:D I saw on one of the websites mentioned around here a reference that the first Vox tonebenders had only 2 trannys in them and that the circuit was almost the same as a Fuzz Face. So the first Vox tonbenders were supposed to use OC76 while being made in England then some other job when the production moved to Italy. So would'nt OC76 sound great in a Fuzz Face circuit? Since the claim is made that the Vox and the Fuzz Face are close to the same design? Anyone tried this route?
There can be more variation between devices of the *same* type number than between "typical" numbers for two different type numbers.
Knowing a type number tells you something, but very little about how that device will perform in different circuits.
See the GEO article on the Technology of the Fuzz Face and on selecting transistors to go in them for some more background.
I used OC77 in a tonebender and heard a VOX using OC75 and they both sounded quite similiar. They had a great tone, different than the AC stuff, more gritty/metally but great in general. Also they had a very clean sound when turning the guitar volume half way down.
Quote from: Bluesgeetar:D I saw on one of the websites mentioned around here a reference that the first Vox tonebenders had only 2 trannys in them and that the circuit was almost the same as a Fuzz Face. So the first Vox tonbenders were supposed to use OC76 while being made in England then some other job when the production moved to Italy. So would'nt OC76 sound great in a Fuzz Face circuit? Since the claim is made that the Vox and the Fuzz Face are close to the same design? Anyone tried this route?
The Vox Tonebender was actually "designed" many years before the fuzzface...1959 to be exact...and early prototypes were floating around the UK around 62...then commercially available in 64...the FF came out in 66 when Ivor Arbiter's crew "borrowed" the Vox Tonebender circuit and made the obvious changes to it that everybody in the universe now knows...
The early Vox TB's used the Mullard OC76's before switching to the SFT363E and SFT337 but they were all made in Italy...even the Jen TB's were, altough in a different part of Italy (Pescara) when Jen bought out all the left over stock of Vox stuff that wasn't completed...
The OC76 versions are a little bit fatter and rounder sounding than the later ones, although they don't suck either...they cut through very nicely, better than a FF ever would...
To answer your question, yes, OC76's sound good in a FF, smoother and quieter than AC trannys and less gain and noise than original NKT275's...though I prefer silicon trannys in my FF's (BC108C's to be exact) and I like germs only in tonebender circuits and such...germs are too muddy in FF circuits for my tastes...
If you want one of the best fuzzes ever, build a Marshall Supa-Fuzz circuit with 3 original OC76's and I think you'll love it...early MSF's came stock with those before changing to OC75's (more gain) later on and these pedals, like the Vox TB, were also made in the Solasound factory in Italy...hope this helps
QuoteI prefer silicon trannys in my FF's (BC108C's to be exact) and I like germs only in tonebender circuits and such...germs are too muddy in FF circuits for my tastes...
Good point,
gonna try BC108C I heard them in a FF and they sounded terrific !
Amscray,
I'd love to read more about the history of the tone bender versus the ff. Can you give me references where I can read about the early history independently?
R.G.
Quote from: R.G.Amscray,
I'd love to read more about the history of the tone bender versus the ff. Can you give me references where I can read about the early history independently?
R.G.
Hi R.G.!
You've probably read some prior posts I did on this topic before on the "old" forum but that's all there is because I didn't read it somewhere; I got alot of my info directly from the Macari's of Colorsound, Ivor Arbiter and others in the UK when I was there in the mid-90's...I've corresponded with people who also knew G Hurst quite well...
The rest of the puzzle has just been put together piece by piece over the years from having owned and serviced and made notes on tons of these UK pedals, which I've been obsessed with ever since I bought my first Marshall Supa-Fuzz in like 1973 or so...followed by Colorsound Tonebenders, Overdrivers, etc...I'm always adding little bits of information all the time, too...
Hope this helps...
A
Oh.
No external sources. Too bad.
R.G.
I have 4 of them OC76 and they measure as so on my Radioshack DMM:
hfe= around 136
hfe= around 245
hfe= around 63
hfe= around 209
The problem is that when I plug the Tranny into the socket of my DMM that tests hfe of trannys the value starts out at a higher number and slowly drops down and down to a lower number. If I touch the tranny with my hand she starts climbing back up fast! I plugged in one OC76 and it dropped from 300 hfe to 209 over a period of 5 minutes.
Please be gentle! I am an extreme very new newbie to this stuff so I may have said something that shows my stupidity. But you guys were once where I am starting. I just got my first DMM today!!! Woo Hoooo look at me!!!!! I look at this new toy with amazement! I barely got a grasp on how she works but I'm trying. The manual showed me how to test trannys. She is a "Radio Shack Auto Range DMM with True RMS" I don't know what that means but I'm excited to try and learn!
As RG points out above, you should take a look at the Technology of the Fuzz Face article over at his site (GEOFEX). Testing germanium transistors with a multi-meter (the way you've described at any rate) isn't that accurate (all explained in the article).
Ge trannies are very heat sensitive and it helps to leave them to settle down a bit before testing (finger heat distorts measurements)
ometimes when peope are measuring "gain' with a multimeter, they are really measuring leakage, or some combo of the two. Maybe someone can think of a simple circuit that actually amplifies a sine wave & indicates the actual gain? (of course, most circuits are designed with neg feedback to make all transistors look the same!)
To me the numbers don't mean anything...no offense to anyone here but we're not getting ready to shoot a rocket to the moon, we're just trying to make a fuzztone sound good...:) sometimes it seems people get too technical just for the sake of doing it...taking the cat for a walk so to speak... :?
Just listen to the transistors in your circuits and use the ones that you like, that aren't noisy, etc. Get rid of the rest or give them to somebody else, maybe they'll work for them...it's all about SOUND, not electronics mumbo-jumbo...
Consider this: Solasound didn't think about all this stuff when they threw a couple of OC76's in their Vox Tonebenders, neither did Marshall when they threw a couple of EL34's in their 50 watt tops...
In the case of the amp, I have found after working on and playing these amps for years, that tubes that are slightly or even sometimes grossly mismatched sound better than the bogus GT tube-matching-MARKETING operation...sometimes I'll take a bunch of random Mullard 34's that I know are drawing current in a certain vicinity and pop them in and the tonal variations are incredible...supposedly Hendrix's techs did this with his plexi tops...I use whatever sounds the best and is still safe for the amp...and it always turns out that the tubes are NOT PERFECTLY MATCHED...
With pedals, we don't even have to worry about the things like high plate voltages and other stuff so it's even simpler...relax and have a good time, leave the electronics for NASA... 8)
peace
Quote from: Ammscray.it's all about SOUND, not electronics mumbo-jumbo...
Consider this: Solasound didn't think about all this stuff when they threw a couple of OC76's in their Vox Tonebenders, neither did Marshall when they threw a couple of EL34's in their 50 watt tops...
peace
Interesting. Without "electronics mumbo-jumbo" we wouldn't have much to talk about here.
Whether Solasound thought about it or not is kind of beside the point. You don't have to be horribly proficient with or have a deep understanding of electronics to produce music gear. I don't think a lot of this stuff was necessarily a great design, it just made a sound that people happened to like. The fact that fuzz faces, etc were so inconsistent in their tone implies to me that the original design wasn't the greatest, esp with leaky, tempermental Ge transistors.
In any case, I appreciate someone like R.G. going to the trouble to try to characterize a "good" fuzz face sound with a few parameters that anyone can easily test at home with a dvm. It seems to me that eliminates a lot of head scratching. I would rather spend ten minutes checking a handful of Ge transistors than getting on an endless chase for the "vintage mojo voodoo" parts bandwagon.
People obsess too much over "vintage" part numbers. IMO, their time would be much better spent experimenting with a breadboard, finding their sound, and learning a little about how this stuff works along the way.
Doug
I have to agree with a lot of the above comments. At the end of the day getting hung up on what the didgits are on the side of a transistor just isn't worth it. Half the time a manufacturer just used what was available (or rather what was cheapest!) and it wasn't always the best choice - often you can get a better sounding circuit by subbing something else (try out what's available to YOU and just use your ears).
A lot of vintage circuits aren't that well designed, the reason we love them so much is that they were used on some damn fine recordings in the past and we want to capture that sound. It's interesting to note though that many of the guitarists who were recording in the 60s use modern equipment and stay well clear of vintage. The reason Beck etc used the Tone Bender is because it was more or less all that was available in the UK then and it was affordable. As soon as alternatives came along/technology got better those old fuzz boxes were soon discarded.
Quote from: Doug HQuote from: Ammscray.it's all about SOUND, not electronics mumbo-jumbo...
Consider this: Solasound didn't think about all this stuff when they threw a couple of OC76's in their Vox Tonebenders, neither did Marshall when they threw a couple of EL34's in their 50 watt tops...
peace
Interesting. Without "electronics mumbo-jumbo" we wouldn't have much to talk about here.
Whether Solasound thought about it or not is kind of beside the point. You don't have to be horribly proficient with or have a deep understanding of electronics to produce music gear. I don't think a lot of this stuff was necessarily a great design, it just made a sound that people happened to like. The fact that fuzz faces, etc were so inconsistent in their tone implies to me that the original design wasn't the greatest, esp with leaky, tempermental Ge transistors.
In any case, I appreciate someone like R.G. going to the trouble to try to characterize a "good" fuzz face sound with a few parameters that anyone can easily test at home with a dvm. It seems to me that eliminates a lot of head scratching. I would rather spend ten minutes checking a handful of Ge transistors than getting on an endless chase for the "vintage mojo voodoo" parts bandwagon.
People obsess too much over "vintage" part numbers. IMO, their time would be much better spent experimenting with a breadboard, finding their sound, and learning a little about how this stuff works along the way.
Doug
Interesting. Without "electronics mumbo-jumbo" we wouldn't have much to talk about here.
Of course we would Doug, there's plenty to talk about besides all the numbers, specs and terms that I'm sure most newbies have no clue about what they mean...but you knew that's what I meant, right?
Whether Solasound thought about it or not is kind of beside the point.(WHAT???) That was my point and I meant exactly what I said...let me know what wasn't clear...
You don't have to be horribly proficient with or have a deep understanding of electronics to produce music gear. I don't think a lot of this stuff was necessarily a great design, it just made a sound that people happened to like. The fact that fuzz faces, etc were so inconsistent in their tone implies to me that the original design wasn't the greatest, esp with leaky, tempermental Ge transistors.
I thought the point was well-founded; some folks on this board, IMO are worrying to much about whether the specs line up or not, and they're NOT LISTENING...that to me is dangerous, and not very practical...
Those original designs are still the basis for alot of the projects that people are dabbling with...and I don't think they were just accidents either...anybody on this board would probably be happy to have one ounce of the talent and experience G Hurst had with electronics, sound, and music...IMO he is the original (and only) real pedal guru...you can tweak and tweak, but they never sound as good as the way they rolled off the line...it's a travesty that some of the so-called pedal "gurus" of today get the recognition which belongs to him...
The FF problems stemmed from the inconsistent and crappy NKT275's, not from the circuit...there were lots of better choices of devices but maybe Ivor Arbiter didn't want to use OC devices on purpose for some reason...we'll never know at this point
In any case, I appreciate someone like R.G. going to the trouble to try to characterize a "good" fuzz face sound with a few parameters that anyone can easily test at home with a dvm. It seems to me that eliminates a lot of head scratching. I would rather spend ten minutes checking a handful of Ge transistors than getting on an endless chase for the "vintage mojo voodoo" parts bandwagon.
I appreciate it too...BUT I also think folks should learn to **** their own ***...
the way I learned was from jumping into the frying pan and getting burned, toasted, whatever...it's half the fun, and the time you spend is a sacrifice...IMO lessons learned, and information accumulated are best and most valuable when you do it yourself...if someone had taught me everything along the way, I wouldn't know a 1/4 of what I do know now...all those little blanks that were filled in during those painstaking (but fun) hours add up to alot...and it's very satisfying...
People obsess too much over "vintage" part numbers. IMO, their time would be much better spent experimenting with a breadboard, finding their sound, and learning a little about how this stuff works along the way.
Touche! And you were talking about me and you were right! As soon as you or anybody comes up with devices that sound as good as the original OC's, per esempio, I'll be the first to de-obsess...I guess if somebody doesn't hear a difference, then there isn't one...I for one, do...
I also don't think that most of the guys chasing down vintage part numbers are just sitting there staring at them wondering what to do...they went to the trouble because they knew it was worth it in the end and it made the whole episode and the final result more enjoyable...
Are you grasping for diodes Doug? :)
Peace man, and enjoy the resy of your day
Quote from: gezI have to agree with a lot of the above comments. At the end of the day getting hung up on what the didgits are on the side of a transistor just isn't worth it. Half the time a manufacturer just used what was available (or rather what was cheapest!) and it wasn't always the best choice - often you can get a better sounding circuit by subbing something else (try out what's available to YOU and just use your ears).
A lot of vintage circuits aren't that well designed, the reason we love them so much is that they were used on some damn fine recordings in the past and we want to capture that sound. It's interesting to note though that many of the guitarists who were recording in the 60s use modern equipment and stay well clear of vintage. The reason Beck etc used the Tone Bender is because it was more or less all that was available in the UK then and it was affordable. As soon as alternatives came along/technology got better those old fuzz boxes were soon discarded.
As soon as alternatives came along/technology got better those old fuzz boxes were soon discarded
Dude that was really funny what you said, if you really believe that, you should listen to alot more old records...that is not a fact by any stretch of the imagination...
take the Colorsound overdriver...I defy anyone to design a better booster, with the most amazing and sweetest treble boost ever, built right in! I'm so glad I didn't discard mine!
Most of those guys who said they don't use their old pedals anymore is because they were either lost or stolen on the road...Beck has stated in more than one interview that he wishes he still had some of those boxes, and B May also says he wishes he never lost his original Rangemaster...no offense but let's try to stick with facts, and not opinions...maybe you should say you discarded yours...:)
or maybe you've never played through one??
Quote from: AmmscrayI thought the point was well-founded; some folks on this board, IMO are worrying to much about whether the specs line up or not, and they're NOT LISTENING...that to me is dangerous, and not very practical...
I would agree with you if I saw that on here, but I haven't.
Quote from: Ammscray(re: RG's gain matching test)
I appreciate it too...BUT I also think folks should learn to **** their own ***...
See, that's just it. People learn to "**** their own ****" by acquiring a little knowledge, not by chasing voodoo. I suppose cloners must really chafe at guys like RG who dispense handy information and empower people to "**** their own ****". And to think... They had so many people convinced it was magic parts doing all the work!
Quote from: Ammscraythe way I learned was from jumping into the frying pan and getting burned, toasted, whatever...it's half the fun, and the time you spend is a sacrifice...IMO lessons learned, and information accumulated are best and most valuable when you do it yourself...if someone had taught me everything along the way, I wouldn't know a 1/4 of what I do know now...all those little blanks that were filled in during those painstaking (but fun) hours add up to alot...and it's very satisfying...
So let me get this straight: You think blindly stabbing in the dark is the best way to learn?!? Do you just randomly string parts together and hope they work? Do you use a voltmeter? (Wouldn't want be overly concerned about "specs" like voltages... :D )
I think everyone learns from each other as well as their own experience, as well as books, classes, etc, etc... It's all just a big soup... I think RG's test is a guide that helps people get a little closer to their sound faster. More importantly it helps people understand what's going on which will enable them to make their own discoveries and share them too.
I agree that you have to do it yourself. The gain test is a way of enabling people to do it themselves, so I guess I don't really see the argument.
Quote from: AmmscrayPeace man, and enjoy the resy of your day
You too! And enjoy the long weekend.
Doug
Quote from: Doug HQuote from: AmmscrayI thought the point was well-founded; some folks on this board, IMO are worrying to much about whether the specs line up or not, and they're NOT LISTENING...that to me is dangerous, and not very practical...
I would agree with you if I saw that on here, but I haven't.
Quote from: Ammscray(re: RG's gain matching test)
I appreciate it too...BUT I also think folks should learn to **** their own ***...
See, that's just it. People learn to "**** their own ****" by acquiring a little knowledge, not by chasing voodoo. I suppose cloners must really chafe at guys like RG who dispense handy information and empower people to "**** their own ****". And to think... They had so many people convinced it was magic parts doing all the work!
Quote from: Ammscraythe way I learned was from jumping into the frying pan and getting burned, toasted, whatever...it's half the fun, and the time you spend is a sacrifice...IMO lessons learned, and information accumulated are best and most valuable when you do it yourself...if someone had taught me everything along the way, I wouldn't know a 1/4 of what I do know now...all those little blanks that were filled in during those painstaking (but fun) hours add up to alot...and it's very satisfying...
So let me get this straight: You think blindly stabbing in the dark is the best way to learn?!? Do you just randomly string parts together and hope they work? Do you use a voltmeter? (Wouldn't want be overly concerned about "specs" like voltages... :D )
I think everyone learns from each other as well as their own experience, as well as books, classes, etc, etc... It's all just a big soup... I think RG's test is a guide that helps people get a little closer to their sound faster. More importantly it helps people understand what's going on which will enable them to make their own discoveries and share them too.
I agree that you have to do it yourself. The gain test is a way of enabling people to do it themselves, so I guess I don't really see the argument.
Quote from: AmmscrayPeace man, and enjoy the resy of your day
You too! And enjoy the long weekend.
Doug
It's not an arguement Doug, it's just a simple debate...that's what forums are for...but please don't second-guess me, as I would not do that to you, since I don't know you at all... I know that you're knowledgeable and I consider myself to be also, after all these years...
So let me get this straight: You think blindly stabbing in the dark is the best way to learn?!? Do you just randomly string parts together and hope they work? Do you use a voltmeter? (Wouldn't want be overly concerned about "specs" like voltages... :D )
I take that as an insult, but I realize that maybe you're pissed off at somebody or something that doesn't have anything to do with me, so it's no problem...No, only a moron would do that Doug... :?
See, that's just it. People learn to "**** their own ****" by acquiring a little knowledge, not by chasing voodoo. I suppose cloners must really chafe at guys like RG who dispense handy information and empower people to "**** their own ****". And to think... They had so many people convinced it was magic parts doing all the work!
YOU MEAN IT'S NOT?? :shock:
You know what Doug, I think I can see what side of the fence you're sittin' on, and I'm gonna bow out now because it seems that what matters more than the topic is that you need to be right...you're trying really hard...so maybe we'll run into each other in the next, thread...
peace, love, dope
We'll just have to agree to differ on a lot of these points Ammscray. Just for the record I live in the UK and grew up with Colorsound stuff (I've been playing guitar for the best part of 30 years - I started young!) so I have had experience of playing a few of their effects over the years. I've listened to plenty of old records and I agree that some of those old pedals sound great. However, music, as with everything, progresses and I think it healthy that technology moves with it. Everything is subjective at the end of the day, all I can say is that modern stuff doesn't sound worse, just different...one day that 'different' will be the Holy Grail for another generation of lunatics like us!
I still stand by my comments about discarding stuff. Why did so many artists of that generation move on to use other effects? New sounds for new times! I often get nostalgic about equipment I used to own, but at the end of the day I DID get rid of it, and it was usually because something better came along. With all the money that Jeff Beck and Brian May have they could probably set up a sodding factory to make Tonebenders for themselves, so why haven't they had some made/bought some vintage ones? Rose tinted spectacles? (please post all dog shit to the following address: Gez Paton, 246 ..)
As far as sticking to 'facts' and not opinions, this whole thread seems nothing but opinions (including mine) and I don't think that's a bad thing! One man's heaven is another man's hell...one man's cliche is another man's...blah blah blah....rant....more rant...can't even remember what this thread was all about in the first place...
All the best
gez
Quote from: Ammscray
I take that as an insult, but I realize that maybe you're pissed off at somebody or something that doesn't have anything to do with me, so it's no problem...No, only a moron would do that Doug... :?
Relax Ammscray... I'm tweaking you a little for fun. No insult intended, that's what the smiley's for. Nobody's pissed off over here on my side of the fence.
Quote from: Ammscray
You know what Doug, I think I can see what side of the fence you're sittin' on, and I'm gonna bow out now because it seems that what matters more than the topic is that you need to be right...you're trying really hard...
Now that's hardly fair, I'm just trying to follow your logic.
Quote from: Ammscray
peace, love, dope
Okay, I get it now.
AFAIC, I'm happy to agree to disagree. Makes no matter to me.
Doug
Hello Hello-
Not responding to any post in particular............
I know for a fact that the 2-tranny Vox Tonebender was in use years before the Fuzz Face came out. One reason being I saw them [and used them]. The second reason being I knew lots of English guitar players who recorded with them in the studio from around '61 to '65. Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page were only the tip of the iceberg as far as being users of this pedal.........there are tons of records from the early '60's [in England and in Europe] that have TB's on 'em. [Big Jim Sullivan was one of the studio guys that used one.] The only reason the Fuzz Face is so popular is because of Hendrix..........and even HE stopped using the FF circuit in '68! [Roger Mayer was on the scene by then.]
By the way, most facts are passed down by the experience of people who were there and observed things first hand, NOT by what is read in books 30 years down the line. [Usually written by somebody who wasn't even born when everything was going down! Of course there are exceptions.]
All of the older circuits were designed to sound a certain way [often because of the input of certain guitarists like Page or Beck] and do sound that way because of the trannys used. Any change of tranny type alters the sound and can easily be heard with comparison. Can you get a TB to sound good and useable with different trannys [even silicons]?? Sure, but it won't sound like a real TB.
All the technology in the world will never make up for a tin ear!
Brian.
Ammscray wrote:
"...if someone had taught me everything along the way, I wouldn't know a 1/4 of what I do know now... "
Now THAT is a statement that would make Yogi Berra proud. :lol:
Then he said:
"As soon as you or anybody comes up with devices that sound as good as the original OC's, per esempio, I'll be the first to de-obsess...I guess if somebody doesn't hear a difference, then there isn't one...I for one, do... "
I just can't buy this. Transistors are all made the same, but in the end the actual, manufactured, real world pieces were WIDELY dissimilar in many characteristics. This makes them as variable within the same part number as they would be to another part number. You can find OC's that sound like NKT's that sound like 2N404s but that is because the internal characteristics of the physical construction are similar.
My question to Ammscray is if he were to be put in a position of telling the difference, without looking at the internal circuit, of two FFs, one with OCs, one with NKTs, if he could pick them out. I am very sceptical.
Ammscray said:
"The FF problems stemmed from the inconsistent and crappy NKT275's, not from the circuit..."
Here is my point exactly, ALL Ge's were inconsistant and crappy, why do you think that there was a big push to silicon? Because of the larger voltage drop? No. Because they could be manufactured to tighter specs and not have the varying characteristics, it is the same reason that MOSFETs took over JFETs, similar if not better characteristics without such a huge production spread.
But beyond that the circuit is a problem as well, it relys on aspects of the transistor to bias itself instead of biasing properly no matter what transistor is in there. This is poor design. It is perfectly feasable that a terrible sounding fuzz face right off of the line had perfectly useable Ge transistors in it, but because the gain was too high, or low, or the leakage too high, or not enough to bias, it sounded bad. Thus the reason Steve at SB sells pretested sets, the design is so poor that you have to have JUST THE RIGHT gains to make it sound good.
Ammscray said:
"I also don't think that most of the guys chasing down vintage part numbers are just sitting there staring at them wondering what to do...they went to the trouble because they knew it was worth it in the end and it made the whole episode and the final result more enjoyable... "
They went through the trouble because they, falsely, believe that just having the right part will make the circuit sound great.
For example, almost all of us have tried a circuit out only to get that horrible "transistor gating" sound. Now by your method, instead of thinking, "Wow, that sounds terrible, what is wrong?", I would just pop out the transistors to swap them out with others, most likely getting the same result and swapping transistors until one of them was either faulty or out of spec enough to be useful in the circuit, but will the sound be good? No, because the circuit has an error which is misbiasing a transistor somewhere.
Now if you KNOW why a transistor would gate, by educating yourself, you would know that the transistor is misbiased and therefore either a) something is wrong with the original circuit, b) the transistor is faulty or c) something is wrong with MY circuit, a solder bridge, a wrong value resistor etc. Swapping out the transistors will never get you to a good result and will only end up frustrating the new.
No, this isn't rocket science, it is fairly simple engineering that EE's usually forget after their first year, but ignoring the actual SCIENCE behind it ignores the REASONS that make any circuit sound good or not.
Regards,
Jay Doyle
:cry: Well I see that me the little newbie has already got fights started with my first couple of posts. I wish you guys wouldn't fight. Now in the future when people see my ID "Bluesgeetar" they will pass me by and not read my my cries for help. They'll see my ID and say, "Oh no that is the trouble maker guy! That punk!" and I didn't even ask that kind of question to get me in this light. You pedal guru guys are getting me into trouble and I really need the help. Please don't use my questions to get fights started. And yes I will try to learn R.G.s Germ test thing. I will say it seems written well above my level of understanding. I have tried to read it a couple of times and get a migraine half way through. I wish R.G. would dumb it down a little for the beginners. All those math calculations are way over my head. :wink:
--Hello Bluesgeetar--
I understand what you're saying........a bunch of book-learning in the beginning is hard to digest.
Opinions mean little, so I just try to go with simple facts. It seems that sometimes years of experience is always clashing with the "opinions".
If I were putting 76's in a FF circuit I'd probably be ready to tweak at least the Q2 collector resistor..........maybe more.......to get everything biased in an "ear pleasing" manner. Of course, like I touched on before, "correct" may not be what YOU want it to sound like.Good luck!
Brian.
"...if someone had taught me everything along the way, I wouldn't know a 1/4 of what I do know now... "
"Now THAT is a statement that would make Yogi Berra proud. :lol:"
Unfortunately I couldn't find the appropriate emoticon for the gesture I was looking for... :( you obviously didn't get the point...
Then he said:
"As soon as you or anybody comes up with devices that sound as good as the original OC's, per esempio, I'll be the first to de-obsess...I guess if somebody doesn't hear a difference, then there isn't one...I for one, do... "
"I just can't buy this. Transistors are all made the same, but in the end the actual, manufactured, real world pieces were WIDELY dissimilar in many characteristics. This makes them as variable within the same part number as they would be to another part number. You can find OC's that sound like NKT's that sound like 2N404s but that is because the internal characteristics of the physical construction are similar"
If you think that all transistors are/were made the same way then I don't even know who I'm talking to, that's like saying all tubes are the same too...in other words, "yeah Ammscray, go ahead and put those crappy sovteks in your vintage Marshall, they're the same as the old Mullards, you'll just have to tweak your circuit to set the bias...you'll get great tone too"...NOT :?
Comapring the old OC devices to the much more inferior Newmarket (NKT) parts is like homeade pizza compared to Dominos...the NKT's, like the AC devices, are known to be very noisy and thin-sounding with a very high faulty rate...out of 100 AC128's you'd be lucky to get 20 good ones...and calling them "good" would be an insult to truly good transistors...
In the last batch of 100 OC44's that I use for my Derangemaster pedal there were only 8 devices that didn't meet my standards, they were a little too noisy but still useable...but they're all the same right?? I would rather find the right tranny or tubes for a pedal or amp than have to tweak or re-vamp my circuit to use the part...that makes no sense to me...like bringing the lake to the horse... :? In shootouts with my Derangemaster and several of the other RM clones, we have yet to hear
another one that sounds exactly like an original...I guess I must be doing something right...
There is also something to be said for different components being made under different conditions with different materials in different places...the "Stradivarius" theory...even though Amperex ECC83's made in Holland and the UK were the same tube made the same way, they sound different to each other...I just don't understand where you're coming from...
"My question to Ammscray is if he were to be put in a position of telling the difference, without looking at the internal circuit, of two FFs, one with OCs, one with NKTs, if he could pick them out. I am very sceptical"
In my own listening environment using my own gear yes definitely I would...I rely on my ears for a living...whether it's playing, recording, engineering or whatever I'm doing, maybe I hear more subtle differences, who knows and who cares, I hear it that's all that matters...
Cranked up onstage, maybe not with the germs, but I could definitely tell if you were playing through my silicon VS. the germ version...but I would hope most could...
Ammscray said:
"The FF problems stemmed from the inconsistent and crappy NKT275's, not from the circuit..."
"Here is my point exactly, ALL Ge's were inconsistant and crappy, why do you think that there was a big push to silicon? Because of the larger voltage drop? No. Because they could be manufactured to tighter specs and not have the varying characteristics, it is the same reason that MOSFETs took over JFETs, similar if not better characteristics without such a huge production spread"
Again, maybe you don't have much experience with really good germaniums if you're comparing all these crappy devices to the OC's...a good percentage of technological advances come from the needs and wants of the military because of their huge need for better electronics, but just because something is new and improved or more economical doesn't make it better! Especially for guys like us...how many guys do I know that won't even touch IC's in their circuits...Maybe you just have to do a little more work to find what you want but it's worth it to me to do that...
"But beyond that the circuit is a problem as well, it relys on aspects of the transistor to bias itself instead of biasing properly no matter what transistor is in there. This is poor design. It is perfectly feasable that a terrible sounding fuzz face right off of the line had perfectly useable Ge transistors in it, but because the gain was too high, or low, or the leakage too high, or not enough to bias, it sounded bad. Thus the reason Steve at SB sells pretested sets, the design is so poor that you have to have JUST THE RIGHT gains to make it sound good"
Yeah, that was possible with anything made assembly-line style at the time...but in my experience there were as many good sounding FF's that had mismatched trannys as ones that didn't sound good...same with Marshalls and tubes...and in most cases you swap the trannys and you were fine...but what about the rest of the components, the pots, the layout and lead dress of the builder? The best trannys in the world alone won't make the pedal fly if the rest isn't in order...
Ammscray said:
"I also don't think that most of the guys chasing down vintage part numbers are just sitting there staring at them wondering what to do...they went to the trouble because they knew it was worth it in the end and it made the whole episode and the final result more enjoyable... "
"They went through the trouble because they, falsely, believe that just having the right part will make the circuit sound great"
Maybe that's someone you know, nobody I know...anybody I know who takes the time to seek out and find the good NOS stuff is also not a wishful thinker and is building the pedal correctly and knows what he's doing...again I'm only speaking for people I know...and if the guy was beginner, well at least he'll have the good stuff to work with when he does learn a bit more...
"For example, almost all of us have tried a circuit out only to get that horrible "transistor gating" sound. Now by your method, instead of thinking, "Wow, that sounds terrible, what is wrong?", I would just pop out the transistors to swap them out with others, most likely getting the same result and swapping transistors until one of them was either faulty or out of spec enough to be useful in the circuit, but will the sound be good? No, because the circuit has an error which is misbiasing a transistor somewhere"
I'm speaking of circuits that are working and stable and not some kind of experiment or project, but I assumed that's what you were talking about too...obviously only an idiot would sit there and sub parts mindlessly...grasping a little bit?
"Now if you KNOW why a transistor would gate, by educating yourself, you would know that the transistor is misbiased and therefore either a) something is wrong with the original circuit, b) the transistor is faulty or c) something is wrong with MY circuit, a solder bridge, a wrong value resistor etc. Swapping out the transistors will never get you to a good result and will only end up frustrating the new"
Again, if the circuit is right, and the tranny is right, the you should be in fat city...I've never had to tweak any pedal to accomodate a tranny...I find the right part which sits the way I want it to...most of my clients want their vintage pedals looking and sounding stock with the least mods or tweaks as possible...what's wrong with that??
No, this isn't rocket science, it is fairly simple engineering that EE's usually forget after their first year, but ignoring the actual SCIENCE behind it ignores the REASONS that make any circuit sound good or not.
Regards,
Jay Doyle[/quote]
You know, we've had simliar threads like this, and I'm just wondering why some of you get so defensive over this?? It's like you're so quick to sway the new kid away from NOS or whatever and it makes absolutely no sense...so OK if you don't don't want to use the NOS stuff, or you don't have any or whatever, don't tell the new kid that it's a waste of time and that the OC's sound the same as the others BECAUSE THEY DON'T, it's as simple as that...
The reason people collect old things is because in most cases they're made better....what used to be made in Denmark or Germany or wherever is now made somewhere else under horrible conditions with slave-labor or whatever...let's face it, quality has gone right down the flush...I opt for the real deal because it's a challenge to get it sometimes and the payoff is worth it to me...and judging by the number of inquiries I've gotten for old trannys in the last few years I know I'm not the only one...what this thread had taught me is that from now on I think we should show our age so we all know who we're talking to...I'd hate to be talking to somebody who's 15 and thinking they were 50...I'll start: 42
peace brother, may it serve you well
Gez, seven and a half (nearly eight!)
I wasn't having a go with the above post Ammscray, just trying to point out that in the grand scheme of things bits of silicon and plastic aren't really that important. We all have different needs and different takes on things...live and let live (damn, another bloody cliche!)
All the best
gez