Framus Cobra a copy of a Recto?

[diagrammatiks]

listen bro ive got the two degrees in electrical and computer engineering, whether you want to believe me or not on the SLO is totally up to you. ive only studied that amplifier for 5 years, wrote papers on it, disected it, learned from it.

what do i know?

they teach tubes in computer engineering now?

like i'll defer to you but i'm looking at my slo..i'm looking at the schem...i'm wiggling my fx loop bypass all over the place and it's definitely not turning into a recto.

 

[jasonP]

The double cathode follower (slo with a factory loop) makes the amp more compressed and smoother sounding and to say it is not part of the slo sound is wrong.

The loop placement is horse shit on an slo it is not a genious way to do anything.

 

[diagrammatiks]

The double cathode follower (slo with a factory loop) makes the amp more compressed and smoother sounding and to say it is not part of the slo sound is wrong.

The loop placement is horse shit on an slo it is not a genious way to do anything.

it works great for rack level effects.

 

[155]

I could read this shit all day....although i dont know what 99% of it means?

 

[glpg80]

listen bro ive got the two degrees in electrical and computer engineering, whether you want to believe me or not on the SLO is totally up to you. ive only studied that amplifier for 5 years, wrote papers on it, disected it, learned from it.

what do i know?

they teach tubes in computer engineering now?

like i'll defer to you but i'm looking at my slo..i'm looking at the schem...i'm wiggling my fx loop bypass all over the place and it's definitely not turning into a recto.

they obviously dont teach common sense in your part of the woods. because you lack it in large amounts.

 

[glpg80]

The double cathode follower (slo with a factory loop) makes the amp more compressed and smoother sounding and to say it is not part of the slo sound is wrong.

The loop placement is horse shit on an slo it is not a genious way to do anything.

+1 - what i have been saying all along.

 

[glpg80]

The double cathode follower (slo with a factory loop) makes the amp more compressed and smoother sounding and to say it is not part of the slo sound is wrong.

The loop placement is horse shit on an slo it is not a genious way to do anything.

it works great for rack level effects.

you are right, because the value of the cathode resistor in the second stage of the cathode follower was chosen to be at rack level. you can make a few modifications and change it to be 0dbm if you choose.

still has nothing to deal with the design of that effects loop - its poor craftmanship compared to today's standards. i would never run it in anything.

 

[diagrammatiks]

listen bro ive got the two degrees in electrical and computer engineering, whether you want to believe me or not on the SLO is totally up to you. ive only studied that amplifier for 5 years, wrote papers on it, disected it, learned from it.

what do i know?

they teach tubes in computer engineering now?

like i'll defer to you but i'm looking at my slo..i'm looking at the schem...i'm wiggling my fx loop bypass all over the place and it's definitely not turning into a recto.

they obviously dont teach common sense in your part of the woods. because you lack it in large amounts.

Oh wow. I'm really sad now. Wait I do have common sense.
I'll just email Mike.

 

[Gumbilicious]

The double cathode follower (slo with a factory loop) makes the amp more compressed and smoother sounding and to say it is not part of the slo sound is wrong.

The loop placement is horse shit on an slo it is not a genious way to do anything.

+1 - what i have been saying all along.

i thought i got what you had been saying, but it didn't sound like that to me.

i don't know much of anything, and i am new, but you come off as an arrogant blow-hard. you definitely sound like you know what you're talking about, but you also sound like your social skills haven't developed yet. no one enjoys the company of someone with a narrow viewpoint, and it's a shame cuz you seem like you have a bunch of knowledge to share.

 

[glpg80]

listen bro ive got the two degrees in electrical and computer engineering, whether you want to believe me or not on the SLO is totally up to you. ive only studied that amplifier for 5 years, wrote papers on it, disected it, learned from it.

what do i know?

they teach tubes in computer engineering now?

like i'll defer to you but i'm looking at my slo..i'm looking at the schem...i'm wiggling my fx loop bypass all over the place and it's definitely not turning into a recto.

they obviously dont teach common sense in your part of the woods. because you lack it in large amounts.

Oh wow. I'm really sad now. Wait I do have common sense.
I'll just email Mike.

i still believe you lack it. Why bother Mike? he's enjoying his car collection and his paid for house off of your money.

my comment was in regards to your dumbass remark "they teach tubes"

tubes = glass transistors

or did you fail to realize your SLO is nothing but a mil-spec tube AM radio? minus an antenna on the front of it of course.

hell, every amplifier on this forum is. the comment about the 1959 AM radio manual - its all in there.

 

[glpg80]

The double cathode follower (slo with a factory loop) makes the amp more compressed and smoother sounding and to say it is not part of the slo sound is wrong.

The loop placement is horse shit on an slo it is not a genious way to do anything.

+1 - what i have been saying all along.

i thought i got what you had been saying, but it didn't sound like that to me.

i don't know much of anything, and i am new, but you come off as an arrogant blow-hard. you definitely sound like you know what you're talking about, but you also sound like your social skills haven't developed yet. no one enjoys the company of someone with a narrow viewpoint, and it's a shame cuz you seem like you have a bunch of knowledge to share.

admitting you do not know much of anything is the first step to learning.

you are new. everyone has been there once before on this forum, but you will not make friends easily calling people blow-holes.

also, let me get this straight. i am the douche because im teaching someone willingly, who refuses to learn and accept the fact the circuit he paid $2,000+ for is being ripped apart in this topic left and right while also being compared to circuits half its price.

the SLO circuit has been around for over 18 years i believe. thats quite old, and its also quite outdated in features in its stock form. but if someone took the amplifier and updated it/redesigned it properly, you would not have a SLO anymore due to a catch 10 of tonal purists vs circuit analysis.

this is the final word on the SLO effects loop: a series effects loop is not the same as a tube buffered switchable bypass effects loop. i have said that all along. i appologize if you cannot understand the technical side of why, but i was not going to word it any other way to deter descrepencies, and to also stay clear of tonal opinion. circuit wise is what i am talking about.

my social skills? you are right. i have none. or do i? whats my name again? what town do i live in? where do i know you from? before you judge someone else - think about where you are for a second, and make sure your hands are clean before you do any finger pointing.

 

[diagrammatiks]

listen bro ive got the two degrees in electrical and computer engineering, whether you want to believe me or not on the SLO is totally up to you. ive only studied that amplifier for 5 years, wrote papers on it, disected it, learned from it.

what do i know?

they teach tubes in computer engineering now?

like i'll defer to you but i'm looking at my slo..i'm looking at the schem...i'm wiggling my fx loop bypass all over the place and it's definitely not turning into a recto.

they obviously dont teach common sense in your part of the woods. because you lack it in large amounts.

Oh wow. I'm really sad now. Wait I do have common sense.
I'll just email Mike.

i still believe you lack it. Why bother Mike? he's enjoying his car collection and his paid for house off of your money.

my comment was in regards to your dumbass remark "they teach tubes"

tubes = glass transistors

or did you fail to realize your SLO is nothing but a mil-spec tube AM radio? minus an antenna on the front of it of course.

hell, every amplifier on this forum is. the comment about the 1959 AM radio manual - its all in there.

I don't even know how to respond to this. Like what does this have to do with anything? I mean it's really obvious that you've been the belligerent one in this thread. I can admit when I'm wrong but the fact still remains that some of the things you've said don't much up to what's printed on the schematic and what Mike has disclosed about the amp.

Not mention that when backed in a corner instead of actually citing your arguments, you cited your so called authority. That really proves you're a big boy huh.

No, I think it is you that is a little confused. I'll try and make it really simple. You have a degree in computer engineering? Wow, that is impressive that that completely validates all your arguments involving amplifiers. I was unaware that valve circuits were a big part of computer engineering curriculums.

Evidently, I was mistaken.

 

[diagrammatiks]

wait wait wait wait wait.

The Cobra is a ripoff of a Dual Rec is a ripoff of an SLO is a ripoff of a JCM800 is a modification of a JTM45 is a ripoff of a Tweed Bassman is a ripoff of the RCA Tube Designer's Handbook.

There's not a single amp out there that isn't a ripoff of something else.
Unless it's 100% identical, it's not a ripoff; it's just progress.

that RCA book is over 30 chapters long and filled with awsome information. it is one hell of a read though. the bible of tube radios - the third edition is the edition i have and was wrote in 1959

you dont understand, however, that Mike Soldano invented the SLO design first - a one off that no one else had done. not marshall, fender, or anyone.

same as fortin and DAR - complete one off designs from their own engineering backgrounds.

back to the SLO - the amplifiers that Jerry listed are rip-offs of the SLO design.

a SLO does not resemble a marshall and i do not care what you say, there is nothing identical in design at all. not even the same tube stages and output tube design.

AFA the companies that copied the SLO - they are all identical to a T except for build quality, HT/B+, and their tonestacks.

thats it.

you dont understand, however, that Mike Soldano invented the SLO design first - a one off that no one else had done. not marshall, fender, or anyone.

a SLO does not resemble a marshall and i do not care what you say, there is nothing identical in design at all. not even the same tube stages and output tube design.

Touchy, are we?

I'm not saying that the SLO wasn't a revolutionary design that defined what a "modern" amp was - my point was that every amp design that exists builds on the groundwork of the designs that came before it. And it's not like the SLO is exactly 100% original - the power section looks suspiciously like the back end of the Mesa Mark I, which came along some 20-ish years prior...and wasn't exactly an original design then, either.

The revolutionary thing about the SLO is the cold clipping stage, which, as far as I know, no other amp builder had used before, and few modern amps omit. That's totally unique. However, the rest of the schematic is old tech - cascaded gain stages, a buffered FX loop, and a very familiar power section. Sure, Mike Soldano managed to combine the old ideas in a new and unique way, but that doesn't mean that he created an entirely new design from scratch...he took ideas that worked and modified them into something unique.

A: i know more about the design of the SLO than most people would know.

B: there is no tube dedicated to buffering an effects loop in a standard SLO. just a grid break and careful cathode bias resistor that follows it for dB drop consideration.

C: The power section was not identical to any other manufacturer at the time of its invention. i know people who build SLO clone's just for the amplifiers power section of immense headroom and huge volume capabilities.

D: Mike got lucky with the 39k. thats all im saying. the same is true with krank's model revolution. there is a design flaw trying to apply a bias method and they goofed by accident. the accident actually worked in their favor, the rest is history.

E: when you design something as an engineer you design from ideas not patent copies. one is called innovation the other is called evolution. get a dictionary.

and i do take offense dude. especially when i am designing an amplifier to be released from the ground up - no jose mods, no hairy mods, no SLO copies, nothing. and its a slap in the face to call my work a copy of someone else's design. the mathmatics and application of an amplifier might be the same, but that is as far as the similarities go.

The double cathode follower (slo with a factory loop) makes the amp more compressed and smoother sounding and to say it is not part of the slo sound is wrong.

The loop placement is horse shit on an slo it is not a genious way to do anything.

+1 - what i have been saying all along.

The double cathode follower (slo with a factory loop) makes the amp more compressed and smoother sounding and to say it is not part of the slo sound is wrong.

The loop placement is horse shit on an slo it is not a genious way to do anything.

+1 - what i have been saying all along.

i thought i got what you had been saying, but it didn't sound like that to me.

i don't know much of anything, and i am new, but you come off as an arrogant blow-hard. you definitely sound like you know what you're talking about, but you also sound like your social skills haven't developed yet. no one enjoys the company of someone with a narrow viewpoint, and it's a shame cuz you seem like you have a bunch of knowledge to share.

admitting you do not know much of anything is the first step to learning.

you are new. everyone has been there once before on this forum, but you will not make friends easily calling people blow-holes.

also, let me get this straight. i am the douche because im teaching someone willingly, who refuses to learn and accept the fact the circuit he paid $2,000+ for is being ripped apart in this topic left and right while also being compared to circuits half its price.

the SLO circuit has been around for over 18 years i believe. thats quite old, and its also quite outdated in features in its stock form. but if someone took the amplifier and updated it/redesigned it properly, you would not have a SLO anymore due to a catch 10 of tonal purists vs circuit analysis.

this is the final word on the SLO effects loop: a series effects loop is not the same as a tube buffered switchable bypass effects loop. i have said that all along. i appologize if you cannot understand the technical side of why, but i was not going to word it any other way to deter descrepencies, and to also stay clear of tonal opinion. circuit wise is what i am talking about.

my social skills? you are right. i have none. or do i? whats my name again? what town do i live in? where do i know you from? before you judge someone else - think about where you are for a second, and make sure your hands are clean before you do any finger pointing.

wait. dude. wtf are you talking about. first you're mad cuz people copied the slo...then the slo sucks and is outdated.

lolwut?

Here's what I'm really confused about...

you think the recto sounds like a slo?

 

[glpg80]

why would i be mad anyone copied the slo?

the guy who was arguing against me with the effects loop was the one getting his pants all in a wad.

i own a 5150 II which is more of a copy than any of them. everyone on this forum knows this and also my opinions of the SLO

i never once said anything about a mesa sounding like a SLO - that is a tonal opinion to begin with and is all based on subjectivity. again, wrong person.

and you can stop with the "lolwut" speak - keep it in the HCAF section

 

[diagrammatiks]

why would i be mad anyone copied the slo?

the guy who was arguing against me with the effects loop was the one getting his pants all in a wad.

i own a 5150 II which is more of a copy than any of them. everyone on this forum knows this and also my opinions of the SLO

i never once said anything about a mesa sounding like a SLO - that is a tonal opinion to begin with and is all based on subjectivity. again, wrong person.

and you can stop with the "lolwut" speak - keep it in the HCAF section

A: i know more about the design of the SLO than most people would know.

B: there is no tube dedicated to buffering an effects loop in a standard SLO. just a grid break and careful cathode bias resistor that follows it for dB drop consideration.

C: The power section was not identical to any other manufacturer at the time of its invention. i know people who build SLO clone's just for the amplifiers power section of immense headroom and huge volume capabilities.

D: Mike got lucky with the 39k. thats all im saying. the same is true with krank's model revolution. there is a design flaw trying to apply a bias method and they goofed by accident. the accident actually worked in their favor, the rest is history.

E: when you design something as an engineer you design from ideas not patent copies. one is called innovation the other is called evolution. get a dictionary.

and i do take offense dude. especially when i am designing an amplifier to be released from the ground up - no jose mods, no hairy mods, no SLO copies, nothing. and its a slap in the face to call my work a copy of someone else's design. the mathmatics and application of an amplifier might be the same, but that is as far as the similarities go.



that RCA book is over 30 chapters long and filled with awsome information. it is one hell of a read though. the bible of tube radios - the third edition is the edition i have and was wrote in 1959

you dont understand, however, that Mike Soldano invented the SLO design first - a one off that no one else had done. not marshall, fender, or anyone.

same as fortin and DAR - complete one off designs from their own engineering backgrounds.

back to the SLO - the amplifiers that Jerry listed are rip-offs of the SLO design.

a SLO does not resemble a marshall and i do not care what you say, there is nothing identical in design at all. not even the same tube stages and output tube design.

AFA the companies that copied the SLO - they are all identical to a T except for build quality, HT/B+, and their tonestacks.

thats it.

but but

i never once said anything about a mesa sounding like a SLO - that is a tonal opinion to begin with and is all based on subjectivity. again, wrong person.

 

[glpg80]

I don't even know how to respond to this.

then why are you trying.

some of the things you've said don't much up to what's printed on the schematic and what Mike has disclosed about the amp.

what does not match up? there have been 3 tech oriented gentlemen that have read this topic and did not dispute a single word of my posts. point out where, and ill do my best to explain it out for you. i have nothing to hide, and it is possible i do make typing mistakes you know.

Not mention that when backed in a corner instead of actually citing your arguments, you cited your so called authority. That really proves you're a big boy huh.

are you trying to call me out on a forum?

where are you from dude? HCAF? i am trying to help you understand the SLO. i have nothing to hide here. i believe it is you who has the inner boy attitude refusing to accept reality. i would not stoop that low to insult someone else.

No, I think it is you that is a little confused. I'll try and make it really simple. You have a degree in computer engineering? Wow, that is impressive that that completely validates all your arguments involving amplifiers. I was unaware that valve circuits were a big part of computer engineering curriculums.

i have two degrees. one in electrical engineering. another in computer engineering. continuing on to a BSEET with a minor in math, studying RF/LF communications in both digital and analog applications which is what my thesis will be stated in as well.

i believe i have plenty technical knowledge and real life training being a local fill-in technician for my area.

so yes. it does validate my arguments involving amplifiers. especially when my thesis is based on communication circuits.

Evidently, I was mistaken.

finally, you admitted you were wrong. just like you said you would!

 

[glpg80]

diagram you need to read the posts above what you quoted on the first page to understand my point i was making.

transistors are the reason your AC wave from your guitar is amplified. not the resonance/presence/tonestacks/effects loops/RFC stages/etc etc etc

the features shape the amplified tone, the transistors create it.

the way mesa and SLO and cobra's all create their core tone is through very simillar transistor designs in their DC bias and AC grid application - almost to a T.

however the added features and locations of these tone shaping features, along with transformers, improper matching B+ numbers, different filtering strategies, component tolerances, and countless other variables, are the reason they do not sound the same.

but in design. they are at their core. and they each stem from the SLO at one point or another.

understand?

 

[diagrammatiks]

diagram you need to read the posts above what you quoted on the first page to understand my point i was making.

transistors are the reason your AC wave from your guitar is amplified. not the resonance/presence/tonestacks/effects loops/RFC stages/etc etc etc

the features shape the amplified tone, the transistors create it.

the way mesa and SLO and cobra's all create their core tone is through very simillar transistor designs in their DC bias and AC grid application - almost to a T.

however the added features and locations of these tone shaping features, along with transformers, improper matching B+ numbers, different filtering strategies, component tolerances, and countless other variables, are the reason they do not sound the same.

but in design. they are at their core. and they each stem from the SLO at one point or another.

understand?

wait yes! at the core it's a slo..but everything else is different! It's like an orange wrapped around an apple seed!

Got it.

but wait! none of my amps have transistors in the signal path.

now i'm confused again.

 

[glpg80]

tube = transistor

just old by design - tubes have been around the block a while - alot longer than i have

 

[FIREBALL]

you dont understand, however, that Mike Soldano invented the SLO design first - a one off that no one else had done. not marshall, fender, or anyone.

a SLO does not resemble a marshall and i do not care what you say, there is nothing identical in design at all. not even the same tube stages and output tube design.

Touchy, are we?

I'm not saying that the SLO wasn't a revolutionary design that defined what a "modern" amp was - my point was that every amp design that exists builds on the groundwork of the designs that came before it. And it's not like the SLO is exactly 100% original - the power section looks suspiciously like the back end of the Mesa Mark I, which came along some 20-ish years prior...and wasn't exactly an original design then, either.

The revolutionary thing about the SLO is the cold clipping stage, which, as far as I know, no other amp builder had used before, and few modern amps omit. That's totally unique. However, the rest of the schematic is old tech - cascaded gain stages, a buffered FX loop, and a very familiar power section. Sure, Mike Soldano managed to combine the old ideas in a new and unique way, but that doesn't mean that he created an entirely new design from scratch...he took ideas that worked and modified them into something unique.

A: i know more about the design of the SLO than most people would know.

B: there is no tube dedicated to buffering an effects loop in a standard SLO. just a grid break and careful cathode bias resistor that follows it for dB drop consideration.

C: The power section was not identical to any other manufacturer at the time of its invention. i know people who build SLO clone's just for the amplifiers power section of immense headroom and huge volume capabilities.

D: Mike got lucky with the 39k. thats all im saying. the same is true with krank's model revolution. there is a design flaw trying to apply a bias method and they goofed by accident. the accident actually worked in their favor, the rest is history.

E: when you design something as an engineer you design from ideas not patent copies. one is called innovation the other is called evolution. get a dictionary.

and i do take offense dude. especially when i am designing an amplifier to be released from the ground up - no jose mods, no hairy mods, no SLO copies, nothing. and its a slap in the face to call my work a copy of someone else's design. the mathmatics and application of an amplifier might be the same, but that is as far as the similarities go.

when will your amp be done