bongomania
Commercial User
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
This just in - Schumann Update
- Thread starter Colonel Monk
- Start date
Hey guys
this is Dan from Snazzy Fx.
Well i was pretty shocked to read this. (john never contacted me before the press release was sent out so I never had the slightest idea that he felt this way)
John and I did exchange a few emails back in the day as a few people on the forums had seen I was interested in Phase Locked Loop circuits and recommended I talk to him. At the time I had NEVER heard of the Schumann PLL but I had been reading quite a bit on PLL's on Mark Hammers site, on forums, and in a bunch of books. Mind you, to this day I have still never owned, used, or heard (except maybe on youtube) a SCHUMANN PLL.
I was mainly interested in talking to him as someone who was interested in the same kind of directions in electronics that I was. He was really nice, as were so many of the people I have had electronics conversations with on forums. We never spoke on the phone though. I was certainly never trying to use John in any way shape or form and this all is a real surprise to me. The people who know me well know how long and hard I worked to get these boxes to a point I was happy with, and the only benchmark I had in mind was something I would be entirely happy playing with.
I had no intention then or now of copying anyones design and at the time we were talking I actually was nowhere near making anything commercial (so there were never any false pretenses)
One thing that I think is important to understand is that there have been PLL circuits around in many shapes and forms (some even as DIY guitar or synth boxes or projects from magazines) before the Schumann PLL. The term PLL itself is a widely used term and I think assuming that I copied his box because they have some similarities in sound is being very harsh. I think just about any box utilizing PLL tech would have some similarity but then again, the differences would be prominent as well. (which I think they would be if an A/B test was done)
Sorry for such a long response but I just wanted to respond, as their press release went out to many dealers, etc.
I really have tried to add something unique to the world of stompboxes and I am more than happy to answer your questions.
thanks so much
Dan
snazzyfx.com
this is Dan from Snazzy Fx.
Well i was pretty shocked to read this. (john never contacted me before the press release was sent out so I never had the slightest idea that he felt this way)
John and I did exchange a few emails back in the day as a few people on the forums had seen I was interested in Phase Locked Loop circuits and recommended I talk to him. At the time I had NEVER heard of the Schumann PLL but I had been reading quite a bit on PLL's on Mark Hammers site, on forums, and in a bunch of books. Mind you, to this day I have still never owned, used, or heard (except maybe on youtube) a SCHUMANN PLL.
I was mainly interested in talking to him as someone who was interested in the same kind of directions in electronics that I was. He was really nice, as were so many of the people I have had electronics conversations with on forums. We never spoke on the phone though. I was certainly never trying to use John in any way shape or form and this all is a real surprise to me. The people who know me well know how long and hard I worked to get these boxes to a point I was happy with, and the only benchmark I had in mind was something I would be entirely happy playing with.
I had no intention then or now of copying anyones design and at the time we were talking I actually was nowhere near making anything commercial (so there were never any false pretenses)
One thing that I think is important to understand is that there have been PLL circuits around in many shapes and forms (some even as DIY guitar or synth boxes or projects from magazines) before the Schumann PLL. The term PLL itself is a widely used term and I think assuming that I copied his box because they have some similarities in sound is being very harsh. I think just about any box utilizing PLL tech would have some similarity but then again, the differences would be prominent as well. (which I think they would be if an A/B test was done)
Sorry for such a long response but I just wanted to respond, as their press release went out to many dealers, etc.
I really have tried to add something unique to the world of stompboxes and I am more than happy to answer your questions.
thanks so much
Dan
snazzyfx.com
As with all situations, there's alot of gray area here....
As Lebowski would say: "Alot of ins, alot of outs..."
Thanks for the backstory Conical - I checked out that synth and it's pretty cool.
I also listened to the mini-ark and as someone already said, they don't even sound all that much alike.
Aside of the connection, not sure why Schumann Electronics claims that was the reason for delay - seems like a convenient excuse.
As Lebowski would say: "Alot of ins, alot of outs..."
Thanks for the backstory Conical - I checked out that synth and it's pretty cool.
I also listened to the mini-ark and as someone already said, they don't even sound all that much alike.
Aside of the connection, not sure why Schumann Electronics claims that was the reason for delay - seems like a convenient excuse.
Taylor Livingston
Commercial User
I also want to add that I think the graphic design on Snazzy's stuff is really nicely done, and great enclosures. Are those LMB Heeger boxes?
I dig the Cold War aesthetic of Schumann's stuff just as much.
I dig the Cold War aesthetic of Schumann's stuff just as much.
thanks for the complement. in answer to your question about the enclosure, all the metal is custom designed/made.(very heavy gauge too)
Snazzy Dan thanks for coming in to explain your side. The purpose for my posting the letter was just to get some information, I wasn't assuming you were guilty per se - I don't know either of you gentlemen - I just know I've been trying to get my hands on a Schumann Lion X for a long time.
And of course (since there's alot of ins, alot of outs) once you hear the other side of the story then you have to start wondering how much of Slade's story is true. Usually a percentage of each is true... Since that email came from Slade and not from Mr Schumann I'd bet you a PLL that John didn't care as much as business partner Slade who wasn't planning on seeing anything in the marketplace to compete with their reissues......
Since they aren't facsimiles of each other I'm disinclined to care other being curious. I'll agree with others that a little competition even if only perceived is good for us consumers. Win win is right.
I wish both parties huge success.
Rock Onward.....
And of course (since there's alot of ins, alot of outs) once you hear the other side of the story then you have to start wondering how much of Slade's story is true. Usually a percentage of each is true... Since that email came from Slade and not from Mr Schumann I'd bet you a PLL that John didn't care as much as business partner Slade who wasn't planning on seeing anything in the marketplace to compete with their reissues......
Since they aren't facsimiles of each other I'm disinclined to care other being curious. I'll agree with others that a little competition even if only perceived is good for us consumers. Win win is right.
I wish both parties huge success.
Rock Onward.....
Don't you know? Schumann pedals are rigged to explode if you try to take a good look at the insides. What, you thought the PLL was so big because it was a complicated circuit? All the extra space is for the brick of C4.
Seriously though, have you seen the inside of a PLL? It's a friggin nightmare. Blobs of solder, wires everywhere, no board to speak of, everything is just loose inside there.
I love capitalism...
OK, I think I understand the situation a bit better now. It looks like Schumann either
a) Misunderstood what happened, that when you asked him for help you were just building for yourself and only later started building for profit
or
b) John is just throwing a hissy fit because now he has some competition
Anyway, you should try contacting him and explain what happened. Hopefully he'll understand.
Either way, he might also just be using this as an excuse to delay the pedals further. Seriously, what's wrong with Schumann? They are like the Blizzard* of effects pedals
*For all you old farts, Blizzard Entertainment is a company that makes video games, most notably the Warcraft franchise. They are infamous for taking forever to do anything, never meeting deadlines (to the point that I'm suspicious that they do this intentionally to build hype), but then when they finally release the game it's a masterpiece
Seems like more classic cracked-out schumann BS.
Schumann PLOL
The CV i/o's of the snazzyfx boxes interest me, I'll be keeping an eye out for their stuff in the future.
Schumann PLOL
The CV i/o's of the snazzyfx boxes interest me, I'll be keeping an eye out for their stuff in the future.
Is he really a druggie? Because I heard various people refer to him as either a crack head or a heroin junkie.
If you look at the first response in this thread you'll see I said the same thing as soon as I read the press release. After reading through this thread, I still feel the same way. I think the Schumann people are just using Snazzy as an excuse to delay the release of the "reissues" further. I think it's also possible that they were having trouble creating exact reissues, and this gives them an excuse for why that won't be happening, despite the fact that that was their initial promise.
Here's another update.
Hello again-
It has been brought to my attention that there has been a swelling of negative responses on the various message boards regarding todays email update. Without delving into the politics of the situation, my primary purpose of issuing this was to keep those whom are interested informed of our progress and not to focus on or cry foul about any third parties similar devices, which appears to be at the source of the unfavorable feedback. My intention was not to create a smear campaign against people whom I am certain have labored intensely and proudly on their devices, but rather to explain what our motivation was to create entirely new versions of our 3 original designs resulting in the months long delay. I just want to be sure that it is clearly understood that we have decided that rather than reissue 7 year old designs based on decades old circuits (i.e. PLL) that could today probably be compared to a few other designers interpretations of the same circuits, we made the decision to move beyond to much improved more sophisticated devices that had actually already been in development by the time the reissues were nearly ready for production last January. It only took the realization of the likelihood of negative repercussions we may suffer by being confronted by a group of angry people who purchased the legacy reissues only to discover 6 months later that they wish they had been informed of our intention to produce much improved redesigned versions. Believe me when I say that the difference between these versions is like night and day and to assume we would skate through that one unscathed is, in our opinion, completely unrealistic. (We will be emailing you exclusive sound bytes from each in the coming weeks)
After revisiting it, greatly concerns me and I do understand how my earlier email has left a different impression of my true objective on many of you. But I can do no more than to offer this explanation and assume you now understand our intentions are genuine and clearly defined.
As always, please feel free to contact me with any questions or feedback. I am more than happy to respond.
Cheers!
-Slade
Hello again-
It has been brought to my attention that there has been a swelling of negative responses on the various message boards regarding todays email update. Without delving into the politics of the situation, my primary purpose of issuing this was to keep those whom are interested informed of our progress and not to focus on or cry foul about any third parties similar devices, which appears to be at the source of the unfavorable feedback. My intention was not to create a smear campaign against people whom I am certain have labored intensely and proudly on their devices, but rather to explain what our motivation was to create entirely new versions of our 3 original designs resulting in the months long delay. I just want to be sure that it is clearly understood that we have decided that rather than reissue 7 year old designs based on decades old circuits (i.e. PLL) that could today probably be compared to a few other designers interpretations of the same circuits, we made the decision to move beyond to much improved more sophisticated devices that had actually already been in development by the time the reissues were nearly ready for production last January. It only took the realization of the likelihood of negative repercussions we may suffer by being confronted by a group of angry people who purchased the legacy reissues only to discover 6 months later that they wish they had been informed of our intention to produce much improved redesigned versions. Believe me when I say that the difference between these versions is like night and day and to assume we would skate through that one unscathed is, in our opinion, completely unrealistic. (We will be emailing you exclusive sound bytes from each in the coming weeks)
After revisiting it, greatly concerns me and I do understand how my earlier email has left a different impression of my true objective on many of you. But I can do no more than to offer this explanation and assume you now understand our intentions are genuine and clearly defined.
As always, please feel free to contact me with any questions or feedback. I am more than happy to respond.
Cheers!
-Slade
From Slade's original email update #1: "Rather than dwell on something that was out of our control, we decide to scrap all work done up to this point and begin again from square one."
This statement alone indicates to me that this is BS. No sane business person would scrape "all the work done up to this point" on the basis of someone else doing something vaguely similar.
I call BS on the Schumann reissue project.
This statement alone indicates to me that this is BS. No sane business person would scrape "all the work done up to this point" on the basis of someone else doing something vaguely similar.
I call BS on the Schumann reissue project.
My question is, why redesign the Lion X, for example? That has nothing to do with new PLL based designs emerging on the market. Also, regardless what improvements they may make, there are going to be some people who still just want an exact copy of the original designs. At this point, I wouldn't blame anyone who starts making copies of these old designs, because Schumann have clearly stated that they are abandoning them.
I'm not understanding it either.
Clearly, as with any mfg. company who wants to remain in business, they needed to redesign the original circuit to make producing it viable and reliable, but the pedals that people have been waiting for are the originals. If they change the circuits too much to make them "better" it could backfire.
If they were so close to releasing them last January they would have done just that.
Building a next GEN could make sense if they improved the design tonally - just sayin' the story doesn't make sense.
Whatever, if they ever come to market I will try whatever version they decide to make - and if they sound awesome they'll have a spot on my board and if not, they won't.
I ordered a snazzy mini arc yesterday. Cant wait. I also really want to see the new SCHUMANN PLL. I have a lion that kind of works. Too this day that pedal, when working, has overdrive tone that sounds the most interesting to me on the bass. Personally, i just want **** that sounds good. If both of these companies come up with great stuff that sounds good then I will buy. I can't wait to try the mini arc
For anyone interested, here's some further reading on PLL based frequency mulitpliers:
A couple of schematic links in this thread:
http://www.discovercircuits.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6591&site_id=1
(OK, the 100x one is probably pointless for musical applications)
An old magazine article on a PLL based harmonizer:
Link Removed
The old Boss DF-2 Super Feedbacker and Distortion. Here a PLL is used to produce the simulated feedback note. I don't believe there's any frequency multiplication in this one, but the output is fairly rich in harmonics due to basically being a square wave (I think one of the knobs rolls off the high frequencies in the "feedback", I'd have to dig mine out to check):
Link Removed
A couple of schematic links in this thread:
http://www.discovercircuits.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6591&site_id=1
(OK, the 100x one is probably pointless for musical applications)
An old magazine article on a PLL based harmonizer:
Link Removed
The old Boss DF-2 Super Feedbacker and Distortion. Here a PLL is used to produce the simulated feedback note. I don't believe there's any frequency multiplication in this one, but the output is fairly rich in harmonics due to basically being a square wave (I think one of the knobs rolls off the high frequencies in the "feedback", I'd have to dig mine out to check):
Link Removed
