toneblaster mk 2.5

[pinkjimiphoton]

she's alive!!!

so i got her up and running with a genuine new NTE103 in Q1.

my setup: jaguar HH with SD humbuckers ----> toneblaster 2.5 ----> silvertone 1484 head w/ marshall half stack cab

thoughts/remarks:
1. volume knob should be pegged on 10 all the time. the pedal itself really kills overall output of original guitar signal

something's wrong...mine is unity gain about 10:00 or so. it should be able to easily get twice as loud as bypassed.

2. attack knob totally co-dependent on VR1 and there is a very tight sweet spot. does take some time to find it.

yah, absolutely. i probably had a wider sweet spot because of how i wired it...remember, i had a 100k resistor in parallel with input and wiper of a 100k trimmer.
for my build, combined resistance seemed best right about 22k. at that point, the attack pot seemed to work the best, and definitely also affected the compression some, too.
i'd be curious to measure what the trimmer you have is set at.

looking at the last schematic posted,  it should be vr2 that affects the attack pot. vr 1 should affect the overall voltage going to the transistors...vr1 should get you somewhere between the standard 4.5-6v on C of Q1. you're gonna probably want to set the front panel knobs all about 1/2 way up. vr1 on the schematic should let you dial up more volume. there's gonna be a compromise between the fuzz and clean. you wanna set it so your guitar sounds fairly clean  with the guitar knob on about 7 or so...it should sound almost the same at 7 on the guitar with the volume and attack knobs at 12:00 and the tone at 3:00 on the fuzz as when bypassed. try messing with vr1...there should be a fairly wide range on that trimmer to dial up or down the + voltage.
then use vr2 to dial in the range where the attack knob works best.

3. remember that i replaced VR3 with a 1k resistor

you may need to put a trimmer there too and play with it slightly. if i recall, full up made it gate to the point where it's off.

4. remember that i have a 470K resistor in place of the 510K in R11

i wouldn't imagine that making that much of a difference. you can try adding a 47k resistor in series with the 470k, i think that voltage divider helps set the gain for the buffered part. remember...10,000 monkeys here, not an ee!!

5. instead of saying its a very compressed sound, i would say the pedal has a major gate effect like a wolly mammoth. overall the pedal is very similar to a WM, just not as aggressive.

does it gate off the ends of notes? if so, you gotta give it more juice with vr1 i'd imagine. mine has a very smooth sustain and very natural decay, no gating at all.
i'm thinking you may have set it up to be more of a fuzz than i did...if you starve the transistors more, you'll get a buzzier fuzzier sound, but you'll lose the dynamics.
the thing with this is when it's set right, it's wicked dynamic...you should be able to dial in how much distortion just with your hands. if it's gating and it's not doing that, you probably need to turn that trimmer up a bit. remember, it should almost be "too" clean if played soft (dynamically) it should start to fuzz as you hit it harder.
if you can roll it up on your guitar from about half way to full blast and go from a slightly nasal clean with a lot of sustain to a sound almost like a kinda brighter big muff, you got it. i'm thinking you're close, from what you've described.

any chance of a clip as it sounds now? cuz this shouldn't be sounding like a wooly mammoth. should be closer to a fuzzface or bmp than that.

6. it certainly has a lot of range from gated fuzz to severe LOFI

i think it's the biasing. i'll try and crack mine open and get some voltages for you this afternoon. it should definitely be cleaner than you describe.

any suggestions jimi?

my gut says to play with vr1 like i said. put vr2 about 1/2 way up to start.  if vr2 is way off, you may need to stick a 100k trimmer in there to see if your particular transistors need that much adjustment.

and just for shits and giggles, try adding the other half of the diode clipper  on q2. i have a sneaking suspicion that may have something more to do with the sound of this than we thought.

we'll sort it out, i'm sure...did ya socket your transistors? try spinning q1 180 degrees maybe. sometimes them damn nte transistors are AFU.

[kodiakklub]

1. i will try spinning q1 180deg.
2. at first i had an AC187 in Q1 it was screaming loud, but i only played with it for about a whole minute. ill go back and really mess with it with the 187.
3. ill socket the resistor i have in for VR3 and play with diff values.
4. i've always had the 2nd clipping diode in there.
5. i had my guitar volume pot on 10 the entire time i was messing with it.
6. i did notice at different points that when played soft, it was clean and you really had to lay on the strings hard to get any fuzz out of it at some points, so maybe its more similar to yours than we think.

ill get another chance to mess with it tomorrow night. i will report back. thanks jimi!!!!!

[pinkjimiphoton]

1. i will try spinning q1 180deg.

i bet the nte is a piece of shit!! i swear, alot of times the nte stuff is just rebranded crap. especially because:

2. at first i had an AC187 in Q1 it was screaming loud, but i only played with it for about a whole minute. ill go back and really mess with it with the 187.

aha!! i bet it's the damn nte. you can try spinning it as suggested, or bite the bullet and use the ac187. if it was screaming loud, that's what we're looking for there..with the directly grounded emitter, it should be at full possible gain!

3. ill socket the resistor i have in for VR3 and play with diff values.

first, try re-biasing with the 187 in q1. you may be fine. i did find it seemed to work best with the trimmer backed off just a little bit there tho. seemed to adjust the overal compression, but pretty subtle. too far up, and the circuit hits cutoff.

4. i've always had the 2nd clipping diode in there.

ok, so it's not that.

5. i had my guitar volume pot on 10 the entire time i was messing with it.

yah, you'll probably find it's quite gnarly with the guitar on 10!!! try setting it up like i suggested in a previous post...you have to compromise a little in terms of all out fuzz i think to get the most usable range out of it. generally, you wanna be able to sweep from clean to mean to scream with your volume control, or pick dynamics like in the video i did.

6. i did notice at different points that when played soft, it was clean and you really had to lay on the strings hard to get any fuzz out of it at some points, so maybe its more similar to yours than we think.

yah, sounds like you're right in the ballpark. a little tweaking, and i think you'll get it. i tend to crank the amp up a little and get my tones from the guitar...i'm looking more for that "cranked tube amp" sound than fuzz. the fuzz shouldn't really happen too much until the guitar is cranked. on your silvertone, try cranking the amp up to the point where it's beginning to break up some, that may help you dial in the fuzz better. at some point, you should definitely find the compression...you saw it in the falstadt sim you did. i think you're really close now. just get the proper tranny in q1 and i bet it will all come together.

ill get another chance to mess with it tomorrow night. i will report back. thanks jimi!!!!!

please do so, and thanks for building the circuit and verifying it for me!! we'll get it sorted out...
be well bro!

[Gus]

what's an ef?
looks cool, but it's a different circuit. be neat to hear what it sounds like.

the falstadt sim was cool, cuz you can kinda "see" what it "sounds" like.

this is way over my head, gus!

An EF is an emitter follower. 
Look closer at the sims I posted the one is very close to what you posted.  No potentiometers in the stock download of LT spice so you make them with two resistors that total up to the value wanted. 
I made the gain control a 2K for two reasons one you can find 2k potentiometers and two for biasing. 
I picked a 33K collector one a stock value and two the note had set the trim to 20-22k  so 10K and 22K is close to 33K
I dislike TRIMS

I added a guitar cable sim and the load the effect might drive 390pf, 39pf a foot cable and 1meg input resistance.
Adding the loading is good to do it will show the change when you add an EF and drive the same load

The green line shows some of what is going on at the input OR how the circuit interacts with the guitar/cable.

I removed the diode in the emitter leg that is reversed biased.

The EF sim I posted earlier has the bias offset for the base this helps in two ways
One you move the voltage of the base and the emitter up
Two better more symmetrical output drive
There have been posts about this in the past

A little of topic
If people want to experiment or can not find a good Ge try a silicon med power transistor for the first one remove the Ge diode.  I have built treble boosts with Si med power  and people that played them have liked them.

[Gus]

updated: thanks again quackzed

I would setup R7, VR2 different
Try something like R7 10k,22k(what min value you like) in series with the 100K  NOTE the feedback resistor value does two things, one it helps set the closed loop gain around Q2 AND is a part of the biasing of Q2 and Q3.

I would remove D4

I would change the EF transistor Q4 to a higher hfe one 2N5089, MPSA18 etc and change the bias resistor values(in ( )) and add a cap at the R11, R12(22K), R13(47K) node to ground

I would make VR1 a 10K with a 50K trim in series.  Good trim design is to have the control at about 1/2 of its travel when set.  The 10k is not to have 0 Ohms from C to +9 with the trim at one end of is travel

[pinkjimiphoton]

updated: thanks again quackzed

I would setup R7, VR2 different
Try something like R7 10k,22k(what min value you like) in series with the 100K  NOTE the feedback resistor value does two things, one it helps set the closed loop gain around Q2 AND is a part of the biasing of Q2 and Q3.

that won't fly, gus... 100k is too much, at 100k the attack control won't work, so a total load of 122k is probably overkill. it wants to see a load of around 22k optimally from my tinkering. i tried just using a resistor, and just a trimmer, it seemed to work best with the two resistors (100k and 100k trim) in parallel. 22k seems to be the sweet spot on mine, you've got about 50k before the attack just starts looking at you doing nothing. don't get me wrong, i BELIEVE you... but for whatever reason,  this worked for me. i drew up the original just as i'd laid it out. a 50k trim could be used there, but it doesn't "sound" the same. i'm wondering if it has something to do with messing with the phasing of the electron flow or something, you can hear an audible difference. maybe it's just me. i've fooled myself before!!

I would remove D4

i've wondered about that, too. i'd think that the pair effectively is a short circuit, but it does at least "seem" to "sound different". when i was messing with the circuit, i tried a 1k resistor there, a trimmer, and one diode as well. the two seemed, again, to "sound" best. i'm wondering if it has something to do with the AC there, if these things work anything like a tube does. forgive me if i'm wrong, but i'd assume as far as dc is concerned, a diode clipper is effectively a short, as it's only gonna conduct both ways, right? but if the ac (audio) component has anything to do with it, maybe that's part of where the sound is coming from. no ee here, my friend, so no idea!!!!

I would change the EF transistor Q4 to a higher hfe one 2N5089, MPSA18 etc and change the bias resistor values(in ( )) and add a cap at the R11, R12(22K), R13(47K) node to ground

the higher gain i'm sure could help. all this was was an lpb1 tacked onto the end, really, set up as a simple buffer. i think it's on dano's site, verbatim, i lifted it from there. would you add the cap there just to nuke noise? or would it help stabilize the circuit some how? sorry for all the questions, but every time you post (for which i am deeply grateful) it's like being dragged from the stone age onto the bridge of the enterprise

I would make VR1 a 10K with a 50K trim in series.  Good trim design is to have the control at about 1/2 of its travel when set.  The 10k is not to have 0 Ohms from C to +9 with the trim at one end of is travel

the 100k there is around the half way mark, maybe 2/3rds i think on mine. i've gotta break it out and do some voltage readings for kodiak, i wanna wait til tomorrow tho cuz i have a gig tonite and i've gotta phobia about opening stuff up and tinkering if i know i'm gonna be using something that nite, ya know?



as always, thanks for the advice!! much appreciated!!

[Gus]

updated: thanks again quackzed

I would setup R7, VR2 different
Try something like R7 10k,22k(what min value you like) in series with the 100K  NOTE the feedback resistor value does two things, one it helps set the closed loop gain around Q2 AND is a part of the biasing of Q2 and Q3.

that won't fly, gus... 100k is too much, at 100k the attack control won't work, so a total load of 122k is probably overkill. it wants to see a load of around 22k optimally from my tinkering. i tried just using a resistor, and just a trimmer, it seemed to work best with the two resistors (100k and 100k trim) in parallel. 22k seems to be the sweet spot on mine, you've got about 50k before the attack just starts looking at you doing nothing. don't get me wrong, i BELIEVE you... but for whatever reason,  this worked for me. i drew up the original just as i'd laid it out. a 50k trim could be used there, but it doesn't "sound" the same. i'm wondering if it has something to do with messing with the phasing of the electron flow or something, you can hear an audible difference. maybe it's just me. i've fooled myself before!!

               The the gain control is marked as attack in the above schematic. To clear this up for me are you calling the feedback bias resistor from Q3 emitter to Q2 base the  Attack control OR are you posting the bias is off with a 1K gain control and more than 22K as the feedback resistor?

I would remove D4

i've wondered about that, too. i'd think that the pair effectively is a short circuit, but it does at least "seem" to "sound different". when i was messing with the circuit, i tried a 1k resistor there, a trimmer, and one diode as well. the two seemed, again, to "sound" best. i'm wondering if it has something to do with the AC there, if these things work anything like a tube does. forgive me if i'm wrong, but i'd assume as far as dc is concerned, a diode clipper is effectively a short, as it's only gonna conduct both ways, right? but if the ac (audio) component has anything to do with it, maybe that's part of where the sound is coming from. no ee here, my friend, so no idea!!!!

                        When Q2 is conducting the emitter is fixed at the voltage of diode drop.  The diode voltage drop is depended on the current to an extent

I would change the EF transistor Q4 to a higher hfe one 2N5089, MPSA18 etc and change the bias resistor values(in ( )) and add a cap at the R11, R12(22K), R13(47K) node to ground

the higher gain i'm sure could help. all this was was an lpb1 tacked onto the end, really, set up as a simple buffer. i think it's on dano's site, verbatim, i lifted it from there. would you add the cap there just to nuke noise? or would it help stabilize the circuit some how? sorry for all the questions, but every time you post (for which i am deeply grateful) it's like being dragged from the stone age onto the bridge of the enterprise

                        IIRC R.G. posted this many years ago at Ampage or maybe even earlier on the web search for noiseless biasing

I would make VR1 a 10K with a 50K trim in series.  Good trim design is to have the control at about 1/2 of its travel when set.  The 10k is not to have 0 Ohms from C to +9 with the trim at one end of is travel

the 100k there is around the half way mark, maybe 2/3rds i think on mine. i've gotta break it out and do some voltage readings for kodiak, i wanna wait til tomorrow tho cuz i have a gig tonite and i've gotta phobia about opening stuff up and tinkering if i know i'm gonna be using something that nite, ya know?

                                           2/3rds of 100k is  33K or 66k depending on how you wired it.


as always, thanks for the advice!! much appreciated!!

                                            I looked at the first hand draw circuit and the feedback resistor is marked as 100K with the 5K gain control?

[pinkjimiphoton]

updated: thanks again quackzed

I would setup R7, VR2 different
Try something like R7 10k,22k(what min value you like) in series with the 100K  NOTE the feedback resistor value does two things, one it helps set the closed loop gain around Q2 AND is a part of the biasing of Q2 and Q3.

that won't fly, gus... 100k is too much, at 100k the attack control won't work, so a total load of 122k is probably overkill. it wants to see a load of around 22k optimally from my tinkering. i tried just using a resistor, and just a trimmer, it seemed to work best with the two resistors (100k and 100k trim) in parallel. 22k seems to be the sweet spot on mine, you've got about 50k before the attack just starts looking at you doing nothing. don't get me wrong, i BELIEVE you... but for whatever reason,  this worked for me. i drew up the original just as i'd laid it out. a 50k trim could be used there, but it doesn't "sound" the same. i'm wondering if it has something to do with messing with the phasing of the electron flow or something, you can hear an audible difference. maybe it's just me. i've fooled myself before!!

               The the gain control is marked as attack in the above schematic. To clear this up for me are you calling the feedback bias resistor from Q3 emitter to Q2 base the  Attack control OR are you posting the bias is off with a 1K gain control and more than 22K as the feedback resistor?

in english?

the 100k resistor (with the 100k trim in parallel) and the 330r resistor? no idea, man. the attack control, AFAIK, is the 1k pot. the  100k resistor and pot seem to work best around 22k, i figured that may change with different transistors.  remember, you're dealing with a neanderthal here!!   it will work with different values, but above about 33k or so, the attack control stops adding distortion and starts adding more compression/sustain...at least tonally, i don't know what it's doing electronically.

I would remove D4

i've wondered about that, too. i'd think that the pair effectively is a short circuit, but it does at least "seem" to "sound different". when i was messing with the circuit, i tried a 1k resistor there, a trimmer, and one diode as well. the two seemed, again, to "sound" best. i'm wondering if it has something to do with the AC there, if these things work anything like a tube does. forgive me if i'm wrong, but i'd assume as far as dc is concerned, a diode clipper is effectively a short, as it's only gonna conduct both ways, right? but if the ac (audio) component has anything to do with it, maybe that's part of where the sound is coming from. no ee here, my friend, so no idea!!!!

                        When Q2 is conducting the emitter is fixed at the voltage of diode drop.  The diode voltage drop is depended on the current to an extent

ok,but doesn't having the other diode there mean it conducts the other way too? i'm baaaaaaarely keeping up here, bro..

I would change the EF transistor Q4 to a higher hfe one 2N5089, MPSA18 etc and change the bias resistor values(in ( )) and add a cap at the R11, R12(22K), R13(47K) node to ground

the higher gain i'm sure could help. all this was was an lpb1 tacked onto the end, really, set up as a simple buffer. i think it's on dano's site, verbatim, i lifted it from there. would you add the cap there just to nuke noise? or would it help stabilize the circuit some how? sorry for all the questions, but every time you post (for which i am deeply grateful) it's like being dragged from the stone age onto the bridge of the enterprise


IIRC R.G. posted this many years ago at Ampage or maybe even earlier on the web search for noiseless biasing


i will look that up, thanks gus!!

I would make VR1 a 10K with a 50K trim in series.  Good trim design is to have the control at about 1/2 of its travel when set.  The 10k is not to have 0 Ohms from C to +9 with the trim at one end of is travel

the 100k there is around the half way mark, maybe 2/3rds i think on mine. i've gotta break it out and do some voltage readings for kodiak, i wanna wait til tomorrow tho cuz i have a gig tonite and i've gotta phobia about opening stuff up and tinkering if i know i'm gonna be using something that nite, ya know?

                                           2/3rds of 100k is  33K or 66k depending on how you wired it.

i'll check tomorrow bro. i forget. there's a couple of sweet spots for different sounds, i like it to clean up with my guitar volume pot, and have it set where that seems to happen the most.



as always, thanks for the advice!! much appreciated!!

                                            I looked at the first hand draw circuit and the feedback resistor is marked as 100K with the 5K gain control?

i'll have to look...i believe i may have changed that some because the attack pot didn't do squat. that was why first i went to IIRC a 1k pot, but the 100k resistor was way too big...that's why i hacked the 100k trimmer in there, so i could adjust it till it sounded good. i then measured the trimmer and then used a parallel resistance calculator to figure out the parallel resistance, i forget the values, but i think it was 69k-ish or something...in parallel, it can to like 2.1someodd k, i figured 22 was close enough.

[ch1naski]

the thing with this is when it's set right, it's wicked dynamic...you should be able to dial in how much distortion just with your hands. if it's gating and it's not doing that, you probably need to turn that trimmer up a bit. remember, it should almost be "too" clean if played soft (dynamically) it should start to fuzz as you hit it harder.
if you can roll it up on your guitar from about half way to full blast and go from a slightly nasal clean with a lot of sustain to a sound almost like a kinda brighter big muff, you got it. i'm thinking you're close, from what you've described.

With a description like that, makes me want to build this thing.

[Gus]

pinkjimiphoton
Is this closer to what you have?
How do the measured voltages compare to the sim voltages at Q2 and Q3?
You are getting most of your gain from Q1 and Q3.   

Q2 gain is close to 22k divided by 10k so not much gain from that stage

[pinkjimiphoton]

the thing with this is when it's set right, it's wicked dynamic...you should be able to dial in how much distortion just with your hands. if it's gating and it's not doing that, you probably need to turn that trimmer up a bit. remember, it should almost be "too" clean if played soft (dynamically) it should start to fuzz as you hit it harder.
if you can roll it up on your guitar from about half way to full blast and go from a slightly nasal clean with a lot of sustain to a sound almost like a kinda brighter big muff, you got it. i'm thinking you're close, from what you've described.

With a description like that, makes me want to build this thing.

seriously...check the video.  i used this thing last nite into a fuzzface, just turned my guitar up and down. played everything from "barracuda" by heart to "love the one you're with" by csn. worked great. by itself, it's hip, before a fuzzface, even hipper!

[pinkjimiphoton]

pinkjimiphoton
Is this closer to what you have?
How do the measured voltages compare to the sim voltages at Q2 and Q3?
You are getting most of your gain from Q1 and Q3.   

Q2 gain is close to 22k divided by 10k so not much gain from that stage

still waking up bro, need coffee...gotta unload the car, was too tired last nite, so the princetone and pedalboard are in the car still.

made an interesting discovery last nite...this thing plays REALLY well into a fuzzface!! they both clean up, which i've never gotten out of another pedal before the face before.
i use a compressor before the fuzzface so i can overdrive it and make it sound "broken" when i need it, but in this case, was like playing a nice tube amp. pretty cool.

i will go out to get the pedals out of the car at some point this afternoon, and take voltage measurements. then maybe someone much smarter than me (you!!!) can figure out just how the heck i cobbled this thing together.

it really was just andrew carroll/ricky d. vance's silicon tonebender with a couple modifications.

glad to see you simmed with a 404...i think the GE may make it different. did you see the falstaff sim karl posted?

if ya get a chance, check it out...makes some very interesting waveforms as you juice it.

not taking any credit...standing on the shoulders of giants. in my case, if it's good, it's a happy accident!!

[pinkjimiphoton]

the toneblaster in action last week. i was hired to play for "the charmed ones" to cover for their ailing lead guy.
excuse the wankage.

[ch1naski]

the toneblaster in action last week. i was hired to play for "the charmed ones" to cover for their ailing lead guy.
excuse the wankage.

The wankage sounded great. That pedal seems to scream nicely.

[rutabaga bob]

Nice to see you in action, Jimi!  Man, I've got to build one of those...and learn how to play...

[pinkjimiphoton]

thanks guys. yah, build one.

it's weird. it translates real well live, but it's quirky. i'm really digging it. i've gone from my usual overkill pedalboard to just the toneblaster>wah>boss me5. it's pretty sick.

[pinkjimiphoton]

okeedokee.

i figured since kodiakklub had problems with this thing, i'd build another one. so i spent most of the day cobbling together the veroboard i put up.

it absolutely works. i'm psyched... BUT there's a couple things to watch out for, and 2 mistakes on the vero layout...nothing major, but annoying.

first off, make sure you don't miss the cut behind c9.... i did, cuz i ran out of color ink so i did it in grayscale.

second, i (braindead) got the attack and volume controls wired backwards.

reverse the wires going to pins 1 and 3 of those two pots, and also flip the cap on the attack pot as well... if you mounted it on the pot like i did.

that's it. other than that, it works great. i did make a couple substitutions, just cuz i was a little lazy.

i made r2 47r instead of 100r.

i used a 1k and a 4.7k in series instead of the 5.6k. i did that on the original, too.

i used an 1n60 and a 1n34a for the diode clipper. it absolutely sounds better with BOTH the diodes there, i swear i hear a difference, and bet you will, too.

also used an 1n60 for the temp stabilizer on q1.

i had another nte 103a kicking around, so i built it as drawn. man. a low-gain, hissy, crackly ...frankly, shitty transistor. not reccomended. it IS what's in the original one, and that may be part of why it sounds the way it does. i had soldered it into the board, but i would guess it was maybe 30-40 hfe. if that. really low-gain ge's that leak like a sieve are probably good here. i'm gonna mess with it more tomorrow if i get a chance.

but... i have a bunch of AC176's, so i just grabbed a random one and stuffed it in q1.

fresh battery, 9.59v

so, it ended up ac176, hfe 80 (6ma leakage if i read it right)
c  4.23
b  0.08
e 0.00

2n3904,  hfe 362
c  2.00
b  0.80
e  0.21

2n5089, hfe 666 (ha!! the number of one hell of a fuzzmaker)
c  2.79
b  2.00
e  1.39

2n3904, hfe 353
c  9.57
b  3.99
e  3.56

i also added a 47p cap between b&c of q2 to help dodge some noise. it's not boxed, so it's pretty noisy.

how does it sound?

well, it's more of a fuzz than the original. it never forgets it's a fuzz, and i have a feeling into a good tube amp the dynamics will be there.
right now, i've only tested thru my ruby, using my 3 humbucker tele. it sounds great. not as clean. still dynamic. hard to tell until i play it thru a REAL
amp.

still has the huge compression and sustain. i see where karl was talking about gated. i can definitely dial that in, and still get a real natural sustain.
the three trimmers work a lot better than the ones on the original. can dial in a bunch of different shades of it. sounds like a tonebender.

the attack control will rip your head off. the tone control goes from muted and nasal to scream with a good treble boost.
it does seem to respond well to the knobs on the guitar, and it has a hint of octave up on some settings.

here's the vero:


i'll update and correct the vero layout as soon as i can get a chance.
and will get a stupid pedal trick happening asap.

peace out.

[ch1naski]

okeedokee.

i figured since kodiakklub had problems with this thing, i'd build another one. so i spent most of the day cobbling together the veroboard i put up.

it absolutely works. i'm psyched... BUT there's a couple things to watch out for, and 2 mistakes on the vero layout...nothing major, but annoying.

first off, make sure you don't miss the cut behind c9.... i did, cuz i ran out of color ink so i did it in grayscale.

second, i (braindead) got the attack and volume controls wired backwards.

reverse the wires going to pins 1 and 3 of those two pots, and also flip the cap on the attack pot as well... if you mounted it on the pot like i did.

that's it. other than that, it works great. i did make a couple substitutions, just cuz i was a little lazy.

i made r2 47r instead of 100r.

i used a 1k and a 4.7k in series instead of the 5.6k. i did that on the original, too.

i used an 1n60 and a 1n34a for the diode clipper. it absolutely sounds better with BOTH the diodes there, i swear i hear a difference, and bet you will, too.

also used an 1n60 for the temp stabilizer on q1.

i had another nte 103a kicking around, so i built it as drawn. man. a low-gain, hissy, crackly ...frankly, sh*tty transistor. not reccomended. it IS what's in the original one, and that may be part of why it sounds the way it does. i had soldered it into the board, but i would guess it was maybe 30-40 hfe. if that. really low-gain ge's that leak like a sieve are probably good here. i'm gonna mess with it more tomorrow if i get a chance.

but... i have a bunch of AC176's, so i just grabbed a random one and stuffed it in q1.

fresh battery, 9.59v

so, it ended up ac176, hfe 80 (6ma leakage if i read it right)
c  4.23
b  0.08
e 0.00

2n3904,  hfe 362
c  2.00
b  0.80
e  0.21

2n5089, hfe 666 (ha!! the number of one hell of a fuzzmaker)
c  2.79
b  2.00
e  1.39

2n3904, hfe 353
c  9.57
b  3.99
e  3.56

i also added a 47p cap between b&c of q2 to help dodge some noise. it's not boxed, so it's pretty noisy.

how does it sound?

well, it's more of a fuzz than the original. it never forgets it's a fuzz, and i have a feeling into a good tube amp the dynamics will be there.
right now, i've only tested thru my ruby, using my 3 humbucker tele. it sounds great. not as clean. still dynamic. hard to tell until i play it thru a REAL
amp.

still has the huge compression and sustain. i see where karl was talking about gated. i can definitely dial that in, and still get a real natural sustain.
the three trimmers work a lot better than the ones on the original. can dial in a bunch of different shades of it. sounds like a tonebender.

the attack control will rip your head off. the tone control goes from muted and nasal to scream with a good treble boost.
it does seem to respond well to the knobs on the guitar, and it has a hint of octave up on some settings.

here's the vero:


i'll update and correct the vero layout as soon as i can get a chance.
and will get a stupid pedal trick happening asap.

peace out.

I have a couple of germanium sb22's and 175's. The 22's have low gain, roughly that area.... Wonder if they'd work for q1.....

[pinkjimiphoton]

worth a shot. the nte sounds cleaner, more compressorish...the ac176 sounds more like a phat-ass little cheeky fuzz.

that said...here's the corrected vero (other than the cheater cap)

[rutabaga bob]

Just for my own clarity: the last schematic is ok, then?