddyjoe]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of an amp builder who has actually been put out of business and lost his/her livelihood because of clones, either private or commercial?

Just off the top of my head, I can find commercial clones or kits for amps by Marshall, Fender, Vox, Dumble, Trainwreck, Matchless, Magnatone, Standel (coming soon), Orange, Hiwatt, Mesa-Boogie, and others. Many of the businesses are still going and thriving. Those that are not were closed down for reasons unrelated to cloning and kits. Now we are discussing protection for clones of amps that are already clones in whole or in part (Hot Cat, Komet, Two Rock, etc.). It actually reminds me of the famous Internet pedal-cloning thread a few years back involving one very angry Mike Fuller of Fulltone.

I am all for giving due respect and just deserves to amp builders and inventors who have come up with something unique and desirable, but those are precisely the people who can seek the protections of patent law. That is the whole point of patents. If one is selling a commercial product to the general public in this age of information without formal legal protections already in place, can one reasonably expect to hide some secret in the product? Can one reasonably expect not one single consumer will open the product up and see what is inside (and maybe tell a friend)? Reverse-engineering is as old as the hills, yet we are still making the same pro and con arguments for intellectual property that were made in the 1840's.

So I ask again, and not rhetorically, can anyone provide me the name of a namp manufacturer driven out of business by commercial or private cloning of his or her amp?

[jaysg]

There are diy clones and there are fakes. Somebody was selling fake ZVex pedals, made in China, iirc. Probably still are.

I believe that if you tried to imagine money coming out of Randall Smith and Hartley Peavey's wallets and going into Mike Soldano's wallet every time you see a Dual/Triple Rectifier or 5150, you'll see who really gets hurt -- the low volume producers who would like to move up to the next level but can't really get the sales volume up. How many SLO's will the market bear in any year?

You're correct that the bottom line is, if you buy one, you can reverse engineer it and put it into production in a short timeframe. Cosmetics and trademarks are about all they have for protection...and maybe they're not doing anything that deserves protection. Chew on that one. I haven't made my mind up, fwiw.

[Lonely Raven]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of an amp builder who has actually been put out of business and lost his/her livelihood because of clones, either private or commercial?

Off the top of my head...the only boutique builders that I'm aware of that have failed, failed because of management issues...which I guess one could lump protecting the circuit "tricks" as management...but typically it's pure management of a quality product that *makes* any product.

Just off the top of my head, I can find commercial clones or kits for amps by Marshall, Fender, Vox, Dumble, Trainwreck, Matchless, Magnatone, Standel (coming soon), Orange, Hiwatt, Mesa-Boogie, and others. Many of the businesses are still going and thriving. Those that are not were closed down for reasons unrelated to cloning and kits. Now we are discussing protection for clones of amps that are already clones in whole or in part (Hot Cat, Komet, Two Rock, etc.). It actually reminds me of the famous Internet pedal-cloning thread a few years back involving one very angry Mike Fuller of Fulltone.

Wait, someone has kits for Magnatone?!? Can you point me to it?? I have the real thing, and I'd love to build one up but with reverb! Maggie 260A!


All that said, part of progression is learning from others. I can't think of it right now, but Japanese business has a word for taking others ideas and pushing it further to make a better product you call your own. Isn't that what all this amp building is? I mean, I don't see amp builders using parts that nobody else uses, or coming up with new parts that nobody else has seen. It's the same stuff that it has been since..what, the 30s, just rearranged and with different values.

The Ford Model T wasn't the first car...it was just the first production line car. The car idea came from somewhere else. But he took it, and made it better. Should we have stopped there? Or should we take the ideas and basic designs and say "I can make this better and make my own way in this business".

Just a side thought, I make faceplates for the TW amps. I just fell into this because my work happens to have a laser. I got the drawings and ideas from people here, and I put in the effort to learn the software, the hardware, and tweak the hell out of it to make it the best product I can.

Now, nothing is stopping someone from coming along with their own laser and copying my ideas, and maybe make them better. What would keep me in business vs them? A better product, better customer service, basically better management. Would I give them trade secrets? No. Could I stop them from figuring out my "secrets", no. In fact, I'd be impressed if someone put in the time to figure things out as I did. It would in fact drive me to product an even better product, at good prices, and maintain or even improve my customer service. It's called compitition. It's not like I invented the laser etched faceplate!

All that said...someone did PM me asking questions about laser etching because they had a buddy that has access to one. I did have a moment of internal debate...do I help this guy and possibly run myself out of business because he could be able to put more time and make a better product and have better customer service? Or do I just delete the PM and STFU? Well, I'm here for the community. If someone else can provide a better product, that's better for our community. So I gave him some pointers and suggestions, lets see what happens!

/end rambling...

[rfgordon]

If you build the Naughty Kitty, just don't clone it too closely--you don't want yours to break as frequently as the real ones! Oh, wait, did I say that out loud?

[dartanion]

It's funny to see this stuff resurrected

Guys like Leo copied their first amp circuits from the back pages of tube manuals, so some of the first mass produced amps were "clones" of basically public domain circuits.

How does a tube manufacturer increase sales?

Provide sample circuits in their manuals.

Unless someone discovers a completely different process or technology for building amps, then you can really only protect the look and name of your brand. Why do you think GOOPING boards happened in the first place? I can't protect my work legally, so screw you! I'll cover my circuit in GOO!!!

One angle here that wasn't brought up was the wake up call cloning gave the industry behemoths. Do you think that Marshall would have released the 1974x or 2061x without the popularity of the circuits being pushed 18watt.com. Same for the Plexis and the Metro forum and PlexiPalace. Same with the Tweed Fenders. Now, would Ken Fisher even be as much of a household name in amp circles if it weren't for Omar's TAG?

As well, many boutique amp companies would not exist if it were not for the internet, availability of schematics, open discussion on amp forums, and ease of tracking down parts and suppliers via folks on the various forums. To me, being a forum troll (as a boutique builder) is biting the hand that feeds you.

[CaseyJones]

I can't believe I missed the clone or not to clone debate. Boy am I pissed at myself!

Here's the way I see it:

Stradivarius made some killer fiddles around 300 years ago. If you've studied bowed instruments built during the Renaissance prior to Stradivarius there's a broad difference of opinion (from that era) about exactly what a fiddle should be. After Stradivarius the debate ended, that's what a fiddle should look like.

Ol' Anton Strad himself has been dust and bones for centuries, too bad his kin and countrymen can't lay claim to his legacy. They'd all be bazillionaires.

ONE MORE TIME: We have a legacy to preserve. There are only around 100 Trainwrecks and there won't be any more. Yes there are "5000 lame sounding clones". The debate is whether the 100 original Trainwrecks are enough to preserve the legacy and I'd say no, given time this amp is going to be a footnote in rock 'n' roll history, a rarely seen (and never heard) legend. Worse, those original hundred are going to drift and parts of them will eventually fail, who is qualified to do "authentic" repair on genuine Trainwrecks?

Back to our boy Anton... A little over 100 years ago Sears, Roebuck and Co. sold many thousands of European built violins many of them with a Stradivarius label inside. The ones that survived, while not the caliber of the real thing are very nice instruments and besides, I can buy some pretty posh real estate for what a genuine Strad sells for. I can't cook dinner in a violin any better than I can sleep in a Trainwreck! Do the math.

To clone or not to clone? We're here to clone. May the clones be good, may the clones be pure, may the clones be true. BTW I'm not worried about my "clones" being true to the original, Ken had his opinion of what an amp should be, I have mine. Otherwise we can all wack off over originals that very few of us have and even fewer of us can afford. If you're into vintage motorcycles this is familiar territory, what can you say about a G50 or a Manx Norton that hasn't been said before? Stick a poster on the wall, that's as close to it as you're going to get.

Next part of it: Using the information available here (plus the scant info available elsewhere) one can positively identify an original amp. There's only around 100 of them out there, if it's not on the list it's a fake. It's a double edged sword, the documentation available here both enables you to identify the real thing or to create an authentic clone. HAVE AT IT! Gibson builds carloads of Historic Les Pauls and still the real ones become more and more valuable every year. Fender kicks out truckloads of Custom Shop Relics and the real ones are more and more valuable every year. DO THE FRICKIN' MATH!!! Copies are cheap advertising for the real thing, they spread the legacy ad infinitum. Some day maybe you'll be lucky enough to be able to buy the real thing.

[Structo]

Yes, an interesting debate.
The cloners calling the pot black.
Every amp out there is a clone of either an existing amp or circuit that was provided free by the tube manufacturers.
So they are all cloners of clones.

I agree that you shouldn't use a name that is historically connected to a brand such as, Fender, Marshall, Trainwreck, etc.
That is just plain rude and disrespectful.
And I think the guys that really do try to clone an amp right down to the name and get the big bucks for it are pretty few and far between, thankfully.
There is only a small handful of guys here that actually make amps to sell and I don't think that any of their business or even the big companies is hurt by the small time, tube geeks such as us.

It's just like the guitars a few of us build.
I'm into strats and have painted and put together a few.
A bolt on neck guitar is about as simple as it gets and when I buy Fender licensed parts, Fender is getting their couple of bucks out of it.
But I don't think that me and even a few hundred guys building a few guitars, even puts a dent in the market.

The reason being, we are a minority of the buying public.
Most people don't know or don't care to know how to do this stuff.
They just go to Guitar Center and plop down the cash or credit card and buy a guitar and amp.

So if somebody asks, hey do you have a schematic for a Dr Z Ghia or whatever, do you really think that it hurts the big name amp company's market share if a few of us build one?
Those are highly touted names.
When you look at a backline of a popular band, you don't see many home brew amps back there.
They are the big guns that the musician's show off, saying hey, I have four one hundred watt Marshalls back there.
Plus, it's great advertising for the companies.......

So my vote is, keep discussing amps and leave the drama at home.

[Vanessa]

There is no better practice than learning from the best ones.
When we learn it's allways from example(ok sometimes from mistakes )
I have strong feeling that K.F. like many of us was moved by special sounding amp examples of companies that started the game,and "just" have strong desire to acomplish that.
Are we different than that?
Is there any reason to copy mediocre designs....

P.S. I red somewhere on the net about Ken's friend who was good with transformers design/thing... anyone remember where it was?
Thanks

[Fischerman]

I can't express my feelings on this any better than Allynmey already has. Great posts!

...let's say I take a Marshall plexi circuit, tweak it and change a number of values. I come up with something that I think is unique but still in the vein of a plexi. I start an amp company and make some money off of it. Do cloners have a God-given right to make a schematic and publish it all over the internet because in your mind my circuit was not original enough? At what point does my circuit become original enough for you to say no?

I never get this arguement...so it's OK for you to copy somebody elses circuit but not OK for somebody to copy your...copied...circuit? Changing a couple of values doesn't really matter here...you copied the circuit plain and simple.

As for the Komet...it's so obviously a tweeked Express...puhlease. And the Concorde? Who DIDN'T think about using that extra triode for a cathode follower? I did in my first year of building amps (I barely knew what a CF was) and tried a CF both at the end of the preamp and after the first stage before the tone stack...totally standard and elementary...I was a novice and came up with it independantly.