i have always absolutely loved the shimmery phasey vibratto (not so much the tremolo) on the old tuck n roll kustoms of the chanute days..
so my question...anyone ever try and build just the trem/vibe circuit from one of these things?
i'd love to see it if anyone has..
I used to play a tuck-n-roll behemoth that belonged to our bass player back in the day. Didn't have any modulation effects, though.
I was reading in an interview with John Fogerty a couple years ago that he was trying to get someone to reproduce that trem/vibrato combination for him in a pedal (he played and endorsed Kustom amps in the CCR days). Don't know what came of that.
How hard can it be?
(yeah, I know... :icon_lol:)
Find me a schematic.
How about this (lower right quadrant, Captain);
(http://music-electronics-forum.com/attachments/4805d1237499358-k150-.jpg)
For the John Fogarty fans, the K-200 schematic;
(http://music-electronics-forum.com/attachments/8846d1270674118-k200.jpg)
aye, that's the beast!!! what do ya think?
RG you will achieve beyond godlyke status bro... ;)
all we need to do is update it with regular, available modern components, make it run on 9v, and fit it in a box!! ;)
way, WAY above my paygrade!!
:icon_mrgreen:
Hmmm.... looking at the 150 model 2 schematic, if you hack out the reverb section, I wonder if the rest would work with a 9vdc bipolar supply?
the kustom 150 is indeed the one to go for. the trem/vibe on them is sublime, a lot like the old fender pro phasey kinda sound...sorta kinda.
i bet it could be done..... on vero. of course. ;)
I was just about to type in "so which one is the good one?".
The 150 is a bit tougher. I think the magic is sealed up in those dual-gate MOSFET devices. That may be tough to find.
Just to be clear, the 150 has only "Trem/vib" not two different effects, right?
The 200 has a single phase stage about equal to one of the stages in a Univibe, but with overall feedback to sharpen it up a bit. Still thinking about what the 150 does.
they sound (to me, anyways) fairly similar... the 200 (or the one in the kustom II's, the "non plexi" ones) is slightly better sounding imho,
but the 150 is the real classic one.
yes, more of a trem. the one i jones for most is the phasey sounding one.
either way, i'd be grateful, RG. ;)
if memory serves, the discreet components ones sounded better... the ic versions had a tendency to "crackle" a bit if you pushed them sometimes.
Not to be a downer here, but I seem to recall Kustom's sounding a little like geese farts when they broke up. :icon_razz:
I guess that's not the subject here but I found it interesting that Fogerty sounds basically the same playing a PRS and a Bogner as he did playing a Rick and a Kustom.
We now continue with our regularly scheduled thread....
Just snagged ten NOS RCA 40481 dual gate mosfets.
As for the IC's, a 4558 or 1458 might be suitable replacement for the 5558. For the 80848, I found this tidbit;
"The 5558 look pin compatible with easy to get RC1458 ; the 80848 look like an early version of CA3080, being pin compatible with LM741 but having an extra pin 5 gain control; the 739 will have to be replaced, as Enzo said, with a "dead bug " mounted RC4558 or similar, with thin wire joining compatible pins and God help you with 40841 dual gate Mos Fets, if you happen to need them."
So... LM741 for the other IC?
dino, you kill me. ;)
I just had a revelation.
I was thinking about this last night, when I realized that my Ampeg tremolo circuit uses a metal can CA3080. Probably the same deal here. What I find kinda neat is the reverb circuit has a tone control along side the intensity. First time I`ve ever seen a tone control on the reverb.
I`m really tempted to breadboard this, without the reverb section, although it might lose a lot of mojo without the reverb. I`m wondering if it would be better to box it a la Fender reverb unit style? Once I get the Infinitphase off the bench, I`ll break out the breadboard. I have 4558`s and 3080`s in stock.
You know, usually, I can look at a schematic and think "Oh, THAT's what they did there. Clever." The 150, I look at it and my continuing response is "What the hell IS that?".
If those 80848 chips are CA3080s, or some comparable OTA in disguise, what in the heck are they doing in a reverb circuit, and why does it take three of them? Cripes, I think the only part that makes any sense to me at all is the footswitch and the send/receive jacks for the reverb pan.
Quote from: Mark Hammer on January 21, 2013, 12:04:05 PM
You know, usually, I can look at a schematic and think "Oh, THAT's what they did there. Clever." The 150, I look at it and my continuing response is "What the hell IS that?".
That's my reaction too. What were they THINKING? Every time I have looked at Kustom schemos over the years, that comes up.
However, eventually, if you dig into it, you go ...um, OK, they're using this to do that; weird...
QuoteIf those 80848 chips are CA3080s, or some comparable OTA in disguise, what in the heck are they doing in a reverb circuit, and why does it take three of them? Cripes, I think the only part that makes any sense to me at all is the footswitch and the send/receive jacks for the reverb pan.
I can guess at that one. Some designers like to drive reverb tanks with a current source, not a voltage source. OTAs are naturally voltage-in/current-out devices, so it's possible they grabbed the then-high-tech ICs and used them in native mode. Likewise, dual-gate MOSFETs are GREAT for gain control. One gate does signal in, the other does gain control directly in the MOSFET channel. It's much like a solid-state pentode where one grid is signal input and the other (the screen grid) is gain control. They were highly prized - and priced! - in the day. They're also fragile and quirky.
QuoteI think the magic is sealed up in those dual-gate MOSFET devices.
Prolly not as they are just switches to enable/disable tremolo oscilllator output.
QuoteIf those 80848 chips are CA3080s, or some comparable OTA in disguise, what in the heck are they doing in a reverb circuit, and why does it take three of them?
The circuit is actually Vibrato-Tremolo-Reverb.
The reverb uses plain OpAmp driver and a NPN transistor -based recovery stage.
Tremolo is achieved with pretty simple OTA gain modulation.
Vibrato is the trickiest circuit of the three. I assume it's pretty much the basic all-pass filtering setup with two OTA's configured as variable resistors.
QuoteI was thinking about this last night, when I realized that my Ampeg tremolo circuit uses a metal can CA3080.
Yes, that they do. The cool part - that was probably unintentional in Ampeg amps - is that when you overdrive those stages they have nice soft overdrive.
teemuk.... exactly. they DO have a nice soft overdrive. the phasey nature of the vibe in these is the shiznit.
i love the balance control between trem and vibe. that's the part that brings it to life.
reverb tone control? funny, i don't remember there being one on any of the kustoms i had...and i've had a bunch over the years!!
actually, my kustoms didn't have fuzz, either. very weird. i have seen the ones with fuzz built in, tho.
(http://oi49.tinypic.com/2m7j2iv.jpg)
Quote from: pinkjimiphoton on January 21, 2013, 01:11:40 PMreverb tone control? funny, i don't remember there being one on any of the kustoms i had...and i've had a bunch over the years!!
(http://stevegasm.net/dump/bass/kustom_k150.jpg)
ahh, a different model.....mine were mostly the plexi front ones. this is the later version, but this is the one with the real nice sounding vibe.
the ones i'm talking about there was reverb depth only, and you had a pot that panned between trem and vibe, a pot for speed, and a pot for intensity.
i had one of these ones, a gold sparkle (i think it was a 200 or 250 tho, i'll have to look and see if any pics survive) but it was "crackly" so i asked the guy i got it from
to get it fixed. the owner of the repair shop died, never saw it again. might have played it three times. if that. actually... i do have a pic of it..
(http://jimipocius.com/aljimi.jpg)
unfortunately this happened a year or two before i got into building boxes. i can do tube amps, but never messed with solid state until fairly recently.
(http://jimipocius.com/pink5.jpg)
Quotereverb tone control? funny, i don't remember there being one on any of the kustoms i had...and i've had a bunch over the years!!
(http://stevegasm.net/dump/bass/kustom_k150.jpg)
You can see it, right next to the reverb intensity knob, it`s also on the schematic. A tone control for the reverb. Ammmmmaaaaaaazzzzzinnnnnngggggg! :icon_eek:
Quotethe ones i'm talking about there was reverb depth only, and you had a pot that panned between trem and vibe, a pot for speed, and a pot for intensity.
Yep, they made plenty of amps so throwing plain "K200", "K100", "K150" etc. isn't very descriptive at all because throughout the years most of those models were manufactured in about 7 different versions, almost each of those also as a specific version for bass, guitar, organ or PA duties.
The circuit to version you described would be something close to - if not exactly - (preamp) board PC1000. Again very different from the two previous schematics. Google search should find the schematics in a heartbeat in case someone has interest.
I hadn't realized, or maybe I forgot, that they made some pretty guitars. Kind of a mélange of Rickenbacker, and the PRS SE semi-hollow.
hmmm...now i wanna build the fuzz, too... lol.
Quote from: pinkjimiphoton on January 21, 2013, 07:06:34 PM
hmmm...now i wanna build the fuzz, too... lol.
Well, here's a little present for ya bro (just in case you didn't have it);
(http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc196/digi2t/Kustom/KustomPC5069A_001.jpg)
(http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc196/digi2t/Kustom/KustomPC5069B_001.jpg)
hmmmm... i totally suck at this. i'm imagining it's just the parts immediately connected to the "to fuzz" terminal?
like...between where it says "effect" under r78 and r95?
or from r81 (input) to c44 (output)?
you guys are all wayyyyyy beyond me, here.. ;)
Finally heard a sample of the tremolo-vibrato effect. It's an interesting and very pretty sound. Very gentle. Very worth cloning.
this is the amp i'm trying to get back
i've found the guy... thank god for the net... gonna call him in a little bit.
(http://www.kustomcollector.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/CharcoalK150-7-B.jpg)
it is indeed a really nice sound!!
Hmmm, from what I see, the fuzz section is fed from the preamp, and the output from the fuzz is fed back to the preamp. I believe the "in" to the fuzz would be C38, and the "out" would be C44. Two tranny fuzz, with clipping diodes between them. How it interacts with the preamp is a question mark, and then there is the boost section as well. I'm assuming that the "input" to the reverb/trem/boost sections comes from the preamp.
That gold metalflake, mother-of-barstool finish is.... man!.... I'm at a loss for words. Really. Just... aw wow.....um.... Just set that sucker out there, and nobody's gonna give a sh*t what you play like. If you can't impress them with chops, blind them with brilliance.
that one's a silver sparkle. earlier in the thread is a gold sparkle.
the silver one tho... man. 100 watts thru 2x10, with reverb and that sick vib, with an echoplex going into the dry side?
dude. DUUUUUUUUUDE.
i'm gonna do whatever it takes to get that amp back. i'm banking that he stuck it in his garage and it's still there. hoping. :icon_mrgreen:
Quotei'm banking that he stuck it in his garage and it's still there. hoping.
Yeah, right next to a Ludwig Phase II. :icon_mrgreen:
Sorry bro, set yourself up for that one! :icon_lol:
i know of two other pII's in the area...haven't seen 'em yet, but i hear of them turning up now and again, and being turned down because peeps don't know what they are.
this thing is gonna be my grail lol....
Anybody know if any of the Kasino models had the same feature? Kustom goodness without the tuck-and-roll. There was also another sister-company that I've run across before, but I can't remember the exact name now.
ross, kasino and kustom were all the same people.
plush looked like kustoms, but were tube amps more like earths.
Kustom, Klassic, Kasino and Woodson amps often shared same boards. Not always but often.
Kasino and Klassic were alternative brands, established so that Ross, Inc. / Kustom could sell amps to as many different vendors as possible. Woodson, I believe, were an individual company that just bought amps OEM from Kustom.
Ross (Systems), Road Electronics, Krossroad and A.R. Acoustics were all companies Bud Ross or his son Andy founded after Kustom / Ross, Inc. had been sold to cover gambling depts in the late 1960's. Past that point Kustom was owned by several different companies. The current owner (Hanser Holdings) bought the - at the time bankrupt - company in 1989 and did a remarkable job in reviving them.
Road amps date to 1970's, Krossroad and A.R. Acoustics amps came much later, in the 1990's. None were very long living.
At least Road outsourced manufacturing to Kustom's plants. Likewise, manufacturing of Legend amps (also from 1970's / early 1980's) was also outsourced to Kustom plants. The latter had no other affiliation with the Ross family or the companies / trademarks they had founded.
Ross Systems' gear was - if I'm correct - never manufactured by using Kustom's resources. First pedals and amps were manufactured by Keas Electronics. In the 1980's the company was sold to International Music Corp. and manufacturing was located to Korea, Japan and Taiwan.
Other tuck-n-roll styled amps (ISC, Plush, Earth, Dorado, etc.) probably have no other relation to Kustom / Ross than copying the stylish (not to mention patented) cosmetic design.
Quote from: pinkjimiphoton on January 22, 2013, 01:24:53 AM
ross, kasino and kustom were all the same people.
plush looked like kustoms, but were tube amps more like earths.
Plush and Earth I'm pretty sure are the same company (I had an Earth Super Guitar for a long time until my wife decided that I needed to unload an amp, I still have the cab. Very well built great sounding amp, but pretty much a Fender)
I have an early Kustom 100, it was a beast to get quiet. Replaced all the transistors in the signal path of the vibe channel with low noise devices and disabled the other channel, because the vibe is really the only reason to own this amp. It's pretty quiet, but has recently developed some sort of crackle that I haven't had time to open up and find, so it's sitting on a shelf waiting for me to be done with my Ludwig.
I've also been wanting to clone the trem/vibe circuit of this amp. There is something special sounding about being able to mix the trem and vibe sounds in these amps.
Here's mine
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/268022_2120827336347_530522_n.jpg)
Quote from: teemuk on January 22, 2013, 09:37:21 AM
Other tuck-n-roll styled amps (ISC, Plush, Earth, Dorado, etc.) probably have no other relation to Kustom / Ross than copying the stylish (not to mention patented) cosmetic design.
Plush and Earth on first glance seem to have the same cosmetics, but actually don't, they aren't tuck and roll like the Kustom amps, they are puffy, but the puffs are in a grid with buttons. Close, but not exactly patent infringement. Now the Earth amps with Peavy cosmetics... that's a different story.
(http://electriccaves.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/screen-shot-2012-05-25-at-10-28-52-am.png?w=584)
QuoteI've also been wanting to clone the trem/vibe circuit of this amp.
As said, preamp board PC1000.
In this case, the Vib-Trem circuit is a lot simpler than in the previous schematics. And yes, extremely easy to adapt to scheme with two 9V batteries forming a bipolar supply.
tried googling that pc board, comes up at the klassic kustom site, but all their resources were lost in a "hard drive crash"
gonna surf the wayback when i get a little while... hopefully will be archived.
Quote from: pinkjimiphoton on January 22, 2013, 11:27:19 AM
tried googling that pc board, comes up at the klassic kustom site, but all their resources were lost in a "hard drive crash"
gonna surf the wayback when i get a little while... hopefully will be archived.
http://music-electronics-forum.com/t19861/ (http://music-electronics-forum.com/t19861/)
Not same as my amp being that it has boost and mine doesn't. I never actually turned up the proper preamp schem for mine, it's not PC1000, but I got enough info from the others to figure out (with the help of a scope) what I wanted to change. I do believe that I found the schem for my power amp pcb, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. When I get my studio renovation finished and my Ludwig done the Kustom was next up to work on. I'll make sure I pass on whatever I find. I haven't been motivated to clone the trem/vibe yet because I just pull the amp out when I want it, but one of these days, bang zoom right to my pedalboard.
I don't see a boost feature in PC1000 circuit. ???
...
Wavley, if you know the board numbers of the boards I can dig up my archives to see if I have corresponding schematics.
Yours has likely two preamp boards.... one - probably the aforementioned PC1000 - with VOL, TREB, BASS, SPEED, INT, TREM-VIB and REV knobs in it. All for one channel. And another preamp board for another, much simpler, preamp channel with just BASS, TREBLE and VOL knobs.
K100 will have a 100W power amp board + regulator of the particular time period but all in all those didn't change much except for very first Kustom amps with very "vintage" design with interstage transformers and all. They got rid of that about right from the beginning and went forward with the simple RCA circuit, just upping the rail voltage and number of power transistors if higher power was demanded. I think they didn't change that strategy until they abandoned the tuck-n-roll styling alltogether.
Quote from: teemuk on January 22, 2013, 02:19:29 PM
I don't see a boost feature in PC1000 circuit. ???
...
Wavley, if you know the board numbers of the boards I can dig up my archives to see if I have corresponding schematics.
Yours has likely two preamp boards.... one - probably the aforementioned PC1000 - with VOL, TREB, BASS, SPEED, INT, TREM-VIB and REV knobs in it. All for one channel. And another preamp board for another, much simpler, preamp channel with just BASS, TREBLE and VOL knobs.
K100 will have a 100W power amp board + regulator of the particular time period but all in all those didn't change much except for very first Kustom amps with very "vintage" design with interstage transformers and all. They got rid of that about right from the beginning and went forward with the simple RCA circuit, just upping the rail voltage and number of power transistors if higher power was demanded. I think they didn't change that strategy until they abandoned the tuck-n-roll styling alltogether.
I don't remember my board numbers, I think it's going to be a couple of weeks before I open mine up. I'll let you know when I do.
The bottom right corner of the PC1000 schem says "Pre am w/boost, trem, vib." honestly I didn't really look further than that on this glance because I don't have boost, unless they mean the pull for bright switch, because now that I look at it, there is no boost actually in the schem. I think it's been about two years since I had this thing open, so maybe it is PC1000.
Near as I can tell, the "vib" on these amps is a single phase-shift stage with no summing, much like in the earlier Magnatone amps, but implemented differently. In fact, it's implemented three different ways on the three sets of schems shown here.
One is an LDR/lamp setup reminiscent of the Univibe, which I now believe was lifted from electric organ practice in the 60s. Another was a set of diodes set up as a variable resistance. This was common for some things back in the mid/late 60s, but suffers from very limited signal levels. Thomas Organ used this kind of modulator as a tremolo in their Vox amps, and it sounds GREAT for that, but suffers from noise from the low signal level. There's another example of similar use in the Steiner-Parker synth filter module. The third is the use of OTAs for modulation, those 80848's, similar to the phase stage of the Small Stone.
Fender got a similar effect by splitting highs from lows with a filter, then amplitude modulating the two separately and out-of-phase, and finally adding the two back together. There was some intense phase shifting in the crossover region. The Fender "Concert" amp did this, I believe. Magnatone used a pair of voltage-variable-resistors to implement something like the Univibe phase stage, but done with tubes.
An interesting question is then - are there noticeable advantages in one way versus the other? Is there virtue in replicating exactly the circuit or updating it and adapting to modern pedal practice, which is considerably more sophisticated today?
Or maybe the folks from Strymon and Line 6 simply need to score a couple of Kustom amps, and model the effect. :icon_wink:
Quote from: Mark Hammer on January 22, 2013, 03:16:36 PM
Or maybe the folks from Strymon and Line 6 simply need to score a couple of Kustom amps, and model the effect. :icon_wink:
SACRILEGE!!!!!!
ideally, i would say go with whichever of the approaches would be easiest to implement.
it SOUNDS pretty much the same on every kustom. the classic plexi of the late 60's would get my vote, but i believe RG said that's the hardest one to do.
i know a lot of peeps would love the sound. i built a wobbletron (multiple, in fact) and never got it to work, but i built a bearfoot magnavibe, which is almost the same circuit, and it's close. REAL close. but it's vibe only, doesn't do the trem or the weird point where you can dial it between the two and get a subtly pitch changing tremolo.
btw...the "boost" is treble boost if i recall correctly.
been looking at the fuzz, too. (honestly, at this point, i look at every fuzz i come across, i probably have a couple thousand at least schematics i've accumulated) i never used a kustom with built in fuzz, but peeps seem to like them....and apparently some used a diode clipper pair, some a single diode (which i bet would sound really nice if it only worked on the top of the waveform).
again, this is all above my paygrade. i think the key may be to take something as simple as the wobbletron, which is based on the magnatone (and i'm sure ross was trying to capture) and see if maybe something can be done to make it sound right.
i'm more than willing to be a guinea pig if someone wants to throw a couple ideas out there and build them. i'm familiar with the sound of a few of the models (including the late stage "hybrids" of the end, with solid state pres and tube amps...they sound like poo!!)
i guess screw the vintage parts. we need something to be a "work alike/sound alike" that can fit in a box. ;)
john fogarty i'm sure would be ecstatic. ;)
I'll put in a plug here for the "phase-filter" sound. If you have not done it, you owe it to yourself to try it. Seriously. If you trusted me on the harmnic Percolator thing, this deserves equal attention.
I mention it here because it sounds best when there is no clean signal mixed in with it. Two stages of all-pass (phase-shift), followed by 2 stages of lowpass, harnessed to the same LFO, delivers up a swampy combinaton of vibrato, auto-wah, and a surplus tremolo sound produced by the apparent shift in loudness from when you rob and restore the top end.
If you have an OTA-based phaser, whether a Ross, a Small Stone (and issue), or a DOD FX-20, each phase-shift stage will have a small value capacitor tied to the input of the stage. Rerouting that cap from the input to ground will convert it from all-pass to lowpass.
Quote from: pinkjimiphoton on January 23, 2013, 01:22:44 PM
but it's vibe only, doesn't do the trem or the weird point where you can dial it between the two and get a subtly pitch changing tremolo.
i guess screw the vintage parts. we need something to be a "work alike/sound alike" that can fit in a box. ;)
john fogarty i'm sure would be ecstatic. ;)
This.
Quote from: Mark Hammer on January 23, 2013, 01:46:01 PM
I'll put in a plug here for the "phase-filter" sound. If you have not done it, you owe it to yourself to try it. Seriously. If you trusted me on the harmnic Percolator thing, this deserves equal attention.
I mention it here because it sounds best when there is no clean signal mixed in with it. Two stages of all-pass (phase-shift), followed by 2 stages of lowpass, harnessed to the same LFO, delivers up a swampy combinaton of vibrato, auto-wah, and a surplus tremolo sound produced by the apparent shift in loudness from when you rob and restore the top end.
If you have an OTA-based phaser, whether a Ross, a Small Stone (and issue), or a DOD FX-20, each phase-shift stage will have a small value capacitor tied to the input of the stage. Rerouting that cap from the input to ground will convert it from all-pass to lowpass.
i've only got two phasers, the korg mister multi and a cheap behringer small stone knock off...but it's smt, and i'm not quite ready to kill it yet.
is there a particular box you reccomend mark? something i can build fairly easily? the closest thing i've messed with to a phaser is the wobbletron/magnavibe. it's not the same as
the kustom sound, but close.
lately live, i've been using an old boss be5 with a plug stuffed in the "b" output jack...that way it nukes the dry signal from the chorus in it, and gets a bloody delightful wobble to it.
the wobbletron used to live on my board, but it was really prone to noise issues from the power supply, and battery life is minimal cuz the led is always running in it.
ideally, i'm hoping RG can come up with a work alike/sound alike. i will trust him on this one...and i trust you on this too.
i don't wanna mess with the korg, but maybe i can find a vero of a nice easy phaser i can mess with.
The Ross/Ropez is probably the best DIY candidate for this. I would say "Have a go at the Behringer Stone clone", but yeah, the SMT part would make it somewhat tricky.
Quote from: Mark Hammer on January 23, 2013, 11:01:36 PM
The Ross/Ropez is probably the best DIY candidate for this. I would say "Have a go at the Behringer Stone clone", but yeah, the SMT part would make it somewhat tricky.
One of the things I marked down to snag the first time it came along was a B&L stereo zoom microscope. It took over 15 years, but I did get one surplus for $100. Soldering SMD parts by hand is entirely practical under this puppy, under the lowest possible magnification.
But, like single malts, B&L stereo zooms are an acquired taste.
thanks mark.
that's a great idea, RG... but still not ready yet to take the SMD plunge.
i've seen charlie's mod.... may be something to look into, but to me, the kustom has it beat... there's something to be said for toneful simplicity.
all too often, i've modded something, and then modded more...and more... it's a disease (BUTM) :icon_mrgreen:
but the thing is, yah, you can get a million sounds, but how many are you gonna actually use? i'm learning more and more often, that less is more.
jmo... i believe unless it's gonna be really useful, it's not worth messing with.
Quote from: R.G. on January 23, 2013, 11:16:32 PM
Quote from: Mark Hammer on January 23, 2013, 11:01:36 PM
The Ross/Ropez is probably the best DIY candidate for this. I would say "Have a go at the Behringer Stone clone", but yeah, the SMT part would make it somewhat tricky.
One of the things I marked down to snag the first time it came along was a B&L stereo zoom microscope. It took over 15 years, but I did get one surplus for $100. Soldering SMD parts by hand is entirely practical under this puppy, under the lowest possible magnification.
But, like single malts, B&L stereo zooms are an acquired taste.
I work under an Olympus SZ11 all day long, we have the B&L stuff here, but I much prefer the Olympus because I just can't seem to get used to the B&L ones. Of course I would just love to have either one at home because I have no intention of doing epoxied chip and wire stuff at home and I think that the B&L scopes probably really shine with the SMD components with the larger work area/distance. And also, I don't think you can touch the Olympus used for less than $1200. I think I'm going to have to get a little more active about finding a home microscope because more and more I'm finding that they make life so much easier.
Quote from: R.G. on January 23, 2013, 11:16:32 PM
Quote from: Mark Hammer on January 23, 2013, 11:01:36 PM
The Ross/Ropez is probably the best DIY candidate for this. I would say "Have a go at the Behringer Stone clone", but yeah, the SMT part would make it somewhat tricky.
One of the things I marked down to snag the first time it came along was a B&L stereo zoom microscope. It took over 15 years, but I did get one surplus for $100. Soldering SMD parts by hand is entirely practical under this puppy, under the lowest possible magnification.
But, like single malts, B&L stereo zooms are an acquired taste.
Last summer, I repaired a Variax, and posted about it here. During the "repair" (actually, cleaning up an "installation" that a buddy did with a soldering iron that was really meant for plumbing repairs), a teeny-tiny resistor was sweated to movability, and in the jostling, fell onto the bench-top. These things are the size of a small sesame seed, and at first we thought we had lost it on the garage floor ( :icon_eek: ). Eventually we found it, and I was able to re-install it, narrowly averting tragedy.
But the real point of THIS post is that, at least when it comes to SMT resistors, those little suckers can be magnetically attracted, and because they are so small and light, it takes practically nothing to attract them. I tried holding it down with my wife's old dissection tweezers from biology class, sweating the piece, and then pulling tweezers and soldering iron away...but the damn resistor clung to the tweezers. Eventually, I had the bright idea to hold the resistor in place with a toothpick, and that did the trick.
As G.I. Joe says: Knowing is half the battle. But simply being able to see better is not the entire other half. Getting the damn parts to stay put without following anything around that has the teensiest bit of magnetic charge to it is about 10%. :icon_lol:
Quote from: Mark Hammer on January 24, 2013, 10:04:53 AM
But the real point of THIS post is that, at least when it comes to SMT resistors, those little suckers can be magnetically attracted, and because they are so small and light, it takes practically nothing to attract them. I tried holding it down with my wife's old dissection tweezers from biology class, sweating the piece, and then pulling tweezers and soldering iron away...but the damn resistor clung to the tweezers. Eventually, I had the bright idea to hold the resistor in place with a toothpick, and that did the trick.
As G.I. Joe says: Knowing is half the battle. But simply being able to see better is not the entire other half. Getting the damn parts to stay put without following anything around that has the teensiest bit of magnetic charge to it is about 10%. :icon_lol:
I like to use a Q-tip to wash the pads area in liquid flux, then let it dry a bit until it becomes tacky. Then I use a small probe with a bit of tacky flux on the tip to both pick up and align the parts. Once they're in place, I hold the part down with the probe, and touch the soldering iron to one pad under the part and reflow the solder on the pad, which reflows the solder on the part end. Once one end/pad is soldered, however partially, the other end/pads can be reflowed without holding the part down any more.
Once all parts are soldered, isopropyl alcohol and a toothbrush removes the flux. Using flux residue as a temporary adhesive seems to be just about right, for me at least.
I keep my old Weller 150W soldering gun specifically for demagnetizing tools as needed. Haven't soldered with it for years.
Quote from: R.G. on January 24, 2013, 10:12:12 AM
Quote from: Mark Hammer on January 24, 2013, 10:04:53 AM
But the real point of THIS post is that, at least when it comes to SMT resistors, those little suckers can be magnetically attracted, and because they are so small and light, it takes practically nothing to attract them. I tried holding it down with my wife's old dissection tweezers from biology class, sweating the piece, and then pulling tweezers and soldering iron away...but the damn resistor clung to the tweezers. Eventually, I had the bright idea to hold the resistor in place with a toothpick, and that did the trick.
As G.I. Joe says: Knowing is half the battle. But simply being able to see better is not the entire other half. Getting the damn parts to stay put without following anything around that has the teensiest bit of magnetic charge to it is about 10%. :icon_lol:
I like to use a Q-tip to wash the pads area in liquid flux, then let it dry a bit until it becomes tacky. Then I use a small probe with a bit of tacky flux on the tip to both pick up and align the parts. Once they're in place, I hold the part down with the probe, and touch the soldering iron to one pad under the part and reflow the solder on the pad, which reflows the solder on the part end. Once one end/pad is soldered, however partially, the other end/pads can be reflowed without holding the part down any more.
Once all parts are soldered, isopropyl alcohol and a toothbrush removes the flux. Using flux residue as a temporary adhesive seems to be just about right, for me at least.
I keep my old Weller 150W soldering gun specifically for demagnetizing tools as needed. Haven't soldered with it for years.
This is pretty much what I do. I also have multitudes of expensive tweezers, pin vices, and instead of toothpicks I use wooden cotton swabs that I have cut off the cotton part and sharpened to various shapes for the different parts (I like this over toothpicks because they are longer and easier to keep steady in my hand). A good number of the parts I use at work are less than 10 mils square, unpackaged transistors and such. Often times some of the parts I use are so small and are being placed in channels that tweezers won't fit in that I have to use a wooden stick dipped in alcohol and the surface tension is enough to pick up the part and place it.
QuoteI work under an Olympus SZ11 all day long, we have the B&L stuff here, but I much prefer the Olympus because I just can't seem to get used to the B&L ones. Of course I would just love to have either one at home because I have no intention of doing epoxied chip and wire stuff at home and I think that the B&L scopes probably really shine with the SMD components with the larger work area/distance. And also, I don't think you can touch the Olympus used for less than $1200. I think I'm going to have to get a little more active about finding a home microscope because more and more I'm finding that they make life so much easier.
15 years ago I picked up a Russian dissecting scope in a junk store for £10. I've used it regularly and now find it essential for soldering dirty great components as my eyes start to fail. I can see SMD components well with it but to solder them, I'd have to get round the the shaky hands which, at that magnification makes the tip of my soldering iron look like I'm trying to cast a spell - even when I brace my hand against something
Quote from: wavley on January 24, 2013, 10:32:50 AM
This is pretty much what I do. I also have multitudes of expensive tweezers, pin vices, and instead of toothpicks I use wooden cotton swabs that I have cut off the cotton part and sharpened to various shapes for the different parts (I like this over toothpicks because they are longer and easier to keep steady in my hand). A good number of the parts I use at work are less than 10 mils square, unpackaged transistors and such. Often times some of the parts I use are so small and are being placed in channels that tweezers won't fit in that I have to use a wooden stick dipped in alcohol and the surface tension is enough to pick up the part and place it.
Occasionally when I go to an oriental restaurant with free/disposable chopsticks, I grab a pair for the work bench. They're adapted to human-hand use for moving small objects for a few millenia. I keep a couple of these with a hole drilled in the business end and a sewing needle pressed into the hole eye-end-first and a wire soldered to the needle for a precision electrical probe. Much easier to get to SMD pads and leads and easier to keep stuck into the target pad/lead than the stock multimeter probes. Sounds like you need this kind of thing more than I do.
Quote from: R.G. on January 24, 2013, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: wavley on January 24, 2013, 10:32:50 AM
This is pretty much what I do. I also have multitudes of expensive tweezers, pin vices, and instead of toothpicks I use wooden cotton swabs that I have cut off the cotton part and sharpened to various shapes for the different parts (I like this over toothpicks because they are longer and easier to keep steady in my hand). A good number of the parts I use at work are less than 10 mils square, unpackaged transistors and such. Often times some of the parts I use are so small and are being placed in channels that tweezers won't fit in that I have to use a wooden stick dipped in alcohol and the surface tension is enough to pick up the part and place it.
Occasionally when I go to an oriental restaurant with free/disposable chopsticks, I grab a pair for the work bench. They're adapted to human-hand use for moving small objects for a few millenia. I keep a couple of these with a hole drilled in the business end and a sewing needle pressed into the hole eye-end-first and a wire soldered to the needle for a precision electrical probe. Much easier to get to SMD pads and leads and easier to keep stuck into the target pad/lead than the stock multimeter probes. Sounds like you need this kind of thing more than I do.
I actually have the precision Fluke probes and often times they're still too big. I use a pin vice with a sewing needle in it that I soldered a mini banana jack in the open end and then insulated with shrink wrap, that way my regular multimeter probe will fit in the end. We end up having to improvise a lot of tools here, it's really hard to find tweezers with small enough tips so I use an old ceramic MUX to sharpen them. I should also give credit to the wonderful precision machine shop downstairs that is constantly building me chassis, fixtures, and modifying tools for me, especially now that I've moved from cryogenic amp production (even production is small scale, the four of us in my old group produced about 100 amps a year total and even that was hard to meet) to advanced receiver R&D.
When the frequencies get into the GHz, things start getting interesting... and small.
Quote from: stallik on January 24, 2013, 11:42:03 AM
QuoteI work under an Olympus SZ11 all day long, we have the B&L stuff here, but I much prefer the Olympus because I just can't seem to get used to the B&L ones. Of course I would just love to have either one at home because I have no intention of doing epoxied chip and wire stuff at home and I think that the B&L scopes probably really shine with the SMD components with the larger work area/distance. And also, I don't think you can touch the Olympus used for less than $1200. I think I'm going to have to get a little more active about finding a home microscope because more and more I'm finding that they make life so much easier.
15 years ago I picked up a Russian dissecting scope in a junk store for £10. I've used it regularly and now find it essential for soldering dirty great components as my eyes start to fail. I can see SMD components well with it but to solder them, I'd have to get round the the shaky hands which, at that magnification makes the tip of my soldering iron look like I'm trying to cast a spell - even when I brace my hand against something
I find that I have to keep the perfect balance of caffeine in my system, not enough and I can't pay proper attention to detail, too much and it looks like an earthquake under the scope.
:D
so...any progress or ideas yet on how to implement one of these puppies?
i'm still finishing off a new overdrive/fuzz i cobbled together. to ME it's new, and uses some different ideas..
to you guys it'll probably be a piece of this, a piece of that. hope to have it up soon. just adding a couple snubber caps to kill a little hiss, and stupid pedal trick arriving.. ;)
Quote from: wavley on January 24, 2013, 01:39:15 PMI find that I have to keep the perfect balance of caffeine in my system, not enough and I can't pay proper attention to detail, too much and it looks like an earthquake under the scope.
I think it also helps to be a tiny Indonesian lady with very small hands and slender fingers...or an industrial robot.
Quote from: Mark Hammer on January 24, 2013, 03:14:03 PM
Quote from: wavley on January 24, 2013, 01:39:15 PMI find that I have to keep the perfect balance of caffeine in my system, not enough and I can't pay proper attention to detail, too much and it looks like an earthquake under the scope.
I think it also helps to be a tiny Indonesian lady with very small hands and slender fingers...or an industrial robot.
I guess I lean more to the caffeinated industrial robot side. (at least that's how management and HR sees the technical staff)
Here's a 150 that's available: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kustom-150-Bass-Amp-Head-and-Kustom-2x12-Speaker-Cabinet-U53715-/360573456682?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53f3da512a# (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kustom-150-Bass-Amp-Head-and-Kustom-2x12-Speaker-Cabinet-U53715-/360573456682?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53f3da512a#)
bass amps are nice, but they don't have the vib or reverb. very "flat" sounding, clean in a nice kinda transistor way.
my buddy tom guerra found a place in providence with a whole wall of kustoms i'm hoping to go visit soon.
OK, while I'm waiting on the enclosure for the Infinitphase, I pulled out the breadboard, and threw the fuzz section from this schematic on it (lower half of circuit).
(http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc196/digi2t/Kustom/KustomPC5069B_001.jpg)
I started it at C38, and ended at the 10K pot. 2N5088's (as R.G. says, "When in doubt..."), and I adjusted the resistors to get the voltages spec'd since I'm dropping from 12V to 9V. I reduced the 3.3M B to C resistor to 2.2M. I found that 3.3M sounded too "saturated", making the fuzz muddy when hitting the strings hard. 2.2M gives me the right balance of fuzz and clarity. This is what I've got;
(http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc196/digi2t/Kustom/FuzzSection.jpg)
Well, I'm pleasantly surprised. It's got a nice "Suzie Q" kind of feel flat out, but what really impressed me was when I rolled the volume back on the guitar. With my Strat single coil neck pup, normally pretty mellow, I got some real Tele-type SPANK! But, the bridge humbucker, which is normally brighter, is now more mellow. WEIRD! I dunno, maybe a "treble-boosted Axis-face" is the best descriptor that I could paste on this one.
All in all, not bad, though it strikes me as a fuzz that would be better suited in front of a tube amp, rather than a SS amp. I think with the right tubes it could put out some cool mojo, but I wouldn't hesitate to use it with a SS amp either.
Did the first collector voltage measure around 2.4VDC with a higher hfe 2n5088 and 2.2meg feedback/bias?
What is going on with the pickups is the added series resistance as you turn down the volume control, at 100% you have 250k to ground and no volume control series resistance as you turn it down you might have 50K series to the wiper and 200K from wiper to ground. Part of the overall gain is the feedback resistance divided by what is connected to the input node(the guitar and cable). This also changes the frequency response from having a bump at just below 1KHz volume control at max and tone at max treble(tele sim in a sim of the first stage) to being more flat.
You are also running the transistor more toward saturation with the 2.2meg instead of the 3.3meg the collector voltage is lower this also reduces the max closed loop gain (2.2meg vs 3.3meg). This is a higher gain area of biasing a transistor (higher open loop gain). IIRC there is something about this in "The Art of Electronics".
I noticed the offset at the emitter follower output this will be OK with the Ge clipping diodes but if you use with other higher voltage clipping diodes you might want to raise the emitter voltage by changing the input voltage divider resistors, however you need to keep in mind the RC filter change due to the resistor(s) change and also the hfe x the emitter resistor part of this.
sim of first stage moving the volume control wiper
(http://www.aronnelson.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=48608&g2_serialNumber=1)
green is max volume and max tone
(http://www.aronnelson.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=48611&g2_serialNumber=1)
QuoteDid the first collector voltage measure around 2.4VDC with a higher hfe 2n5088 and 2.2meg feedback/bias?
Nope. Reducing the original 47K to 11K (using a trimmer) allowed me to adjust the voltage to the 3.2V spec'd on the schematic. I'm using my Geofex Spyder as the power supply, which gives me a nice stable 9.05V. I did the same for the B and E voltage on Q2, using trimmers to bring the voltages to what was spec'd, hence the weird 640K value on Q2 B leg.
QuoteYou are also running the transistor more toward saturation with the 2.2meg instead of the 3.3meg the collector voltage is lower this also reduces the max closed loop gain (2.2meg vs 3.3meg). This is a higher gain area of biasing a transistor (higher open loop gain). IIRC there is something about this in "The Art of Electronics".
Like my bro Jimi, I'm still pretty noobish at the tech aspect, but what you're saying makes sense to me (and my ears! :icon_mrgreen:). To be honest, I didn't have a 3.3M resistor on hand, but I did have 2.7M, and 4.7M's. With the 4.7M, it's too fat and muddy, especially when hitting the strings hard. It was better with the 2.7M, but I liked the 2.2M the best. Again, having the trimmer on Q1C allowed me to tweak the voltage whenever I made changes. I did try some 2N3904's, and some BC108B's, but the 2N5088's sounded best to me. Using different transistors will require slightly different resistor values to bring the voltages to schematic spec.
I'm going to try a few other different transistors today, as well as some vintage Sylvania 1N450 diodes that I picked up from Goldmine recently. I try and shoot a Hen's Tooth video later today.
A little off topic.
Look at the first stage of the BMP note the series 39K
First stage of a two transistor wha
FF like circuits the feedback/gain resistor/part of Q1 bias, is the resistor from Q2 emitter to Q1 base (think of it as a buffered Q2 collector .6VDC or so lower, In R.G.s writeup) one reason the feedback resistor is a circuit adjusting point. sometimes lower than 47k to 100k or even larger in one effect with a pinch control
The electra circuit
Note what any circuit with a C to B resistor has connected before it.
This can be part of the interactive control a guitar volume control has with an effect
What was the temperature you adjusted the collector to 3.2VDC have you looked at the voltage and checked the tone at different temperatures?
hmmm, shouldn't that have started off at R81 tho? seems to me like there should be a whole nother stage before it...i'd think input at the top of r81 maybe?
dino, you seem to have found that kustom fuzztone.. it does make your guitar sound like a tele with spank and a nice sustain.
guess i'm gonna get on this for shits n grins, i realize it has a weird fet of some kind but thinking maybe just replace it with something more common?
shoot, maybe i'll just vero it up. ;)
Quotehmmm, shouldn't that have started off at R81 tho? seems to me like there should be a whole nother stage before it...i'd think input at the top of r81 maybe?
Yeah bro, I thought about that, but I didn't feel like putting a pot at the front end. Ditto for C36 and R80. I just figured that the 0.047 would be a good front end. I don't think that the fets really contribute anything to the sound (I may be wrong), I think R.G. is correct on the switching duty call.
QuoteWhat was the temperature you adjusted the collector to 3.2VDC have you looked at the voltage and checked the tone at different temperatures?
Seeing as how the transistors are silicon, I never thought that temperature would be an issue, but I can check that. We've got the basement at 20 degrees Celcius, so that's what I got 3.2V at.
i've kinda liked the pot at the front end on some things, like the perc and the heathkit. even if i do tend to leave 'em pegged. ;)
remember too, i believe this fuzz is after the preamp circuit, too, so maybe it's something to try in an effects loop? maybe i'm wrong, my printer is out of ink
and i can't get the whole schem on my puter at a size where i can see it all and still see what it says. ;)
hey gus? i'm thinking you're cautioning us that temp extremes can mess with the silicon based circuits too?
is there any way to compensate for that effect? does it have to do with the actual biasing of the transistors, i mean, like is one bias range much more optimal,
boy...
i suck at this, ;)
is that why you shoot for a bout 1/2 the power supply voltage to the fuzz's c, so you have the most margin for a stable circuit if temperature changes the circuit somehow?
boy. time to shut up, i'm sure this is a loaded question for which i should be flogged, but i still crawleth from the slimey nether regions of understanding the art of fuzzyness.
but i know what i like. :)
so, i'm gonna try and build one up too, but include a random fet of some kind as an initial booster and see what happens. i always liked the sound of kustoms anyways, so maybe it'll be something hip, or maleable enough to corrupt into a hopefully decent fuzz.
life is too short not to try every fuzz ever made, i tell you. too short. ;)
Quotei believe this fuzz is after the preamp circuit,
Effectively bro, so the input signal might be boosted. I'm also wondering if Q10 is switching or boosting? I'm looking at different types of mosfet boosters right now, trying to figure it out.
Quote from: digi2t on January 27, 2013, 07:24:34 PM
Quotei believe this fuzz is after the preamp circuit,
Effectively bro, so the input signal might be boosted. I'm also wondering if Q10 is switching or boosting? I'm looking at different types of mosfet boosters right now, trying to figure it out.
In studying the circuits preparatory to an assault, I believe the dual-gate MOSFETs are all used as semiconductor switches.
I believe that the structure of these much older MOSFETs may not have the inherent body diode of modern vertical or lateral MOSFETs. There's not much info on this available, and it may come down to setting some up in test fixture and trying them.
i sensed a calm before the storm....
go, rg!! can't wait to see what comes of it!!
dino, any chance you can try the breadboarded fuzz thru an fx loop?
maybe it will offer a glimpse at what they intended?
seems to me, what you describe sounds pretty good!! ;)
Quotedino, any chance you can try the breadboarded fuzz thru an fx loop?
Hmmm....
Plugged a Rangemaster type circuit in front of it. Not bad. Gives the fuzz more pop, but then again, a Rangemaster in front of a fuzz generally always does. Tried an Omega booster in front, again, similar result to the Rangemaster.
I plugged my Gemini III Dual Fuzz in front of it, and all I can say is,
NASTY! :icon_twisted: :icon_twisted: :icon_twisted:
A real synthy type of fuzz with the GIII running maxed out in front. What's really neat is running the neck pup with the tone at 0. It gets really synthy, with incredible sustain. By "sustain", I mean real sustain, not feedback. I'm running through my little practice amp, and I've got the headphones plugged in, so feedback is a non-issue. Just really fat and synthy. Fuzz on steroids. Not great for chords, but single note passages are PHAT!!
I would be really tempted to run this circuit after any of my fav fuzz pedals, and kick it on for solos. Really juices things up.
suzy q my ass!! ;)
i'm on it!! ;)
;)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3812278.pdf
look what i found.
the fuzz circuit is from q8 on. i swiped a screen shot from the pdf, which i couldn't download... but it makes it clearer for breaking this thing up!
(http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt137/pinkjimiphoton/kustomspeciaeffectboard.png)
Ok, that clears things up a bit! :icon_biggrin:
sweet. ;)
RG, you may glean more from the link there... the patent goes into great detail, way above my pay grade tho.
So now we know that the "invention" of this Fuzz circuit was filed on Feb 1, 1972. The nearly identical Sam Ash Fuzzz Boxx already existed in 1967. And here the "inventor" tells us, that he doesn´t have any clue of this fuzz circuit:
Quote
The clipped output waveform is amplified by the transistor follower Q-12.....
Sorry, but a buffer is only a buffer and doesn´t "amplify" anything.....
Enjoy building a Sam Ash Fuzzz Boxx (Astro Amp - Astrotone).
analogguru
Quote from: pinkjimiphoton on January 27, 2013, 10:49:44 PM
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3812278.pdf
look what i found.
the fuzz circuit is from q8 on. i swiped a screen shot from the pdf, which i couldn't download... but it makes it clearer for breaking this thing up!
(http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt137/pinkjimiphoton/kustomspeciaeffectboard.png)
Nice find bro! You got WAY too much time on your hands. :icon_mrgreen:
Page 9 gives the lay of the land for the fuzz section. All the FET's (Q8, Q9, Q10) are for switching. The fuzz circuit begins at C36 (take out Q10, that's for switching). The signal being sent here is preamplified, so clean boost in front to some degree would be desirable, hence the input (EFFECT) pot too. Maybe try a SHO, or mosfet booster in front?
EDIT:
QuoteSo now we know that the "invention" of this Fuzz circuit was filed on Feb 1, 1972. The nearly identical Sam Ash Fuzzz Boxx already existed in 1967. And here the "inventor" tells us, that he doesn´t have any clue of this fuzz circuit:
Yeah, I read that too! :icon_eek: :icon_lol: Then again, if you look at the history of Kustom, their ownership, and why they went under, the aforementioned claim is, ahem... understandable.
if it starts at c36, would seem q10 is the front end tho? doesn't seem to be for switching, looks like it's a buffer maybe for the audio before it hits the first stage of the fuzz?
Quote from: pinkjimiphoton on January 28, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
if it starts at c36, would seem q10 is the front end tho? doesn't seem to be for switching, looks like it's a buffer maybe for the audio before it hits the first stage of the fuzz?
It doesn`t make sense to me as a buffer. Not according to the mosfet buffers I`ve seen. I have a feeling it`s for the switch S3. If S3 grounds, I think it changes the voltage on the diode CR9, which throws the two other mosfets into bypass.
I think....
It's not a buffer. It shunts the input of the fuzz circuit to ground to force it to be quiet, as noted.
okeedokee. i still don't comprehend this stuff very well...
i will start messing with it tonite i guess. ;)
Been reading patent.
The vibrato is a two-pole all-pass implemented as a cap and a gyrator/inductor. The function is equal to two sections of all pass phaser sections, like the phase 45, or possibly like two stages of a small stone in effect, but with different circuits to get the same effect.
The tremolo is a straightforward amplitude modulator, done with an OTA.
The OTAs are probably really 3080s, not something exotic.
The patent makes a big deal of the LFO modulator being a sine wave and the vibrato being driven 180 out of phase compared to the tremolo, and even invokes the sacred "Leslie" name.
It's susceptible to direct re-implementation in OTAs or functional re-implementation with different circuits. Direct re-implementation will probably have hiss, as I remember the original Kustom amps having, as the OTAs are hiss-prone.
well, then, what about indirect reimplementation?
:icon_mrgreen:
i have much faith in your ability to be able to distill this rare essence to modern componentry!! ;)
well, if anyone is bored, and wants some vero to play with...
here ya go.
gonna go cobble it together for fun now:
(http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt137/pinkjimiphoton/kustomharmonicclipper1-1.png)
edit: fixed the pic
i made one mistake on this vero, r2 should be 2.2m
i updated it, but apparently photobucket hasn't yet.
i built this, it's verified, and it sounds great... a real nice bright classic overdrive.
i added the 100k pot, and put the signal in. makes it much more versatile i think, it lets ya dial in a fair amount of crunchy, treble-boosted distortion.
gonna go with a 50k, maybe 100k output pot..10k chokes it off way too much for use as a standalone fuzz.
i subbed one .039 cap for one of the .047's (c3 on the vero) and made the 640k resistor 660k, a 510k and a 150k in series.
used one 1n60, and one 1n34 for the clipper.
used vn2222's or whatever the hell they are... about 40 charachters long, some kind of 2n2222 fet i think.
gonna play with it a little more tomorrow, but this thing coud live on my board. i like it. kinda reminds me of the harmonic perc a little bit, but more treble boost and a bit less overtone.
Run you Liberal Komrade into it, sit back, and enjoy the fireworks! :icon_twisted:
i gave the lib away to a local guitar god a while ago.
this thing doesn't need ANY fuzz in front of it....tried it with a perc, the new od, and a fuzzface.
stupid pedal trick to come. ;)
i just took a nice cleanish fender twin patch in my cyberdeluxe, added some tremolo and a lot of reverb and got lost in this thing for two freaking hours.
just guitar/clipper/amp. insane. playing classical stuff i learned as a kid, fingertapping, the whole nine yards.
cranked up some echo and played some floyd.
called my old guitar player in san antonio and said dude, what amp am i playing thru? and played suzie-Q.
he goes, wow, dude, you got one of them tuck n roll's again?
i'm boxing it, it's going live tonite, and i bet i don't need another pedal. pretty savage interaction between guitar knobs..
throw something with humbuckers in it thru it, roll your tone knob off, then sweep up to the first of multiple sweet spots.
turn it down, it gets clean.turn it up, it gets ...just right. for me, anyways.
i made a couple changes.
i used these for trannys... i think they're some kind of FET or something.
vn2222llrlrag
battery: 9.54v
after 100r resistor : 9.36v
q1
c 1.98
b 1.96
e 0.00
q2
c 9.36
b 3.54
e 1.89
stupid pedal trick soon. i think you'll be surprised.
also...duh....
change the volume pot to 100k. much better sweep, and you get the full output (or close enough)
really really nice sounding box, i'm pretty amazed at how good it was for how simple a circuit. bud ross was on to something before that fateful poker game...
Quotevn2222llrlrag
A MOSFET.... REALLY???? :icon_eek:
I`ve never swapped a tranny for a MOSFET (or vice-versa) before. At first I thought you were meaning 2N2222, or PN2222 (made more sense in my head). I have some BS170`s at home (N-Channel MOSFET), I`ll try them.
MOSFET replacing a tranny... nuts! Can`t wait for the video.
EDIT: OK just rediscovered the Multi-Face (http://www.home-wrecker.com/multiface.html (http://www.home-wrecker.com/multiface.html)). :icon_redface: Gonna try it with MOSFET`s.
yep.
same thing as the sterno face, but BOTH npn mosfets.
i may be hallucinating, but it may be the most useable dirt i ever played thru. :icon_eek:
i'm juuuuuuuuuuuuuust stupid enough where to me, there;s two kindsa transistors... ones that work in my circuits and ones that don't. these do. ;)
hmmmmm.... any clues to make it just a smidge louder?
Quote from: pinkjimiphoton on January 29, 2013, 07:02:36 PM
hmmmmm.... any clues to make it just a smidge louder?
Increase R6 maybe? Use a 10K pot here and see what happens.
good call;
i tried dropping it yesterday, which didn't help. so i'll go up. there's a volume pot at the end, so i'm gonna take it up by a factor of 10. seems to work that way for some reason.
while it sounded brilliant here thru the cyberdeluxe yesterday, it sounded way too bright thru the cyber twin last nite...
so i gotta add a snubber or two i think. tried 100p between what should be b and c, wayyyyyyy too much treble reduction. so i'll try 10pf there and see if i can nuke it down some.
stay tuned. ;)
Quotei tried dropping it yesterday, which didn't help. so i'll go up.
Yup, go up, not down. Down will only reduce your resistance to ground, and choke your signal. But, I`m not sure how it will affect your voltages. Go with a bigger out pot first, maybe 500K. May provide the volume increase you need, and also tame the highs at the same time (I`m thinking Fuzz Face here).
I`m at work, so I can`t see your vero. Are you using the 0.0047 cap to ground at the end? If so, try changing it, and see how it sounds.
Also, try changing the out cap (.068 if I remember correctly) as well. From diystomp pedal mods;
QuoteIncreasing bass response in and out of distortion box
If the box has a small value input or output capacitor like .01uF, you can change the capacitor to a larger value such as .1uF and this will feed the unit more bass. If you change the input capacitor to a larger value, you will put more bass into the distortion circuit. If you change the output capacitor to a larger value, you will output more bass after the distortion.
Decreasing bass response in and out of the distortion box
To decrease the bass response going into the clipping part of a pedal, decrease the input capacitor's value. Usually anything smaller than .01uF will start cutting off bass. If you change the output capacitor to a smaller value, you will have the same type of clipping but will reduce the bass response at the end of the circuit. Basically a high pass filter at the end of the pedal. If you make the input capacitor very small i.e. .005uF etc... you will basically make any pedal that boosts into a treble booster!
thanks bro.
i'll play with it in a little bit, the tone is perfect...just the super high fizzy-fizzys and mexican am jesus freak broadcasts kinda stuff gotta get nuked.
i'll try the 500k pot...good call!!!
will post my results asap. ;)
hey bro,
last nite i upped the input cap to .22u, gave it a bit more "body" and fuzz. still playing with it.
tried a 47k resistor for the q2e to ground. made it almost imperceptibly louder, thinking maybe have to play with the voltage divider at q2 to get a little more out of it.
thinking of trying 50k for output pot, 100k works but a large part of the range is for all intents useless...just seems to add more glass.
toying with snubber caps on the mosfets... there's a sweet spot that seems to work, but it's gotta be really tiny caps, still experimenting.
i used it live the other nite, and tho it sounded good hear with the amp cranked up with it's trem on, it sounded great, but the noise gate was trying to fight it too much on the cybertwin. gotta nuke it some with a big freekin' cap or something.. onwards and upwards. i think you'll like the sound of it once it's dialed in. really needs a bit of treble de-emphasis on the front end i think... sounds SWEEEEEEET with the tone control close to off...goes from dark and muted to real nice compress-y clean with an edge. for me, it's great.. (sounds kinda likea kustom)
anyways...stay tuned
I don`t have the schem in front of me (and i can`t see it here at work), but I think there are .22 caps at both ends. If you blank out the three dual fets, and follow it from the preamp, all the way back to the preamp, I think it starts with a .22, and ends with a .22. The .0047 is bracketed by two 10K resistor, and then a .22 cap after the output volume, before returning to the preamp. There are resistors that you could probably leave out before and after the circuit to try and keep the signal strong, but try a .22 at both ends, first, and last, and see if it gets you into the zone better.
getting rid of some parasitic oscillation helped. added a couple snubbers, ditched one of the output caps, went to .22's for most of the caps. 47k r6 instead of 4.7k
it's JUSSSSST below unity now, not so crazy bright, and still sounds like john fogarty.
so here ya go... the suzy q
(what the hell else ya gonna call it?!?!?!?!?)
(http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt137/pinkjimiphoton/suzyqmk1_zpsc00f9884.png)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/25kkm0y.jpg)
made it brighter, louder, less gated, and a hell of a lot gainier.
i use a vn2222 mosfet for q1, a GE ac176 for q2, and a 5088 for q3
also added the tone control from my monkey balls pedal, which implements a feedback loop and "fake variable cap" to attenuate some of the highs without @#$%ing up the gain too badly.
removed the ge diode clipper between stages 2 and 3, it just killed the circuit too much. i've learned a bit since the original one i think. i moved it to the output of the circuit, and so far prefer either schotke's or plain old 914's. you may wanna either add a switch between the clipper and ground, or a resistance.. a 100k trimmer would let you dial in how much clipping occurs.
upped the gain of the chip, so now instead of 2x gain max, its more like 4 or 5x gain. the harmonics control really makes a difference now, and it can get VERY fuzzy. or can be turned all the way down if need be or for more of an amp sim kinda sound.
bumped up the final stage's gain substantially by changing the e resistor from 2.2k to 47r. you could also just ground it directly, but you probably don't need that much gain.
ditched the pair of caps between stages 2 and 3 as well, and made it a single .022 cap. .047 and .039 in series works out to almost exactly .022. go figure. ;)
switched around a couple components in the power supply as well, added another diode (yeah i know but i prefer this way... nothing tends to blow up, where as with a series diode the diode can fail and often does. by adding a reverse biased one to ground too an overvoltage or opposite polarity will just shunt to ground and nothing blows up)
added a bigger rfi cap to the power supply as well, and moved the ripple "choke" resistor.
i ditched ALL the @#$%in snubber caps. no need for them. when i was testing stuff thru a little teeny amp, yeah, they sounded great to my ear at the time, but they really robbed the circuit of life pretty bad so i ditched all of them. the tone control works really nicely to do the exact same thing now anyways, so they were all unneccessary. the 100k feedback resistor on the chip you may wanna add a small treble peaker too, but i don't think its likely necessary.
so anyways... here ya go. the suzy q mk III kustom harmonic clipper
if ya set the attack about half, the harmonics about 1/4 and the volume about 10:00 it still really nails that green river sound, and if ya turn your guitar down its total suzy q.
but if ya crank the attack and harmonics knobs, it very much becomes a very "harmonic slurry" kind of fuzztone and can get ugly in a kinda beautiful way. the tone control can tame it down.
should have enough balls to kick any amp into overdrive.
put a fuzzface before this thing and be in guitar volume knob heaven. feels plays and sounds like you're playing thru a great classic amp.
funny, me ditching germanium from a circuit, huh? ;)
anyways... come meet the new hoss... similar to the old hoss, but more hoss power.
if ya build it and ya diggit, let me know. i'll try and lay out a vero at some point
peace