Weber Legacy Speakers (Scumbacks?)

[Mars Hall]

The Scumbacks were made with allmost all off the shelf
parts that Weber was useing to make other speakers with.

The main thing is the cone and cone treatment that Weber
did all the R&D to make them sound like Scumback wanted.

Jim didnt invent the cone treatment Weber did.

I have Webers and a Scumback, they look identical except
for color and labels.

I hope both companies do well with this going forward.

Jimmy:2cool

Weber would have been smart to patent the cone treatment that puts the "age" to the tone. If they have, it hasn't been revealed on any of these threads. That is, if it's a patentable process.

 

[1fastdog]

Sure they know how to manufacture the speaker, but they didn't do the research, put in the money to source the originals to create it, or come up with the formula/idea to build them until Scumback went with them to manufacture the speaker. Since it was a proprietary speaker design for Scumback, what gives Weber the right to market it when the agreement ends, since it was proprietary?

You don't see an ethical/business & agreement breach with that?

Well, the nature of an agreement is contained in the agreement. If anyone here was there and has read the deal, I suggest they step up and post the facts.

The internet is a sketchy source but I did locate this which was apparently an explanation of Jim's < Scumback > regarding the aftermarket speaker business and Scumbag's part in it:

"To create his Holy Grail speaker, Seavall enlisted Ted Weber of Weber Speakers. "Ted was the only guy who even gave me a response," says Seavall. Even though Weber was already producing a Pre-rola speaker, Seavall told Weber of his quest for the golden tone. "I told Ted that I'd weeded out the best eight or ten out of about 400 and then I've bought the exact same speaker within 3 weeks of the date code of my holy grail examples that had original cones that were dead or burnt out voice coils, et cetera," says Seavall. Seavall sent Ted the Holy Grail speakers as a tone target and sent along the matching dead ones for Ted to autopsy. It was a rather unique concept for Ted. No one had ever done that for him. They'd all come to him and said 'here's what I don't like and here's what I do like and here's what I want to you try and do' but no one had ever sent him and said, "Just replicate this, and by the way here's a dead one to autopsy so that you can figure out how to do it!' So I sent him off all the speakers and he sent me back prototypes and different versions and I selected the ones that were the best choices and those became the models I sell now."

It seems to me, if this quoted stuff is accurate, that Ted Weber was found to be the only willing party to take speakers Jim Seavall selected to be referenced as tone targets for bothering with. Samples were formulated by Weber and Seavall was in a position to give a thumbs up or down on the results. If there was an agreement that the research was paid for with cash up front and the discoveries belonged to Seavall exclusively? That would give me some better info on the actual agreement. The idea is valuable, though I don't think Seavall was the only person who thought a replication of a revered speaker tone was a cool idea. The realization of a business case is what seperates dreams from actual products. I think you sell short the importance of actual execution.

I don't see the huge injustice that you do in this. Scumback has their trademark and the goodwill and brand equity intact. Weber has something they spent time and effort coming up with to offer as a differently named product. Scumback certainly is not restricted from touting their reputation and keep supplying their intellectual wares.
If they know how to design a speaker or discern the desired results? They will be fine.

I do not see some ethical morbidity in this which requires people takes sides.

Perhaps it's a poor analogy I offer. Lets say a record company intructs a band to clone Boston's first album < it was a rather common deal at one time >. They send the album to a band to figure out. A band does a good cloning. The record company finds another band that will record a greatest hits album cheaper. Should the original clone band stop playing under a different name? Do you feel there's some eternal rights owed the record company who thought a copy will likely sell?

Likely a bad analogy, but the level of drama is a bit of a stretch. My take is none of this suggests a quest for originality, but rather was a quest to fill a void in a market where price and availability opened a door.

Seavall will make speakers and one can buy them.

The hyperbole isn't going to change the facts.

 

[cryptozoo]

True that, and honestly, it's unfortunate there wasn't a defined ownership of the 'formula,' but Jim is DAMN lucky Ted sent him the recipe. Now he can get the speakers made by someone else and get be up and running without losing too much time. From the details of the loose agreement Scumback and Weber had, it sounds like it was an invitation for a shitstorm.

 

[Mars Hall]

From the details of the loose agreement Scumback and Weber had, it sounds like it was an invitation for a shitstorm.

I thought about this way before this all happened. I found it suprising that Jim would advertise who his manufacturer was, when they were in direct competition with each other, all at the same time. But then again, Weber did have an established reputation in the industry, seems to be a knife that cuts both ways.

 

[1fastdog]

63sg, I don't see why you really care. I know I don't give a rat's ass either way and can't be bothered to take sides -- I own a couple of Scumback speakers and one or two Webers. Obviously if Jim was the sole owner of the 'formula,' this wouldn't be an issue. Historians, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this timeline -- Jim provided examples of speakers with his opinion of benchmark tone. Weber, capable of actually manufacturing speakers, came up with the 'formula' to produce a new speaker that sounded like the best old examples. Jim made the call on whether or not it sounded like he wanted it to sound. Sounds like a collaborative effort to me.

Seems easy enough.:salude

 

[edgewound]

I thought about this way before this all happened. I found it suprising that Jim would advertise who his manufacturer was, when they were in direct competition with each other, all at the same time. But then again, Weber did have an established reputation in the industry, seems to be a knife that cuts both ways.

If it's known that a certain manufacturer makes a popular proprietary product for a customer, you'd think that manufacturer would want to keep the relationship sound.

Ted's gone. Seems that good relationship went with him.

 

[1fastdog]

I thought about this way before this all happened. I found it suprising that Jim would advertise who his manufacturer was, when they were in direct competition with each other, all at the same time. But then again, Weber did have an established reputation in the industry, seems to be a knife that cuts both ways.

Mars, you are right on the nose regarding supplier disclosure. The only reason to have a company disclose their part/s origin is if it is essential to closing the sales deal or just a nice option such as a stereo designer in a car or truck. In the latter example, the customer is encouraged that an aftermarket change will not be required.

 

[63sg]

According to the Metro site this was posted by Scumback:

I'm having a real laugh reading all of the posts online at the various forums from those who know Webers' side of the story. There is so much conjecture, outright fabrications, and total lies going on it's just hilarious. :lol:

I realize this is a hot bed of conversation. I really wish I could post online all of the details, but there are cooler heads than mine telling me to wait. Trust me when I say, I'm not the one worried about how I'll look when the truth comes out. Until that time is appropriate, however, I can't reveal what I know. Sorry!

http://forum.metroamp.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=36186&start=15

 

[cryptozoo]

Yeah, so what?

 

[1fastdog]

According to the Metro site this was posted by Scumback:

I'm having a real laugh reading all of the posts online at the various forums from those who know Webers' side of the story. There is so much conjecture, outright fabrications, and total lies going on it's just hilarious. :lol:

I realize this is a hot bed of conversation. I really wish I could post online all of the details, but there are cooler heads than mine telling me to wait. Trust me when I say, I'm not the one worried about how I'll look when the truth comes out. Until that time is appropriate, however, I can't reveal what I know. Sorry!

http://forum.metroamp.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=36186&start=15

I'd suggest folks just sell their speakers.

Suggestions that some "truth" will come out strikes me as a whole lot of dramatization of a subject just not worthy of the angst.

If when the facts come out it changes what the speakers sound like? That might be interesting.:lol

 

[bern1]

I don't think I've EVER paid as much money for speakers as I paid Jim for the Scumbacks. And you know what? I was happy to do so, for they are the best Celestion type speaker I've ever heard. Nobody can take that from Jim and now he is going to make the speakers himself, good for him!

The way I see it, this is actually good for us consumers, it gives us alternatives and may keep pricing realistic. I don't really see a downside for anybody ultimately....

 

[Dishimyuh]

I'd suggest folks just sell their speakers.

Suggestions that some "truth" will come out strikes me as a whole lot of dramatization of a subject just not worthy of the angst.

If when the facts come out it changes what the speakers sound like? That might be interesting.:lol

I agree. The only people who will ever know the "truth" are the principles involved.

 

[D'Mule]

I'm guessin' the original Scumbacks were built as a collaboration--with Jim providing the speaker samples to establish benchmark tones--and Ted providing the know-how to reverse engineer the speakers and replicate the tone. Both learned a lot in the process.

I don't see how anyone can fault Weber Speakers for now wanting to use their knowledge to build the very best speakers. As long as they don't try to market the speakers as 'Scumback' brand, I don't see how this can be a problem.

They just don't need the Scumback brand enough to continue the collaboration.

 

[Deluxe Reverb]

I'm guessin' the original Scumbags were built as a collaboration...

That would be "Scumback" :2zone

 

[edgewound]

I'm guessin' the original Scumbags were built as a collaboration--with Jim providing the speaker samples to establish benchmark tones--and Ted providing the know-how to reverse engineer the speakers and replicate the tone. Both learned a lot in the process.

I don't see how anyone can fault Weber Speakers for now wanting to use their knowledge to build the very best speakers. As long as they don't try to market the speakers as 'Scumbag' brand, I don't see how this can be a problem.

They just don't need the Scumbag brand enough to continue the collaboration.

When a vendor is commissioned to do some "engineering work" to come up with a certain product on behalf of a customer that has provided samples, you can bet that non-compete, exclusivity, or 'proprietary' agreement language is in place somehow, somewhere.

There is a new product being marketed that has some questionable non-organic origins, also. Good news travels fast. Bad news travels faster.

Lots of case-study business practices going on here that some parties should be aware of that don't last too long without some sort of intervention...be it through consumer activity and/or legal. Karma's gonna catch up sometime.

 

[Diablo1]

Non-organic origin?????
Ya lost me.

 

[cryptozoo]

When a vendor is commissioned to do some "engineering work" to come up with a certain product on behalf of a customer that has provided samples, you can bet that non-compete, exclusivity, or 'proprietary' agreement language is in place somehow, somewhere.

There is a new product being marketed that has some questionable non-organic origins, also. Good news travels fast. Bad news travels faster.

Lots of case-study business practices going on here that some parties should be aware of that don't last too long without some sort of intervention...be it through consumer activity and/or legal. Karma's gonna catch up sometime.

Well said, I think you've cleared it all up.

 

[madryan]

I'll deal with Scumback regardless as I've had nothing but headaches in the past dealing with Weber. I don't base much on internet group think and perceived mojo but I don't mind paying a few extra bucks for good communication and delivery times that are within a month or two of being "on time" which I never got with Weber.

FWIW, I love WGS speakers once they're broken in well and they're half the price.

 

[1fastdog]

I'll deal with Scumback regardless as I've had nothing but headaches in the past dealing with Weber. I don't base much on internet group think and perceived mojo but I don't mind paying a few extra bucks for good communication and delivery times that are within a month or two of being "on time" which I never got with Weber.

FWIW, I love WGS speakers once they're broken in well and they're half the price.

I wouldn't think you are the only one who feels that way. I wouldn't think any goodwill that Scumback speakers have achieved changes at all. :2cool

 

[JRW8214@AOL.COM]

Ive never had any problems like that with Weber.