I recently re-auditioned a lot of pedals that I've built, one by one, and I've discovered that the overdrives/distortions suck a lot of life out of my tone. My Strat going thru my compressor into my amp has a full body sound - the lower frequencies have a depth and thickness to them. When I play thru a TS808 or one of the many other overdrives that I've built, I just don't find that it preserves the tone. It seems to carve some depth out of the bottom end of my tone.
Anyone else experience this? I still want some grit at times... roll back the volume and its my natural clean sound... wind it up and it growls a little.
Am I asking for too much?
Where should I look?
-chris
Most TS-type pedals "hump" the mids, but that's kind of the point. The idea of those pedals is to overdrive mainly in the mid frequency area, so that it's not overly bright nor mushy in the bass region.
If you already like your tone but want some more grit, it sounds to me like you're looking for a not-so-clean booster, rather than an overdrive. One that does the "volume knob clean-up" well is the ROG Omega. Maybe also look at the Minibooster, or variants of it.
Have you checked out the "peppermill" over at runoffgroove.com? That one adds just a touch of grit.
hey
yeah, i've built the ROG Peppermill... it does a good job of adding a bit of grit (actually it can scream a touch if you push it into some warm tubes). I built a MiniBooster for a friend... I've been thinking I should build another one for myself as I really liked it.
Still, I think that the Peppermill removes a bit of that body that I like so much. It preserves more than most OD's but I still feel like a blanket has been thrown over the sound, removing some of the detail.
-chris
Because there is so much more amplitude in the low end of the guitar signal, and because diode-based overdrive applies the same clipping threshold no matter what the input is, it is a common practice to trim back on the low end of the signal so as to achieve a more "even" degree of clipping across the spectrum. This is a very common reason for what irritates you. Read the Technology of the Tube Screamer over at geofex to get a firmer grasp on this.
Thanks Mark - I had actually been thinking that I should re-visit that particular piece of info.
Could it be that I'm looking for a frequency dependent OD? Or perhaps I should experiment with parallel processing for my OD sounds? Any suggestions for circuits on the parallel route.
Earthtonesaudio - have you built the Omega? I'm intrigued but I, for better or worse, have become dependent on my compressor at the front of my chain. The writeup for the Omega recommends that it see the unbuffered signal of the pickups at the input....
-chris
Maybe you could try a blend, and blend in just enough of your clean tone to get some of that body back.
When you are in the context of a band, you don't need all of that low end that you might find desirable at home IMO. In any case, the Blue Magic etc.... type of pedal will do what you want and it's easier to put back the missing low end you might want.
Another suggestion.. Why not try an EQ? It might be what you're looking for, and if not, it's has many other uses as well.
Magnus Nordbye
When I had a red llama (craig anderton tube sound fuzz) clone a while back I liked how the low gain sounded just like the guitar, just a little soft clipped. Apparently the CA version was even bassier, which you might like.
It seems like an ideal overdrive box would have different behaviours, depending on the amplitude of the input signal:
- Low level signals would be passed through with a full frequency response.
- High level signals would have more highpass filtering, to avoid "flubby" distortion (this is assuming that you want to emulate the Marshall-with-presence-turned-up distortion).
Can this be accomplished by having complementary highpass and lowpass filters, with the nonlinearity in between? This would use a highpass filter and a lowpass filter in series, with the coefficients designed such that the response of the filters in series is allpass (flat magnitude response, with phase distortion permitted). A nonlinearity would be placed between the two filters, where there is a significant area of roughly linear operation for low-level signals. The HP->nonlinear->LP ordering would allow for full-bandwidth signals at low signal amplitudes, while louder input signals would be clipped, but with the desirable highpass filtering on the input of the clipping. As an added bonus, the output of the clipping would have a gentle 6 dB/oct rolloff, due to the lowpass filter.
Or am I just describing a Tube Screamer here? I know that the TS-808 has a highpass RC filter before the clipping, and a lowpass RC filter after the clipping, where both the filters have the same cutoff, so maybe this is what is going on in this pedal. I'm still not very good at the analog side of things (digital I am pretty good at now), so I would defer to someone else's analysis of this situation.
Another possibility would be to have the highpass filtering and the clipping as part of the same stage. This could be achieved with an op-amp with diodes in the feedback loop, and a cap in the front to form a 1st order highpass filter. Or, having a nonlinear amplifier with negative feedback, where an RC network in the feedback rolls off the low frequencies being fed back. The 2nd approach would be closer to the classic 5f6-a / Marshall power amp with presence control.
Cascading several stages of highpass/nonlinearity/lowpass would be useful for creating a smoother distortion sound. For example, cascading two HP/clipping/LP stages would result in an allpass response for low amplitude signals, and a nice smooth distortion sound for high level signals, as the 2nd clipping stage would have lowpass filtering of the 1st stage's clipping. Or, if you wanted to lump all of the lowpass filtering at the output of the network (similar to the BSIAB2/BOR), you would have an identical low-level input sound, but different clipping behavior.
Again, if I am just describing what already exists, feel free to school me. I know that it is very typical to highpass filter the input to clipping stages, and lowpass filter the result, but I don't know if these are usually tailored to have an allpass frequency response for small-scale input signals.
Sean Costello
It actually doesn't have to be very complex. Lots of people have the same complaints as you, so a number of sought after boutique Screamers simply use larger value caps to avoid chopping off the bottom, and some diode complement that sets a higher clipping threshold.
So, for instance, use a .22uf cap in the clipping stage instead of .047uf, and a 2+2 pair of diodes or even a pair of LEDS. Keep in mind the concern about "over-clipping" the low end, relative to mids and highs, is really only a concern when the threshold of clipping is low enough that low-vs-high amplitude discrepancies will show themselves. Raise the clipping threshold, and that problem starts to go away. Not only that, the raised threshodl results in a less compressed sound, which also part of the "missing body".
I may have misjudged your needs, but try it and see if that's what you're missing.
Here's one answer:
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Studio/2987/fatts.html
Thanks for the replies everyone! I'll have to give it some thought and research a bit more... Since I generally have never liked the sound of Tube Screamer with my playing (granted SRV and Trey Anastasio nail the full-body tone while going through 808's, so I know it is possible), I might as well open my build back up and try these tweaks.
Thanks again
-chris
p.s. any other suggestions are always welcome
What guitar and amp are you using?
Quote from: SeanCostello on July 15, 2008, 03:17:51 PM
It seems like an ideal overdrive box would have different behaviours, depending on the amplitude of the input signal:
- Low level signals would be passed through with a full frequency response.
- High level signals would have more highpass filtering, to avoid "flubby" distortion (this is assuming that you want to emulate the Marshall-with-presence-turned-up distortion).
Can this be accomplished by having complementary highpass and lowpass filters, with the nonlinearity in between? This would use a highpass filter and a lowpass filter in series, with the coefficients designed such that the response of the filters in series is allpass (flat magnitude response, with phase distortion permitted). A nonlinearity would be placed between the two filters, where there is a significant area of roughly linear operation for low-level signals. The HP->nonlinear->LP ordering would allow for full-bandwidth signals at low signal amplitudes, while louder input signals would be clipped, but with the desirable highpass filtering on the input of the clipping. As an added bonus, the output of the clipping would have a gentle 6 dB/oct rolloff, due to the lowpass filter.
Or am I just describing a Tube Screamer here? I know that the TS-808 has a highpass RC filter before the clipping, and a lowpass RC filter after the clipping, where both the filters have the same cutoff, so maybe this is what is going on in this pedal. I'm still not very good at the analog side of things (digital I am pretty good at now), so I would defer to someone else's analysis of this situation.
Another possibility would be to have the highpass filtering and the clipping as part of the same stage. This could be achieved with an op-amp with diodes in the feedback loop, and a cap in the front to form a 1st order highpass filter. Or, having a nonlinear amplifier with negative feedback, where an RC network in the feedback rolls off the low frequencies being fed back. The 2nd approach would be closer to the classic 5f6-a / Marshall power amp with presence control.
Cascading several stages of highpass/nonlinearity/lowpass would be useful for creating a smoother distortion sound. For example, cascading two HP/clipping/LP stages would result in an allpass response for low amplitude signals, and a nice smooth distortion sound for high level signals, as the 2nd clipping stage would have lowpass filtering of the 1st stage's clipping. Or, if you wanted to lump all of the lowpass filtering at the output of the network (similar to the BSIAB2/BOR), you would have an identical low-level input sound, but different clipping behavior.
Again, if I am just describing what already exists, feel free to school me. I know that it is very typical to highpass filter the input to clipping stages, and lowpass filter the result, but I don't know if these are usually tailored to have an allpass frequency response for small-scale input signals.
Sean Costello
The interesting thing with using the noninverting configuration in opamps, is remember that no matter what kind of filtering/gain/clipping you put in the feedback loop, the ouput will always show a gain of 1 to the signal going in the non inverting input. So if there is a gain control and a highpass filter in the loop, you get more and more gain to the high frequencies, but the unity gain on the full frequencied signal is still there. The Rat is like that. The common Ruetz mod of putting a pot on one leg of the cap making the high pass filter controls the frequencies being amplified (and downstream, clipped).
The non-inverting opamp is a handy way to get two different pre-clipping EQs, depending on the gain, I've done it opposite in a Great Cheddar I made, where it is flat at the lowest gain, and the gain control only applies gain to the lows and mids, to get a bassy, saturated fuzz without much extra hi end noise.
Quote(granted SRV and Trey Anastasio nail the full-body tone while going through 808's, so I know it is possible)
The strings gauge helps. What are you using, 0.10, 0.11?
mac
I've been using .10 for the past few years. When I moved up to .10's, it actually really helped my clean tone... that was when I found the depth that I am trying preserve, now that I think about it.
-chris
Not to derail...but after getting used to 0.11 gauge...no goin back!
+1 on using heavier strings -- .11-.48's have worked well for me and just seem to sound a bit more . . . -- well, I don't know, just like 'em better than lighter strings.
For what it's worth, I've recently been tinkering with a variation on ROG's Tube Reamer (http://www.runoffgroove.com/tubereamer.html) with a 0.1 uF input cap, some tweaked values in the high pass filter in the feedback loop to retain more low freqs, a pair of red LEDs for clipping, and an SWTC at the end of the circuit. Some common TS mods -- and mentioned in an earlier post -- so nothing groundbreaking. I'm sure others have their own favorite variations, but I'm having good success with this circuit when A/B'd in my rig with my 808-ified Tube Screamer. To my ears, it's a bit meatier/fuller/richer distortion sound, seems "livelier" even at lower gain settings, and that TS mid-hump is much milder...
Interesting thread topic. :)
- Jay
That TS mid-range hump may be part of my problem... I find it is present in a lot of OD circuits, to varying degrees. Personally I feel that the mid range is already the over emphasized frequency in guitars to begin with, so adding to it doesn't really appeal to me.
The mods you mention are going to be added to my list of potential alterations...
I'm still interested in the parallel processing idea... I've tinkered with it for chains of effects. I've not done so within an individual box.
Has anyone else taken a widely used circuit and modded it for blendable parallel processing within the box itself?
-chris
Not quite the same, but I put a clean blend into an SD-1 and it really livened it up and made it more organic.
Hey Cheeb - how did you do the blend? Did you use a buffer to split the signal and then a resistive mixer to combine the signals after processing?
-chris
Just this layout. Send and return were the effect in/out, I believe.
(http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c169/bonkman18/miniblenderperf.jpg)
Excellent!
I'll definitely be giving this a shot in the coming weeks.
-chris
Sounds to me like you like the tone coming out of your compressor. You need to start there and figure out what that is doing to your signal.
But by definition, unless it is specifically frequency selective, a compressor is always going to give more body to your tone for the same reasons Mark mentioned that distortions CUT bass. Asking the same type of a response from a distortion, while maintaining 'touch' and picking dynamics, is asking a lot of any distortion. Especially as you seem to be wanting more low end, with is problematic for any distortion design for any number of reasons...
Honestly, I use a kinda-sorta Ross based compressor and make a very distinct point to practice WITHOUT it every third or fourth time to make sure that I still have a 'feel' for my 'real' tone.
Comps are great, I love them, but I equate them to blinders on a horse: they cover up so much that they make playing easy and sometimes effortless, but can also cover up the possible fire that is your 'actual' tone leaving you unaware that, at the core, your tone, simply, may suck.
I'm not saying that is the case with you at all, just that I think comps can be dangerous, the 'opiate of guitarists' if you will. :-)
But my advice stands, figure out how the comp is adjusting your tone and work from there in your distortion design. [Keep in mind that the frequency response of the FWR portion of the comp circuit is JUST AS IMPORTANT IF NOT MORE SO than the frequency response of the signal path, but the circuit's reaction to the FWR response will have the OPPOSITE effect on the output tone - cut highs in the FWR and they are boosted in the circuit]
Regards,
Jay Doyle
Quote from: cheeb on July 14, 2008, 09:32:38 PM
Maybe you could try a blend, and blend in just enough of your clean tone to get some of that body back.
Plus-one on the clean blend. I've just rebuilt my overdrive to include this with happy results. Not only do you get the body of the sound back, you get much wider dynamic range, similar to what a real tube amp does. But the greatest benefit in my case, is that the clean blend allows me to run a Fuzz Face into the overdrive without maxxing the overdrive into total sludge. The clean side allows the higher output of the fuzz to pass unchanged, while the overdrive side simply ducks to nearly-audible level. This more-or-less retains the character of the fuzz, and (for me) solves the dilemma of which order to connect those two effects.
BTW, It's very interesting to see the action of the blend control on an o-scope. You would expect some kind of drastic conflict of the two very different waveforms as they are superimposed, but in fact the transition between clean and distorted is amazingly smooth. A sine wave gently rounds out on top as the control is gradually turned to the dirty side, and this happens in a way that would be tricky to achieve with unmixed distortion alone. I expect this to be useful with other instruments besides guitars--for instance, keyboards, or for recording drums or vocals, etc. . . .
Regards,
Joe
running some resistance in parallel with the clipping diodes works well too.
bw
Why not just tack a bass boost on the end, after the clipping stage, of a tubescreamer type overdrive? Especially considering that the chip is a dual opamp.
I feel the same way about screamers sucking your tone. You can barely hear the difference when you switch pickups. My favorite Strat effect is a Marshal Blues Breaker clone. I set the drive at 12:00 and it adds just a bit of crunch on the clean channel of my HRD. All five pickup switch positions still sound like a Strat. The GGG boards are R.G.'s design I believe. Tonepad also sells a board. Easy build, my favorite build to date.
bl
Quote from: Caferacernoc on July 29, 2008, 02:24:42 PM
Why not just tack a bass boost on the end, after the clipping stage, of a tubescreamer type overdrive? Especially considering that the chip is a dual opamp.
Its no so much the lack of bass as a frequency band, but rather the depth of the bottom end. I think what I'm really trying to preserve is some of the sound before it goes into the OD.
-chris
Quote from: cpnyc23 on July 29, 2008, 05:34:37 PM
Quote from: Caferacernoc on July 29, 2008, 02:24:42 PM
Why not just tack a bass boost on the end, after the clipping stage, of a tubescreamer type overdrive? Especially considering that the chip is a dual opamp.
Its no so much the lack of bass as a frequency band, but rather the depth of the bottom end. I think what I'm really trying to preserve is some of the sound before it goes into the OD.
-chris
In that case you basically need to increase the input and output cap size of your overdrive until it no longer cuts bass. You might like a MXR Dist+/DOD OD250 type circuit tuned with "fullrange caps" and maybe LED diodes for great headroom. I modded a Ross distortion pedal, similar circuit, that way and it was really transparent EQ wise. I used 1uf film for the caps and changed the diodes to 3 GE diodes one way and 5 the other for the clipping. I also doubled the size of the treble cut capacitor. When you set the gain at 1/3rd and the volume at 2/3 this pedal really sounded like the amp you fed it to just turned up more.
Quote from: Caferacernoc on July 30, 2008, 10:02:10 AM
When you set the gain at 1/3rd and the volume at 2/3 this pedal really sounded like the amp you fed it to just turned up more.
That's the kind of thing I'm looking for...
-chris
>The interesting thing with using the noninverting configuration in opamps, is remember that no matter what kind of filtering/gain/clipping you put in the feedback loop, the ouput will always show a gain of 1 to the signal going in the non inverting input.
That explains my comments re: the first Shaka Pedal.