ilovefuzz.com

Christophe wrote:Alright, you just nailed the fact that I dont know shit about electronics... But the RM and the Skyhorse are so obviously the same thing, in every way, that you dont need to open the boxes and check the inside.

:v

jrfox92 wrote:

Christophe wrote:Alright, you just nailed the fact that I dont know shit about electronics... But the RM and the Skyhorse are so obviously the same thing, in every way, that you dont need to open the boxes and check the inside.

:v

Ok, you may also change the order of the words to distort even more what I've said. Look I'm sorry if the manufacturer is a friend and it hurt your feelings. I was just mentioning something as I read the whole thread, it's no big deal. Peace.

I'm confused. Are you comparing the RM N1 and the Skyhorse?

jwar wrote:I'm confused. Are you comparing the RM N1 and the Skyhorse?

No. I was just noting that the Skyhorse was close to Dba's Reverberation Machine, not only because of the 3 knob + switch, but also soundwise. ( I played the dba for 20 minutes yesterday at a music store -great sound by the way- and the seller told me he was expecting a Skyhorse soon, which was, in his own words "just like the dba, maybe even better" and he showed me the vid. And I just heard the exact same sound I had been playing with two minutes ago... -this is why I posted by the way, I read this thread after coming home from the store, ans was struck by the coincidence). And after all, why not? It's just that it seems that the inspiration is a bit too obvious.
jrfox92 pointed out that RM N1, Skyhorse, Meteore, and dba were based on the same Belton component, so what's why there might be a common sound to all of them...

Christophe wrote:Look I'm sorry if the manufacturer is a friend and it hurt your feelings

I don't know him personally, I'm just not comfortable with someone making accusations about a company cloning while admitting they have no basis for that accusation other than "it sounds similar and has similar controls."
Thus, why I wanted you to provide proof.

Meteore is just a stripped down RM-1N where you can't turn the gain past 9 o'clock.

#edgy #knowyourtone

jrfox92 wrote:

Christophe wrote:Look I'm sorry if the manufacturer is a friend and it hurt your feelings

"it sounds similar and has similar controls."
Thus, why I wanted you to provide proof.

Alright, maybe we misunderstand each other, maybe my english isn't accurate enough... I'm talking about sound. SOUND. We judge what we hear with our ears, not with schematics. What's a better basis than our ears, honestly? What other proof do you need?

I hope my english is clear here. My knowledge-or lack of- about electronics has nothing to do with that. Anyone can recognize two sounds that sound the same...

Maybe the confusion lies here: I'm not saying the manufacturer sat down and consciously copied a circuit component-for-component on purpose. Maybe he just achieved comparable results because he has worked with the same components. But for a customer, it amounts to the same thing "hey look, same knob functions, same sound"... so much that gear sellers present you the 2 products that way.
Anyway, if you cannot grant me that sound speaks way more than schematics, it's no use trying to understand each other.
No grudges held. Cheers.

Christophe wrote:

jrfox92 wrote:

Christophe wrote:Look I'm sorry if the manufacturer is a friend and it hurt your feelings

"it sounds similar and has similar controls."
Thus, why I wanted you to provide proof.

Alright, maybe we misunderstand each other, maybe my english isn't accurate enough... I'm talking about sound. SOUND. We judge what we hear with our ears, not with schematics. What's a better basis than our ears, honestly? What other proof do you need?

I hope my english is clear here. My knowledge-or lack of- about electronics has nothing to do with that. Anyone can recognize two sounds that sound the same...

Maybe the confusion lies here: I'm not saying the manufacturer sat down and consciously copied a circuit component-for-component on purpose. Maybe he just achieved comparable results because he has worked with the same components. But for a customer, it amounts to the same thing "hey look, same knob functions, same sound"... so much that gear sellers present you the 2 products that way.
Anyway, if you cannot grant me that sound speaks way more than schematics, it's no use trying to understand each other.
No grudges held. Cheers.

Well.

If it achieves the same sound as a result of the same components how is it more/less important?

I understand integrity of pedal building which we seem to hold very highly at ILF sometimes but your argument is for sound and plenty of pedals make similar sounds and don't advertise themselves as copies/clones, whatever.

So are you upset that they sound the same because there's a lack of integrity that a builder isn't being truthful around whether it's a clone or not? I have no love for this particular builder so I don't have a horse in the race, ya know. Just curious.

Your english is fine, just be careful about the term clone because it has specific connotations and can be construed as libel when offered without proof, and a fair amount of craft builders take affront at the accusation. Seems like the MAD dude has earned it though.

My guess is that they both more or less lift manufacturer's recommendations, hence the similarity you hear - but that's just a wild ass guess.

Another vote for supporting builders who strive for a higher level of excellence and leaving the hucksters to rot.

crochambeau wrote:Your english is fine, just be careful about the term clone because it has specific connotations and can be construed as libel when offered without proof, and a fair amount of craft builders take affront at the accusation.

QFT
This was why I had such an issue with the claim.
It's definitely inspired by/intended to sound similar to a Reverberation Machine, there's really no question about that (to me, at least), but whether it's a clone or not is yet to be seen.

odontophobia wrote: If it achieves the same sound as a result of the same components how is it more/less important?

I understand integrity of pedal building which we seem to hold very highly at ILF sometimes but your argument is for sound and plenty of pedals make similar sounds and don't advertise themselves as copies/clones, whatever.

So are you upset that they sound the same because there's a lack of integrity that a builder isn't being truthful around whether it's a clone or not? I have no love for this particular builder so I don't have a horse in the race, ya know. Just curious.

Well there's several things:
-I dont care really about copy. What I said in my first post is that it should only be fair to buy Dba instead of skyhorse, since they're close and came out in a relative short span of time. That's just my opinion..
-There are many clones indeed, advertised as such or not, and dirt pedals have been cloned since forever. But for me, coming across a pedal so similar to that Dba pedal is like, I dont know, looking at a pedal that looks like the ehx freeze pedal... It's obvious. But maybe I'm wrong here: maybe the reverberation machine is a just ridiculously common device and who cares about another verb like that? Maybe when it came out, everybody was like "oh no, no that verb again"... It seems to me that this pedal has a personal take on reverb...( just like the echo dream 2 offers a very personal take on delay, even if you could say it's just another lofi/mod/delay...) But maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's been done 30 times already.
-Then I got upset about the misunderstanding with jrfox92... (I'm not goin into that again, it's all in the previous posts). I think I just misused the word "rip-off"...
Sorry about long explanations, but I'm new to the forum, it matters to me to be understood/make myself clear.

crochambeau wrote:
Your english is fine, just be careful about the term clone because it has specific connotations and can be construed as libel when offered without proof, and a fair amount of craft builders take affront at the accusation.


QFT
This was why I had such an issue with the claim.
It's definitely inspired by/intended to sound similar to a Reverberation Machine, there's really no question about that (to me, at least), but whether it's a clone or not is yet to be seen.

Thanks crochambeau for clearing that up. I read the word "clone" all the time, everywhere in gear reviews, for me it simply meant "a pedal that sound similar to another pedal", I didn't know it required technical proof.

Christophe wrote:

odontophobia wrote: If it achieves the same sound as a result of the same components how is it more/less important?

I understand integrity of pedal building which we seem to hold very highly at ILF sometimes but your argument is for sound and plenty of pedals make similar sounds and don't advertise themselves as copies/clones, whatever.

So are you upset that they sound the same because there's a lack of integrity that a builder isn't being truthful around whether it's a clone or not? I have no love for this particular builder so I don't have a horse in the race, ya know. Just curious.

Well there's several things:
-I dont care really about copy. What I said in my first post is that it should only be fair to buy Dba instead of skyhorse, since they're close and came out in a relative short span of time. That's just my opinion..
-There are many clones indeed, advertised as such or not, and dirt pedals have been cloned since forever. But for me, coming across a pedal so similar to that Dba pedal is like, I dont know, looking at a pedal that looks like the ehx freeze pedal... It's obvious. But maybe I'm wrong here: maybe the reverberation machine is a just ridiculously common device and who cares about another verb like that? Maybe when it came out, everybody was like "oh no, no that verb again"... It seems to me that this pedal has a personal take on reverb...( just like the echo dream 2 offers a very personal take on delay, even if you could say it's just another lofi/mod/delay...) But maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's been done 30 times already.
-Then I got upset about the misunderstanding with jrfox92... (I'm not goin into that again, it's all in the previous posts). I think I just misused the word "rip-off"...
Sorry about long explanations, but I'm new to the forum, it matters to me to be understood/make myself clear.

crochambeau wrote:
Your english is fine, just be careful about the term clone because it has specific connotations and can be construed as libel when offered without proof, and a fair amount of craft builders take affront at the accusation.


QFT
This was why I had such an issue with the claim.
It's definitely inspired by/intended to sound similar to a Reverberation Machine, there's really no question about that (to me, at least), but whether it's a clone or not is yet to be seen.

Thanks crochambeau for clearing that up. I read the word "clone" all the time, everywhere in gear reviews, for me it simply meant "a pedal that sound similar to another pedal", I didn't know it required technical proof.

it's all good. just trying to gain further understanding.

you'll find very little love for nic and midnight here because he burned some bridges and never returned.

odontophobia wrote:
it's all good. just trying to gain further understanding.

you'll find very little love for nic and midnight here because he burned some bridges and never returned.

Thanks. I appreciate it. I guess I was suprised too because, indeed, I've read very little love about midnight, and when I brought up something that seemed obvious enough (and it turns out that jrfox92 and me actually agree on the, say, "similarities"), all of the sudden it's like I had pushed the red button.
All good.

i would always be concerned with midnight "copying" a previous build to some degree. fuck, anyone remember the midnight amp? looked just like a science! and it was a 200 watt hiwatt to boot (sound familiar? *cough* science mother *cough*)! there were a few other pedals too.

crochambeau wrote:Your english is fine.

So is your mother.