Often wondered why he's never partnered up with Boss, and be done with it?

studmissile ? ? ?

I rather dig the idea of the original guy hand -wiring his iconic pedal and auctioning each pedal off. He doe start the bidding at Boss friendly UD100 - though what price is unobtanium? I'm guessing around USD2000 ?

studmissile Isn't that more or less what the KTR was supposed to be?

Yeti Errrmmmm....kinda? @ USD269-299 for a new one, it's still boutique pricing. But I'd have one for the graphics alone ?

In 2014, Bill Finnegan repackaged the Centaur into a smaller unit called the Klon KTR. The Klon KTR uses the same circuit as the Centaur. The main difference is that smaller surface-mounted components were used so the entire circuit could fit into a smaller pedal enclosure.

From - https://guitargearfinder.com/guides/all-about-the-klon-centaur-clones-schematics-history-kits/ - got a couple clones to compare too.

Actually, the Klon story is interesting reading: https://pedals.thedelimagazine.com/best-klonesklon-inspired-pedals-in-2017-compare-prices-and/

I'm interested in the topic, cause I was looking for a clean, buffered boost - so a fellow junkie built some pedals trying to get a rat, ts9 and klon builts from kits/parts. We never got near what I wanted, but learnt loads trying out pedals and testing what worked for me. I wanted a:
- transparent (no ts9/rat colouring, I'll eq separately)
- boost (but not clipping/distorting)
- buffered (pesky 8m cables I tend to use, suck lots of the tops out)

So a transparent boost with a buffer. Annnddd after trying out about 20 pedals of various origins - it was the Voodoo Labs Sparkle Drive that I'm fond of. Which is a TS9 clone. facepalm.

It works, for me, because It has a dry/wet blend which works sooo well. And makes it super versatile too - bass, guitar, tubes or transistors - you could tweak this thing to get ya the goods. We really should see more dry/wet blend knobs on guitar pedals.

V8 that graphic is more or less entire reason I choose the klon as my first diy pedal. :-P
I find that I'm really enjoying the clean boost from my pedal as well as using the coping circuit.

Out of interest, did you try any clean boost pedals like the tc spark?

I'm still going through the options - as they come through gear junkie (or friends get one) - I'm still looking around. So far the Sparkle Drive with it's dry/wet thang is bass and guitar friendly and with the gain at around 0-5% it's as clean and as transparent as I've tried.

Yeti Out of interest, did you try any clean boost pedals like the tc spark?
I do still want to try the Spark and tone city's clean boost (the unfortunately named kaffir lime, xotic bb preamp copy) in A/B comparison to the Sparkle drive. There were a few alternatives (can't recall exactly what I tried) off friends pedal boards - not much excited me though.

Most pedals seemed to fall apart when I laid into the bass, what sounded clean for guitar would introduce a touch of fizzy gain with the bass. Which I think where the dry/wet mix worked for me.

Though, my wants are likely rather particular (code word for stoopid ?)

Heh, nothing wrong with knowing what you want (although I'm sure the bass and guitar thing cuts out quite a few contenders on its own).
I'd be interested to find out what that dry/wet blend does in the electronics.
The gain on the klon circuit does something similar. It has two ganged potentiometers in one package that are wired back to back. With the gain all the way down it is only the 'dry' signal, with the gain all the way up it is only the 'wet' signal. It's not really dry/wet because you can't have the gain circuit set to full clip and then bleed in only a little but I expect that it can achieve similar effects.
You mentioned that you had tried a DIY klon... out of interest, what was it that didn't work for you?

Yeti (although I'm sure the bass and guitar thing cuts out quite a few contenders on its own).

Most of them! It was a interesting experiment - useful for me - not sure about anyone else though. I'm very familiar with my strat and bass clean tones, I play mostly clean(er) tones these days - the original thinking was to experiment with buffer(s) and preamp(s) - but external to my bass/guitar - active basses/guitars are not my thing for day to day use. So wasn't specifically looking for a down 'n dirty drive - but more of a something that would be a bit like raising the pickups - but in a pedal.

Yeti I'd be interested to find out what that dry/wet blend does in the electronics.

It was kinda explained to me - alas, I'm not the keenest student of what the internals were doing. IIRC there's two sides to the circuit, the 808 (TS) opamp and the clean boost which - at some point - are blended together - that's about as much as I (inaccurately) recall. A bit of googling dug up some 'sprinkle drive' schematics and something called a 'axe grinder' (TS w/blend). Sure you';d understand the schematics - it just gives me a sore head.

Yeti You mentioned that you had tried a DIY klon... out of interest, what was it that didn't work for you?

The Pop effects one was good - no complaints on guitar. Think it worked fine on bass too. The fellow junkie's build was unreliable - so tough to say on that one. Either it kept breaking, coloured EQ or overly compressed dynamics as he went though versions.

After trying the sparkle drive, I took a break from pedals. But it got me thinking about gain staging again - so was useful. I've done some re-wiring on the bass recently, which turned out really well ( 250k pots -> 500k and a wee tweak to the wiring) so it's a good time to re-visit the experiment...waiting on some fresh strings to arrive from Jhb so I can redo the setup and dial it in again.

One thing I REALLLLLLY liked about the dry/wet blend was that it felt like I could dial in a little bit of pick attack with the dry signal - not at all desirable for higher gain (to shreddy style) tones, but added something dynamically for me to the cleaner/breakup tones. At times, I do like to dig in with a stiff pick, so perhaps it's just something that I particularly liked. It just felt natural to me. If that makes any sense.

studmissile interesting, wasn't aware of that. He certainly is a man who knows how to play the hype machine (whatever his pedal has to say about it).

studmissile I only came across the whole saga in the last few months so can only comment on the retellings. I'd agree that he didn't drive the hype directly, but he didn't do anything to defuse it either. ?

... and yes, it is strange that he never put out a mass market version, especially since the circuit was reverse engineered and there are now hundreds of klones floating around. I suppose that he wants to keep his name pure... or maybe he's tried and couldn't reach an agreement with any of the big producers.

One reason I enjoyed this story was that - the goop on the original Klon got him 15yrs of "copyright protection" - what I can't figure out is why pedals are allowed to be reverse engineered without (seemingly) any real protections - not that they'd apply in China...

But a nursery rhyme (Happy Birthday) or disney's threadbare mouse get's a literal lifetime+ worth of protection...

When copyright law was first codified in the United States pursuant to the United States Copyright Act, the copyright duration was limited to 14 years. Today, copyrights can last over 100 years. That’s a huge change, and there are an overwhelming number of copyright experts that will tell you that it is all because of a mouse.

I reckon it's more than fair that he got 15yrs of 'hype' outta it - FMR (from my reading), it doesn't seem he's been at all unreasonable about divulging details - albeit - after it was reversed engineered in 2009?

I suppose that the answer is that it's hard to copyright electronics. At a component and sub-circuit level, there is nothing in there that isn't found in other pedals and it's hard to copyright the way they work together because there are almost always other ways of achieving the same result.

The other thing that he did to protect himself was to buy out every single one of the magic diodes that he used, which means that while there are copies, they will never match the exact sound (apparently...can't verify this myself).

When I started looking at this stuff was very surprised at just how open source it actually is... how many tube screamer copies are there? How many fuzzes? It's almost like the entire industry decided not to bother.
Digital may be changing that because it's harder to reverse engineer.

The part of the story that really stands out for me is the early days when he was hand making his pedals in his kitchen and interviewing prospective clients, even really big names, before he'd agree to build them a pedal. That, coupled with the goop on the boards, is something that makes legends.

(A more cynical reply would be to say that Disney has more money to throw at copyright lawyers...)

Yeti it's hard to copyright the way they work together because there are almost always other ways of achieving the same result.

I can dig that - makes a kind of sense.

Still, I'm slightly perplexed how music is copyrighted. There's little doubt that Led Zepplin did rip a bit of a Taurus song off for the intro to Stairway - but the last one I saw of Ed Sheeran apparently ripping off Marvin Gaye (Let's get it on), was a little far reaching (though seemingly, the opinion was that's there is merit to the case).

U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton in Manhattan said he saw similarities between “Thinking Out Loud” and “Let’s Get It On,” including their bass lines, percussion, and “aesthetic appeal,” but a jury would have to decide if the harmonic rhythm of “Let’s Get It On” is too common to be protected.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2019/01/ed-sheeran-marvin-gaye-ed-townsand-thinking-out-loud-lets-get-it-on-copyright-suit-jurt

Thing is, it's fairly easy to reverse engineer a song - there's even courses on how to write backing tracks for adverts so you can "sound like" without infringing. And there's only so many possibilities (in tempered scale).

I think the way copyright is currently done is weird. Not that I have any better idea's!

Yeti The part of the story that really stands out for me is the early days when he was hand making his pedals in his kitchen and interviewing prospective clients, even really big names, before he'd agree to build them a pedal.

Absolutely - It's a great story - thoroughly enjoyed the readings around the history of it! ? In guitar terms is recently history too, which makes it even more appealing.

Yeti (A more cynical reply would be to say that Disney has more money to throw at copyright lawyers...)

? Preeetttyyy much! FMR, it was allegedly Disney's ability to pull strings via lobbyists ($$$) that got laws changed before certain works became public domain.

It's a topic that interests me - though I'd be better off playing than reading about it ?

Yeti We've drifted a bit...

I do that. A lot. I usually blame the drummer for the drifting...heh, sneaky bassist ? (P.s. When on guitar, I blame the bassist!)

Good vid - thanks!

Yeti Copyrights are a weird place.

Very. Our former challenge mod was studying (and now qualified, I believe) musical copyright law - it's been a topic that comes up now n then when we do challenges that may use something copyrighted - though it seems 'fair use' has been interpreted in a greyish area than black n white as the internet continues to -errr - mature. I recall a time when tabs were seen as infringements.

I rather enjoyed "Everything is a Remix"- circa 2015, longish watch @ 37m - I reckon he arrives at similar same place as Adam does.

Yeti should not be heard by a jury but rather by a panel of experts

I whole-heartedly agree! First hearing was - nah, not much there. 2nd hearing...okay that bass line is DAMN similar. 3rd hearing, after learning a bit of "Get it on" - bass line is derivative, but it's a aping of the bass player's style's not the song's harmony - the style and R&B tone makes the bass lines sound quite similar - but are they?

A fine line between imitation, inspiration and emulation.

wow... I hadn't followed the blurred lines case at all... that's actually scary.

So copyright is obviously important. You want the creator to be protected and to be properly remunerated for their work and creation... but used like this? That's just stifling creativity. The idea of fair use is there to prevent this of course but that is massively subjective.
Same is true with the way copyright is applied on YouTube... another Adam Neely video on the subject.

I'm hardly a legal expert but the thing that I can't quite get my head around is the idea that these 'infringing' songs are in any way damaging the originals (and here I'm very definitely referring to these cases). In order for that to be the case Got to Give It Up would have had to have lost sales or plays because people chose to listen to Blurred Lines instead... and I really really doubt that. In fact, if anything I'd expect that the similarities might have driven new audiences to listen to Marvin Gay for the first time.