DUMBLE CLONES BUILT IN NJ: See our website !
dr_...@hotmail.com
experience is now building Dumble Clones to order. I have (through
the web and reverse engineering), come up with what makes the Dumble
work. I have also refined parts of the circuit and power supply to
reduce noise and increase headroom, that Dumble is not presently
doing. The mod is based on the current Overdrive Special with tone
controls on OD output. I can build this into any Fender, Traynor,
Gibson, Boogie, Sunn, Sovtek, Marshall, Etc. Pricing starts are $
499.00 for basic version. This will soon be built and sold
commercially, so I won't be doing this for more than a year or two.
I've serviced amps for Ziggy Marley, George benson,
Ramones,Springstern, and others. No hack job. Premium parts, careful
craftsmanship , and warrantee.
see my website: www.audioweb.com/fuchsaudio
dr_...@hotmail.com
Barry King
they put it up for public consumption.
Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a000d'
Type mismatch: '[undefined]'
/Store/Store.asp, line 27
...and a host of others.
They certainly aren't doing you a service.
Barry
<dr_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38491db4...@news.erols.com...
Tremolux
>experience is now building Dumble Clones to order.
> I can build this into any Fender, Traynor,
>Gibson, Boogie, Sunn, Sovtek, Marshall, Etc
>No hack job.
Sounds like hacking up an existing amp to me. Your name Torres? Why not just
build from scratch and not butcher an existing amp?
BTW, if Howard gets wind of this, he'll probably come after you with both
barrels blazing and lawyers salivating. If you don't already have a lawyer,
you'll probably need one soon.
*You can guess what to remove from my email address to get rid of the spam
block.*
*Valid Targets:*
u...@ftc.gov
tos...@aol.com
xlog...@aol.com
mes...@aol.com
*****
--
x-no-archive: yes
Matt
can do?
Matt
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
epgu...@cajunnet.com
Crate.
On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 00:08:21 GMT, Matt <phine...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
|=>SonicVision<=|
hear a Dumble OD Special thru a 2 x 12" EVM 12-L cab. You'll get some
great music along with some wonderful guitar tones. Better still, go
see Robben live if you can. I saw him here in S. Cal a few months ago
touring behind his new album "Supernatural".
Matt <phine...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Does anyone know of any MP3s or RA files that have show what a Dumble
>can do?
>
>Matt
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
SonicVision
"The artist must yield himself to his own inspiration,
and if he has a true talent, no one knows and feels better
than he what suits him." - Giuseppe Verdi
deltablues
you what are considered to be classic amps so you can hack them into
your own interpretation of a Dumble Clone?If you're gonna build clone
amps, make your own from scratch components. Don't butcher a perfectly
good classic.
Are you one of those guys who sawed Blackface Super Reverbs down to just
a head back in the 70's?
> Established amplifier technician in Northern NJ with 25 years bench
> experience is now building Dumble Clones to order. I have (through
> the web and reverse engineering), come up with what makes the Dumble
> work. I have also refined parts of the circuit and power supply to
> reduce noise and increase headroom, that Dumble is not presently
> doing. The mod is based on the current Overdrive Special with tone
> controls on OD output. I can build this into any Fender, Traynor,
> Gibson, Boogie, Sunn, Sovtek, Marshall, Etc. Pricing starts are $
> 499.00 for basic version. This will soon be built and sold
> commercially, so I won't be doing this for more than a year or two.
> I've serviced amps for Ziggy Marley, George benson,
> Ramones,Springstern, and others. No hack job. Premium parts, careful
> craftsmanship , and warrantee.
>
> see my website: www.audioweb.com/fuchsaudio
>
--
"Blues ain't nothin but a good man feelin bad,
thinkin about the woman he once was with..."
http://www.deltabluesman.com
Steve
deltablues <getl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:823b1p$c76$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> This sounds like a Baaaaaaaaaaaaad idea. You're asking people to send
> you what are considered to be classic amps so you can hack them into
> your own interpretation of a Dumble Clone?If you're gonna build clone
> amps, make your own from scratch components. Don't butcher a perfectly
> good classic.
I don't see any references to "classics" ----he says "ANY" Fender, Sovtek
etc.
Tremolux
>etc.
"Any", would, by definition, include the classics.
Bad idea. Hack-butchery sucks. Let him build from scratch.
Tremolux
>you what are considered to be classic amps so you can hack them into
>your own interpretation of a
<snip>
Isn't this exactly what Torres does?
Maven Peal
David Zimmerman
Maven Peal Instruments, Inc.
Rich Koerner
Tremolux wrote:
>
> >Established amplifier technician in Northern NJ with 25 years bench
> >experience is now building Dumble Clones to order.
>
> > I can build this into any Fender, Traynor,
> >Gibson, Boogie, Sunn, Sovtek, Marshall, Etc
>
> >No hack job.
>
> Sounds like hacking up an existing amp to me. Your name Torres? Why not just
> build from scratch and not butcher an existing amp?
>
> BTW, if Howard gets wind of this, he'll probably come after you with both
> barrels blazing and lawyers salivating. If you don't already have a lawyer,
> you'll probably need one soon.
I, myself, would clearly have an "ethics" problem Trading off another
man's enterprise!!!
Not to mention the use of His Name in doing so for profit and/or gain.
Aside from the circuit design ownership issues, I expect there is
clearly another legal issue here. One of copyright or trademark.
This may be a Free Country, where people are free to do as they want.
But that's till lines are crossed, and the papers are served to appear
in court.
Regards,
Rich Koerner,
Time Electronics.
http://www.timeelect.com
Service * Repair * Modifications * Design Engineering
Live Sound & Studio Production
Tremolux
>man's enterprise!!!
Yeah, I hear you. No biggie building a one-off copy for your own personal use,
but selling them commercially is another story.
>Aside from the circuit design ownership issues,
Howard has not patented his circuits, so he may have limited recourse here.
>I expect there is
>clearly another legal issue here. One of copyright or trademark.
>
Trademark (his name) for sure. I suspect Howard could easily get an injunction
barring him from using the name "Dumble" in his advertising. I'm not sure
about any copyright matters.
>But that's till lines are crossed, and the papers are served to appear
>in court.
If this guy is serious about commercially selling amps he claims to be Howard
clones, I'm sure he'll end up on the receiving end of those "papers".
deltablues
>
> I don't see any references to "classics" ----he says "ANY" Fender,
Sovtek
> etc.
Look at his website. He's asking for people to send in Fenders and
Marshalls. And his reference to ANY, would include things like someone
who wants to hotrod a blackface super reverb or even something in tweed.
I say "break out the hangin rope..." ;)
J Orman
>Trademark (his name) for sure. I suspect Howard could easily get an
>injunction
>barring him from using the name "Dumble" in his advertising. I'm not sure
>about any copyright matters.
I did a quick search of the USPTO database and couldn't find "Dumble"
registered as a trademark. My layman's opinion is that there is very little
recourse against them for trademark, copyright or patent.
Just go to the local grocery and look at the drug shelves. See how many
store-brand copies of Tylenol or Sudafed or other trademarked consumer drugs
there are? Many times they also have shelf tags that say; "compare to the
ingredients in Benadryl" (or whatever). How many TV ads have you seen where
they will say: "its better than XYZ product"?
Unless the information to produce the copies was obtained illegally (probably
not since I could point you to the schematics), or a name trademark was
actually applied to the product in a manner so that the consumer could confuse
the copy with the original trademark (Dumble is not a trademark), or a patent
was violated (its not patented), there isn't much that can be done except for
nuisance lawsuits... and this happens quite often.
I don't see any 'magic' in the schematics that are online. Looks a lot like
some classic Fenders. I'm sure the Dumbles are excellent products, well-made
by a craftsman with a good ear for fine-tuning them. Therein lies the
difference.
****** best regards, JACK *******
***** Visit the ANALOG MUSIC ZONE *****
* Schematics * Information and music related files *
http://www.muzique.com/amz/index.html
x-no-archive: yes
justo...@hotmail.com
Nobody's asking for classic amps, nor am I forcing anyone to send
their amp to me ! Thanks to the many that have already !
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 07:18:26 -0800, "Steve" <qu...@sprintmail.com>
wrote:
>
>deltablues <getl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:823b1p$c76$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> This sounds like a Baaaaaaaaaaaaad idea. You're asking people to send
>> you what are considered to be classic amps so you can hack them into
>> your own interpretation of a Dumble Clone?If you're gonna build clone
>> amps, make your own from scratch components. Don't butcher a perfectly
>> good classic.
>
>
>I don't see any references to "classics" ----he says "ANY" Fender, Sovtek
>etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> > Established amplifier technician in Northern NJ with 25 years bench
>> > experience is now building Dumble Clones to order. I have (through
>> > the web and reverse engineering), come up with what makes the Dumble
>> > work. I have also refined parts of the circuit and power supply to
>> > reduce noise and increase headroom, that Dumble is not presently
>> > doing. The mod is based on the current Overdrive Special with tone
>> > controls on OD output. I can build this into any Fender, Traynor,
>> > Gibson, Boogie, Sunn, Sovtek, Marshall, Etc. Pricing starts are $
>> > 499.00 for basic version. This will soon be built and sold
>> > commercially, so I won't be doing this for more than a year or two.
>> > I've serviced amps for Ziggy Marley, George benson,
>> > Ramones,Springstern, and others. No hack job. Premium parts, careful
>> > craftsmanship , and warrantee.
>> >
>> > see my website: www.audioweb.com/fuchsaudio
>> >
>>
justo...@hotmail.com
Some thing's I must keep to myself.
On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 13:26:58 -0500, Maven Peal <ma...@peal.net> wrote:
>I'm curious... what are you doing to the power supply?
>
>David Zimmerman
>Maven Peal Instruments, Inc.
>
>dr_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
justo...@hotmail.com
Manufactured amps by spring !!!!!
On 01 Dec 1999 17:46:02 GMT, trem...@aol.com.no.uce (Tremolux) wrote:
>>I don't see any references to "classics" ----he says "ANY" Fender, Sovtek
>>etc.
>
>"Any", would, by definition, include the classics.
> Bad idea. Hack-butchery sucks. Let him build from scratch.
>
>
>
>
>
justo...@hotmail.com
No, Torres amps sound like dirt.....
On 01 Dec 1999 17:47:11 GMT, trem...@aol.com.no.uce (Tremolux) wrote:
>>This sounds like a Baaaaaaaaaaaaad idea. You're asking people to send
>>you what are considered to be classic amps so you can hack them into
>>your own interpretation of a
>
><snip>
>
>Isn't this exactly what Torres does?
>
>
>
>
justo...@hotmail.com
Perhaps we'll call them "inspired" by the work of Dumble .....
On 02 Dec 1999 01:02:53 GMT, trem...@aol.com.no.uce (Tremolux) wrote:
>>I, myself, would clearly have an "ethics" problem Trading off another
>>man's enterprise!!!
>
>Yeah, I hear you. No biggie building a one-off copy for your own personal use,
>but selling them commercially is another story.
>
>>Aside from the circuit design ownership issues,
>
>Howard has not patented his circuits, so he may have limited recourse here.
>
>>I expect there is
>>clearly another legal issue here. One of copyright or trademark.
>>
>
>Trademark (his name) for sure. I suspect Howard could easily get an injunction
>barring him from using the name "Dumble" in his advertising. I'm not sure
>about any copyright matters.
>
>>But that's till lines are crossed, and the papers are served to appear
>>in court.
>
>If this guy is serious about commercially selling amps he claims to be Howard
>clones, I'm sure he'll end up on the receiving end of those "papers".
>
>
>
>
>
justo...@hotmail.com
You don't know that I'm not a craftsman do you ? And BTW, Dumble
appears to not be copyrighted. I own Dumble.com (just for
speculation).
On 02 Dec 1999 12:57:32 GMT, jor...@aol.comNOSPAM (J Orman) wrote:
>Disclaimer: not that I agree with the business practices of the cloners, but...
>
>>Trademark (his name) for sure. I suspect Howard could easily get an
>>injunction
>>barring him from using the name "Dumble" in his advertising. I'm not sure
>>about any copyright matters.
>
Matt
hard for the "masses" to come by more accessible, but plagiarizing and
then hiding details like they're *your* secrets is horseshit.
--
Matt
In article <384971e2...@news.erols.com>,
justo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Some thing's I must keep to myself.
Darren
> I own Dumble.com (just for
>speculation).
>
Start putting on excessive weight yet ? Gonna have to do it if you
wanna be like Howard.
--
Darren
Maven Peal
David Zimmerman
Maven Peal Instruments, Inc.
justo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Some thing's I must keep to myself.
>
Lord Valve
>>I did a quick search of the USPTO database and couldn't find "Dumble"
>>registered as a trademark. My layman's opinion is that there is very >>little
recourse against them for trademark, copyright or patent.
>Not necessarily. Trade dress and other infringements are possible recourses
>against copycats.
Lord Valve Speaketh:
In many cases, all that is needed is proof of prior use in interstate
commerce. Piece of cake for Dumble, I'd say.
Lord Valve
VISIT MY WEBSITE: http://www.freeyellow.com/members2/lord-valve/
Good tube FAQ for newbies. Click the e-mail link and join my
SPAM LIST; just put "SPAM ME" in the header and I'll sign you
up. (If you only want a set of e-mail catalogs, put "CATS ONLY"
in the header.) I specialize in top quality HAND-SELECTED NOS and
current-production vacuum tubes for guitar and bass amps. Good
prices, fast service. TONS of gear and parts in stock...let's DEAL!
NBS Electronics, 230 South Broadway, Denver, CO 80209-1510
Phone orders/tech support after 1:00 PM Denver time at 303-778-1156
NOW ACCEPTING VISA AND MASTERCARD
CHAT WITH LORD VALVE: Log onto any DALnet server and join
channel #CONELRAD. Look for me there most any night after
11:00 PM Denver (Mountain) time. Guitar-amp questions and
what-have-you are welcome.
"I wish you were a beer. I wish you were a beer. I wish you
were a beer. Shut up." - The Cycle Sluts from Hell
deltablues
> Nobody's asking for classic amps, nor am I forcing anyone to send
> their amp to me ! Thanks to the many that have already !
So if I send you my blackface vibrolux reverb will you add the Dumble
mod to it for me?
--
"Blues ain't nothin but a good man feelin bad,
thinkin about the woman he once was with..."
http://www.deltabluesman.com
deltablues
Marshall, etc, Amp puts you in the same league as Torres. He also has no
moral dilemma's with hacking a 64 Super Reverb or Marshall Plexi.
And BTW, it's kinda bad form to start knocking another Amp
Manufacturer's amps when you don't even make "your own" yet...
> No, Torres amps sound like dirt.....
>
> ><snip>
> >
> >Isn't this exactly what Torres does?
> >
deltablues
releasing the info since it's already protected.
Oh, and BTW, anyone here can look you up in the online US Patent
archives and see if you're bullshitting or not. And if you actually do
have a patent, all the information will be listed there anyway.
> I'm sorry... but not if they infringe on my power supply patents.
>
> David Zimmerman
> Maven Peal Instruments, Inc.
>
> justo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Some thing's I must keep to myself.
> >
> > On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 13:26:58 -0500, Maven Peal <ma...@peal.net>
wrote:
> >
> > >I'm curious... what are you doing to the power supply?
> > >
--
deltablues
>
> Manufactured amps by spring !!!!!
>
Last time I checked, all the parts, cabinets, and speakers to build most
anything are already on the market. Why not do it now and save the world
from another bunch of Torres inspired hacks on otherwise classic amps.
nuke
>registered as a trademark. My layman's opinion is that there is very little
>recourse against them for trademark, copyright or patent.
Not necessarily. Trade dress and other infringements are possible recourses
against copycats.
--
Dr. Nuketopia
When replying, please note that your email is *not* spam in the subject line.
Rev. J.
> > I don't see any references to "classics" ----he says "ANY" Fender,
> Sovtek
> > etc.
whooohoooo!!!! now i can send that crate soildstate to him and get a
overdrive special back!!! and at a savings of around $15,000...
don't let peavey in on this, they might market a Trans-Dumble...
haha..
j.
J Orman
>>Not necessarily. Trade dress and other infringements are possible recourses
>>against copycats.
Unlikely. I think that it would be extremely hard for D* to make a case. Anyone
ever seen a D* advertisement? You would also have to prove that the infringer
has created confusion with the consumer so that the clone product would be
mistaken for the original. That's why you usually see disclaimers on the back
of generic brand drugs. It would be hard to mistake a modded Fender for one of
the unique HD originals.
Generic store brands of products from food to insecticides to sinus drugs are
sold everyday, in duplicate packaging with ingredients exactly like the
originals, and usually positioned on the store shelves right next to the
national brand.
D* could certainly sue. He would find it very difficult to win, and in the end,
only the lawyers profit from the situation.A well positioned disclaimer would
de-fuse the potential liability even further for the cloners.
As you well know, it takes more than a schematic to reproduce a sound, even in
something as simple as a stompbox, and is even more dificult in an amp. Also,
if they are working from the online schematics, there are errors in them.
Choice of components, parts layout, lead dress, transformer and much much more
go into making the *magic* sound.
[rant mode on]
IMHO, time should be spent more creatively for the cloners in refining an amp
sound that they could call their own rather than the very difficult task of
trying to duplicate someone else's sound.
[rant mode off] ;)
dr_...@hotmail.com
No I don't recommend nor endorse hacking up a 'classic' amp. I suggest
you buy a nice used Silverface amp, and have the mod done.
On Fri, 03 Dec 1999 00:34:31 GMT, deltablues <getl...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
dr_...@hotmail.com
If this were true, Dumble would have chased the Mystic Blues AMp
manufacturers already. Or the guy who's cloning them in Denmark (?).
On 03 Dec 1999 02:13:47 GMT, lar...@aol.comNOspahm (nuke) wrote:
>>I did a quick search of the USPTO database and couldn't find "Dumble"
>>registered as a trademark. My layman's opinion is that there is very little
>>recourse against them for trademark, copyright or patent.
>
dr_...@hotmail.com
Wow, an amp guru AND an attorney too !
On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 23:35:31 -0700, Lord Valve
<detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>nuke wrote:
>
>>>I did a quick search of the USPTO database and couldn't find "Dumble"
>>>registered as a trademark. My layman's opinion is that there is very >>little
>recourse against them for trademark, copyright or patent.
>
>>Not necessarily. Trade dress and other infringements are possible recourses
>>against copycats.
>
>
dr_...@hotmail.com
My website text clearly says "inspired by the work of....."
On 03 Dec 1999 12:46:40 GMT, jor...@aol.comNOSPAM (J Orman) wrote:
>LV wrote:
>
>>>Not necessarily. Trade dress and other infringements are possible recourses
>>>against copycats.
>
dr_...@hotmail.com
Righton dude ! The funniest part of the whole thing is that K+K,
Bruno, and others have been copying DUmble for years now. Boogie is a
Fender CLone (but Randall will deny it until he dies), it silly. These
amps have become so unreachable $-wise anyway, it doesn't even end up
in the same league. I will be building new amps (from scratch)
available by spring, with the "inspired" circuitry of my mods.
On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 22:56:17 GMT, Matt <phine...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
Gil Ayan
Court's jurisdiction. And the Mystic Blues... to buy one you have to wire
money to a European bank account, no name, no country, no nothing. On the
other hand, you are in the U.S., you put up a web site and you have spammed
all over this newsgroup and managed to catch quite a bit of flack in record
time. If Dumble decided to go after you, I think he would have a fairly
reasonable chance:
1. You have registered the Dumble.com domain in your name, and a record of
that exists, period. Alittle injunction will make that available to
Dumble's counsel in 48 hours, tops.
2. By your own admission, you are in the US and people know who you are.
You cited references, which are well-known names and could easily be
subpeoned. You have used Dumble's anme here, and a record of every post is
etched foerever... and how many witnesses? :)
3. I wouldn't be surprised if someone forwarded your private information to
Dumble himself. You have to remember that the very same people who sell
your parts and tubes, probably sell Dumble parts and tubes too. What if
Dumble expalined the situation to one of the vendors and they end up
agreeing to give him your personal contact information?
4. A couple of stray lawyers here might even volunteer to represent Dumble
Pro Bono.
Don't underestimate the power of the Internet, the same means by which you
were able to acquire Dumble information may be the very thing to put you out
of business yourself. I know you haven't asked for my advice on this
matter, but I will just give it to you: if I were you, I'd start maintaining
a low profile in this newsgroup -- this is a place that, more often than
not, is populated with people with good ethics and with little tolerance for
spam. Again, don't underestimate the power of this forum.
Good luck to you. I hope you re-consider you approach and maybe you will
develop something new and unique and you will not need any controversial
techniques to bring out to the world a good product.
Cheers,
Gil
dr_...@hotmail.com wrote in message <3849c0a0...@news.erols.com>...
>
>If this were true, Dumble would have chased the Mystic Blues AMp
>manufacturers already. Or the guy who's cloning them in Denmark (?).
>
>
>On 03 Dec 1999 02:13:47 GMT, lar...@aol.comNOspahm (nuke) wrote:
>
>>>I did a quick search of the USPTO database and couldn't find "Dumble"
>>>registered as a trademark. My layman's opinion is that there is very
little
>>>recourse against them for trademark, copyright or patent.
>>
Tremolux
>hand, there is a lot less black magic into making an amp than some people
>lead others to believe.
>
<snip>
An excellent, well thought out and spoken post. I wish I could do as well.
Now can we all just move on and take care of business, and let this drop?
Thanks.
*You can guess what to remove from my email address to get rid of the spam
block.*
*Valid Targets:*
u...@ftc.gov
tos...@aol.com
xlog...@aol.com
mes...@aol.com
*****
--
x-no-archive: yes
AT
>
>If this were true, Dumble would have chased the Mystic Blues AMp
>manufacturers already. Or the guy who's cloning them in Denmark (?).
>
I hope Dumble would take it as a compliment. The only amps that
builders usually clone are the most classic Fenders and Marshalls.
If people are cloning Dumble amps, clearly he has done something a
cut above the rest of his competition. I can think of no higher
compliment to a company.
AT
wrote:
>The fact that your website plainly states that you'll take ANY Fender,
>Marshall, etc, Amp puts you in the same league as Torres. He also has no
>moral dilemma's with hacking a 64 Super Reverb or Marshall Plexi.
>
>And BTW, it's kinda bad form to start knocking another Amp
>Manufacturer's amps when you don't even make "your own" yet...
As long as there are no laws against modify classic amps what the
hell does it matter? If some jerk wants to hack a classic amp it's
their's to hack up.
If some nutcase buys a Van Gogh painting and then throws acid all
over it and ruins it, that's his call...
It's not Dr Tones fault if some idiot sends him a classic amp to
hack on...
Tremolux
>hack on...
Bullshit. Contributing to the stupidity of an idiot. If some moron sends him
a classic amp, and if he goes ahead and hack-butchers it, it most certainly is
his fault, and puts him squarely in the same category as Torres. He has every
right to refuse to be a hack-butcher. I have turned down work where some ass
wanted an amp hacked.
Pete Greenwood
your permission or monetary compensation, you'd consider it a compliment,
right?
AT <at7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38481ad5....@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
Mike G
patches. i don't see the big deal. Nearly all the boutique amp builders
out there are cloning either a Fender or Marshall sound
>
> >
> >If this were true, Dumble would have chased the Mystic Blues AMp
> >manufacturers already. Or the guy who's cloning them in Denmark (?).
> >
>
dr_...@hotmail.com
Perhaps because I don't want to be a builder of the same Fender Clone
vintage copy stuff thats being made already. I plan on my own chassis
and cabinets.
On Fri, 03 Dec 1999 13:47:54 GMT, deltablues <getl...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
AT
<peteSPICED-...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>So, if you wrote a song and someone else published it for profit without the
>your permission or monetary compensation, you'd consider it a compliment,
>right?
>
>
Wrong. If I built amps and other people were trying to clone them it
would be a compliment. I don't see how anyone could argue with that.
The royalties and copyrights are another issue. I agree that one Dr.
Tone guy crossed the line into lawsuit territory.
"Inspired bye Dumble", "Comparaible to Dumble", "Made in the tradition
of Dumble" would be okay to me personally.
He should not market them as "Dumble Clones", as that is clearly
using the Dumble name to increase his profits. And using dumble.com is
also way out of line.
Tremolux
>also way out of line.
Agreed. Here's his info from register.com:
=================================
Registrant:
Fuchs Audio Technology
73 Collins Ave
Bloomfield, NJ 07003
US
Registrar..: Register.com (http://www.register.com)
Domain Name: dumble.com
Created on..............: Tue, Sep 28, 1999
Expires on..............: Thu, Sep 27, 2001
Record last updated on..: Tue, Sep 28, 1999
Administrative Contact:
Fuchs, Andy afu...@erols.com
973-495-3132
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Internic, Registrar intern...@register.com
212-594-9880
Domain servers in listed order:
DNS11.REGISTER.COM 209.67.50.233
DNS12.REGISTER.COM 209.67.50.234
==================================
It's called "cybersquatting". There is legal precident already, whereby if
Howard wanted to take this away from him, he could do so easily. If Howard
objects, let Howard take care of this on his own.
>"Inspired bye Dumble", "Comparaible to Dumble", "Made in the tradition
>of Dumble" would be okay to me personally.
>He should not market them as "Dumble Clones", as that is clearly
>using the Dumble name to increase his profits
Agreed.
Tremolux
>patches.
That may be a trademark issue. If they have permission, then it's no biggie.
If not, I believe that Fender and Marshall could legally prevent them from
doing that.
Using someone elses' personal name or recognized product name to promote a
competing product is questionable. IMO, Andy should revise his advertisements.
Richard
> Many thanks to the person who felt it neccessary to put all this
> information online.
The information is already on line. Records for all domains are
publically available to anybody.
--
Disclaimer: These are simply some of my personal opinions.
UPDATED 10/7/99 http://home.earthlink.net/~huddler
dr_...@hotmail.com
I said I owned dumble.com. I didn't say I planned on using it. Theres
a big difference. See previous response to maven peale guy. I started
with Dumbles topology and circuit, and have evolved from it. So has
Bruno, K & K and surely others. As stated in my little "vision
statement", I was the only guy who had the b_lls to simply state what
I did. It makes the sound obtainable for less than the 10K or so it
takes to get it elsewhere. Imitation was the sincerest form a flattery
at one time was it not ?
On Sat, 04 Dec 1999 18:30:57 GMT, at7...@hotmail.com (AT) wrote:
>On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 16:52:11 -0600, "Pete Greenwood"
><peteSPICED-...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>So, if you wrote a song and someone else published it for profit without the
>>your permission or monetary compensation, you'd consider it a compliment,
>>right?
>>
>>
>
> Wrong. If I built amps and other people were trying to clone them it
>would be a compliment. I don't see how anyone could argue with that.
>
> The royalties and copyrights are another issue. I agree that one Dr.
>Tone guy crossed the line into lawsuit territory.
>
>"Inspired bye Dumble", "Comparaible to Dumble", "Made in the tradition
>of Dumble" would be okay to me personally.
>
> He should not market them as "Dumble Clones", as that is clearly
>using the Dumble name to increase his profits. And using dumble.com is
dr_...@hotmail.com
done after I stopped kicking myself in the ass about not buying
Danelectro.com, when I had the chance. Perhaps it's cyber squatting,
but nobody seems to know a) If Dumble even owns a computer. b) even
cares c) and as previously stated, I am not using the site.
Many thanks to the person who felt it neccessary to put all this
information online.
On 04 Dec 1999 20:17:53 GMT, trem...@aol.com.no.uce (Tremolux) wrote:
>>And using dumble.com is
>>also way out of line.
>
>>"Inspired bye Dumble", "Comparaible to Dumble", "Made in the tradition
>>of Dumble" would be okay to me personally.
>>He should not market them as "Dumble Clones", as that is clearly
>>using the Dumble name to increase his profits
>
>
>Agreed.
Tremolux
>done after I stopped kicking myself in the ass about not buying
>Danelectro.com,
Why bother? There is legal precidence that cybersquatters (like you) will LOSE
in court. You will not be able to ransom that name to Howard if he wants it.
Ditto had you squatted on the Dano name, they could simply take it from you.
You end up paying for the registration fee, plus your lawyer's fees, just to
lose in court. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, unless you got more
money than brains and like to give it to lawyers.
>Many thanks to the person who felt it neccessary to put all this
>information online.
It's publically available on register.com.
*You can guess what to remove from my email address to get rid of the spam
block.*
*Valid Targets:*
u...@ftc.gov
tos...@aol.com
xlog...@aol.com
mes...@aol.com
*****
--
x-no-archive: yes
RonSonic
Wait a minute. Are you presuming that because this man claims to have
improved a power supply that he must, inevitably, have risked infringing on
your patent?
I'm not *that* sure that this is what you intended to convey. Sure stinks
like it.
Or are you one of these dickheads that's been out there patenting common
knowledge electronic designs and gambling on a settlement in court?
Otherwise there are a few hundred things that could be done to improve a
power supply, and I'm sure even you will concede that you didn't fucking
invent ALL of them.
Ron
Maven Peal <ma...@peal.net> wrote in message
news:3846AAD4...@peal.net...
> I'm sorry... but not if they infringe on my power supply patents.
>
> David Zimmerman
> Maven Peal Instruments, Inc.
>
> justo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Some thing's I must keep to myself.
> >
> > On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 13:26:58 -0500, Maven Peal <ma...@peal.net> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm curious... what are you doing to the power supply?
> > >
> > >David Zimmerman
> > >Maven Peal Instruments, Inc.
> > >
> > >dr_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> Established amplifier technician in Northern NJ with 25 years bench
> > >> experience is now building Dumble Clones to order. I have (through
> > >> the web and reverse engineering), come up with what makes the Dumble
> > >> work. I have also refined parts of the circuit and power supply to
> > >> reduce noise and increase headroom, that Dumble is not presently
> > >> doing. The mod is based on the current Overdrive Special with tone
> > >> controls on OD output. I can build this into any Fender, Traynor,
> > >> Gibson, Boogie, Sunn, Sovtek, Marshall, Etc. Pricing starts are $
> > >> 499.00 for basic version. This will soon be built and sold
> > >> commercially, so I won't be doing this for more than a year or two.
> > >> I've serviced amps for Ziggy Marley, George benson,
> > >> Ramones,Springstern, and others. No hack job. Premium parts, careful
> > >> craftsmanship , and warrantee.
> > >>
> > >> see my website: www.audioweb.com/fuchsaudio
>
RonSonic
deltablues <getl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:828hm9$4ka$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> >
> > Manufactured amps by spring !!!!!
> >
>
> Last time I checked, all the parts, cabinets, and speakers to build most
> anything are already on the market. Why not do it now and save the world
> from another bunch of Torres inspired hacks on otherwise classic amps.
Yeah, like what the world cannot live without is another fucking Tweed
Deluxe or Bassman clone. Not that I am a big fan of Andy's at this point.
I am learning what is involved in developing an amp for market and building
something unique. There is much more to it than picking stuff off the New
Sensor website.
I cannot imagine where this venom against modding an amp comes from. These
are amps, parts of a musical instrument called an electric guitar. SOme are
great, some stink, some are valuable and most ain't. NONE of them are
sacred. Now some mods are just fucking stupid, so the guy who wants it
suffers from having made a bad decision - so what is that to you or me.
Should we advise against some of this, sure, offer advice that's what we do
here. But damn, modding an amp isn't evil or anything. At worst it is
"ill-advised."
Anyway, that's my rant quota for this Sunday.
Ron
dr_...@hotmail.com
HOLD IT ! I need to defend David. Although I too, took his 'tone' to
be the way you did, his e-mail to me, and responses were totally
geniune and not one bit like your statement. He is entitled to
question what someone is doing, especially if it's power supply
related. Yes, Peavey, Randall Smith and others have done exactly what
you stated (I thought I was the only on ewho felt this way !), but I
don;t think Dave's patent is at all like that. While I don't
neccessarily agree with his design viewpoint, his circuit is unique
and differentl. The sucky thing about patents ( I have a few buddys
who have fought this), is not getting one as much as defending one. So
you patented a better ratchet wrench, Sears could start making it, and
not stop till you could legally make them say 'uncle. Just like the
delay-wiper guy. By time he won his money, he was too old to enjoy it
!. It'd rather make money selling products (maybe glopping them like
DUmble for that matter), instead of the time and money a patent might
take anyway.....
Maven Peal
> Wait a minute. Are you presuming that because this man claims to have
> improved a power supply that he must, inevitably, have risked infringing on
> your patent?
>
> I'm not *that* sure that this is what you intended to convey. Sure stinks
> like it.
>
> Or are you one of these dickheads that's been out there patenting common
> knowledge electronic designs and gambling on a settlement in court?
>
> Otherwise there are a few hundred things that could be done to improve a
> power supply, and I'm sure even you will concede that you didn't fucking
> invent ALL of them.
>
> Ron
>
Hi Ron. No, I don't think I invented all of the improvements that can be made to
a power supply, but I did come up with a new power supply design for musical
instrument amplifiers that is truly new and different. I have spent the last
four or five years working to license my patents, but I can't get any of the big
guys to change from the basic power supply design that everyone has been making
since Fender's first K&F. So when I heard Dr. Tone say that he was modifying the
power supply, I did get a little nervous.
And thank you Dr. Tone, for your kind words. I apologize to the new group for
coming across negatively with my initial question. I just got nervous hearing
that someone was modifying the power supply, as after five years of trying, I've
learned to be diligent.
David Zimmerman
Maven Peal Instruments, Inc.
888-340-PEAL
P.S. The people at Peavey told me that they had a good time dissolving Dumble's
glop... be careful.
deltablues
> I totally agree... He only performs the mods on the amp that is sent
to
> him. He doesn't actually control what kind of amp they send him. Hell,
> if I had a tweed amp that I hated, I'd send it to him! Who gives a
shit!
> It's only a piece of machinery. Do you guys bitch and moan when
someone
> hacks up a '39 chevy coupe to make a Beautiful street rod??? As for
the
> Man who's doing the mods, go for it! Good luck to you in your
endeavors!
> -Jeremy
Well this kind of idiocy is the reason why most LEGITIMATE amp techs
don't do this kind of work. Just because someone has the money to buy a
classic amp, doesn't necessarily mean they've got any brains.
There are a finite number of classic amps left. If the 70's taught us
anything, it was that the mentality of, "it's my 59 Bassman, I can make
it sound like a Mesa Boogie if I want", wasn't a good practice. It
severely reduced the numbers of original amps during those times and
even now. The kinds of mods "dr_bone" is endorsing aren't reversible,
therefore they're considered HACKS.
Unless he "wants" to become one of Torres's peers, he should consider
making his mods on amps made from scratch. Not piggy backing some
crap-wannabe-dumble-guess-mods on top of original designs.
--
"Blues ain't nothin but a good man feelin bad,
thinkin about the woman he once was with..."
http://www.deltabluesman.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
deltablues
> No I don't recommend nor endorse hacking up a 'classic' amp. I suggest
> you buy a nice used Silverface amp, and have the mod done.
Then maybe you should add the above disclaimer to your site instead of
saying you take ANY amp.
deltablues
> I cannot imagine where this venom against modding an amp comes from.
These
> are amps, parts of a musical instrument called an electric guitar.
SOme are
> great, some stink, some are valuable and most ain't. NONE of them are
> sacred.
Hmmmm, if you think most classic amps and electric guitars aren't
valuable, then you've been living in a cave for the last 20 years.
Strats and Pauls prior to 1970 are through the roof. Blackface amps are
going up on an annual basis. A tweed fender CHAMP goes for $450. What
planet are "you" living on?
> Now some mods are just fucking stupid, so the guy who wants
it
> suffers from having made a bad decision - so what is that to you or
me.
I'll tell you what it is to you or me. If every lawyer that has more
money than talent goes out and buys a tweed 59 bassman. And then 50% of
those guys decide that adding multiple gain stages like a 5150 would be
cool, plus toss the jensens and put in EV's for more volume. Then when
you or I have saved our pennies to finally buy that 59 bassman we've
always dreamed of, it's no longer around $2000. Now it's $4000. And
while you're saving your pennies to come up with the higher cost,
another group of cash rich and braincell starved individuals decide to
buy more bassmans and cut them into heads since they're too heavy to
carry around... See where I'm going here?
I know this is somewhat exaggerated. But if someone like dr_bone is left
unchallenged to irreversibly damage amps that are of a finite number.
Then it drives prices higher and makes the number of amps available
dwindle.
If he wants to build Dumble clones, that's great. But he should make his
clones from scratch. Not piggy back them on someone elses design.
> Should we advise against some of this, sure, offer advice that's what
we do
> here. But damn, modding an amp isn't evil or anything. At worst it
is
> "ill-advised."
No, I wouldn't say trying to make a 59 Bassman into a Mesa Boogie is
evil. I'd say it falls more into the realm of EXTREME stupidity. But
typically, someone THAT stupid doesn't have the mental capacity or
wherewithall to carry out that type of butchery. So the last line of
defense is the amp tech to which he takes the amp for the mod. And
thankfully, most amp techs have some scruples when it comes to
destroying classic designs. UNfortunately, dr_bone doesn't seem to be
one of them.
RonSonic
<dr_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:384af44c...@news.erols.com...
>
> HOLD IT ! I need to defend David. Although I too, took his 'tone' to
> be the way you did, his e-mail to me, and responses were totally
> geniune and not one bit like your statement.
Fair enough. His private conversation with you probably read a lot better
than this one. He'll agree it seems that there is a long way between
"improving" a PS and going to a completely regluated system as his seems to
be.
> Yes, Peavey, Randall Smith and others have done exactly what
> you stated (I thought I was the only on ewho felt this way !), but I
> don;t think Dave's patent is at all like that.
I really have not studied his patents - everything I know about them leads
me to believe they are truly novel - I can't pretend to know all that he has
invented or patented.
Just seemed that one would have needed to patent a lot of common practice to
be able to presume an interest in an unknown improvement. Yes, in tube
audio there are a lot of patents going out for things that the old timers
just knew. Hardly blame Dumble for the attempt at secrecy, most of this
stuff really isn't patentable so the protection is in trade secrets,
remaining a moving target and building things of a quality that doesn't lend
itself to imitation.
And yes, I am a bit cranky today.
Ron
Barry King
this particular thread, other than being disgusted by the few who like to
take pot shots at innovative individuals from behind the anonymity of a
keyboard, your original post did not come across as confrontational through
my "filters". It was direct and to the point and contained enough
accompanying clues that lead me to believe you supported "Dr. Tone"'s
endeavors so long as he didn't step on you rightful domain, the Mavin Peal
power supply. This is reasonable and justifiable. It was, unlike the bulk
of this ridiculous thread, mature.
You (and Mr. Fuchs in this thread) took a whole pile of unjustified crap
from some of these same people. You were accused of being arrogant and a
bunch of other nonsense which led me to question if I was reading the same
newsgroup messages that everyone else had been.
Hats off to you and Andy Fuchs for remaining gentleman while under flaming
duress from those far less deserving.
Non carborundum illigitimi.
Regards,
Barry
Maven Peal <ma...@peal.net> wrote in message
news:384B101E...@peal.net...
dr_...@hotmail.com
I (like the many who e-mailed me) am happy these flames have subsided
for the most part. I did feel it necessary to address this issue of
being a hack.
The example used here is most certainly extreme. Anyone who would buy
a tweed '59 Bassman, and do this type of mod to it should be hit over
their head with the amp, then a neutral third party should stick the
amp where the sun doesn;t shine (on the modifier). Standing right
behind them would be the nut who would spend $ 450.00 on a Champ.
Unless it was a prototype that Leo wired himself, I can't see the
worth. Although in some hands it could produce some interesting tones,
it's far from a versitile product. It was (and remains) mostly a
practice amplifier.
On to the subject of hacking. It struck me (at 2.00 am last nite) that
both Dumble (on Fenders) and Randall Smith (On Princetons) were (based
on Tremoluxes posts) hackers ! I guess I'm in pretty good company.
Now, I have stressed here that I am selective. I would not modify
anything considered sacred,rare or classic. I have modified a number
of silverface Fenders (you know, the ones with the master volume
designed by the hearing imparied ?!?!?) , and produced a versitile,
toneful, and useful amplifier, where before there really wasn't much
of an amp to begin with. I didn't feel bad about it either. I made a
few bucks (to support my manufacturing hopefully), and made a happy
customer as well.
I started in tube amplifiers over 20 years ago, and (through my own
company GSI), sold parts for, or modified an estimated 2 to 3 thousand
Dynaco Stereo-70's, MK-3's and others, for enhanced performance, well
above their stock performance. I allowed owners to gain the benefit of
solidly made chassis, and decent transformers, at moderate cost. While
these amps are considered classics, they are (or were) cheap and
plentiful. I turned down many who wanted MacIntoshes modified because
I had (and still have) a conscience.
Of the few who forced me (I regret giving in to some degree/thank god
it only happended once or twice) I modified their amps without
drilling, punching, or mutilation. I used an outboard chassis for
additional power supply parts, and upgraded internal parts, but you
would certainly be able to reverse these mods.
In any case, thanks for the e-mails (most of which ran quite
positive), and lets all enjoy the holidays and the new millenium....
Tubes Y2K since the beginning...... af
On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 13:02:33 GMT, deltablues <getl...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
RonSonic
deltablues <getl...@my-deja.com> wrote
> SOme are
> > great, some stink, some are valuable and most ain't. NONE of them are
> > sacred.
>
> Hmmmm, if you think most classic amps and electric guitars aren't
> valuable, then you've been living in a cave for the last 20 years.
> Strats and Pauls prior to 1970 are through the roof. Blackface amps are
> going up on an annual basis. A tweed fender CHAMP goes for $450. What
> planet are "you" living on?
I don't see the word "Classic" to describe any amps in my paragraph you are
responding to. I merely said amps: a few are valuable, most aren't. A
"classic amp" more or less by definition is valuable. There are vastly more
OLD amps than there are classics.
> thankfully, most amp techs have some scruples when it comes to
> destroying classic designs. UNfortunately, dr_bone doesn't seem to be
> one of them.
Come on the guy is trying to sell his services and he (accepted at face
value) has valuable services to sell. He is offering to mod amps, based on
his personal experience and knowledge. Now how much shit would he be
getting if he said, "My services are available to modify only those amps
which I deem to be suitable." Get the difference, if he says "I'll mod
anything," he offends all 9 of the vintage police and only the few
individuals he tells on a one by one basis to not send an amp. If he says
"*I* shall determine whether your amp deserves my efforts" then he pisses
off more people. Besides, do your really want him to say "there are 40 year
old student model amps that are so good that they are beyond my ability to
improve them." Might be true in terms of investment potential, but it had
better not be true musically.
Do think you are reading more into his solicitation for business than is
there.
Ron
Danny Russell
Maven Peal wrote:
> SNIP
> P.S. The people at Peavey told me that they had a good time dissolving Dumble's
> glop... be careful.
Uh, oh. Upon purchase, (as of 4/15/90) Dumble requires a signature to a security
agreement excluding the purchaser from selling or transferring the amp to a third
party, dissallowing the amp to be opened for service or inspection by any one other
than H.Alexander Dumble himself, and dissallowing the legit owner of the amp to
inadvertently or otherwise leave the amp vunerable to theft. -Danny
Gil Ayan
not allow the amp to be opened by people whom you know will try to copy it,
or sell it to people who you know will want to reverse engineer it. I have
the Dumble documents I got in 1994 from Mr Dumble himself posted in my web
site, including the security agreement form. Feel free to go and read
it... my URL is http://home.earthlink.net/~ayan and the Dumble Docs are
listed in the "LINKS" section.
Gil
Danny Russell wrote in message <384BE89C...@flash.net>...
Tremolux
>making his mods on amps made from scratch.
You should see the Torres love fest going on over at Ampage. He has a couple
real disciples over there. Most people know better, but there's always a
couple of morons who have yet to see the light.
Pete Greenwood
RonSonic <rba...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:VTP24.215$fw....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> Besides, do your really want him to say "there are 40 year
> old student model amps that are so good that they are beyond my ability to
> improve them." Might be true in terms of investment potential, but it had
> better not be true musically.
>
Not many amps out there that have proven to have any substantial investment
value. Even the most desirable of vintage amps, over the long haul, have
proven to be sluggish investments.
Allow me to illustrate. The Deluxe Reverb in 1964 sold for about $299 new.
A really nice one today could fetch as much as $1400. Sounds like a great
investment, doesn't it? But when you really run the numbers, this is what
you get:
PV = -$299 (original purchase price)
FV = $1400 (current market value)
n= 35 (age in years)
i=4.5% (annual rate of return)
In plain English, this means that if you paid $299 for your amp in 1964 and
managed to keep it in really excellent condition, thirty-five years later it
**could** be worth $1400 (I emphasize **could** because most amps did not
appreciate so much). This seems like a fabulous investment until you look
at the numbers, which reveal that this amp only delivered a 4.5% rate of
return over 35 years, and most likely exposed itself to a substantial level
of risk in the process (fire, flood, theft, cats, children, wear and tear,
etc.). Sales tax is not included in this equation, so your actual rate of
return could be even less.
Now, if you had spent $299 on U.S. government bonds at 5%, those bonds today
would be worth about $1650 with NO risk involved.
Had you invested the money in the stock market, any investor with a
double-digit I.Q. and an opposable thumb should have been able to get a 10%
return over this period (most equity investors actually did much better)
with only a moderate level of risk. That $299 investment would be worth
about $8400. Now **that** is an investment.
I must admit, it is nice to be able to play an amp for 35 years, sell it,
and get a substantial amount of cash back. But do you really think you've
made a wise financial investment? It might be a great way to convince your
wife that your new toy will pay off, but it ain't gonna get you on the cover
of Forbes.
Tremolux
>going up on an annual basis. A tweed fender CHAMP goes for $450.
Shit, even the SF era amps, particularly the early 68, 69 and 70's, are
starting to rise dramatically in price. You looked at the dealer ads in VG
lately? I know a lot of their dealers are ripoffs, but there is a trend. NO
Fender, earlier than the Rivera-era stuff, should be hacked.
> know this is somewhat exaggerated. But if someone like dr_bone is left
>unchallenged
Or guys like Torres and his disciples.
>If he wants to build Dumble clones, that's great. But he should make his
>clones from scratch. Not piggy back them on someone elses design.
>
Exactly.
>No, I wouldn't say trying to make a 59 Bassman into a Mesa Boogie is
>evil. I'd say it falls more into the realm of EXTREME stupidity.
Beyond extreme. More like brain-dead.
>So the last line of
>defense is the amp tech to which he takes the amp for the mod. And
>thankfully, most amp techs have some scruples when it comes to
>destroying classic designs.
Precisely. However, I am disturbed by the techs who advertise with web pages,
and prominently displayed on their page is "Modifications". So, who is a
hack, and who isn't should be a reasonable question.
Tremolux
>both Dumble (on Fenders) and Randall Smith (On Princetons) were (based
>on Tremoluxes posts) hackers ! I guess I'm in pretty good company.
>
What is this? An excuse? Smith's gain/buzz amps sound like shit. Both
started "hacking" way back when, when times, attitudes, perceptions and prices
were WAY different from today. They don't hack today, they build their own
products from scratch.
> I would not modify
>anything considered sacred,rare or classic.
That's a relief to hear.
>(I regret giving in to some degree/thank god
>it only happended once or twice)
Hey, we all make mistakes.
Tremolux
I don't know if I can agree with that, Ron. Have you seen the ads in VG
lately? The prices of anything mid 70s and older seems to be climbing.
There's a lot of those SF amps out there.
>He is offering to mod amps, based on
>his personal experience and knowledge.
Sounds like Torres.
>Now how much shit would he be
>getting if he said, "My services are available to modify only those amps
>which I deem to be suitable."
Well, Ron, as you seem to be pointing out, there's several ways to say the same
thing. If he were to advertise arrogantly as you have used in your example,
sure, he's piss off too many people. However, there are diplomatic ways to say
basically the same thing that would not offend.
>"I'll mod
>anything," he offends all 9 of the vintage police and only the few
>individuals he tells on a one by one basis to not send an amp.
Offending anyone could be avoided. One way would be just to NOT advertise
hacking or mods. Another way would be for him to politely and professionally
say that he does not mod old/vintage amps, or amps which are likely to
increase substantially in value in the near future, because of collectability
reasons. Put correctly, declining to mod certain amps would not offend anyone.
> If he says
>"*I* shall determine whether your amp deserves my efforts" then he pisses
>off more people.
Again, it's *how* he chooses to say it. After all, he should be the last line
of defense against idiots who would mod a classic.
> Besides, do your really want him to say "there are 40 year
>old student model amps that are so good that they are beyond my ability to
>improve them." Might be true in terms of investment potential, but it had
>better not be true musically.
Hey, there are guys out there who blow blues harp through old Champs and
Princetons, and they sound great stone stock.
Bcoolstuff
security agreement excluding the purchaser from selling or transferring the amp
to a
third party, dissallowing the amp to be opened for service or inspection by any
one other than H.Alexander Dumble himself, and dissallowing the legit owner of
the
amp to inadvertently or otherwise leave the amp vunerable to theft. >>
Funny- it doesn't mention what happens if Chubsy Ubsy is unable to service your
amp for whatever reason, like he's permanently stuck in a doorway, or has
gassed himself unconscious after several helpings of Mexican food.
In addition, are we to surmise that Mr. Ubsy can sue the owner of one of his
products if his home is broken into, and the amp then stolen? Sounds like a
load of crap to me.
Billy
STRINGBEND
writes:
>>These
>> are amps, parts of a musical instrument called an electric guitar.
>>SOme are
>> great, some stink, some are valuable and most ain't.
>>
>Hmmmm, if you think most classic amps and electric guitars aren't
>valuable, then you've been living in a cave for the last 20 years.
>
He said "amps" not "classic amps". Most are NOT valuable, just as the
original poster said.
>>NONE of them are
>> sacred.
Maybe this is the larger point.
I wonder if the quote "Sacred cows make the best hamburger" would have any
relevance here <g> ? ... Nah...
Well Delta, we've debated this point before. We both prefer to leave the
'classics' largely as they are. Yet we draw the line at different places.
I'll make what I consider to be 'minor' mods (like changing a couple of
tonestack caps) that you would find unacceptable. Yet you wouldn't object to
my converting a silverface to BF values. And neither of us would ever dream
of drilling your lawyers '59 Bassman to add another gain stage to it.
So I'm happy to agree to agree with you and paradoxically hope we can agree to
disagree at the same time.
One of the techs here (I think it was Rich K.) will advise clients against many
mods and attempt to educate the owner of the downside risk to both tone and
market value when applicable. But after that education process if the user
still insists on proceeding the tech. feels it should be done by someone
competent and will therefore take on the work. Seems like a logical balance to
me.
Since I've done pretty well in the free-market economy, that's largely what I'm
preaching here. My stockbroker has more money than me, but that's MY fault,
not hers. If she wants to buy a (real) '59 Bassman and have it re-tweed I
think that's ultimately her decision to make. If I think the amp is sacred 'as
is' I should be prepared to buy it with MY money. If I'm too busy saving my
pennies when someone else has earned the money already: that too is MY fault,
not the person with the money.
Take care,
STRINGBEND
STRINGBEND
> If every lawyer that has more
>money than talent goes out and buys a tweed 59 bassman. And then 50% of
>those guys decide that adding multiple gain stages like a 5150 would be
>cool, plus toss the jensens and put in EV's for more volume. Then when
>you or I have saved our pennies to finally buy that 59 bassman we've
>always dreamed of, it's no longer around $2000. Now it's $4000. And
>while you're saving your pennies to come up with the higher cost,
>another group of cash rich and braincell starved individuals decide to
>buy more bassmans and cut them into heads since they're too heavy to
>carry around... See where I'm going here?
>
Yes... You wish you had studied law.
Pete Greenwood
Bcoolstuff <bcool...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991206132453...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> << Dumble requires a signature to a
> security agreement excluding the purchaser from selling or transferring
the amp
> to a
> third party, dissallowing the amp to be opened for service or inspection
by any
> one other than H.Alexander Dumble himself, and dissallowing the legit
owner of
> the
> amp to inadvertently or otherwise leave the amp vunerable to theft. >>
>
The agreement would never hold up in court unless H.A.D. was leasing the
amps. The most he could do is void the warranty and refuse to service your
amp (potentially a *real* problem if an epoxy-potted part fails).
Lord Valve
LV
Tremolux wrote:
> >Unless he "wants" to become one of Torres's peers, he should consider
> >making his mods on amps made from scratch.
>
> You should see the Torres love fest going on over at Ampage. He has a couple
> real disciples over there. Most people know better, but there's always a
> couple of morons who have yet to see the light.
>
STRINGBEND
trem...@aol.com.no.uce (Tremolux) writes:
first:
>However, there are diplomatic ways to say
>basically the same thing that would not offend.
and then:
> Most people know better, but there's always a
>couple of morons who have yet to see the light.
Is calling a person who...
a) hasn't yet learned about the 'collectable' nature of some amps
or
b) doesn't share your views on which amps are 'open-season' on modifications.
...a moron - your idea of diplomatic writing???
STRINGBEND
<peteSPICED-...@mindspring.com> writes:
>I must admit, it is nice to be able to play an amp for 35 years, sell it,
>and get a substantial amount of cash back. But do you really think you've
>made a wise financial investment? It might be a great way to convince your
>wife that your new toy will pay off, but it ain't gonna get you on the cover
>of Forbes.
>
Great points! Thanks for the NPV analysis.
Funny how many would base the 'when is it okay to mod and amp' criteria around
the so-called collectors value since there really isn't any.
I suspect many would say a silverface Fender mod. is a no-no and would not
care if a Traynor were modified. The fact that one is appreciating at a
slightly faster
rate doesn't really mean much when neither is beating even the safest of
conventional investments.
Take care,
STRINGBEND
Gil Ayan
time. Your observation is shared by quite a few, myeself included -- and
others who prefer to get a couple of laughs and not bother posting back.
Cheers,
Gil
STRINGBEND wrote in message
<19991206163652...@ngol03.aol.com>...
JoeArthur
"Pete Greenwood" <peteSPICED-...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:82gs3l$31l$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> RonSonic <rba...@ij.net> wrote in message
> news:VTP24.215$fw....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
>
> > Besides, do your really want him to say "there are 40 year
> > old student model amps that are so good that they are beyond my ability
to
> > improve them." Might be true in terms of investment potential, but it
had
> > better not be true musically.
> >
>
Tremolux
>a) hasn't yet learned about the 'collectable' nature of some amps
>or
>b) doesn't share your views on which amps are 'open-season' on modifications.
>...a moron - your idea of diplomatic writing???
>
This post was not intended to be politically correct or diplomatic.
My point is that someone *could*, in their web page advertising, write
something where he would politely decline to hack vintage amps, without pissing
off prospective customers.
Danny Russell
Gil Ayan wrote:
> Danny, that is not true as written by you. The document says that you will
> not allow the amp to be opened by people whom you know will try to copy it,
> or sell it to people who you know will want to reverse engineer it. I have
> the Dumble documents I got in 1994 from Mr Dumble himself posted in my web
> site, including the security agreement form. Feel free to go and read
> it... my URL is http://home.earthlink.net/~ayan and the Dumble Docs are
> listed in the "LINKS" section.
Gil, I'm reading the same security agreement you are:
1. "I, _________________, hereby agree to use the equipment built for me by H.
Alexander Dumble for my own personal use in the live performing and recording of
my guitar."
This is perhaps the toughest sentence to analize in the entire agreement It
means that using it as a cornerstone, counterweight, or automotive jackstand
violates the terms of the agreement unless it was in some way a part of
performing and recording your guitar. It disallows anyone except you, from
using the amp to perform or record any guitar (including your own). Lastly, it
disallows you (the owner) from using the amp to perform or record someone else's
guitar.
2. "I understand that the equipment uses circuitry and techniques unique to H.
Alexander Dumble; and I promise to never allow the equipment to be opened,
analized, and/or inspected by any individual, group of individuals, and/or
commercial entity other than H. Alexander Dumble."
Clearly, only Howard is allowed to open the amp up.
"I also agree and promise that I will always maintain the strict supervision
over the equipment: and never leave it vulnerable to theft and/or
inspection/analization by any individual, group of individuals, and/or
commercial entity."
Claiming, "it was stolen", violates the agreement.
"I further agree and promise that I will not sell the equipment built for me by
H. Alexander Dumble to any individual, group of individuals, and/or commercial
entity that will invade and/or compromise the secrecy of H. Alexander Dumble's
circuitry and techniques used in the manufacturing of his equipment."
Since the original owner of the amp would have no practical way of controlling
what the next owner is likely to do regarding the "secrecy" of the circuitry,
this sentence says: "don't sell the amp."
Where am I wrong? -Danny
Tremolux
>you're probably better off starting from scratch, and that older classic
>amps should be left alone or restored; but they ain't my amps that are
>being submitted for surgery, so I really don't get a say, now do I?
>
The point, Andrew, is that the tech should know better. If an uninformed
potential customer comes forth and wants a classic hacked, IMO the tech should
politely attempt to educate the customer as to the error of his ways. If that
fails, the tech can politely decline the job. Being a willing accomplice to
hack-butchery is just as bad. If declining to take on a hack job is handled
correctly, the customer won't be pissed off. Yeah, he'll probably try to find
someone else to do it for him (there seems to be no shortage of hacks and
Torres disciples out there), but at least the tech can say that *he* didn't
hack an amp.
I agree that the that the amp is the customer's, and he has a right to do with
it as he chooses. If he wants to take his 59 Bassman out back, douse it with
gasoline and set it on fire, he's free to do so. However, the tech is
similarly free to choose not to assist in such unadvisable activity. If enough
techs decline to hack up the customer's amp, perhaps, just maybe, the guy would
get the idea that it's maybe not such a good idea. This all could be done
without offending the guy, if handled correctly. Sure, he might ultimately
become frustrated at being unable to find a tech to hack the amp, but maybe
that wouldn't be such a bad thing.
>What about your Vibroclone? (You do have one, don't you?) Why isn't that
>a hack?
It's a 69 BMR head that's had a BF mod and OT swap, put into a repro combo
cabinet. I still have the original head cabinet and OT, so I could easily put
it back to stone stock should the need arise. No channel switching, no FX
loops, no bullshit high gain mods, no "Dumble" whatever. No cutting, gutting
or hacking was involved.
Moreover, when I've done this for others, I have always sat down with them and
explained the importance of keeping the original parts (head cabinet and OT)
stored at their place, just in case.
I think that you'll agree that this is a much less invasive procedure than
gutting the thing to turn it into some Mesa gain queer thing.
Pete Greenwood
financial wash. I intentionally left it out because inflation would have
the same relative impact on all three examples.
I probably should have mentioned, though, that there is some financial
benefit to be found in buying vintage amps. While not stellar investment
performers, they do a whole lot better than the new stuff, which takes an
HUGE depreciation hit the minute it leaves the store and will doubtfully
regain any of its value.
Pitch that one to your wives, guys!
JoeArthur <JAr...@thishome.now> wrote in message
news:KjW24.87496$HU2.1...@news.rdc1.az.home.com...
Gil Ayan
Danny Russell wrote in message <384C433C...@flash.net>...
>Where am I wrong? -Danny
After reading your analysis again and again, I have come to agree with you.
:) I guess my built-in common made me interpret the document the way I
mentioned in my post. But if you just come out cold and read it, it comes
across as a completely messed up agreement. :/
Cheers,
Gil
Gil Ayan
>As you can tell, I've scrutinized it up and down more than a few times, and
I'm
>pretty much amused to no end by it.
Yes, you seem to have done just that. :)
>Have you seen the price list? e.g. Telephone consultation for 10 minutes
or less is $200 (4/15/89).
Sure. At the time I was really considering an amp from Dumble, and I got
his contact information from one of his favorite clients, the great Robben
Ford. Now, Robben had mentioned that the amps were expensive and that the
only way to get a hold of Dumble was to leave a message and wait for him to
contact you back. So I called, and much to my surprise, he sent me the
package I had requested. A quick look at the pricing scheme was good enough
to rule me out as a client though... :) For what it's worth, RF mentioned
that he paid for all his amps and the only "special treatment" he got was
that he didn't have to wait indefinitely to get an amp from Dumble. I would
suspect that someone like him would also get the best of amps as well, and
would have no problmes getting Mr. Dumble to tweak them for him at will.
Now, talk about an investement, at the time, a brand new Dumble even for $5K
would have been a bargain. I still wonder if I should have gone for it...
Oh well, too late for that.
Gil
Pete Greenwood
can rearrange the equation to determine what would have constituted a good
"investment price" for the same $1400 '64 Deluxe Reverb (just like yours).
We should adjust for the fact that that the stock market (more specifically,
the S&P 500) gained a staggering 28% over this period. So, if we use an S&P
index fund (a pretty safe investment, in my book) as our benchmark, we can
evaluate a "good deal" to be any price less than the result below:
FV = $1400 (current value)
i = 28% (cost of capital)
n = 5 (years since purchase)
PV = -$407.45
Could you buy a pristine BFDR for $407.45 or less back in 1994? If so, you
made an "investment grade" purchase. If not, don't tell your old lady. You
promised her that classic amp you bought would be a great investment. Women
don't forget.
Tremolux <trem...@aol.com.no.uce> wrote in message
> Very interesting analysis. However, what would it look like if viewed
over a
> much shorter term, as opposed the long term..IOW, in the same example of
the
> BFDR, instead of starting the analysis back in 64 when it was now, start
it,
> say, 5 years ago, and see how the investment value looks between then and
now.
> It appears to me (I could be wrong), that vintage amp prices are
escalating at
> a fairly rapid rate these days.
stev...@my-deja.com
trem...@aol.com.no.uce (Tremolux) wrote:
> >I don't see any references to "classics" ----he says "ANY" Fender,
Sovtek
> >etc.
>
> "Any", would, by definition, include the classics.
> Bad idea. Hack-butchery sucks. Let him build from scratch.
>
I have good reason to believe that H.A.D. himself had modified many
Fender BF/SF amps with the basic preamps used in his own line of
amps, and that these modded amps were presumably used on stage and in
studios throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's. Hack-butchery? I'm sure that
owners of these H.A.D. modded amps would disagree with you on that
point...
Steve
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Andrew McWhirter
> NO Fender, earlier than the Rivera-era stuff, should be hacked.
What about your Vibroclone? (You do have one, don't you?) Why isn't that
a hack?
Is chrome plating a DR chassis that's dull, pitted and rusted classed as a
hack? If so, I'm in there with the other hacks.
Where do you draw a line? Why do you think Andy Fuchs has *crossed* that
line (I've seen nothing indicating he's going to drill the fronts for 13
new pots, or fit 1KVA transformers or anything like that) For that matter,
who decided you -or anyone else- was the arbiter of hackdom?
Don't get me wrong, John...I actually agree that if you want a new amp,
you're probably better off starting from scratch, and that older classic
amps should be left alone or restored; but they ain't my amps that are
being submitted for surgery, so I really don't get a say, now do I?
Cheers
Andrew
--
The return address will work as is...
These opinions are hereby disowned by the company I work for.
deltablues
> First off... screw you!
Lovely... Do you kiss your mom with that mouth...?
> My point was that if someone owns a piece of equipment,
> they can do whatever the hell they want to with it.
Actually "no" they can't, unless they know how to do electronic work
themselves. Most "reputable" amp techs won't do that kind of butchery.
--
"Blues ain't nothin but a good man feelin bad,
thinkin about the woman he once was with..."
http://www.deltabluesman.com
JoeArthur
> My point is that someone *could*, in their web page advertising, write
> something where he would politely decline to hack vintage amps, without
pissing
> off prospective customers.
And how would they define "vintage"? Age alone? Working condition? As you
said in an earlier post... "NO Fender, earlier than the Rivera-era stuff..."
(I happen to like my little SuperChamp and wouldn't hack that either!!!)
If I were a more ignorant customer (argument goes here that only ignorant
customers would want hacks in the first place), I could take a "no-hack"
statement like that to mean "no restorations" and move on to someone else...
and there is always someone else...
There are some collectors that consider a cap-job to make them *work* as
destroying the "vintage" value. If an amp is only going to be put in a
glass case, it does no one any good.
Might as well be a door stop.
deltablues
> You're right, if you adjust for inflation, buying an amp is pretty
> much a financial wash.
<snip>
Your assumption is that I'm complaining about investment potential???
If I gave a rats ass about investment value I'd buy one mint example of
each tweed amp and then ADVOCATE people like dr_tone & Torres destroying
as MANY as they could. That would push MY amp's values up over time due
to scarcity. PLUS, I'd have all the NOS tubes I needed because no one
else would want them.
But you couldn't be more off the mark if you tried...
I challenge people like dr_tone on "irreversibly" ruining (Note I didn't
say reversibly modifying), pre-PCB model amps just because they don't
think they're worth anything, because I'm a player, not a collector. And
as such I think our kids, and our grand kids, and our great grand kids
should have the opportunity to hear what those classic amps sound like
when they're old enough to strap on a guitar.
Anyone who advocates reducing the very "finite" number of classic amps
in circulation just because they're too LAZY to build from scratch is a
menace to anyone that enjoys what a classic amp can do sonically.
deltablues
dr_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The example used here is most certainly extreme. Anyone who would buy
> a tweed '59 Bassman, and do this type of mod to it should be hit over
> their head with the amp, then a neutral third party should stick the
> amp where the sun doesn;t shine (on the modifier). Standing right
> behind them would be the nut who would spend $ 450.00 on a Champ.
You're kidding right? Tweed champs sell all day long for $450 a pop.
Just look in any vintage amp store, that's the going rate my friend.
> Unless it was a prototype that Leo wired himself, I can't see the
> worth. Although in some hands it could produce some interesting tones,
> it's far from a versitile product. It was (and remains) mostly a
> practice amplifier.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong on all counts. See, this is why someone like you
should be making your amps from scratch and leaving the supply of
pre-PCB amps the hell alone. Tweed Champs are WIDELY used not only as
primary mic'ed amps by MANY harp players for performing live. But
they're also WIDELY used by guitarists as recording amps. They can be
dimed out and mic'ed to sound like a cranked tweed super in a studio
where cranking up a larger tweed amp would be impossible. They have ALOT
of worth to MANY people even if you believe them to be worthless
practice amps.
>
> On to the subject of hacking. It struck me (at 2.00 am last nite) that
> both Dumble (on Fenders) and Randall Smith (On Princetons) were (based
> on Tremoluxes posts) hackers ! I guess I'm in pretty good company.
Don't flatter yourself... Those guys were doing it in an era when no one
knew any better, you don't have any such excuse.
> Now, I have stressed here that I am selective. I would not modify
> anything considered sacred,rare or classic.
You may have said it here, but I still see nothing on your website to
back up this assertion.
> I have modified a number
> of silverface Fenders (you know, the ones with the master volume
> designed by the hearing imparied ?!?!?) , and produced a versitile,
> toneful, and useful amplifier, where before there really wasn't much
> of an amp to begin with. I didn't feel bad about it either.
Were these reversible mods like blackfacing for example? Or were they
irreversibly hacked into your vision of a dumble-esque mesa boogie?
> I started in tube amplifiers over 20 years ago, and (through my own
> company GSI), sold parts for, or modified an estimated 2 to 3 thousand
> Dynaco Stereo-70's, MK-3's and others, for enhanced performance, well
> above their stock performance. I allowed owners to gain the benefit of
> solidly made chassis, and decent transformers, at moderate cost. While
> these amps are considered classics, they are (or were) cheap and
> plentiful. I turned down many who wanted MacIntoshes modified because
> I had (and still have) a conscience.
This is all lovely remeniscing... But the simple question is; Why can't
you produce your amps from scratch? Repro cabs, stamped chassis,
transformers, caps, etc... are all readily available. So getting the
parts isn't the issue.
And don't say "I don't have my factory tooled up & built yet". Cause
little guys like Rogers Amps in South Carolina are cranking out amps in
a facility not much bigger than a garage.
> Of the few who forced me (I regret giving in to some degree/thank god
> it only happended once or twice) I modified their amps without
> drilling, punching, or mutilation. I used an outboard chassis for
> additional power supply parts, and upgraded internal parts, but you
> would certainly be able to reverse these mods.
What about your ODS50 "mod" you're offering for "any" Fender or Marshall
amp? It doesn't look too reversible to me...
Tremolux
>the same relative impact on all three examples.
>
<snip>
Very interesting analysis. However, what would it look like if viewed over a
much shorter term, as opposed the long term..IOW, in the same example of the
BFDR, instead of starting the analysis back in 64 when it was now, start it,
say, 5 years ago, and see how the investment value looks between then and now.
It appears to me (I could be wrong), that vintage amp prices are escalating at
a fairly rapid rate these days.
*You can guess what to remove from my email address to get rid of the spam
Danny Russell
Gil Ayan wrote:
>
> After reading your analysis again and again, I have come to agree with you.
> :) I guess my built-in common made me interpret the document the way I
> mentioned in my post. But if you just come out cold and read it, it comes
> across as a completely messed up agreement. :/
As you can tell, I've scrutinized it up and down more than a few times, and I'm
pretty much amused to no end by it. Have you seen the price list? e.g.
Telephone consultation for 10 minutes or less is $200 (4/15/89). -Danny
Tremolux
Nope. Point taken.
I just enjoy seeing my Apple stock go through the roof. It's like 113 today.
I swore I would sell it if it ever hit 50, but thank God a friend talked me
into keeping it. Go Steve Jobs!!!
Jon Pickens
>>patches.
>
>That may be a trademark issue. If they have permission, then it's no biggie.
>
>If not, I believe that Fender and Marshall could legally prevent them from
>doing that.
>
>Using someone elses' personal name or recognized product name to promote a
>competing product is questionable. IMO, Andy should revise his
>advertisements.
>
This is kinda off subject, but sort of related. The Les Paul that Slash uses
for just about everything is a replica made by a company called Max Guitars.
It's a '59 copy. It does have the Gibson logo in pearl at the top of the
headstock, and until a couple of years back when I started seeing reference to
that, I thought it was a Gibson. What would someone have to do to be able to
do this legally and profit from it?
-Jon Pickens
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill many, and you are a conquerer.
Kill them all, and you are a God." -Prater
dr_...@hotmail.com
As discussed, I plan on using my own chassis and cabinets. There are
enough people building tweed copies etc. I spoke with Armdillo (who is
too busy to respond), and Rodgers, who's to busy period. I have a
local supplier I like, and will"make my statement" soon. It will look
like what I want it to, and sound like it too. AF
On Tue, 07 Dec 1999 12:37:28 GMT, deltablues <getl...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
RonSonic
Jon Pickens <jonr...@aol.com> wrote
> This is kinda off subject, but sort of related. The Les Paul that Slash
uses
> for just about everything is a replica made by a company called Max
Guitars.
> It's a '59 copy. It does have the Gibson logo in pearl at the top of the
> headstock, and until a couple of years back when I started seeing
reference to
> that, I thought it was a Gibson. What would someone have to do to be able
to
> do this legally and profit from it?
1: contain a significant amount of Gibson, like build it on the carcass of
an LP Special.
2: stay beneath Gibson's corporate radar screen.
Ron
tfe
On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 23:14:19 GMT, Danny Russell <bl...@flash.net>
wrote:
>1. "I, _________________, hereby agree to use the equipment built for me by H.
>Alexander Dumble for my own personal use in the live performing and recording of
>my guitar."
>
>> This is perhaps the toughest sentence to analize in the entire agreement It
>means that using it as a cornerstone, counterweight, or automotive jackstand
>violates the terms of the agreement unless it was in some way a part of
>performing and recording your guitar. It disallows anyone except you, from
>using the amp to perform or record any guitar (including your own). Lastly, it
>disallows you (the owner) from using the amp to perform or record someone else's
>guitar.
OHHH come and get me, H.A.D. I spent megabucks on your amp and YOU
say no one else can record off it..??..How u going to know..?? Sort
of like the 'do not remove' tags on beds... HEY, I own alot of
guitars, how do they all fit in..and, it seems I can't "jam" with
others, if we both plug into the same HAD amp..shit, folks have been
doing that (why do u think amps had multi-channels in the 1st place?)
since before HAD was born..
>
>2. "I understand that the equipment uses circuitry and techniques unique to H.
>Alexander Dumble; and I promise to never allow the equipment to be opened,
>analized, and/or inspected by any individual, group of individuals, and/or
>commercial entity other than H. Alexander Dumble."
>
>Clearly, only Howard is allowed to open the amp up.
Then he better, esp at $$$$K a pop, service his 'design' forever.. Am
I going to call HAD every time I need new tubes and a bias job?
>
>"I also agree and promise that I will always maintain the strict supervision
>over the equipment: and never leave it vulnerable to theft and/or
>inspection/analization by any individual, group of individuals, and/or
>commercial entity."
>
>Claiming, "it was stolen", violates the agreement.
OK..think, someone steals my amp, and it is MY fault? What ya going
to do, HAD..take me to court..:
"your honor, per this signed agreement, TFE had his amp stolen
and "I" demand damages..."
>
>"I further agree and promise that I will not sell the equipment built for me by
>H. Alexander Dumble to any individual, group of individuals, and/or commercial
>entity that will invade and/or compromise the secrecy of H. Alexander Dumble's
>circuitry and techniques used in the manufacturing of his equipment."
>
>Since the original owner of the amp would have no practical way of controlling
>what the next owner is likely to do regarding the "secrecy" of the circuitry,
>this sentence says: "don't sell the amp."
OK..here I am starving on the streets, and I can't re-sell this sucker
to eat?..ya right, sure..HAD will feed me I am sure...Major companies
have folks out there buying amps on the sly, shipping them to
the factory and they rip them apart..how is HAD going to know, and
IF it was found out, what he gonna do..sue? Does HAD have
deeper lawyer/pockets then say, PV? I doubt it..
>
>Where am I wrong? -Danny
No where, it is laughable. I have seen the insides of a Dumble, and
to be honest, can't see the fuss over them.. ANYONE (and I mean
ANYONE) who spends that type of bucks on one has far too much
money on his hands... Wanna buy a bridge, pre CBS, over
swamp land.. covered in tweed...?
NOW..about the clones (send in the clones):
I met Andy years ago (Ya still got the Champ I sold you
with the JBL 8" in it, Andy?) and no doubt, I am sure
he knows his shit..so why not just build new amps from
scratch?..or are u trying to jump on the Dumble 'MOJO'
bandwagon (not that bad of an idea, if u can support
a new batch of lawyers, go for it..)?
Ya can do it, Andy..build one from scratch...
TFE (the famous) Eccles
*remove the spamsux, etc etc etc)