To answer the question regarding the VH4 foot switch, these would have 3 function switches on the top row for Mute, Channel Insert, and Send 2, while the bottom row would be the 4 channel select switches. Basically the button pattern is reversed for the Hagen and VH4 foot switches.
That being said, I'm not meaning to be rude, but I and several others feel it to be unfair to go publicly posting slanderous comments about a company's products that you do not have much knowledge of, much less have any direct experience with. And no one said you were George Lynch...but did you ever stop to think that perhaps there may be other players who want some of the same things that he wants?
First off...George Lynch only inspired the foot switch. It was his idea and was supposed to just be a custom one-off product for him and him only. My R&D quest to find information on if it could be done led me here to Rig Talk...not "predatory marketing" as you put it (last I checked, the whole point behind making and selling products is to target the market that wants them...hardly "predatory" IMHO). Prior to doing this pedal for George, I knew NOTHING about Diezel amplifiers other than the fact that they existed.
It was during my R&D phase here on Rig Talk that I decided to make it available to the public as others here on Rig Talk stated that they wanted such a pedal. What is so wrong with making a product that people want? Isn't that how business works in the first place?
George had nothing to do with the chips. That was my idea that came along when I discovered yet others were looking for a solution to use their MIDI controller's "instant access" buttons to switch their amps. I DID NOT modify Diezel's firmware. I rewrote the firmware entirely from scratch. Testing and debugging had to be done as has to be done with any sort of product development.
Yes the AT89S8253 may very well be $3.20. However, the chip is nothing without firmware on it. Just like when you buy an artist's CD...the CD itself only costs about $0.50, yet you pay $15-$20 for it at the store. Why is this? Because you're not JUST buying the CD. You're buying the content on the CD as a blank CD is useless. Just like when you buy a computer operating system you pay $200-$300 (sometimes even more than that depending on the OS). Sure, the CD that holds the OS again is only $0.50. But you're paying for the SOFTWARE.
It goes the same way for microcontrollers and EEPROMs. You're paying for the firmware on the chip...not just the chip itself. The chip itself is just the device that holds the firmware and the machine that runs it. An EEPROM is just a storage medium that contains the firmware that you purchased. Without the firmware, these devices are non-functional and will do nothing.
I wrote the firmware, I spent months getting it 100% perfect with no bugs. Just as an artist would expect to make what is entitled to them when distributing $0.50 CDs that contain music that they wrote, I feel I deserve to make what I am entitled to when distributing $3.20 microcontrollers that contain firmware code that I wrote.
Furthermore, you accuse me of "hiding compatibility issues" by not disclosing anything about changing burden caps for the 89S8253. Fact is there is no need to replace the burden caps on pre-2005 Diezel's. The whole point of the chip replacement was to offer up a mod to the masses that could be done WITHOUT having to change anything but the controller chip and be compatible with all Diezel amps. Furthermore, the 8253 has been tested in a circuit set up for an 8252 and passed all tests with flying colors anyway (I actually did most of my test and development on a bread board, which measures out a 91pF intertrace capacitance and had absolutely zero issues even with that). Little known fact about the 8253...due to its low power design it will actually work just fine without the burden caps installed (check the 8253 datasheet if you doubt this) since they already have 10pF of internal capacitance as it is (this would be inaddition to the intertrace capacitance that already exists in the PCB design). So if the higher value burden caps in older Diezels turns out to be an issue, removing them completely from the circuit should resolve the issue.
Lastly...I originally came to Rig Talk to do R&D for the foot switch. But it was the Rig Talk members who were also wanting the same thing that George wanted that prompted me to go through designing the pedal, making it available to the public, as well as going through the process of developing all new firmware for these amps.
Had no one here had stated that they wanted the pedals and/or the ability to switch the channels and functions via MIDI CC/instant access, I would not have had a reason to venture into rewriting the firmware or making the pedals available to the public. I would've just simply made the one pedal for George and that would've been the end of it. But this was not the case, people wanted both products, so I ventured into making them. Hardly "predatory marketing" as you put it.
I understand if you have no personal use for my products. If you're happy with your rig, great! Again...different strokes for different folks. Your rig and preferences are unique to your personal tastes as all of our rigs are. However, this does not make my product inferior in any way just because you have no use for it in your personal rig. Therefore I feel it to be unfair to be taking a hit just because you want to flame products that have no place in your personal rig.
