Alexander and me...

[Fischerman]

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?

People have been dissecting Marshalls for a long time too...and have been 'eager to get informations of all sort concerning every detail of these "unoriginal" tweeks by'...Marshall.

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

People are very interested in what he did...same as with many other things/people.

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"?

I disassembled a clock when I was a kid...people are curious...pretty simple.

The dude made a really cool amp...masseltov to him. Other people/companies also made some really cool amps and managed to form large, successful companies doing it...masseltov to them. They're just guitar amps...it's not that big a deal.

I don't know if HAD is a genius but if he is...so what? Billions of geniuses have roamed this planet. He is a guy who made some really cool amps but IMO nowhere near the point of deification he seems to get from some people.

[Structo]

I think a lot of it is the mystique that surrounds the man.
He is reclusive by most accounts and thus the rumors fly based on speculation.
Much like Howard Hughes albeit a poor analogy.
He tried to protect his niche by gooping his preamp sections because patenting them seemed to be non viable because there wasn't much new or innovative there. Just some values that he tweaked by ear or scope to the individual artist that he build it for.

So unless you are a personal friend or acquaintance of HAD, it is all speculation on our part why and what he did.
If you Google for info about HAD, it is pretty sparse and based largely on rumors.

[Funkalicousgroove]

I see all these lengthy posts where people are trying to put words in my mouth and you ALL MISSED THE ONE REAL POINT, so I'll make it again:


ONE SET OF STANDARDS WILL DO JUST FINE.

Either all of it is OK, or NONE of it is OK.

I think HAD did great things with the tweaks he did to the FENDER AB763 Circuit. He made a couple tweaks to the way the mid control worked, and changed a couple of caps and resistors.

Had Leo Fender never come up with that circuit initially, none of us would be here. Had The folks at Western Electric, or RCA, or GE, or Mullard, or Genalex not published the circuits they did, Leo Fender wouldn't have been able to do what he did. We can trace it all back to the beginning of time if we want.

so just because someone puts RTV over their circuit boards so no one can see the tweaks they made to existing circuits, doesn't make the circuits original, it makes them covered in goo.

I got my first Schematic from a public website called schematic heaven, it was right there in the public domain for all to see. Everything in those schematics can be found in a prior circuit designed by someone else.

[dBe]

As a lurker, more than poster, I enjoy the discussions and learn a great deal by reading the exchanges on many topics. This one has been VERY interesting to me.

My background is primarily in acoustics with a reasonable amount of recording studio experience (30+ years) and modification of consoles, outboard gear, etc. I agree that there is very little new in any branch of electronics, especially tubes. Even "new" topologies in sand amps have a genesis in some pre-existing work. Nelson Pass has been given as an example in this thread and he has done some great work in audio. He is a very cool dude and a delight to talk to, but even he will say that he stands on the shoulders of others. In all of the mods that I've done to make stuff sound "better" (a subjective term if there ever was one) all I have ever done is research and application of better ways of doing things.

This being said, I have wondered at the seeming "magic" of the KF and HAD designs that I read about and have had the joy of experiencing firsthand. I have these questions:

What is the effect of the lead dress on each of these designs? Seems to be major.

What is the effect of PVC jacketed wire over teflon?

What is the effect of RTV over the overdrive components? Does the etching effect of the acetic acid influence the sound? Does the capacitive difference of the RTV (or epoxy, whatever) make a difference.

Are resistors and caps just resistors and caps or are they selected specifically for application?

My questions run on and on.... kind of like my brain.

As a believer that everything effects everything, I wonder how many designs vere done that never saw the light of day in getting that mojo that people seem to crave? Robben Ford and others have tried all of the clones out there and keep coming back to that elusive something that makes them go back to the masters.

Funk, I know you are right. But I'm still filled with wonder even at 59 years of age

Roll on...

Dave

[dogears]

Hardly.... This is patently false. Not only has RF not tried most of the amps in this genre, he cannot publically express the liking of any of them if he did. There are plenty of stories regarding HAD and his enforcement of artists not playing, touching, commenting on any builders similar amp. Or you get cut off.

There has been a renaissance in these amps in the last year or two. My guess is that Carlton/Ford etc, tried much much older amps, and not by any of the newer builders. Plus RFs private exchanges with Bludotone, contradict his GP comments (which were made before he tried the Bludo)

Robben Ford and others have tried all of the clones out there and keep coming back to that elusive something that makes them go back to the masters.

[ampdan]

I think HAD did great things with the tweaks he did to the FENDER AB763 Circuit. He made a couple tweaks to the way the mid control worked, and changed a couple of caps and resistors.

Had Leo Fender never come up with that circuit initially, none of us would be here. Had The folks at Western Electric, or RCA, or GE, or Mullard, or Genalex not published the circuits they did, Leo Fender wouldn't have been able to do what he did. We can trace it all back to the beginning of time if we want.

so just because someone puts RTV over their circuit boards so no one can see the tweaks they made to existing circuits, doesn't make the circuits original, it makes them covered in goo.

I got my first Schematic from a public website called schematic heaven, it was right there in the public domain for all to see. Everything in those schematics can be found in a prior circuit designed by someone else.

I too am a lurker more than a poster. However, I agree with this statement 100%. Thanks for posting this.

[Max]

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

Hello Michael,

I am sorry that obviously I was unable to make my point clear (at least up to now).

So I ask of a bit of patience and a second try. Here it is:

If someone owes someone else somthing or not is

a) a legal question.
b) an ethic question.

Now I am not an expert in the interpretation of laws, so please ask a lawyer concerning a).

b) is IMHO a matter of very personal taste. And it is not my personal taste, to tell other people, what they should do or not (this I leave to politicians, they are experts in this discipline).

So what was my point?

Some of the members of this forum, and by no means myself (please quote, if you find it different in my posts) expressed in some posts in this very thread, that they feel thankfull in direction of HAD.

Now what I said was not: "Applause, you should be thankfull"!

No, I just said:

IF - someone feels thankfull, I repeat, - i f -, t h e n he c o u l d give somthing back in a practical sense.

As I don't know, if HAD in such a case would like to get some flowers or a book about antique pistols from the thankfull forum members, I made the suggestion, to give him some money, and let him decide himself, what to do with it. Just like some of you will have done on x-mas, when they did not know exactly what kind of present would be fine for wife, husband, mother, father or child.

So please, if someone does not feel thankfull in direction of HAD, just ignore my suggestions, they were meant for others.

To all the thankfull, I can only repeat my suggestions:

If you feel, what HAD did, has made a difference, and you feel thankfull for this difference, you could consider to give a gift (and a true g i f t is never "earned" - not in a legal sense, not in a moral sense. and a true gift is not the result of a "deal, but can be a result of greatefulness):

So I suggested for t h o s e feeling thankfull: Do something practical.

- Find out a way to send flowers.

- If you are not sure, that HAD likes flowers, find a way to send him money to buy himself a present.

- In case, to send HAD some money, turns out out to be too complicated, ther could perhaps be found other ways to give back some of the joy, the "energy", or how you like to call it, to put a smile on his face. A donation to "Milagro" is of course just one possibility.

That was my point. Sorry that I did not find a way, to make it more clear.

And if my posts disturbed someone while not cloning Dumbles. Sorry!

Cheers to all.

Max

[Funkalicousgroove]

How much do you think HAD gave back to Leo Fender? The ODS and SSS are based LARGELY on the fender AB763 Circuit, as a matter of fact, most of the Dumbles I've seen have Fender/schumacher transformers pulled straight from the circuits in question.

ONE SET OF STANDARDS WILL DO JUST FINE!!!

[Max]

How much do you think HAD gave back to Leo Fender? The ODS and SSS are based LARGELY on the fender AB763 Circuit, as a matter of fact, most of the Dumbles I've seen have Fender/schumacher transformers pulled straight from the circuits in question.

ONE SET OF STANDARDS WILL DO JUST FINE!!!

Dear Funkaliciousgroove,

please be patient with me, and let me repeat it again:

I don't think, you should feel obliged to explain, why you do not feel thankfull enough for the tweaks HAD made to AB763, to send him some roses.

I think, thankfullness is something very individual and personal.

And if you do not feel so, there is absolutely no need for a bad concience, for explanations concerning patent laws, moral, justice, unjustice, Leo and Jim and Ken and all these many words just to say:

"I do not want to send roses to HAD, because I do not feel so."

Who said, you should?

Greetings,

Max

[dBe]

Hardly.... This is patently false. Not only has RF not tried most of the amps in this genre, he cannot publically express the liking of any of them if he did.

[/quote]

Sorry if my statement put your knickers in a twist, but I only know what I read and hear from people that I correspond with that have made the comments that I mentioned. While the RF end of the statement may be "patently false", the "others" that I referred to have expressed the opinions that I referenced. Without consent of people that I correspond with I make no references as to who they are or ascribe statements to them without their permission. Keeps me out of trouble, don't you know?

Don't pay any attention to the short, fat bald guy in the corner. He means well and is not looking to stir anything up.

The crux of my statement in my initial post is that while there is nothing new there IS something special about 'some applications' of old tech.

Dave

[Tubetwang]

Well...i don't know about Roses...HAD might think that you're in love with him...

Bobby Vinton's Greatest Hits cd might be more appropriate..

[Max]

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

Hi Paolo,

Thanks for the explanation. I understand.

Greetings

Max

[dogears]

Not wearing any panties today!! LOL

I was not upset with your comment. I was ticked by the continued "uproar" about how RF emphatically states the clones have not come close when he himself has not played any of the new amps. I know for a fact that he has not played a Glaswerks, or an Brownnote ODE or BM, or one of my personal Fuchs that I have meticulously reworked. Among others like Omegas latest, or for that matter, he probably has not played the newest Fuchs or Two Rocks.

Point is that his comment is totally meaningless yet it is bandied about as proof that nobody is getting the "OD" tone. Yet RF himself contradicted himself when he played the Bludo HRM.

Happy New Year btw!

Hardly.... This is patently false. Not only has RF not tried most of the amps in this genre, he cannot publically express the liking of any of them if he did.

Sorry if my statement put your knickers in a twist, but I only know what I read and hear from people that I correspond with that have made the comments that I mentioned. While the RF end of the statement may be "patently false", the "others" that I referred to have expressed the opinions that I referenced. Without consent of people that I correspond with I make no references as to who they are or ascribe statements to them without their permission. Keeps me out of trouble, don't you know?

Don't pay any attention to the short, fat bald guy in the corner. He means well and is not looking to stir anything up.

The crux of my statement in my initial post is that while there is nothing new there IS something special about 'some applications' of old tech.

Dave[/quote]

[dBe]

Thanks, Mr. Ears... I'm glad to know that my comments were not taken in the wrong context. It is so hard to determine the veracity of what we read and hear anymore. I think we are all jaded by media distortions and politics and carry that cynicism to every aspect of life.

The Fuchs amps are very cool. Of all of the commercial and boutique amps that I've heard I think that they have a very distinct and special timbral quality that I like the best. I think that if I were gigging and not just playing for my own amazement I would have one. My wife is astonished at how loud attenuated 6V6's can get

As I approach geezerdom, every New Year is a good one! Happy New Year and bon chance to you, too.

Toodles,

Dave

[Max]

Well...i don't know about Roses...HAD might think that you're in love with him...

Bobby Vinton's Greatest Hits cd might be more appropriate..

Hi Tubetwang,

You are right, roses maybe are a bad idea.

But on the other hand, perhaps he could sign a security agreement, not to tell my wife.

In "The Art of the Amplifier" (Great book BTW) you can read, that he likes antique rifles and pistols. So I think, a book about this maybe is a better idea.

And perhaps he really would smile, if Carlos tells him, that 3,200 fans have donated 10US$ each to Santanas Milagro Foundation, and the codename of the donation has been HeartlyRaisedMoney.

Cheers

Max