I'm in WAY over my head...

[Chuck H]

Thanks guys

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don, I'll keep cultural customs in mind and certainly do some research on buisness etiquette there should the event present itself.

Mac, (can I call you Mac?) I won't have any trouble with the adjunct circuits. I was a modification junkie long before I started building amps. And I fully agree that it would be easy in this situation to build an otherwise great amp that no one would buy. I think your perspective on construction method/features/market is very close to mine...Now I have to convince someone else. We could certainly do either (pcb swiss army knife amp OR eyelet board minimalist boutique). Some tastefully executed features MIGHT be done with a boutique type amp. But you wouldn't want to end up with a white elephant.

Bruce...BRUCE, Who would know better than you. The plan is that this guy already has a name and reputation. I'm just going to design his latest line of amps. I'm looking at this as a chance to start a resume in case I do ever decide to seek an investor or go independant some day. Reputation is the missing ingredient that has kept me from doing this on my own. There are plenty of guys trying, a Google search for "custom amp" will reveal that. But I've never heard of most of them...Hmmm. They come and go like salmon swimming upstream, spawn and die. The ones that make it become saavy and wise. But I'm sure it's the hardest possible way to do it.

Drew, I fully agree. Eyelet boards make getting a quiet stable layout with features much more possible than anything I've ever heard in a PCB amp. But the nature of eyelet board construction can get things looking pretty busy and messy when I try to add too many features. This can also slow down production and service. After all, when you add an effects loop you have to redesign layout, add a filter, more shielding, maybe redesign the grounding scheme, jacks on the back panel and maybe a pot. It can start get cumbersome and cluttered really fast. But I've been able to do a channel stack and effects loop on a single channel circuit and still keep things looking fairly tidy.

Thanks for all the replies.

Chuck

[J M Fahey]

Dear Chuck.
I just found this out of sheer chance, and obviously it's old news by now, yet itīs fascinating.
How did the story go on after that?
Real World is sooooo complex and unpredictable that I can't even start to imagine whatever happened later.

[Chuck H]

Thanks JM. For anyone who's interested, here's the very condensed version.

I designed a "boutiquish" amp for Dean that was ala Tiny Terror/ Badger/ 18watt type. The idea was that boards, chassis, etc. could be made and assembled overseas, handwired on eyelet boards and then the custom Heyboer OT and Russian tubes would be installed here. Dean really liked the amp and I ended up building two prototypes to present with him at the 2009 winter NAMM show. Unfortunately I was in the basement at the UltraSound booth and didn't have much opportunity to show off. Still, it went well enough and the amp showed it's merit whenever demo'd. However, with the economy tanking and the need to focus on other business priorities the project was shelved. Not wanting to give up entirely on the idea of putting out an electric guitar amp Dean decided to "re-issue" the old CD-60 amp. It was a good amp that has a reasonable following and had become a somewhat popular "vintage find" on a few popular forums. This was a much more affordable venture for him, though how it was promoted is questionable and I don't think it's working out as well as it could have. I also think a "boutiquish" type amp at a really competitive price was a better idea. Water under the bridge now. Dean and I remain friends and I stop in and see him whenever I get into the SF bay area. His wife Wendy is great and I sometimes meet interesting guests at his house. Ronnie Montrose stopped in last time I was there. Dean keeps one of the prototypes in his guitar room and we may revisit the project or work on a new one some day. The free consulting he gets from me occasionally is a small matter since it's always combined with casual conversation now.

As to the financial aspect... Dean was very good to sign an agreement. Unfortunately the agreement stipulated that we would work together on the project and get paid together on the project. Since the project never manifested, no $$$. But I learned more about amp design and the inner working of the manufacturing process in three years than in the ten before that. And I aquired a butload of bench tools that continue to be useful to me. The experience was great and it didn't cost me anything but time. Considering this is the kind of thing I do for free anyway, and the continued possibilities and relationships, it's alright.

[Alan0354]

O.K... There's this heavy hitter in the guitar do dad world and he's going to try getting into amps again. He's a friend of a friend. Anyway, he's over at my friends house and gets the chance to play through one of his amps that I did ALOT of modification to. So this heavy hitter says to my friend "I'm about to buy an amp company, I'd like to talk to the guy who built this amp." So my friend calls me up and I head straight over. I get to jam with this guy (who, thankfully, was as rusty as I am) and he tells me he wants me to build him an amp from scratch so he can see what my designs sound like. So I do. And he loves it. Now we're talking turkey about my level of involvement and the next steps...WOAH!!!

The rub is that I'm a hack... I am not an engineer and I've never studied electronics. I'm a hobbiest with about 17 years on/off experience, so I get around an amp pretty well. But the R&D for something like this is going to prove challenging for a guy who is math impaired like me. Hell, I don't even own an O-scope. Don't get me wrong. There are alot of guys who are supremely more qualified for this opportunity than me. But they don't build better sounding amps. Still, I'm feeling the pressure.

I'm going to keep the smoke and mirrors going for as long as I can. I hope I can lean on you guys for some support when I get stuck. This is a much needed change in my life right now...WOOO HOOO!!!

Chuck

Congrad!!! Don't worry, the sound is the most important thing. If you can make good sound and make it not burn, you are doing fine in my book.

Hey if you ever run out of theory and calculation, you can always come here and talk. HA!!! I can talk a lot of theory even though I have only one amp under my belt!!!! It's all talk!!! And talk is cheap!!!!

[Chuck H]

Just realized that I didn't mention something earlier in the thread. "Dean" is Dean Markley. I suppose it's implied. But just to be clear. He's a really good guy. Loads of people skills and not the least bit pretentious. Likes all the good stuff. BBQ's, a cold beer, good tone, etc. Smart, well versed and easy to talk and listen to.

[soundguruman]

No matter how you design your amp, everyone else will sue you and say that you copied their design.
And so marketing is way more legal battles between lawyers, and lots of cash to burn up, than it is actually making amplifiers.

[Chuck H]

Well... Aren't you just a ray of sunshine.

There's nothing new under the sun WRT tube amps. Unless you've got Randall Smith on your a$$ I can't imagine hoards of idiots coming out of the woodwork to stop a new design. I did get to spend a little time in the middle of it all. Where does your perspective come from?

[Gingertube]

Good on You Chuck,
There was one post above which summed things up - guitar amp design (tube amps of any description really) are more of an art than a science.
You can apply the best engineering and greatest technical knowledge going but in the end you must put away the oscilloscope, distortion analyser etc. and rely on the best piece of test gear known to man, a pair of ears.
I posted a HiFi design on DIYAudio which has been built by more than 50 folk around the world. I did the entire design and tweak entirely by ear as a deliberate design policy. Theory can only tell you what MIGHT sound OK and suggest things which MIGHT sound OK.
In tube amp design, experience is far more important that "high browe" technical knowledge - you certainly have that experience.

Dean shows great judgement in my view and that is coming from someone who has been a Professional Electronic Design Engineer for 30+years.

As for being sued for copying design aspects - not an issue, 90% of Amp manufacturers would be instantly out of buisness. Hell, look at Randall Smith, he owns patents for stuff copied straight out of Radiotron Designers Handbook. Totally unenforcable (not to mention morally bankrupt) patents. Just to take a small sample, look at Marshall, Hughes and Kettner, Laney, Mesa, Carvin etc. the same circuit elements turn up again and again.

Or take Howard Dumble as an example - nothing really out of the ordinary in his designs, his justifiable fame came from his ability to "tweak" an amp to suit his customer - his experience in otherwords.

Hope something eventually comes from your efforts.
Best Wishes,
Ian

[soundguruman]

You can see that every guitar amp is the same fundamental design. And Randall patented those same designs.
Maybe unenforceable, BUT its going to cost plenty money to go into court and PROVE that they are unenforceable.
You see, they overwhelm you with throwing around money to stop you, not by enforcing patents.
So they bog you down and cost you to death, to sink you, before you ever get to the unenforceable part.
Reprehensible ethics yes, original design , no.
And that's what you are up against when you take an amp to market. Unlimited money against you.

I would just like to see one person come up with an original design, that is not a copy of a Williamson amplifier.

[Chuck H]

You can see that every guitar amp is the same fundamental design. And Randall patented those same designs.
Maybe unenforceable, BUT its going to cost plenty money to go into court and PROVE that they are unenforceable.

Not true. Do you really think Mesa will spend money on a battle they know they can't win? Remember that compensation for expenses is part of any competent countersuit. The information age has blossomed since Randall started this practice of patenting everything that wasn't nailed down. The patents are in place to discourage only. Not to provide any actual ability to stop a design. Nearly all of Mesa's patents can be disproved by president by enough people in the industry that it has become a moot point. This isn't some huge mega corp industry like pharmaceuticals. No one throws good money after bad.

And that's what you are up against when you take an amp to market. Unlimited money against you.

There are only four players in the biz that have that kind of power. Of those four only Mesa has ever proven to be a threat. And they haven't done battle in many years because their cheat has been discovered. What good comes from proving you can lose. Better to keep your mouth shut and hold what patents haven't been proven false to deter as many as possible.

I would just like to see one person come up with an original design, that is not a copy of a Williamson amplifier.

I've never seen a guitar amp that was a Williamson circuit. Are all guitar amps that use a cathodyne PI (the preferred Williamson PI) a copy of the williamson circuit? Like I said, nothing new under the sun. Tube tech went an awful long way in it's hay day. There really isn't much to discover WRT tube operation as far as I can tell. Tubes are very forgiving amplifiers. As such people have pushed and pulled them (pun intended) in every direction. If for no other reason than to have something different. Even if not more valid. Finding some new way to use tubes probably isn't going to happen. Williamson didn't invent all those circuits and most guitar amps don't look like Williamson designs to me.

[Alan0354]

Not true. Do you really think Mesa will spend money on a battle they know they can't win? Remember that compensation for expenses is part of any competent countersuit. The information age has blossomed since Randall started this practice of patenting everything that wasn't nailed down. The patents are in place to discourage only. Not to provide any actual ability to stop a design. Nearly all of Mesa's patents can be disproved by president by enough people in the industry that it has become a moot point. This isn't some huge mega corp industry like pharmaceuticals. No one throws good money after bad.



There are only four players in the biz that have that kind of power. Of those four only Mesa has ever proven to be a threat. And they haven't done battle in many years because their cheat has been discovered. What good comes from proving you can lose. Better to keep your mouth shut and hold what patents haven't been proven false to deter as many as possible.



I've never seen a guitar amp that was a Williamson circuit. Are all guitar amps that use a cathodyne PI (the preferred Williamson PI) a copy of the williamson circuit? Like I said, nothing new under the sun. Tube tech went an awful long way in it's hay day. There really isn't much to discover WRT tube operation as far as I can tell. Tubes are very forgiving amplifiers. As such people have pushed and pulled them (pun intended) in every direction. If for no other reason than to have something different. Even if not more valid. Finding some new way to use tubes probably isn't going to happen. Williamson didn't invent all those circuits and most guitar amps don't look like Williamson designs to me.

Read the patents on Mesa and work around it. Unless they have something new in the last 10 years, I am not impressed with any of the Mesa amp. I read most of the older amps and I don't see anything that is so special. Like their simucast is nothing more than putting a few pairs of different tube together.`I am writing a patent, I literally read the existing patent and work on the design to ensure it is different, unobvious and novel.

It is very hard to patent electronics, you can change just enough to make it different. Particular in guitar amp where different bias point and head room make a lot of difference. How are you going to sue if you bias the same way. A lot of the older designs are very similar to Fender and just cascade. AND what make you think the sound is that good after the signal passes through many gain stages and all the FET switches? You look at their schematic and it is all one gain stage, then divide the signal down, then go into another gain stage, and then divide the signal down. I really thought the Mesa amp all sounded pretty awful.

I had my credit card in my hand so many times in the late 90s ready to buy a Mesa, I just can't pull it out. I ended up buying the Marshall JCM900 and never look back.

lastly, I don't think Mesa is that big. They sure don't have unlimited deep pocket. There is really no money in the guitar amp field, how many amps you can sell. The profit margin is low and unless you are Marshall and Fender and Peavey, the sales number cannot be to great. Just go out and find out how many music store that are around in a given area of population, ask how many Mesa amp they sell per month. and estimate for the whole country. I seriously question they can sell 1000 a month, this is small business. Maybe 100 or 200 so employees at best.

If you want to be safe, download their patent from Google patent and read them. Pay close attention on the patent granted date as it only enforce for maximum 20 years....that is if they even pay within a few year to extend to the full 20 years. Some patent expire after something like 3 or 7 years if they don't pay the extra patent maintenance fee. Even if you see they patent your idea, as long as you can find prior design before their patent that do the same thing or even article, you can even challenge them. You can argue that you follow the other design. Also, a patent is only good for 20 years. If it expire, you can copy. I read something if you can proof there are prior design before the patent, you can even challenge and make their patent un enforceable. You have to find out from lawyer. I have been reading the patent book but I am not a lawyer. Don't be scared.

[J M Fahey]

Just realized that I didn't mention something earlier in the thread. "Dean" is Dean Markley. I suppose it's implied. But just to be clear. He's a really good guy. Loads of people skills and not the least bit pretentious. Likes all the good stuff. BBQ's, a cold beer, good tone, etc. Smart, well versed and easy to talk and listen to.

Imagined so, but thanks for the clarification.
Wow !!, itīs cool to be that close to *one* of the greats or famous or whatever label you apply.
Even *much* cooler that *he* found *your* design cool and was interested in commercially producing it.
Whether crunching $$$ numbers ultimately worked against it is besides the point.
I find your case similar to, say, the Pignose GV40 tube amp.
Its designer did just that one (later there was a "60W" version, basically the same), itīs basically a tweaked JCM800, and the end result, even if very cheaply made was quite successful and noticed.
Good enough to be used "as is" and a good platform for mods.
Remember, just *one* design. No need to come out with 23 new designs each month, the Mesa way. (Which isn't bad either).
Congratulations on your work (past and present).

[Chuck H]

Read the patents on Mesa and work around it. Unless they have something new in the last 10 years, I am not impressed with any of the Mesa amp. I read most of the older amps and I don't see anything that is so special. Like their simucast is nothing more than putting a few pairs of different tube together.`I am writing a patent, I literally read the existing patent and work on the design to ensure it is different, unobvious and novel.

Yup.

You look at their schematic and it is all one gain stage, then divide the signal down, then go into another gain stage, and then divide the signal down. I really thought the Mesa amp all sounded pretty awful.

The best thing you can do for any Mesa product is rip out all the crud and re-do the circuit closer to simplicity. They're all based on vintage designs with a butt load of crap tacked on. Take out the crap (with snips and jumpers = Muntz) and they sound alright. Pretty good iron most of the time.

I ended up buying the Marshall JCM900 and never look back.

I loved my JCM900. Another testiment to the validity of using diodes for clipping !!!???

Pay close attention on the patent granted date as it only enforce for maximum 20 years....that is if they even pay within a few year to extend to the full 20 years. Some patent expire after something like 3 or 7 years if they don't pay the extra patent maintenance fee. Even if you see they patent your idea, as long as you can find prior design before their patent that do the same thing or even article, you can even challenge them. You can argue that you follow the other design. Also, a patent is only good for 20 years. If it expire, you can copy. I read something if you can proof there are prior design before the patent, you can even challenge and make their patent un enforceable. You have to find out from lawyer. I have been reading the patent book but I am not a lawyer. Don't be scared.

Right. I have a pretty good book on it also. The only real threat left is probably LOUD Technologies. And they're too busy pumping out $h!t and turning it into money at the expense of the uneducated young metal demographic to even care what anyone else is doing. Crate Blue Voodoo anyone??? Don't get me wrong. There is some art to making an affordable product that gives the public what they want. I only wish it were possible for the population in any other region of the world besides China to do it. Regarding my above posts... I never wanted to manufacture overseas. I actually get a little sick about it. But you can't win if you don't play. And the rules have changed. I'm actually a little relieved that the deal with Dean didn't go down. If it had I would just be promoting overseas manufacturing. Too many greedy US corporations have sent manufacturing overseas for the same reason and left any potential competition no other choice. I'd love to make a competitive domestic product. But "competitive" is a relative term. I've turned it every which way and I just don't know how the US can get back into the mnufacturing end competitively. Too many people that control the bigger money are making too much of it by manufacturing overseas where some poor worker gets paid a bag of rice and a fish head for a days labor and then no significant taxes are applied to the import. It's all in the hands of big money. And those people wouldn't give a squirt of piss in a fire about whether their profits damage the US economy. Capitolism at it's finest. Go NAFTA.

[Enzo]

Look in the back of a guitar magazine, there are an endless stream of little amp makers, everyone from BadCat to Dr.Z to who knows what. VIntage Guitar is full of their ads. A huge list of "boutique" amp makers.

How many of the amp makers you see the ads for are tied up in court right now fending off lawsuits from Mesa or anyone else? None that I can think of.


There is absolutely nothing new in tube amps.

Oh look, but in our amps, the cathode bypass caps are to the LEFT, that's VERY different. And we only use resistors with odd values. And our tubes are painted green. And, and...

I get tired of hearing how so and so "stole" the design from someone. "They stole that from Marshall." Yeah well Marshall "stole" that from Fender, and Leo Fender "stole" the designs from the free for the asking design guides from the RCA tube manual.

[Steve Conner]

Agreed.

PS: The Williamson amp is nothing like a guitar amp! It has a similar number of stages, but there is a global negative feedback loop around the whole lot. This gives it at least a factor of 10 more global feedback than the typical guitar amp.