Big Muff Triangle 2n5133

[R.G.]

I have never and never will understand the desire of so many people to shoot down others' desire to use authentic parts as nonsense that has no impact on the sound of the pedal. Let people have fun with what they build instead of picking them out and challenging them to a childish contest to see if they can hear the difference. Who cares? Its the difference between a $0.20 part and a $1 part. Get over it and live and let live.

Having started this, I should probably weigh in. I think you misunderstand me.

I have no problem with people deciding that they want to have fun and use platinum-plated Acme-wood mojo parts for any and everything, and pay huge amounts for the privilege as long as they know that's what's happening and they understand that there is not only probably not going to be any change in sound, but that also there is no way to detect any change in sound in a fair test.

I'm all for personal choice. Some things are worthwhile just because you like the way they look and it makes you happy. If you know that this bit of sculpture is made from $20 worth of bronze, but you like the shape it's cast in well enough to pay $2000 for it, so be it. You're buying the shape, the appearance, and you know it. You made an informed purchasing decision. But if the vendor of the sculpture says that the specially-cast piece of bronze will prevent cancer if you keep it near you, I have a problem with that. I would say to him - prove it; by the way, this gentleman standing beside me is a field enforcement operative for the FDA.

If someone has convinced you that an object DOES something better, it's only fair that it really, really does do it better. Don't you think so? You see, the reason mojo superstitions persist so well is that they are commercially valuable. Someone who is selling $20 worth of bronze for $2000 has a $1980 incentive to get the population in general to believe that preventing cancer by the nearness of a properly-shaped piece of bronze. And so do his compatriots who sell magnets to put around your fuel line in your car to get 50 mpg, and the ones who sell copper bracelets to cure arthritis, and the ones who used to sell snake oil to cure whatever ails you.

I have noticed that with the flowering of thousands of boutique effects makers, there has also been a flowering of advertising of convenient hyperbole about the mystical value of certain parts that are, in general, unavailable to the public except through the boutique seller. The bottom line on many electronics things, like especially small signal NPN bipolar transistors is that they are all very, very much alike. And especially in things like the Electro Harmonix pedals where the unsubstantiated oral history is that they made them out of whatever surplus parts they could get from the Canal Street surplus stores that week.

Someone buying 2N5133s for their all-original (but newly hand made) Big Muff just because they think it's cool to have parts that have the same type number on them as the ones which were made 20 years earlier and actually got put in a Big Muff because they were cheap at the time is a perfectly all right thing. The difference is they know the difference, took responsibility for their actions and paid extra for the privilege. Someone buying 2N5133s because they have been told that this is the only way to get the real vintage sound is at best being taken advantage of and at worst the victim of fraud.

Were generally miscommunicating. I wasn't targeting anyone in particular. I was just expressing my annoyance at the back and forth over whether or not people can hear differences in parts and the general attitude from people who believe you cant that they have to prove no one else can just to shove it in their face.

Where to start?
The best verifiable evidence, factual findings, and repeatable testing shows that there are easily-countable instances where a particular part makes a difference. It's not a "general attitude". It's measurable in numbers. In fact, I did the only work I know of in figuring out what mojo parts DO make a difference, and telling effects makers how to find and use them right.

I think I was the first one to post anything about some germanium parts actually sounding good in fuzz faces, and how to pick out the ones that do. I know I was the first to figure out why carbon composition resistors actually do have an audible difference in certain situations, and to enumerate what those situations were (sadly, they don't happen in effects).

The point is that people who know the facts can then make informed decisions. I'm kind of on the side of giving people the facts and then letting them do what they want. What annoys me is the tidal wave of pure misinformation that is fed to the musical public in the interest of selling more widgets. If you want to discuss general attitude from people, I really, really don't like the general attitude that it's OK to tell people things that cannot be proved in order to separate them from their money. That really annoys me.

There oughta be a law. Oh, wait! There is! That's probably why the advertising only skirts the issue by calling attention to the presence of hand-wired point-to-point gold-plated carbon-composition 1963-vintage brown-tone vintage vintage vintage pure-unobtainum parts, and is very careful about what claims are made about anything which is testable.

If I believe I can hear the difference between caps from different batches 2 weeks apart thats fine. It doesn't hurt anyone else.

I agree with you completely. As long as you don't tell someone else that as an inducement to sell them something. In fact I encourage you to use your ears to find things that sound good to you. Chances are if you think you sound better, you probably play better. The placebo effect is real, even if the things that cause it to happen are not. People oughta be happy. But I think that they oughta be happy about real things.

If I believe others cant hear such differences and I make a point to call them out and challenge them to prove them wrong that just takes the fun out of building for everyone.

If the only fun one gets out of building is the belief in mystical properties of parts, that's sad. The emperor had a great deal of fun with his new clothes - until he found out the truth.

I personally get a much bigger kick out of understanding what's really happening. In fact, I find that the reality of the subtleties of parts and the differences they make are just as arcane, just as mysterious as the mojo misrepresentations. And just as much a challenge to master. Only with the real information, making changes makes real differences, not just changes inside my head. I enjoy real magic - the ability to, through long and careful study, using methods that are not generally understood, achieve real results that are remarkably good. And do it repeatably.

I think one of those situations is fine for everyone and the other creates undue problems in the community.

I agree completely with that sentence.

If someone wants to go on a mojo hunt, it's ok to say "you probably won't hear a bit of difference by using mojo parts" and leave it at that. Going on and on about it is unnecessary. Some say that they can hear a difference. Who am I to tell them that they can't ? If somebody still wants to spend their own hard earned money on mojo parts, well, it's their money.

So it's fine for a tidal wave of advertising to say "only mojo can save your sound" but "it won't make a difference" needs to be said quietly, deferentially, and in a way that can be easily ignored?

Why is that?

[Nitefly182]

I have never and never will understand the desire of so many people to shoot down others' desire to use authentic parts as nonsense that has no impact on the sound of the pedal. Let people have fun with what they build instead of picking them out and challenging them to a childish contest to see if they can hear the difference. Who cares? Its the difference between a $0.20 part and a $1 part. Get over it and live and let live.

Having started this, I should probably weigh in. I think you misunderstand me.

I have no problem with people deciding that they want to have fun and use platinum-plated Acme-wood mojo parts for any and everything, and pay huge amounts for the privilege as long as they know that's what's happening and they understand that there is not only probably not going to be any change in sound, but that also there is no way to detect any change in sound in a fair test.

I'm all for personal choice. Some things are worthwhile just because you like the way they look and it makes you happy. If you know that this bit of sculpture is made from $20 worth of bronze, but you like the shape it's cast in well enough to pay $2000 for it, so be it. You're buying the shape, the appearance, and you know it. You made an informed purchasing decision. But if the vendor of the sculpture says that the specially-cast piece of bronze will prevent cancer if you keep it near you, I have a problem with that. I would say to him - prove it; by the way, this gentleman standing beside me is a field enforcement operative for the FDA.

If someone has convinced you that an object DOES something better, it's only fair that it really, really does do it better. Don't you think so? You see, the reason mojo superstitions persist so well is that they are commercially valuable. Someone who is selling $20 worth of bronze for $2000 has a $1980 incentive to get the population in general to believe that preventing cancer by the nearness of a properly-shaped piece of bronze. And so do his compatriots who sell magnets to put around your fuel line in your car to get 50 mpg, and the ones who sell copper bracelets to cure arthritis, and the ones who used to sell snake oil to cure whatever ails you.

I have noticed that with the flowering of thousands of boutique effects makers, there has also been a flowering of advertising of convenient hyperbole about the mystical value of certain parts that are, in general, unavailable to the public except through the boutique seller. The bottom line on many electronics things, like especially small signal NPN bipolar transistors is that they are all very, very much alike. And especially in things like the Electro Harmonix pedals where the unsubstantiated oral history is that they made them out of whatever surplus parts they could get from the Canal Street surplus stores that week.

Someone buying 2N5133s for their all-original (but newly hand made) Big Muff just because they think it's cool to have parts that have the same type number on them as the ones which were made 20 years earlier and actually got put in a Big Muff because they were cheap at the time is a perfectly all right thing. The difference is they know the difference, took responsibility for their actions and paid extra for the privilege. Someone buying 2N5133s because they have been told that this is the only way to get the real vintage sound is at best being taken advantage of and at worst the victim of fraud.

Were generally miscommunicating. I wasn't targeting anyone in particular. I was just expressing my annoyance at the back and forth over whether or not people can hear differences in parts and the general attitude from people who believe you cant that they have to prove no one else can just to shove it in their face.

Where to start?
The best verifiable evidence, factual findings, and repeatable testing shows that there are easily-countable instances where a particular part makes a difference. It's not a "general attitude". It's measurable in numbers. In fact, I did the only work I know of in figuring out what mojo parts DO make a difference, and telling effects makers how to find and use them right.

I think I was the first one to post anything about some germanium parts actually sounding good in fuzz faces, and how to pick out the ones that do. I know I was the first to figure out why carbon composition resistors actually do have an audible difference in certain situations, and to enumerate what those situations were (sadly, they don't happen in effects).

The point is that people who know the facts can then make informed decisions. I'm kind of on the side of giving people the facts and then letting them do what they want. What annoys me is the tidal wave of pure misinformation that is fed to the musical public in the interest of selling more widgets. If you want to discuss general attitude from people, I really, really don't like the general attitude that it's OK to tell people things that cannot be proved in order to separate them from their money. That really annoys me.

There oughta be a law. Oh, wait! There is! That's probably why the advertising only skirts the issue by calling attention to the presence of hand-wired point-to-point gold-plated carbon-composition 1963-vintage brown-tone vintage vintage vintage pure-unobtainum parts, and is very careful about what claims are made about anything which is testable.

If I believe I can hear the difference between caps from different batches 2 weeks apart thats fine. It doesn't hurt anyone else.

I agree with you completely. As long as you don't tell someone else that as an inducement to sell them something. In fact I encourage you to use your ears to find things that sound good to you. Chances are if you think you sound better, you probably play better. The placebo effect is real, even if the things that cause it to happen are not. People oughta be happy. But I think that they oughta be happy about real things.

If I believe others cant hear such differences and I make a point to call them out and challenge them to prove them wrong that just takes the fun out of building for everyone.

If the only fun one gets out of building is the belief in mystical properties of parts, that's sad. The emperor had a great deal of fun with his new clothes - until he found out the truth.

I personally get a much bigger kick out of understanding what's really happening. In fact, I find that the reality of the subtleties of parts and the differences they make are just as arcane, just as mysterious as the mojo misrepresentations. And just as much a challenge to master. Only with the real information, making changes makes real differences, not just changes inside my head. I enjoy real magic - the ability to, through long and careful study, using methods that are not generally understood, achieve real results that are remarkably good. And do it repeatably.

I think one of those situations is fine for everyone and the other creates undue problems in the community.

I agree completely with that sentence.

If someone wants to go on a mojo hunt, it's ok to say "you probably won't hear a bit of difference by using mojo parts" and leave it at that. Going on and on about it is unnecessary. Some say that they can hear a difference. Who am I to tell them that they can't ? If somebody still wants to spend their own hard earned money on mojo parts, well, it's their money.

So it's fine for a tidal wave of advertising to say "only mojo can save your sound" but "it won't make a difference" needs to be said quietly, deferentially, and in a way that can be easily ignored?

Why is that?

These are all very good points. I guess my idea that its fun to use those parts and try to do things just like they were done in the past sometimes is purely for my own enjoyment. I agree that a lot of boutiques hype their wares based on players' ignorance which is unfortunate. When I got into pedal building I really liked using cool parts and trying to make my builds as nice on the inside as I can make them on the outside. Its part of the craftsmanship for me. Any time I sell anything I might mention that verious parts are used like the original but its just that. Ill say I used something because the original version used it, not because its integral to the sound or because carbon comps and tropical fish are actually making the sound awesome. Actually, half the time Ill mention whats in the pedal just to say "but who cares what all that stuff does because it looks cool." Its up to the buyer to decide whether that stuff is important but its certainly not the basis of my marketing.

[Purple People Eater]

If someone wants to go on a mojo hunt, it's ok to say "you probably won't hear a bit of difference by using mojo parts" and leave it at that. Going on and on about it is unnecessary. Some say that they can hear a difference. Who am I to tell them that they can't ? If somebody still wants to spend their own hard earned money on mojo parts, well, it's their money.

So it's fine for a tidal wave of advertising to say "only mojo can save your sound" but "it won't make a difference" needs to be said quietly, deferentially, and in a way that can be easily ignored?

Why is that?

You're taking what I said to the extreme. All I said was "it's fine to say you probably won't hear a difference, and that you are probably spending money in the wrong place". Going on and on about it accomplishes little, if nothing. It has the potential to make the OP feel like he/she was stupid for asking the question, and scare them off from possibly asking questions in the future.

Are people on this forum doing the opposite ? Are they coming on here and saying "your pedal won't sound good unless you use carbon comp resistors, a JRC4558D, and tropical fish caps ? No. I see quite the opposite. This thread is a perfect example. The OP asked about recommended hfe range and suddenly it turned into a "mojo components are bunk" thread.

I understand your point and what you're trying to accomplish, but sometimes saying "Everyone has different taste regarding recommended hfe ranges. You might also try other types of transistors, such as ____, ____, ____ to see if it gives you the sound you're looking for. The 2N5133's aren't necessary for having a great sounding Big Muff"  is enough to make your point without seemingly belittling the OP.

BTW, I always look forward to your posts. As I believe you have said in the past, "when it comes to opinion there can be no debate". Some people are of the opinion that they would like to use "mojo" components. Some aren't. A great sounding pedal can be made either way.



And here's me going on and on about it : Typically when trying to disprove "mojo" components people are trying to disprove one component at a time. People really don't address the circuit as a whole. My experience, which is certainly not a much as yours R.G., is that a Tube Screamer made with cc resistors,a  RC4558P , TF caps, etc will sound different than one made with film caps, a LF353, and metal film resistors. Whether that "different" is good or bad is up to the end user.

[mac]

I tried 2n3904, 2n5088, bc459c, 2n2222, 2n2219a, 2n2218, 2n1711, 2n2369a, 2sc1815, BD139, mpsa42 and Ge.
Except for the 2n2369a and Ge the rest sounded similar. The 2369 are fuzzy, like Ge, IMHO.
Between Ge I hear differences, but most likely due to the different transition freq, ie, 2sd352 die at 10khz, other a little higher, many in the mhz region.

mac

[skiraly017]

2009...the year we all get along. 

[R.G.]

@Nitefly182 and Purple People Eater:
As you may have guessed by now, I have a button that was pressed by the discussion.

@Nitefly182:
I didn't think you were misleading people, and didn't know that you even sold pedals. And you are perfectly correct that it's OK to do something with whatever parts you like just because you like them, even if they happen to just be the right color.

My whole issue is that to a beginner, hearing people debate how to get real, vintage [whatevers] is a powerful inducement to think that the [whatever] must be great. That naivety gets abused by a few unscrupulous entrepreneurs. All a beginner will hear, absent some reality checks here and there, is that very expensive, almost unobtainable parts are the only way to sound good. So whenever the topic comes up I inject a dose of objectivity.

You and I probably disagree less that it seems by my reply.

@Purple People Eater

You're taking what I said to the extreme. All I said was "it's fine to say you probably won't hear a difference, and that you are probably spending money in the wrong place". Going on and on about it accomplishes little, if nothing.

Yes, I was. And I apologize if it seems I was attacking. Part of my approach to this question is that I've been on the internet long enough to watch many successive waves of beginners wash up in this backwater. Each new set of beginners has been exposed to the bogus mojo already to some extent. So I believe I have an obligation to put in a word for reality, objectivity, and things that can be expressed in numbers when it comes up.

One thing that happens is that what we write here lives semi-forever. If magic mojo propagation gets archived with no counterveiling reality check, then it lays there in archives like a time bomb. In that respect, I write these things (and you should as well) like someone will be reading them years after we write them. That's true of a lot of my articles, and will be of yours if you keep it up. Maybe it's because the net happens so fast that it seems like writing for posterity is more important. Posterity can be in a year or two.

2009...the year we all get along.

Make that 2999.  We are, after all, human.

[Purple People Eater]

@Purple People Eater

You're taking what I said to the extreme. All I said was "it's fine to say you probably won't hear a difference, and that you are probably spending money in the wrong place". Going on and on about it accomplishes little, if nothing.

Yes, I was. And I apologize if it seems I was attacking. Part of my approach to this question is that I've been on the internet long enough to watch many successive waves of beginners wash up in this backwater. Each new set of beginners has been exposed to the bogus mojo already to some extent. So I believe I have an obligation to put in a word for reality, objectivity, and things that can be expressed in numbers when it comes up.

One thing that happens is that what we write here lives semi-forever. If magic mojo propagation gets archived with no counterveiling reality check, then it lays there in archives like a time bomb. In that respect, I write these things (and you should as well) like someone will be reading them years after we write them. That's true of a lot of my articles, and will be of yours if you keep it up. Maybe it's because the net happens so fast that it seems like writing for posterity is more important. Posterity can be in a year or two.

Point taken and noted. Sometimes there can be a delicate balancing act. This hobby is tough enough for beginners to understand, without all the "back and forths" that go on. Obviously you want beginners to have a solid foundation, and your past posts reflect this. It just seems like this was a "sore spot" for you, and that perhaps one that is tougher to be objective about.

I look at it this way : If I were either building a clone or restoring a 1972 Cuda, I would want to get as many original parts as possible. Sure, a new Hemi may perform as well (ok...it won't due to current manufacturing restrictions, but this is just an example ), and a new tranny may be just fine, but I'm the type who would rather have the "correct" parts. A restored Cuda with a new Hemi, new dashboard, etc may very well be just as nice and perform just as well, but it doesn't make me "wrong" for wanting to rebuild / clone it with NOS or reconditioned parts.

OTOH, if I were just starting out, I would certainly be happy if someone told me " you could also use this new Hemi if you wanted, and it will perform fine". I might still go for the original one, but the choice was offered. However, if he said "You shouldn't buy an original Hemi, you should buy a new manufactured one" and proceeded to start giving examples in a way that seemed condescending, I probably would look elsewhere for help.

As always, hindsight is flawless. The written word can be completely misunderstood unfortunately.  Cheers.

[Unbeliever]

Typically when trying to disprove "mojo" components people are trying to disprove one component at a time.

It's up to the mojo pushers to prove their components make an audible difference; the burden of 'proof' lies with the claimant.

My experience, which is certainly not a much as yours R.G., is that a Tube Screamer made with cc resistors,a  RC4558P , TF caps, etc will sound different than one made with film caps, a LF353, and metal film resistors.

Our ears are pretty unreliable with respect to comparisons. Tones that are good one day the next are 'blah' ... that's part of the reason why there is the terrible afflication known as GAS.... ... "I want to buy a new pedal that gives me the same vintage sound I had 10 years ago before I sold my gear for new stuff".

[analogmike]

If one of you could build a big muff out of common parts that sounds as good as one of the good old triangle muffs, you would be a rich man. Shoot, I'd buy every one you could make for $100 each and you wouldn't have to deal with sales and marketing. I don't think you can, though I would love to be proven wrong (I would get rich too, reselling them).

[Skreddy]

If one of you could build a big muff out of common parts that sounds as good as one of the good old triangle muffs, you would be a rich man. Shoot, I'd buy every one you could make for $100 each and you wouldn't have to deal with sales and marketing. I don't think you can, though I would love to be proven wrong (I would get rich too, reselling them).

[R.G.]

If one of you could build a big muff out of common parts that sounds as good as one of the good old triangle muffs,

Aye, there's the rub. Yes, I absolutely can build a big muff out of common parts that sounds as good as one of the old triangle muffs. But I get to pick exactly which one of the old triangle muffs I use as a standard. And I get to construct and operate a fair test - that is, the listener does not know which one he's listening to, and can only pick better, worse, or no difference, and has to do that correctly 100% of the time based only on his ears. And ... many... people have to do the same, since the blanket idea of "as good as" can't apply only to one person, can it? 

If only one person thinks it's "as good as" what does that mean? Ideally everyone would think it's "as good as" or better, so I think you'll agree that one person's word is not enough even if they are telling the absolute truth.

How about ten guitarists all say it's as good as? Eight out of the ten? A hundred? Ten thousand? And which ten, hundred, or ten thousand? Fifty percent of them all? Where do we stop the test?Or is all guitarists the wrong population? Can we pick a test sample from players who hate muffs? No, probably not. But then, it's not fair to choose only players that love muffs, either is it? Representative sample? How do we find that out? Survey all guitarists and make random selections? What if the "proper" random sample won't cooperate?

I think we've just found out that big as it looks, the iceberg is 90% hidden under water. "As good as" is not a simple thing.

The easy part is that I get to pick the muff. These things vary all over the map. Hugely.

Mike, I know and respect you. But you simply can't be objective about this issue, even if you try with all of your being as I know you would. Your subconscious will prevent it. The only way to overcome the unconscious pre-selection of preferences is to remove all possible knowledge ahead of time. Go google "Clever Hans". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

Hans' owner von Osten never did believe the debunking, preferring to believe that a horse could do arithmetic. More interesting to me is that as part of the debunking, Pfungst learned to give Hans the cues himself and demonstrated that he could. But having learned to give Hans the cues, he was unable to NOT produce the cues whether he wanted to or not.

The story is amazing to me in that Pfungst's inability to suppress cuing Hans existed, even when he personally was the one who worked out what was going on. His objective knowledge was no shield against his unconsciously taking part in fudging the results. People simply have no idea how powerful their expectations are; often they refuse to believe even when it's clearly demonstrated to them. And they think that it is possible for them to simply decide to be fair while making the choices their unconscious told them to make in the first place. And then they get all offended if someone points out that they're not being fair. Slippery things, humans. 

I personally think that muffs equal to or better than the old muffs in some sense of the words are built all the time. In fact, the readers at this forum are highly likely to be building these better muffs, right now.

No one would get rich selling them because they would only sell to people who would *believe* that they were the equal of the old ones, irrespective of the sound. And that belief will lose out to the vintage mystique when the next boutiquer comes up with something different to believe. Then again, there is that issue I harp on regularly: you have to be able to define "as good as", "better", and "best" in some way that can be measured fairly. How does one do that? I don't know of any "Smoother-meters", any "Creamy-rich-ometers", any "TubeSound-oscopes" to hook up to measure. 

And finally I get back to Lord Kelvin.

"To measure is to know."

"If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it."

"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."

[Pedal love]

RG, WELL DONE! You are still as entertaining as you are informative. Cheers!

[analogmike]

Nice argument but it's not all smoke and mirrors. Good ears can hear the difference and will pay for something that ACTUALLY sounds good. Cubba has an old one that passed the golden ears test but it's too noisy to use. If you can make one that passes Jim Weider's blind AB test vs Cubbas, with commonly available parts, then we will get rich. Go for it, Cubba will lend it to you.

[Purple People Eater]

Typically when trying to disprove "mojo" components people are trying to disprove one component at a time.

It's up to the mojo pushers to prove their components make an audible difference; the burden of 'proof' lies with the claimant.

My experience, which is certainly not a much as yours R.G., is that a Tube Screamer made with cc resistors,a  RC4558P , TF caps, etc will sound different than one made with film caps, a LF353, and metal film resistors.

Our ears are pretty unreliable with respect to comparisons. Tones that are good one day the next are 'blah' ... that's part of the reason why there is the terrible afflication known as GAS.... ... "I want to buy a new pedal that gives me the same vintage sound I had 10 years ago before I sold my gear for new stuff".

First you want "audible proof", then you say "our ears are unreliable" and change every day. 


I'll stand by my statement ; A TS made with a cc resistors and tf caps will sound different than one made with mf resistors and poly film caps. Notice I didn't say better. I said different.  Better is a subjective term, and with regards to an item that is purchased based on "opinion" cannot be proven.

This is not "mojo" talk. It's simply saying that components, when used as a whole, will sound different. Do I think one or two cc resistors in a TS will sound different or better ? No, not audibly. But when you change ALL the resistors, yes, you will hear a difference. Breadboard 2 Fuzz Faces using carefully measured components. In one, use metal film resistors, Illinois electros, 2N3904 transistors and poly film caps. In the other use BC108's, cc resistors, tropical fish and Phillips caps. You will hear a difference. Whether or not you prefer the way the mojo one sounds is up to you. But they will sound different.

[Gila_Crisis]

I'm going to build one.  I have the question on Hfe value of each transistor 2n5133.  Anyone know or can advise the value of Hfe.

don't spend so much time with hFE on big muff, instead i like to use BC239 in this particular fuzz. since i tried them i felt in love.
really recomended. they sound like bc550/2N5089 but they aren't so muudy

[R.G.]

Nice argument but it's not all smoke and mirrors. Good ears can hear the difference and will pay for something that ACTUALLY sounds good.

Actually, I didn't say it's all smoke and mirrors. I said three things:
(1) It is near impossible to define what "as good as" and "better" are, much less get agreement on it on a fair basis. For audio, unless you come up with some kind of measurement, it's like asking whether okra or oysters are good to eat.
(2) There is a lot of variation in real, no-fooling [whatever] pedals. I have a long monologue on the sources of that variation that I just get tired of typing in. But it is quite difficult in the practical, time-and-money-spent sense to weed out the extraneous variations like tone cap tolerances, electrolytic ESR, and so on to get to a fair test of something like transistor tone effects. I don't know of any effort that's ever been spent on doing that.
(3) It is near impossible to get a proper test done, for reasons I note. Historically, the musicology folks have done blind tests of many things, and when the subject approaches topics similar to this, the people rarely do better than random guessing. Many times they are worse. However, anything less than a proper, blind test of a representative sample is at best shortsighted, and at worst fraudulent. Even the golden-ears guys cannot suppress their prejudices; there is a large body of formal testing on that topic.

If the issue is simply to see whether one can get rich selling pedals which are supposed to sound just like a vintage whatever, the answer is easy. Whatever you have, just advertise the dickens out of it saying it does. To many of the people who buy, it WILL sound like whatever it says, not least because they now have a couple of hundred reasons (dollars!) to think it does. This works fine, as we know instinctively having been bombarded with advertising for our entire lives.

Cubba has an old one that passed the golden ears test but it's too noisy to use. If you can make one that passes Jim Weider's blind AB test vs Cubbas, with commonly available parts, then we will get rich. Go for it, Cubba will lend it to you.

That's an interesting  issue. I don't know Cubba, and my spare time is limited (I'm running circuit simulations on the other machine as I type this) but I would be interested in an attempt to blueprint something that's supposed to be a golden-ears pedal. This would involve measuring everything - transistor gain, gain coefficient with temperature, leakage, noise, Early voltage, frequency response, cap values, resistor values, etc etc. and then building a matched unit, with all parts selected to be identical. I would then run both units in parallel, and see how well the waveforms matched for identical signals. Notice that this would involve forcing certain issues in the interest of identicality - like the pots would have to be replaced with fixed resistors to avoid pot variations (typically 20% even today) and pot setting (can of worms) from having an effect. It is not a trivial task, and this kind of thinking is more illustration of the lengths you have to traverse to get to "as good as".

But if you want to broker some kind of setup with Cubba (?) on that, I'd spend some time on it; this will likely have to be distributed over many months, given my schedule. And in this case, the "test" would be matched waveforms, not a listening test, as performing a listening test would be an even bigger process, as I've outlined.

I think this is a bit more light on the "as good as" issue. Given that resistors are usually 5%, often 10% or 20% on older pedals, caps are 10% or 20% on older pedals, and that the gain variation on older bipolars may be five or ten to one, there is no question that saying something like "the sound of a vintage triangle muff" has no meaning. There is a range of sounds, and a big one. And it's not a single dimensional variation. It's at least two and probably more dimensions of variation. There will be results that some people find sublimely attractive, and that will vary from person to person as to which one. This is why I tell people to use their ears - their ears will pick out the one they like, just like I found the strat my hands liked from among about 200 strats I tried out.

There was no question to me that this was MY strat. On the other hand, it would never occur to me to tell someone else that my strat was the best one, or to hold it up as a paragon of strat-ness.

Oops, sim run done.

[skiraly017]

Nice argument but it's not all smoke and mirrors. Good ears can hear the difference and will pay for something that ACTUALLY sounds good. Cubba has an old one that passed the golden ears test but it's too noisy to use. If you can make one that passes Jim Weider's blind AB test vs Cubbas, with commonly available parts, then we will get rich. Go for it, Cubba will lend it to you.

I would actually be willing to take on this challange. Not to prove anyone right or wrong but just to see if I could do it. Unfortunately I don't think Cubba (is this the same one from the MusicToyz forum?) would allow me to really get in there and see what's cooking if his truly sounds that great.

[jaysg]

hmm...so, assuming I'm a builder who would like to get my BMP wip to sound like a great Triangle or Ram's Head version, what's the straight forward advice assuming I don't have access to an original for comparison?   (Please note that the stated contingencies are true in my case.)

[analogmike]

It would be cool to try two different approaches - RG on the scopes and measurements and Skiraly with his ears and eyes. I think Cubba (yes the guy on MusicToyz, I thought RG would remember him from the old days when we were all on USENET, before the web) would allow you to check it out but not to do any soldering/desoldering on it.

But I don't think this would work as RG would be satisfied when the waveforms are the same, while a pro musician could care less, he wants to hear HIS guitar sound, and if the pedal loses that, it does not matter what the waveform shows. The problem with most muffs is that they lose your actual tone. Listen to Gilmour, you can still hear the wood of his guitar, and fingers, great clarity even through a fuzz. Cubba's muff keeps the clarity. All the other new ones and clones I have tried do not (though I have not tried Skreddy pedals). Pete Cornish, one of the best designers in the world, worked hard to make a muff for Gilmour but ultimately it was not good enough and he still uses the old one. I don't think he cares about mojo, just his tone (he uses a T REX replica which has no mojo, just tone).

Jim Wieder has played the same '52 tele for almost 40 years, he hears AND FEELS things I and no engineer can hear. While we were studying, he was playing the same guitar for hours EVERY DAY. Just because an engineer thinks a pedal is good and has a certain waveform does not guarantee that Jim can use it. Thinking that you can hear what a pro player can hear is like thinking you can beat Bobby Fischer (ok, you can, he's dead!). Yes Jim would need to do a double blind test to prove it, but I have been doing that for years.

[Ben N]

Mike: I get and accept that there are differences that we may not have the tools to isolate and quantify, but are real nonetheless, and ears may be better detectors of certain qualities than scopes, notwithstanding the difficulty of turning that into meaningful data. But that begs the question: if you can't isolate and quantify, how can you prescribe an approach that leads to a replicatable result? If characteristics like hfe, Vgs, Idss, and so forth can't lead you to the right devices for the task at hand, is it reasonable that a part number can, when there is such variability within a single type or even a single batch, in some instances? Does your approach inevitably turn you into a sort of FX-Dumble, tweaking away at pedals for hours on end for well-heeled, golden-eared clients (like, say, Jim Wieder) because there really is no recipe? (I suppose for DIY that's ok--we can all pretty much do the same thing with our breadboards, although perhaps not quite as well.)
Just asking.