Who invented reamping?

[Bonemeister]

It seems that the US Patent Office has granted a patent to Reamp in 1994 for the process of reamping. They say that the only way that this patent can be revisited is by a public outcry.

We believe that the Patent Office made a serious mistake by awarding this patent and by doing so, completely ignores historic developments by Les Paul and Phil Spector, and recordings done in Motown and by Steely Dan 20, 30 and even 40 years before.

If you believe that this patent should be revisited, please send an email to reamping@cabletek.ca with your name, city and phone number.

But before you do so... read what we uncovered...



The history of re-amping

We recently looked into the history of re-amping and were amazed at the response we received by asking around. These are brief historical accounts and letters we received. Many thanks to Frank Wells at Pro Sound News and Mitch Gallagher at EQ magazine for helping us track down these folks.

When we asked recording historian Doug Mitchell 1, Associate Professor at Middle Tennessee State University the question: ‘Who invented re-amping’. Doug gave us this reply:

The process of "reamping" has actually been utilized since the very first days of recording in a variety of methods. However, the actual process utilized may not have been referred to as Reamping until perhaps the late 1960s or 1970s. From the early possibilities of recording sound various composers and experimenters utilized what might be termed "reamping" to take advantage of the recording process and to expand upon its possibilities. In 1913 Italian Futurist Luigi Russolo proposed something he termed the "Art of Noises". Recordings of any sound (anything was legitimate) were made on Berliner discs and played back via "noise machines" in live scenarios and recollected on "master" disc cutters. This concept was furthered by Pierre Schaeffer and his "Musique Concrete" electronic music concept in the 1930s and 1940s. Schaeffer would utilize sounds such as trains in highly manipulated processes to compose new music ideas. These processes often involved the replaying and acoustic re-recording of material in a manipulated fashion. Other experimenters in this area included Karlheinze Stockhausen and Edgard Varese.

With the possibilities presented by magnetic recording the process of what might be termed reamping was utilized in other "pop" music areas. Perhaps the first person to take advantage of the process was Les Paul. His recordings with Mary Ford often utilized multiple harmonies all performed by Mary. Initially these harmonies were performed with the reamping process. Later, Les convinced Ampex to make the first 8 track recorder so that he might utilize track comping to perform a similar function. Les is also credited with the utilization of the reamping process for the creation of reverberant soundfields by placing a loudspeaker at one end of a long tunnel area under his home and a microphone at the other end. Reverberation time could be altered with the placement of the microphone with respect to the loudspeaker playing back previously recorded material.

Wall of sound pioneer Phil Spector is perhaps the most widely accredited for the use of the reamping process and because of his association with the Beatles is potentially regarded today as the developer of the process. However, Phil was actually refining a process, which had been utilized for decades, and exploring its possibility for use in rock music.

The process of "reamping" is often used in film sound design as well. In order for sounds recorded in a post production environment to match the scene, it is common for them to be re-recorded utilizing a reamping procedure. In film sound this process is also termed "worldizing".

The first use of the term "reamping" is vague. It may have come into the recordist's vocabulary as early as the late 1960s, but I am not sure when the term was first utilized.



We then posed the same question to Bob Ohlsson 2 of Mowtown fame, (Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Kinks, Animals, Donovan, Herman's Hermits) and Bob kindly answered:

I began doing it in 1968 shortly after we got the sixteen-track machines because for the first time we could separately record direct guitars, clavinets and e.pianos. I had never heard of it being done
and am pretty sure I was the first to try it at Motown but I can't imagine lots of others weren't doing the same thing. It seemed like a very obvious thing to do in a world where electric instruments were
taken direct primarily to cut down on bleed rather than for tonal quality.




We then contacted Roger Nichols 3 (Steely Dan, Crosby Stills and Nash, John Denver, Roy Orbison, Zappa) and when posed the question: “Roger, I know you have been re-amping for a while, when did you start using this process?”

That would be 1972 when I built the re-amper we used on the first, and almost every Steely Dan album after that. We used it to play direct guitar tracks back through an amp. We were going through a lot of amps. The speakers would get tired or the tubes would melt or something during a night of guitar overdubs.

We would go through one amp to make sure we got the sound we wanted, and then when the right guitar and settings were locked in, we recorded the direct signal and let the amp rest. After the part was completed, we ran the signal back through the guitar amp and it only had to last long enough to print the results to tape. I still have the box around here somewhere.


References

1 Doug Mitchell, Associate Professor
MTSU Department of Recording Industry
http://www.mtsu.edu/~dsmitche

2 Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording, Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209

3 Roger Nichols Mastering
11461 SW 93 St. Miami, FL 33176
http://www.rogernichols.com

[imacgreg]

Isn't that the whole deal with patents though? Who ever has the motivation/funds/skill to get it patented first gets awarded by having the patent? Why would you want to remove the current patent and who would you award it to?


Ian (hard core capitalist)

[Andy Sneap]

surely it's whoever has the initative to put money behind it, design it and market it...I guess reamp were the first to do this.

[HenriKay]

These claims should do as The United States uses a first-to-invent patent system. The first-to-invent vs first-to-file rule is one of the major differences between U.S. patent law and the patents systems of other nations.

[kafka]

Kind of hard to believe that this patent exists, although crazier s**t has happened. There may not be a real conflict here, depending on what the details are. Can you post the patent # here so we can look it up?

[kafka]

Originally Posted by kafka

Kind of hard to believe that this patent exists, although crazier s**t has happened. There may not be a real conflict here, depending on what the details are. Can you post the patent # here so we can look it up?

OK, I found it. It looks like it was filed in 1994 and granted in 1999.

Yeah, that's crazy. I know the Beatles did it, too.

[Charles Dye]

Originally Posted by Bonemeister

It seems that the US Patent Office has granted a patent to Reamp in 1994 for the process of reamping. They say that the only way that this patent can be revisited is by a public outcry.

We believe that the Patent Office made a serious mistake by awarding this patent and by doing so, completely ignores historic developments by Les Paul and Phil Spector, and recordings done in Motown and by Steely Dan 20, 30 and even 40 years before.

If you believe that this patent should be revisited, please send an email to reamping@cabletek.ca with your name, city and phone number.

Very interesting, Bonemeister.

Thank you very much for the history of reamping. Very cool stories. Loved the Les Paul tunnel under the house one.

A few questions come to mind:

1. Who was the patent awarded to?

2. What are they doing with it?

3. Are they preventing anyone else from selling reamping related products?

4. Who is "we" above? IOW, what group or organization do you represent?

5. Why do you or your organization want the patent to be revisited? What is wrong with it being awarded to whoever it has been awarded to?

6. What stake do you or your organization have in the patent being revisited?

7. Will you or your organization personally benefit from the patent being revisited?

8. Do you or your organization have a reamping related product that you are developing or have developed?

[theblue1]

As most computer industry folks know, the US Patent Office is in way over their heads. Whether or not they understand the actual black letter laws and various doctrines is up to debate.

What's not, is that they often behave in a way that clearly demonstrates their utter befuddlement when it comes to contemporary technology, how it evolves, and how it's used -- and they seem all too willing to turn a blind eye to the abuse of patent law by those who would manipulate the ignorance and befuddlement of the patent system administrators for their own benefit.

[Bob Olhsson]

You can patent anything just like you can copyright anything. Registration only establishes a date. The problem is enforcement which in this case would be impossible due to decades of widespread prior use.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by Bonemeister

It seems that the US Patent Office has granted a patent to Reamp in 1994 for the process of reamping.

Screw that, I was reamping in 1992 to make the sampled electric guitar in my Yamaha SY77 sound more real. I patched the line output into a guitar amp with a DIY pad, and miked the amp.

Does this mean I have the right to sue?

--Ethan

[ITJ]

I think the patent is for the actual box John Cuniberti built.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by ITJ

I think the patent is for the actual box John Cuniberti built.

Box? It's just a coupla resistors fer crying out loud!

Or maybe a transformer if you want to get really fancy.

--Ethan

[warhead]

This is a 2003 thread, started by (I assume) Radial Engineering in Canada over 5 years ago. I also assume that John Cuniberti is the holder of this patent in the USA. I'm not sure if this thread is relevant 5 years later for who started it, but it was my understanding that other makers of "reamplifying devices" (which I believe the patent holder enforces as the only way of stating what your device does if it isn't licensed by Reamp, in other words you will be contacted if you use the word "reamp" when describing a competing product but "reamplify" seems to not draw heat) may be paying fees to the patent holder for the right to create and market like or same devices.

I think 5 years is before the birth of Radial's X-Amp, which might explain this post.

I sell Radial products, and have sold the original Reamp in the past. I'm not speaking for either as a representative but rather trying to inject what I can to this old, likely meaningless thread at this point.

Hope that makes sense.

War

[slaves666]

What's your motivation?

[ltemma74]

We are in a first to invent system. The process of applying for a patent requires nothing more than convincing the USPTO examiner that the patent applied for is unique, novel, new, etc. That's not as simple as it sounds, but it's not the hardest thing either. The examiner almost certainly isn't a gear slut with any desire to do an exhaustive search. Examiners have tons and tons of apps to get through. If the applicant has a good lawyer, the applicant can almost always push something through.

Typically, when one drafts a patent, one attempts to get the broadest possible protection, claiming things beyond what the "box" itself is comprised of. Thus, even if it's just a box with a few resistors, an applicant will claim a "Device that adjusts an audio signal from low impedance to high impedance." Or whatever the broader process is. Just because the patent was granted does not mean it cannot be challenged.

As far as I can tell, Cuniberti was the first to invent and offer for sale a dedicated "box" for this particular purpose. If someone wanted to challenge this, they would have to hire a lawyer and file an action. Cuniberti would have to pay his own lawyer to defend it. Who knows what would happen. That's a recipe for uncertainty and high legal fees. Sometimes it's better to just license it from the inventor like Radial did. It usually comes down to a business decision. Perhaps Radial fired up their lawyer and scared Cuniberti into licensing it to them on the cheap in exchange for dropping any legal action challenging his patent for the life of his patent. That's how the big boys usually play these things.

[Charles Dye]

Originally Posted by warhead

This is a 2003 thread...

OMG... that is just too friggin funny.

And that was the guyz last post on GS.

Put way too much thot into that 1st post of mine. Ooops.

Thx, war!

[TurboJets]

Al Gore invented reamping.

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by TurboJets

Al Gore invented reamping.

No, he invented information superreamping. Regular reamping is like ARPANET.

[kafka]

Originally Posted by ltemma74

We are in a first to invent system.

Originally Posted by TurboJets

Al Gore invented reamping.

Cool! I've always though Al Gore was a faux-nerd (after all, I've never seen him in a JAPH t-shirt), but he can definitely be forgiven if he's a Gear Slut!

[gregl]

I did this a couple of times in the late 70's (made my own box in the college engineering shop)and know other people who tried the same thing, and this was just in somebody's home studio (remember the 3340?). I gotta believe there were plenty of people doing this back even earlier. Its not a rocket science concept.

It just doesn't seem right someone would patent this like it's their original idea. I give the guy credit for seeing a market need and going after it but just because they decided to manufacture it doesn't mean it was their concept.

But then as an engineer in the electronics business I can concur that the patent system is pretty messed up.

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Screw that, I was reamping in 1992 to make the sampled electric guitar in my Yamaha SY77 sound more real. I patched the line output into a guitar amp with a DIY pad, and miked the amp.

Does this mean I have the right to sue?

--Ethan

I remember an engineer reamping in 1982 at a session I was at.

Les paul reamped in the 50's though. Around the same time he invented the electric guitar and MULTITRACK RECORDING!!! :>)


Everyone is a genius yet they couldn't think of the 5 most simple things in the universe that made billions

1. Myspace
2. You tube
3. Craigs List
4. Pet Rock
5. Porn

yet everyone wants to take credit for nonsense like reamping

[travisbrown]

I think some of you guys are confusing the process with the device, or what exactly a patent is compared to a copyright.

The patent is for a device, not the concept or practice of reamping. The patent merely protects the filer from another company making a device that remaps with the same specific method (deemed "novel"). It doesn't prevent people from reamping or claim that the concept or practice is novel.

Here's a brief intro to patents: HowStuffWorks "Patent Protection"

[kafka]

Originally Posted by travisbrown

The patent is for a device, not the concept or practice of reamping. The patent merely protects the filer from another company making a device that remaps with the same specific method (deemed "novel"). It doesn't prevent people from reamping or claim that the concept or practice is novel.

I'm not so sure that's exactly true. From the article you cited, in the first paragraph, it says:

First of all, the invention must be sufficiently novel. That is, it must be substantially unlike anything that is already patented, has already been on the market or has been written about in a publication. In fact, you can't even patent your own invention if it has been on the market or discussed in publications for more than a year.

So, if the process had been discussed in publication prior to the patent, then it should not have been granted.

However, given that the owner of the patent went on to establish a company that makes reamp boxes (actually, Reamp boxes), and licensed the technology to several companies, including one (apparently the OP) that sells many more at a much lower cost, I'd say they've been pretty fair about not stifling the marketplace. So, it would seem that, patent or not, we can all have reamping boxes at a reasonable enough cost.

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by kafka

I'm not so sure that's exactly true. From the article you cited, in the first paragraph, it says:

I'm saying that the actual patent in question is for the device and process the device is keystone in, not the idea of reamping in general, which a whole lot of people here are saying they did prior to the patent. The patent is not for the innovation of reamping; it's for an innovation in the method for reamping with a novel device.

Cuniberti discloses under PRIOR ART that the process existed, and that his devices in a novel way to execute the process.

If no-one patented the idea of throwing an impedance matching transformer in a box, and the idea wasn't readily obvious or previously documented, (and a whole bunch other criteria for patenting something), then he can patent it.

A lot of patents are simply novel (better?) ways of doing something already being done. Just because one says, "I did that before!" doesn't mean that a patent is bunk - it simply means you didn't add anything new to the method or didn't think to patent document, or otherwise make public any innovation.

United States Patent 6,005,950
Cuniberti Recorder to instrument amplifier interface apparatus and method

To wit: "Other prior art recording systems used for the same purpose substitute for the matching transformer an instrument amplifier, a loudspeaker, a microphone and a recording/playback console."

I guess no-one made a substantial enough argument during the pat. pending process that Cuniberti wasn't novel in his method to reamping.

A better example of a bunk patent is the guy who patented fanned frets on guitars, etc. He didn't demonstrate any innovation over prior art, fanned frets being on lutes hundreds of years old. We've got in many an argument with him over at the Musical Instrument Makers' forum because he wants a license fee every time someone makes a multiscale fretted instrument.

But yeah, Cuniberti's a team player in the reamp business. Radial probably wishes they'd patented it first - though I do like the guys at Radial.