New clones☹️

[pucho812]

Ok folks, we have all seen the cl1b copy. How does this practice compare to any other audio company doing clones? Do other companies get a pass but WA doesn’t?

 

[grid_stopper]

is the CL1B directly based on anything? either way, copying the aesthetic of a product still in current production feels extremely egregious to me.

 

[john12ax7]

Aren't they also ignoring RoHs rules due to the opto cell?

 

[pucho812]

Aren't they also ignoring RoHs rules due to the opto cell?

I wonder about that too?
I don’t know all the rohs specifications but I do know that I have yet to find a rohs compliant opto.
Maybe the part is grandfathered in?

 

[pucho812]

is the CL1B directly based on anything? either way, copying the aesthetic of a product still in current production feels extremely egregious to me.

To my knowledge the cl1b is all original design by tube tech. It’s based on original thought using an opto cell and tubes.

 

[grid_stopper]

To my knowledge the cl1b is all original design by tube tech. It’s based on original thought using an opto cell and tubes.

That was my impression as well, and if true makes it even worse. designing clones of old things long out of production is one thing, but what kind of mental gymnastics does one have to preform to justify cloning an original circuit still in production?

 

[JohnRoberts]

profit motive?

Another question is why do customers reward such behavior?

If the customers didn't buy, people would stop making them.

JR

 

[pucho812]

That was my impression as well, and if true makes it even worse. designing clones of old things long out of production is one thing, but what kind of mental gymnastics does one have to preform to justify cloning an original circuit still in production?

I was told by a spectator that the cl1b is an la2a. Having seen both schematics, I assured him they are not and the only similarities are they have tubes, transformers, resistors, capacitors and use an opto cell. However like all good things it’s the details that matter. How it is all implemented is vastly different than ye old la2a. I can’t say one is better then the other and both units have their vip status for a reason.

 

[pucho812]

profit motive?

Another question is why do customers reward such behavior?

If the customers didn't buy, people would stop making them.

JR

Customers don’t know better. They are sold on the idea of just like the real thing. No different than a blow up doll. Lol
Gresham’s law, bad product pushes out good product,

 

[groselicain]

I was told by a spectator that the cl1b is an la2a. Having seen both schematics, I assured him they are not and the only similarities are they have tubes, transformers, resistors, capacitors and use an opto cell. However like all good things it’s the details that matter. How it is all implemented is vastly different than ye old la2a. I can’t say one is better then the other and both units have their vip status for a reason.

I have heard this repeatedly, as well as "it's a tube 1176."
I never understood where these ideas come from.

 

[living sounds]

I never understood where these ideas come from.

Ignorance?

 

[OneRoomStudio]

It's the trade dress part that really bugs me.
Sure, nothing Tube-Tech did in the CL-1B was terribly groundbreaking, but it is a well-designed and great sounding box. Tube-Tech built their brand around turning out high quality, dependable products. As a result, engineers started buying their equipment, and after years (decades) of engineers buying them and other engineers/producers/artists seeing the Tube-Tech name and the recognizable blue faceplates in racks in studios all over the world, they became iconic. The CL-1B isn't just the particular collection of tubes and passive components in the box, it's the sum of the whole, in a package that is respected and trusted.
If Warm (or any other company) simply rebuilt the CL-1B circuit in their own style, I wouldn't have a problem with it. To clearly try to profit off of the brand equity that Tube-Tech has built up over decades is really crappy though. If Hyundai released a car that looked almost exactly like a Porsche 911 Carrera S, they would get the pants sued off of them, and generally panned by car fans. I, for one, won't be buying Warm products anymore (not that they care what I do).

 

[JohnRoberts]

It's the trade dress part that really bugs me.
Sure, nothing Tube-Tech did in the CL-1B was terribly groundbreaking, but it is a well-designed and great sounding box. Tube-Tech built their brand around turning out high quality, dependable products. As a result, engineers started buying their equipment, and after years (decades) of engineers buying them and other engineers/producers/artists seeing the Tube-Tech name and the recognizable blue faceplates in racks in studios all over the world, they became iconic. The CL-1B isn't just the particular collection of tubes and passive components in the box, it's the sum of the whole, in a package that is respected and trusted.
If Warm (or any other company) simply rebuilt the CL-1B circuit in their own style, I wouldn't have a problem with it. To clearly try to profit off of the brand equity that Tube-Tech has built up over decades is really crappy though. If Hyundai released a car that looked almost exactly like a Porsche 911 Carrera S, they would get the pants sued off of them, and generally panned by car fans. I, for one, won't be buying Warm products anymore (not that they care what I do).

Trade dress lawsuits have been used by companies making handheld VOM to prevent cheap knockoffs copying the color schemes and cosmetic design.
===
The highest profile case in the music business was Behringer copying the very successful Mackie 8bus. I vaguely recall a trade dress action what was finessed when last minute changes were made to the Behringer meter bridge design.

JR

 

[OneRoomStudio]

Trade dress lawsuits have been used by companies making handheld VOM to prevent cheap knockoffs copying the color schemes and cosmetic design.
===
The highest profile case in the music business was Behringer copying the very successful Mackie 8bus. I vaguely recall a trade dress action what was finessed when last minute changes were made to the Behringer meter bridge design.

JR

This one certainly feels pretty egregious.

 

[pucho812]

Trade dress lawsuits have been used by companies making handheld VOM to prevent cheap knockoffs copying the color schemes and cosmetic design.
===
The highest profile case in the music business was Behringer copying the very successful Mackie 8bus. I vaguely recall a trade dress action what was finessed when last minute changes were made to the Behringer meter bridge design.

JR

Iirc there was a version that actually had mackie silk screen in the UlI desk.

 

[gyraf]

This is so much not OK. I wouldn't have expected a full-commercial company to do something like this to a small indie manufacturer

 

[thelivingroom]

This is so much not OK. I wouldn't have expected a full-commercial company to do something like this to a small indie manufacturer

I agree 100%. I already disliked WA gear because the few pieces I’ve heard are a caricature of what they’re supposedly “cloning”, then they came out with the Ampex preamps that directly compete with a smaller company that’s in their same city that has specialized in Ampex-related stuff for years, but seeing the WA-1B release really made my blood boil to a different level.

 

[pucho812]

I agree 100%. I already disliked WA gear because the few pieces I’ve heard are a caricature of what they’re supposedly “cloning”, then they came out with the Ampex preamps that directly compete with a smaller company that’s in their same city that has specialized in Ampex-related stuff for years, but seeing the WA-1B release really made my blood boil to a different level.

Why should any company do ampex unless they own the ampex ip?
WA did the ampex because guys like Steve albini had his modded. The schematic is available online so why not?
If only owners of the IP could do the units, it would drive out most of pro audio. Few companies these days are doing their own creations or reissues of their own ip.
Pro audio needs an enema to clean out the riffraff.

 

[thelivingroom]

Why should any company do ampex unless they own the ampex ip?
WA did the ampex because guys like Steve albini had his modded. The schematic is available online so why not?
If only owners of the IP could do the units, it would drive out most of pro audio. Few companies these days are doing their own creations or reissues of their own ip.
Pro audio needs an enema to clean out the riffraff.

WA did the Ampex probably for the same reason they do everything else: because they can cheaply build it and know they can make a boatload of money off of the sheep who follow influencers.

 

[pucho812]

WA did the Ampex probably for the same reason they do everything else: because they can cheaply build it and know they can make a boatload of money off of the sheep who follow influencers.

Fwiw I never liked the 350/351 as a preamp and is best suited as originally designed, for tape electronics duties.

But hey whatever right?