People PLEASE, Don't feed the troll-kmonkey.
****
That's a very narrow window on the world you've created for yourself. Since most circuits are tweaked versions of what came before, you would either have a pedalboard with a half-dozen ancient effects that keep breaking down, have odd power requirements by today's standards, are noisy, don't have true bypass... or no board at all.
A single-cut guitar doesn't automatically make it a Gibson Les Paul. Single-cuts came from other manufacturers such as Gretsch ... so who's the clone-maker back then? Nowadays there are dozens of guitars that ape the Les Paul single-cut two-humbucker four-knob stop-tail mahogany body with maple cap, three tuners per-side headstock ... PRS, Godin... too many to bother listing a mere few.
By your "20% similar = 100% rubbish" dictum, you are pronouncing all these other manufacturers as producing clones taking money out of the pockets of Gibson and food out of the mouths of their employees' and shareholders' children.
Well Gibson sued PRS and lost. Seems the court decided the average joe on the street could tell the difference between a PRS single-cut and a genuine Gibson Les Paul.
Now a cloned Gibson Les Paul that says "Gibson" on the headstock and is marketed and sold as a Gibson, or even marketed and sold as a "Gibson Clone" is illegal and immoral, sure, but that's beyond the 20%, closer to 100% wouldn't you say?
So heaps of these tube-amp circuits floating around are supposedly based on the RCA Guide, when was the last time you saw RCA offering a guitar amp? Are all guitar amps still 100% trash? Are Marshall amps garbage because they owe some lineage to Fender amps which owes something to RCA?
Do you drive a car Dash? You are driving a clone, or rather a menagerie of clones — given your 20% rule, you are driving 100% trash and should cease and desist because I bet most of the components on your car don't say "Dunlop" on them (the brakes on your car are probably disc brakes and hydraulically actuated, for example):
1888 - First Pneumatic tyre
1890 - The Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre company moves to Coventry the heart of bicycle manufacture in the UK.
1914-18 - White and Pope expand the munitions factories in Holbrooks from 350–12,000 employees making fuses and engines for the war effort.
1930 - Dunlop pneumatically actuated brake invented
1934 - Dunlop hydraulic braking invented
1946 - Dunlop invents the disc brake
1950 - Dunlop first to use composite materials
1950s - Dunlop Maxaret ABS Invented
1950s - Dunlop Suspensions and Components Formed
1973 - Dunlop Invents Carbon brake discs
AHHH but wait! Dunlop cloned the pneumatic tire from Robert William Thomson , from Stonehaven, Scotland, the original inventor of the pneumatic tire. Thomson was granted a patent in France in 1846 and in the US in 1847, 40+ years before Dunlop's claim of invention.
"[Thomson's] tyre consisted of a hollow belt of India-rubber inflated with air so that the wheels presented 'a cushion of air to the ground, rail or track on which they run'."
"For many years Thomson was frustrated by the lack of thin rubber, and he turned to the development of his solid rubber tyres. It was not until 43 years later that the pneumatic tyre returned, when it was developed as a bicycle tyre by John Boyd Dunlop. Dunlop was granted a patent in 1888, but two years later was officially informed that it was invalid as Thomson's patent anticipated it."
And yet Dunlop still boasts on its website that it invented the "First pneumatic tire". What else has Dunlop laid claim to but actually cloned?
Interesting thread, some food for thought. I don't like Behringer for reverse-engineering other people's products and then making a copy of said products that are also similar in name and style, not just function.
Yet, I have no problem with EHX coming out with the Soul Food, or Way Huge (Dunlop, hah hah!) putting out the Saucy Box, nor any of the other Klones, but I would have a problem with a company or person making a Klon clone and selling it as the genuine article.
****
That's a very narrow window on the world you've created for yourself. Since most circuits are tweaked versions of what came before, you would either have a pedalboard with a half-dozen ancient effects that keep breaking down, have odd power requirements by today's standards, are noisy, don't have true bypass... or no board at all.
A single-cut guitar doesn't automatically make it a Gibson Les Paul. Single-cuts came from other manufacturers such as Gretsch ... so who's the clone-maker back then? Nowadays there are dozens of guitars that ape the Les Paul single-cut two-humbucker four-knob stop-tail mahogany body with maple cap, three tuners per-side headstock ... PRS, Godin... too many to bother listing a mere few.
By your "20% similar = 100% rubbish" dictum, you are pronouncing all these other manufacturers as producing clones taking money out of the pockets of Gibson and food out of the mouths of their employees' and shareholders' children.
Well Gibson sued PRS and lost. Seems the court decided the average joe on the street could tell the difference between a PRS single-cut and a genuine Gibson Les Paul.
Now a cloned Gibson Les Paul that says "Gibson" on the headstock and is marketed and sold as a Gibson, or even marketed and sold as a "Gibson Clone" is illegal and immoral, sure, but that's beyond the 20%, closer to 100% wouldn't you say?
So heaps of these tube-amp circuits floating around are supposedly based on the RCA Guide, when was the last time you saw RCA offering a guitar amp? Are all guitar amps still 100% trash? Are Marshall amps garbage because they owe some lineage to Fender amps which owes something to RCA?
Do you drive a car Dash? You are driving a clone, or rather a menagerie of clones — given your 20% rule, you are driving 100% trash and should cease and desist because I bet most of the components on your car don't say "Dunlop" on them (the brakes on your car are probably disc brakes and hydraulically actuated, for example):
1888 - First Pneumatic tyre
1890 - The Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre company moves to Coventry the heart of bicycle manufacture in the UK.
1914-18 - White and Pope expand the munitions factories in Holbrooks from 350–12,000 employees making fuses and engines for the war effort.
1930 - Dunlop pneumatically actuated brake invented
1934 - Dunlop hydraulic braking invented
1946 - Dunlop invents the disc brake
1950 - Dunlop first to use composite materials
1950s - Dunlop Maxaret ABS Invented
1950s - Dunlop Suspensions and Components Formed
1973 - Dunlop Invents Carbon brake discs
AHHH but wait! Dunlop cloned the pneumatic tire from Robert William Thomson , from Stonehaven, Scotland, the original inventor of the pneumatic tire. Thomson was granted a patent in France in 1846 and in the US in 1847, 40+ years before Dunlop's claim of invention.
"[Thomson's] tyre consisted of a hollow belt of India-rubber inflated with air so that the wheels presented 'a cushion of air to the ground, rail or track on which they run'."
"For many years Thomson was frustrated by the lack of thin rubber, and he turned to the development of his solid rubber tyres. It was not until 43 years later that the pneumatic tyre returned, when it was developed as a bicycle tyre by John Boyd Dunlop. Dunlop was granted a patent in 1888, but two years later was officially informed that it was invalid as Thomson's patent anticipated it."
And yet Dunlop still boasts on its website that it invented the "First pneumatic tire". What else has Dunlop laid claim to but actually cloned?
Interesting thread, some food for thought. I don't like Behringer for reverse-engineering other people's products and then making a copy of said products that are also similar in name and style, not just function.
Yet, I have no problem with EHX coming out with the Soul Food, or Way Huge (Dunlop, hah hah!) putting out the Saucy Box, nor any of the other Klones, but I would have a problem with a company or person making a Klon clone and selling it as the genuine article.
