Alexander and me...

[Funkalicousgroove]

So when we take those very same common cathode triode amplifiers published in the western electric manual, the schmitt Long tailed pair inverter, and a 4 beam tetrode class AB output section and simply tweak the values from what is published, we are genius or original?

There are no new tube circuits, haven't been for 70+ years.

[Bob-I]

There are no new tube circuits, haven't been for 70+ years.

Exactly.

[jurgen]

There are no new tube circuits, haven't been for 70+ years.

Exactly. [/quote


Randal Smith has managed to come up with things to patent
But those flexibility tricks seem to be the wrong direction to go in,
if your trying to squeeze out that last 10% of sonic performance.
( don't get me started on the JCM2000 stuff )

[Max]

So when we take those very same common cathode triode amplifiers published in the western electric manual, the schmitt Long tailed pair inverter, and a 4 beam tetrode class AB output section and simply tweak the values from what is published, we are genius or original?

There are no new tube circuits, haven't been for 70+ years.

Hi Funkalicous,

that is just as right and just as wrong as to say: "There is nothing new in western music since Bach's "Well-Tempered Clavier".

And what was "new" (regarding the general technique of construction) in a Stradivarius violin?

Small "tweaks" to a tradition, that is indeed, what the genius of an artist often does: Small tweaks. Small tweaks from Michelangelo to Raphael.

After Mozart per chance tumbled over Bach's compositions (At this time J.S. Bach was completely unknown to most people) he made some "small tweaks" to his music that resulted in "The Magic Flute".

Of course every artist stands in a line of tradition and most often his genius is "nothing more" than these "few" ingenious "tweeks" that distinguish Mayer from Stevie and Stevie from Hendrix and Hendrix from Albert King.

And don't you believe, Clapton knows, where his "tweaks" came from? As far as I know, he gave his thanks to Muddy Waters, to B.B. King and to others, in words, in money, in honour.

But what now does Alexander's tweaks do for our fun? A better sound?

I don't think so. IMHO there is nothing wrong with the guitar sounds on "Electric Ladyland" (Fender Twin, as far as I know).

I doubt, if the majority of the audience would have noticed, if Stevie used a Steel String Singer or a Super Reverb. But ....Stevie would!

That is IMHO, what a musical instrument, that is perfectly tuned to the needs of a special artist, or chosen by this artist because it fits perfectly, does for the pleasure of the listener: inspire the artist, make him happy in performing on the stage or in the studio.

And that is IMHO the main profit for the listener:

The inspired artist will make inspiring and moving and touching music, and that is the most importand profit, that we have of Stevie's Steel String Singer: Stevie is happy with it, as is Anne-Sophie Mutter with her second Stradivarius violin she bought some years ago.

Listen to her new Mozart recordings (also on DVD), and listen how she makes her Stradivarius sometimes sing like a Sax (BTW one of the best "Dumble" tones I ever heard), and how this instrument helps her to dig deeper in her soul and touch the mind and the heart of the listener.

We maybe would not even notice, when she would change to her first Stradivarius, but she would, and that is what IMHO makes the most importand difference to the listener.

Last but not least a suggestion, what "thankfull" Dumble-collectors could do:

Be creative! Find an insurence solution to give away your Dumbles to working musicians, at least for the studio.

This practice is usual and widespread in the world of "classical" music. Many violinists play instruments, that are donated by collectors or foundations.

Not possible in Pop-Music? Not enough creativity to find a solution for the insurance problems? Isn't "Rock-N-Roll" the art of finding new ways? Not enough motivation for a "Roll" in how to handle a "Vintage" collection?

Greetings to all and a happy new year. Let the good times roll.

Max

[skyboltone]

There are no new tube circuits, haven't been for 70+ years.

Exactly.

What's his name....with Dynaco....David Hafler succeeded in getting a patent for ultralinear in about 1957 IIRC. That's fifty years ago. I've seen the documents. The odd thing about it is ask one of the Aussies on here about it. Chances are he'll show you an Aussie patent for the same circuit dated from 1930 something.

But there are lots of newer patents with vacuum tubes less than 75 years old. Probably NOT with audio though. Microwave transmitting and receiving circuits were kind of the last frontier for the vacuum tube. Waveguide tube combinations. Radar stuff. IIRC it took a long time for transistors to catch up to tubes in the high power high frequency RF transmission world. I'm not sure there is a transistor powered microwave oven. Maybe some patents on that stuff. Certainly not resistance coupled amps tied to push pull audio pairs though. Anyway, I doubt it.

Good observations all I think
Happy New Year. May you all enjoy sucess, comfort and joy in the new year.

Dan

[pamaz67]

Probably this is just one more point of view.
We are talking about electronic stuff.
If somebody can invent some particular solutions or circuitry , he is allowed to patent it and to license such kind of solutions.
Think about mr Nelson Pass of Pass Laboratories in Hifi world and his products, and the license nakamichi has paid him during the 80's for the Stasis series of amplifiers. Not to mention his recent X series product.
If somebody is not inventing nothing of particular from a design point of view (and to me this is HAD case) but is the best tweaker in the world, probably the copyright is "automatic" in the sense that nobody else will have such abilities that will make a simple and not innovative circuitry so special.
Guys, think about the fact that traditional tube amp technology is stopped at 1950.
Anybody who has done some industrial electronics for a living knows it.
Ciao

Paolo

[groovtubin]

Probably this is just one more point of view.
We are talking about electronic stuff.
If somebody can invent some particular solutions or circuitry , he is allowed to patent it and to license such kind of solutions.
Think about mr Nelson Pass of Pass Laboratories in Hifi world and his products, and the license nakamichi has paid him during the 80's for the Stasis series of amplifiers.
If somebody is not inventing nothing of particular from a design point of view (and to me this is HAD case) but is the best tweaker in the world, probably the copyright is "automatic" in the sense that nobody else will have such abilities that will make a simple and not innovative circuitry so special.
Guys, think about the fact that traditional tube amp technology is stopped at 1950.
Anybody who has done some industrial electronics for a living knows it.
Ciao

Paolo

AHH so correct!! Amazing that the japs didn`t just COPY it w/o a THANK YOU..at the time..code of honor??? something thats so REVOLUTIONARY sticks out like a SORE thumb, in a SMALL community, it would be noticed quickly, esp in hifi kingdom. BUT guitar kingdom? most guys are happi w/twin and stompbox, cuz 99.9% of american guitarist don`t play like Robben Ford and Eric Johnson. When guys play my amps, even tho to me, they are simply amazing, most don`t get it, a FEW DO! And that is really satisfying, Kimock made a killer point at gear page @ a Dumble circuit, he said it was LESS FATIGUING to PLAY than a std amp, after HOURS on mine, i TEND to AGREE. I STILL like the sound of a bogner, Diaz, Soldano QUITE well, and love to play them, the magic in a Dumble is extraordinary to me from just that ONE perspective, it IS unique, and is quickly noticed by someone who has that gift to UNDERSTAND it...

[Max]

So when we take those very same common cathode triode amplifiers published in the western electric manual, the schmitt Long tailed pair inverter, and a 4 beam tetrode class AB output section and simply tweak the values from what is published, we are genius or original?

There are no new tube circuits, haven't been for 70+ years.

Hi Funkalicousgroove,

Please just let me ask again if I got your point.

You think, that this forum's community, including yourself, does not owe anything to HAD, bacause what he did was only to "tweak the values" of long known curcuits, and this in your eyes has nothing to do with being a "genius or original".

If this is your opinion, could you please explain, why so many people on this forum (including yourself, as far as I remeber) are so eager to get informations of all sort concerning every detail of these "unoriginal" tweeks by HAD?

Why then all the fuss about "what is under the goop?":

"Does someone have a shemo of the SSS Step Filters?"

What kind of sense made e.g. the degooping of #124, if everything "new", "original", everything with a bit of "genius" is long known to the public? Why did someone take this trouble? Just to proove himself, that he already knew everything worth a "Thank You"?

And did you count the views ,as Gil (Thanks again for this) had posted the pictures of degooped #124?
More than 1000 people waisting their time with looking at small "unoriginal" tweeks without any "genius" of well known Western Electric curcuits?

Could you please explain. Maybe I missed your point.

Cheers

Max

[roknroll]

So when we take those very same common cathode triode amplifiers published in the western electric manual, the schmitt Long tailed pair inverter, and a 4 beam tetrode class AB output section and simply tweak the values from what is published, we are genius or original?

There are no new tube circuits, haven't been for 70+ years.

Hi Funkalicousgroove,

Please just let me ask again if I got your point.

You think, that this forum's community, including yourself, does not owe anything to HAD, bacause what he did was only to "tweak the values" of long known curcuits, and this in your eyes has nothing to do with being a "genius or original".

If this is your opinion, could you please explain, why so many people on this forum (including yourself, as far as I remeber) are so eager to get informations of all sort concerning every detail of these "unoriginal" tweeks by HAD?

Why then all the fuss about "what is under the goop?":

"Does someone have a shemo of the SSS Step Filters?"

What kind of sense made e.g. the degooping of #124, if everything "new", "original", everything with a bit of "genius" is long known to the public? Why did someone take this trouble? Just to proove himself, that he already knew everything worth a "Thank You"?

And did you count the views ,as Gil (Thanks again for this) had posted the pictures of degooped #124?
More than 1000 people waisting their time with looking at small "unoriginal" tweeks without any "genius" of well known Western Electric curcuits?

Could you please explain. Maybe I missed your point.

Cheers

Max

Amen
Agreed 100%

[pamaz67]

Hello Groovetubin.
I'm not saying that HAD or you or anybody else is not doing a wonderful job when building amps.
I'm not even dreaming of comparing myself as an amp builder (that up to date is not my main occupation BTW) to HAD, or to anybody else.
I'm just saying that probably in no way in the majority of guitar amps you'll find a big technology innovation. I.E no patent will be applicable.
So if an amp is exceptional, it's not only the design of the circuitry that leads to that magic, but in a huge amount the fine tuning capabilities of the builder are of paramount importance.
In any case I've built several amps, and some of them are in the hands of some gifted Italian guitarists. And i do understand how you feel when someone recognise that your work stands well far from the stock amps that you can buy in a shop.
Talking about satisfactions:
A dear friend and user of my amps ( i don't want to name him just because his records is going to come out soon ) has just completed a recording with star guest RF himself and half of the Yellowjackets, so my amp will be heard side by side with the myth!!

Bye.
Paolo

[Max]

Hello Groovetubin.

........

So if an amp is exceptional, it's not only the design of the circuitry that leads to that magic, but in a huge amount the fine tuning capabilities of the builder are of paramount importance.

.........

Bye.
Paolo

Hi Paolo,

Couldn't it be, that "fine tuning" results in a delta of "the design of the circuitry", and so "the design of the circuitry" is a bit different after the "fine tuning"?

And couldn't it further be, that this (maybe tiny) difference in the "design of the circuitry" after the "fine tuning" is the technological reason for what you perceive and express as "exceptional" or "Magic"?

So couldn't it further be, that your "but" rises an alternative, that is fictional, because any "fine tuning" of a given circuitry results in a different circuitry (even if the difference is very small, there will be a difference)?

As you see, I do not understand your "but". So could you please explain again?

Greetings

Max

[pamaz67]

Hi MaX
Don't know if the fact that I'm Italian and english is not my mother tongue, can lead to misunderstanding of any kind.
BTW, circuitry , to me is just the topology of the circuit itself.
I mean a common cathode is worldwide recognized for his general characteristics, so is a follower etc.....
In any kind of this topologies, you can choose your set of values as per resistors and capacitors, so to comply with you requirements and in our case, "acoustic tastes". the fine adjustment of this set of values for me is just tweaking, because you are not inventing a different way of using a triode/pentode/bjt/mos and or combination of them.
A different circuit (to me) is something that, aiming to solve a design issue, is using traditional components in not traditional ways.
When I was talking of Mr Pass I was referring to his very different and personal ways of solving particular design problems he had, by using uncommon design topologies.
I'm not saying that HAD himself and anybody in this forum is not capable of original solutions, but so far from the design point of view, I cannot see in guitar amps originality in design topology.
Once again, if you know the hifi world, you probably know mr Walker Quad 405 and the so called error feedforward compensation.
This is another different way of addressing some design issues that stand out from the typical design rules.
In guitar amps nothing particular like the things I mentioned has been seen (THAT I AM AWARE OF COURSE) .
Just has an example, and I have never tried it.
Do you know of any guitar amp that is designed in a fully balanced technology? Think about noise issues and even order distortion behaviour for such kind of topology.
I really Don't know if something like that will sound good or not , but probably could be worth the effort of trying such thing, although a balanced tone control could be complicated to realize without coupling transformers.

This is what I meant in my posts
Bye
paolo

[pamaz67]

Just to clear out my point of view.
First of all I don't want to be polemical at all. It's not my nature.
I have some 15 amps and at least 6 are dumble inspired, one is a highly tweaked fuchs ods 100, and I have to say that together with a Komet amp these are my preferred ones.
So I give my full respect to anybody who can design a well sounding machine and between them HAD and Ken Fischer are the "monsters" in guitar amp design.
What I mean is that all this tone research is done by using very traditional electronics topologies.
My opinion is that seems that generally there is not the will/interest to explore dfferent things.

Ciao
Paolo

[mlp-mx6]

Max,

I'm losing track here. What is the goal of your comments? What is your specific point? Not what others have said, what is YOUR point? Based on your post count you're new here, but you come across as having arrived with a purpose in mind. You joined over a year and a half ago, and only now you have something to say? Seems odd...

I do not think anyone here owes you an explanation such that you are satisfied with it. You're welcome to ask, but at this point I cannot see that you have added anything to the forum. You seem more like a troll, given every comment of yours that I have read so far.

So let me ask you another specific question - What specifically would you say is owed to HAD by someone building an amp for their personal use? By someone building an amp to sell?

Michael

[dogears]

I have to agree Mike. I know how many thousands of hours I have logged with hand tweaking experiments. I know the volumes of Spice models that Glasman has run to tweak and refine. Every amp is different and hand tuned. The hand tuning is the result of "paying the dues". It is not from cloning. It is interesting to note the paradox of no two Dumbles are alike yet "cloners" building their own personalized tuned amps owe some sort of monetary compensation even though their amps are customized circuits only based on HADs amps. Let's not leave out the multitude of unique design elements (never seen in any Dumble) that many of us guys incorporate as well. If HAD ever wanted to help consult with any of the builders, then I'd say he'd be entitled to a piece of the very very small action (that nobody is getting rich on).

On another note, this post in no way diminishes my admiration and respect for him. Some of my favorite tones emanate from his creations. Bravo...

Max,

I'm losing track here. What is the goal of your comments? What is your specific point? Not what others have said, what is YOUR point? Based on your post count you're new here, but you come across as having arrived with a purpose in mind. You joined over a year and a half ago, and only now you have something to say? Seems odd...

I do not think anyone here owes you an explanation such that you are satisfied with it. You're welcome to ask, but at this point I cannot see that you have added anything to the forum. You seem more like a troll, given every comment of yours that I have read so far.

So let me ask you another specific question - What specifically would you say is owed to HAD by someone building an amp for their personal use? By someone building an amp to sell?

Michael