A Challenge...

[aron]

Yes it does. OK, it is what I was thinking.

Thanks!

[Jay Doyle]

Exactly what gez said. Exactly. If you don't have a cap bypassing the source resistor, you can put a cap from the source to the junction of the wiper of the trim (where it joins the 1 Meg resistor) and that bootstraps the stage raising the input impedance. What is happening in that case is because the same input signal is on the source as is on the gate; the same signal appears at both ends of the 1 Meg resistor, so no voltage drops across it and it appears bigger than it is.

Anyway, what gez said...  

[Doug H]

I've made stack of distortion units, and at a certain point it's bit like eating fries somewhere different every meal for a month or locking yourself away with a mountain of porn.  It eventually all looks, feels, sounds, tastes, the same, or so minimally different that you can't justify the existence of most of it.

Guilty as charged. I have a stack-o-distortions that seem to get less interesting as time goes on. The pursuit of clipping and eq in and of itself can get dry and tedious after you have built a few of them.

However, I keep discovering new aspects of it, things that as you mentioned, come more under the "changing the way you play" category. For instance, I'm not too interested in any clipping effect that won't clean up reasonably well or radically change your tone in some useful way with the guitar volume. Anymore I'm more interested in the "organic" remote control style of playing.

At this point I'm pursuing more of the "feel" and "dynamic responsiveness" aspects too, those wonderful intangibles that are difficult to describe, yet we all know what they mean. If I could control harmonic blooms, compression, and clipping with picking strength and pick angle alone (and maybe guitar volume too), I would be well on my way to my "holy grail" setup.  I'm looking for the ultimate "expressiveness" in the sound because that is what inspires me to play differently and breaks me out of ruts in my lead playing.

So the fun for me is the pursuit of the "handles" that control these aspects. So although it seems like I'm in the "build another distortion" rut, I'm really working on some fine and subtle details well below the surface that make something "feel" much more "expressive" IMO.

But I still intend to build that EZ Vibe someday. I -swear- it...

Doug

[Mark Hammer]

Doug,

In research, the first step to making advances is to describe something, then figure out how to predict it, and finally how to control it.  With natural science, you start by describing phenomena in the real world, and then move on to studying it closely enough to predict how it will act/behave.  In the realm of technological research, you start out by describing either a set of operational goals/objectives that you want the technology to accomplish, or by describing a particular problem you want to solve.

With a domain as overworked as distortion pedals (just ponder for a moment the sheer number of commercial designs and prototypes that have existed over the years, and then add in all the protoypes and experiments that this community has contributed over the past 10 years), the challenge seems to be thinking up something more for the *act* of distortion to do.

As you rightly point out, "perfecting" a distortion turns quickly into rather banal EQ/gain parameter-chasing.  So what is it that we want distortion to be able DO for us that it doesn't do at the moment?  If you can adequately describe those goals/objectives, then you're halfway home to developing a new device.

You mention expressiveness, and this touches on a perennial problem of distortion devices.  It gets called dynamics, touch, feel, and a host of other names.  Ultimately, the gist of it is this, however.  Distortion devices generally function by running out of headroom.  It is the lack of headroom that results in the change in harmonic balance or addition of harmonic content.  At the same time, distortion is used by musicians, whether tenor sax players, flute players, or guitarists, as a way of conveying additional emotion.  I've gone on ad nauseum on Ampage about the biologically evolved connection between vocal raspiness, perception of emotion in others, and instrument distortion.  We *use* distortion as a means of conveying emotion (because nature predisposes us to and the instrument permits it), but where conveying *more* emotional information requires the option to inject greater contrasts in both harmonic content and volume level, distortion boxes require us to sacrifice volume contrasts for distortion.  I have a feeling this is why many players prefer creating distortion at the amp rather than with a pedal, because doing it at the amp permits both types of contrasts to be exploited (I submit Jeff Beck as my evidence), but enough said about that.

In sum, I'd say that what many players want from their distortion-enabling aspects of their rig is the capacity to:

a) maximize contrast possibilities in both volume level and distortion amount (i.e., broader range of each)
b) disconnect the one dimension from the other so that it would be possible to growl quietly and scream cleanly, in addition to being able to purr and roar.

An important qualification of these two principles is that the transition across the spectrum of distortion degrees needs to be smooth and seamless, the way it is with the human voice.  One of the more common complaints about fuzzes of the 60's was that if you didn't play loud enough, they sounded bad or crapped out.  So it is not just range of possible contrasts in volume/distortion, but how one moves across that range, leading to...

c) smooth gradual transition in amount of distortion as a function of playing/picking.

Again, I emphasize that the next step is successfully begun by asking yourself "What is it I need this technology to DO for me?".  Armed with fully articulated goals, THEN one can start figuring out what circuit tweaks or core technologies will lead most effectively to attaining those goals.

[RDV]

To put a fine point to the last couple of posts, I was in the studio all day Sat. & Sun. making a Demo/E.P. and I took every box I have(& I have a bunch), and other than using my version of the Stupid Box(thanks again Brian Marshall) for a Stevie Ray-ish tone into my clean channel, nothing sounded better than my Marshall's lead channel into a 412 with my Les Paul cranked. Nothing came close distortion-wise for a heavy sound. Nothing. I was shocked and amazed because that's certainly not usually the case onstage. I did however use my Dr. Quacky on a screaming outro which was killer.

Regards

RDV

[brett]

Hi.  This discussion of the place and types of distortion is excellent.

Recently, I was feeling depressed about everything, including the lack of "magic" in any of my distortion pedals.  None was offering anything special.  Sure, the Ge fuzzface(FF) was dirtier, and the CMOS fuzz was "tubier", and the Distorion+ was "rockier", but I'd reverted to using my TS9 most of the time, and could find little joy in any of my distortion pedals.

Then, about a month ago, I was building one of Aron's "Rockets" (for someone else).  I tried a trick that RG had recommended - piggybacking 2 transistors to get low gain.  The sound was amazing.  Not since I built a Blackfire or a Bazz Fuss had I heard such a unique distortion.  The thread about it on this forum extended for days, involved dozens of replies, and much experimentation and theorising.  The new sound was described as "organic", "amazing" etc.  My much-loved Ge FF has now been replaced by a better sounding piggybacked Si FF.

The moral of this story is that there ARE new sounds out there.  You never know when changing a resistor or adding a transistor will bring about an amazing change in a circuit.  That's what's great about this hobby.  Even better - someone like me, with no electronics training, can stumble on something significant.  That's fun.