Got a fun message today

He touts the buffer stage as being audiophile quality, and being the defining characteristic of the pedal, with the freq boosters added in for convenience. I don't have the frame of reference to make that judgement call, but I can tell you he wasn't happy about the "noisy" metal film resistors and "bargain" electrolytic caps I used... which was somewhat intentional. I used low ESR electrolytics instead of tantalums because I forgot I had the tants on hand. Also I'm not sure the normal ear can really tell the difference.
I've built stingray preamps and found tant vs electrolytic difference was noticeable.


so if the design is so so special and dependent on the cap type used and resistors - you've built a different pedal... with added metal film resistors for increased harmonics or something. As long as you use the "similar too" or "compare too" and are careful how you use the name of the thing (and I wouldn't use the company name) I really don't get what his problem is. It's not like the kinda person who would buy the original would want a Skeptical, the customer bases don't overlap - also - key difference I hear, the big version doesn't use the same high quality nylon white "tone" washer you have.....

and to be honest with you there's quite a few pedals I'ld go and buy the original without hearing it - just because people in the DIY space rave about it.
The skeptical sounded like a high headroom buffer with a higher-than-you-would-expect-input-impedance ...
 
Yeah idk, he was arguing that I shouldn't use the PPCB board because it's different and doesn't sound the same, but then he was also saying it's totally ok to take an existing design and just change a few components. Total contradiction. Then he suggested relisting the pedal without his brand name, but seeing these circuits out there "really bothers him." Why even say anything at that point?

What I don't get is he said metal film resistors were "noisy." They are actually quieter and have a tighter tolerance than carbon comps and carbon films..

I'll try out the tant/elec differences in a blind test someday, hopefully with a more exciting circuit than this
 
Yeah idk, there were many things that were registering on the BS meter, but when he got to that it became clear he was off his rocker.

When he first showed up he was throwing around claims that the trace was wrong.... which is fine, except at that point the PCB hadn't even been released yet. Unless this is your first day here you know damned good and well the schematic hadn't been posted yet.

So how did he know the trace was wrong before ever seeing it?
 
What I don't get is he said metal film resistors were "noisy." They are actually quieter and have a tighter tolerance than carbon comps and carbon films..
wtf. sounds like he was trying to pull one over you like you’re a dumb noob or something.
pretty disrespectful.
nek minut he’s gonna be claiming the ‘noisy’ copper traces are supposed to be gold plated to shield them from the boogeyman.
 
Man's over here putting disrespect on the Boogeyman's name. Everyone knows the Boogeyman comes for all PCB construction. That's why you're supposed to deadbug or point to point wire everything.
has anyone built one on vero?
bloke might go and have a full blown aneurysm
zJ4DvH.gif

He did mention that his steel enclosures shielded better than the typical alu hammond style
holy shit :ROFLMAO:
 
There are audiophools that truly believe that rocks on top of their speakers to help the clarity of the music, clean up high end etc. maybe you are missing some magic mojo rocks in it?

Here's the maker of these rocks. Haven't watched too much, as it's also a bit of a sad case, I suppose. That guy's not alright.

 
Last edited:
Then he suggested relisting the pedal without his brand name
to be fair to him. That's a fair ask, especially if it's in the title.

Also I think some of US trademark law requires you to actively defend your trademark in order to keep it - so he kinda HAS to ask you that.

but you could put in the listings something like "buffer portion of the circuit can be compared to the EUNA, but with a more effective power supply unit designed for common pedalboard power supplies and my own optimised part selection" or something like that, which is harder to argue against.
 
I used the actual names in the title and listing. My listing was reinstated 10 mins later with the brand name removed from the title but not the description. I read thru Reverb's listing guidelines and it specifically states trademarked names are not allowed to be used with clones. I looked up these names in the official US Trademark & Patent Office website. The names I used, that pertained to this item, are not listed as current, live, pending, or even expired trademarks. I checked a few other pedal companies and they are listed. I mentioned this in the conversation and it was weakly rebuffed. There were some other things that didn't add up but that's to be expected with something like this.

Just to add some gloss here:

I’ve not read the actual Reverb policy and question to see whether it talks about “trademarks“ or only “registered trademarks”. But, at least in the U.S., you absolutely have legally protectable trademark rights in a brand or product name under federal law even if you never attempt to register it with the USPTO or any corresponding state trademark authority. All that is needed is that you use the word or phrase to identify your product or service in commerce (i.e, you are offering it for sale). This is what the law terms to be “commonlaw trademark rights” and they are explicitly protected under federal law. In fact, if you attempt to register a trademark that someone else has already used in commerce without registering it, they have the right to oppose your trademark application or to get your trademark registration canceled (if you happened to get an actual registration). So the fact that this company didn’t apply for or get a trademark registration absolutely does not mean they don’t have a legally protectable trademark, so long as they can show that they’ve been using the name on products that they have been offering for the sale in the U.S.

Again, if the relevant Reverb policy limits this protection to only “registered” trademarks, that may be a different matter, as this would require that the trademark at issue be covered by a current trademark registration at the USPTO (or, at a minimum, under the trademark registration scheme of a given U.S. state).

Source: me, US attorney practicing trademark law since 1998. I often have to burst clients' bubbles when they tell me that they searched the USPTO database and conclude that the trademark they want is free for the taking just because it is not federally-registered.
 
Back
Top