Fuzz face npn and pnp

LastMantra

randomhandclaps said:

LastMantra said:

Dude I'm not sure what you are getting at. We can see that there are many incarnations of the FF pedal. Some with different resistor values, some with different cap values, some with different transistors (germanium and silicon!), some with different pot values, different polarity. If you don't like me using the tern "Fuzz Face" to describe my pedal then fair enough. It's probably not going to stop me though, I think it is close enough to the original for it to make sense to use the term loosely. I know it's not actually a Fuzz Face, it's in a square box for a start. 

Is there any point I said you shouldn't call it a Fuzz Face?  As I said if it makes you happy that's great.

However that is massively different to you giving advice to a guy who is trying to build a Fuzz Face, asking for help and then telling him that the circuit is just a rough idea and he can change what he likes.  Both of those statement are completely inaccurate.  He wants a working Fuzz Face, not a variant two transistor fuzz.  He brought PCBs and transistors to build two actual working Fuzz Faces.  The fact that even after my previous explanation about the amount of significant variable in a two transistor fuzz circuit you still seem hung up on the fact that 'you set out to build a fuzz face so it's a fuzz face' only demonstrates that do not understand what is happening in the circuit and why certain ranges are important for certain sounds.  You are not providing him with helpful information you are providing him with your opinion.

I suppose 'what I'm getting at' would have been clearer if rather than trying to politely highlight misinformation bring provided to the OP I had just simply said that you are wrong.

I'm not saying that if you take a FF schematic and build a Big Muff it's still going to be a fuzz face. I'm saying there are several schematics for FF's, as I have proven, and I think sticking to one and disregarding the rest doesn't make sense, especially if you don't have the exact components as the person that created that schematic. IMO selecting suitable transistors and tuning by ear will give better results. Seems I'm not the only one that thinks that either.

LastMantra

Using the same component values for different transistors is unlikely to give good results.

randomhandclaps

LastMantra said:

IMO tuning by ear will give better results. Seems I'm not the only one that thinks that either.

Why, who else says that?  Are you referring to the dozen of builders who have spent years working on FFs and tune by ear to match the sound to their reference Fuzz Face sat on the bench beside them?  Or do you mean other people who have build their own fuzz face and found by change bits they got it to either work or sound better in their opinion?

LastMantra said:

I'm not saying that if you take a FF schematic and build a Big Muff it's still going to be a fuzz face.

Spot on...but then the Big Muff isn't one of the 50000 variants of two transistor fuzzes is it?

LastMantra said:

 I'm saying there are several schematics for FF's, as I have proven, and I think sticking to one and disregarding the rest doesn't make sense, especially if you don't have the exact components as the person that created that schematic.

Forgetting that you continually ignore the fact that these slight variance only come from the Dunlop factory (for the reasons I highlighted), and that Dunlop are notoriously inconsistent at produce good fuzz faces....

Look inside any Analogman, Fulltone etc. pedal.  These are guys who have built and modded thousands of desirable Fuzz Faces and you will see the above circuit.

randomhandclaps

LastMantra said:

Using the same component values for different transistors is unlikely to give good results.

Not strictly true as only two components have a direct effect on the transistor and that is exactly why transistors are sorted and picked for the appropriate value.  If you have the right transistor matching you can swap the within the same circuit, regardless of whether they are Ge or Si with only minor tweaks to R2 to fine tune how hot or cold you want to run it.

LastMantra

randomhandclaps said:

LastMantra said:

IMO tuning by ear will give better results. Seems I'm not the only one that thinks that either.

Why, who else says that?  Are you referring to the dozen of builders who have spent years working on FFs and tune by ear to match the sound to their reference Fuzz Face sat on the bench beside them?  Or do you mean other people who have build their own fuzz face and found by change bits they got it to either work or sound better in their opinion?

LastMantra said:

I'm not saying that if you take a FF schematic and build a Big Muff it's still going to be a fuzz face.

Spot on...but then the Big Muff isn't one of the 50000 variants of two transistor fuzzes is it?

LastMantra said:

 I'm saying there are several schematics for FF's, as I have proven, and I think sticking to one and disregarding the rest doesn't make sense, especially if you don't have the exact components as the person that created that schematic.

Forgetting that you continually ignore the fact that these slight variance only come from the Dunlop factory (for the reasons I highlighted), and that Dunlop are notoriously inconsistent at produce good fuzz faces....

Look inside any Analogman, Fulltone etc. pedal.  These are guys who have built and modded thousands of desirable Fuzz Faces and you will see the above circuit.

Exactly.

LastMantra

You realise that even going by one schematic the varying tolerances of these types of components could give you very different sounding fuzzes? I have a bunch of caps with the same given value but with fairly different actual values that produce rather different sounds in this circuit. 

LastMantra

randomhandclaps said:

LastMantra said:

Using the same component values for different transistors is unlikely to give good results.

Not strictly true as only two components have a direct effect on the transistor and that is exactly why transistors are sorted and picked for the appropriate value.  If you have the right transistor matching you can swap the within the same circuit, regardless of whether they are Ge or Si with only minor tweaks to R2 to fine tune how hot or cold you want to run it.

That IMO is the lack of attention to detail that produces week fuzz pedals, especially when using germanium.

imalone

This is all very nice, but apparently the germanium one which most of the discussion focuses on is fine. It's the 'easier' silicon that isn't working.

LastMantra

Basically you stick a pot on and bias the transistor till it works, take the pot off, measure the value and put in a fixed resistor of a similar value or you look for new parts and try again.

randomhandclaps

imalone said:

This is all very nice, but apparently the germanium one which most of the discussion focuses on is fine. It's the 'easier' silicon that isn't working.

No it doesn't.  That's what happens when you skim read to suit.  It was relevant to both silicon and germanium - which are the same circuit - making neither 'easier', just different. 

imalone

randomhandclaps said:

imalone said:

This is all very nice, but apparently the germanium one which most of the discussion focuses on is fine. It's the 'easier' silicon that isn't working.

No it doesn't.  That's what happens when you skim read to suit.  It was relevant to both silicon and germanium - which are the same circuit - making neither 'easier', just different. 

Why do you think I'm skim reading to suit? To suit what? I'm not talking about only your posts. I understand perfectly well that the circuit is supposedly symmetrical (except it's not, because PNP transistors don't act exactly like reverse NPN transistors because crucial values are different, so you can't just flip a circuit and expect it to behave the same way). Though on the subject of 'easier' you did say this:

randomhandclaps said:

With regards to matching transistors this is far more of an issue with germaniums than silicons due to the wide variance.  The actual FF circuit is incredibly tolerable to a multitude of silicon trannys and the difference in sound may only be minor.  The issue comes with the fact that silicons tend to have a much higher Hfe (the BC109 more than most) than germaniums, so as standard the biasing resistor on Q2 needs lowering to get the voltage down to a usable level.

I.e. matching Ge devices is harder than Si.

marauder

I find this calculator incredibly useful for making good sounding FFs, I prefer Q2s collector voltage to be higher, 5-5.5V.

http://www.diystompboxes.com/analogalchemy/emh/emh.html

randomhandclaps

imalone said:

randomhandclaps said:

With regards to matching transistors this is far more of an issue with germaniums than silicons due to the wide variance.  The actual FF circuit is incredibly tolerable to a multitude of silicon trannys and the difference in sound may only be minor.  The issue comes with the fact that silicons tend to have a much higher Hfe (the BC109 more than most) than germaniums, so as standard the biasing resistor on Q2 needs lowering to get the voltage down to a usable level.

I.e. matching Ge devices is harder than Si.

Yes finding matching Ge is tougher than finding matching silicons due to the variances, supply shortage and the offset nature of Q1 & Q2s Hfes.  Out of a bag of 100-150 transistors we can only pull on average around 10-15 'good' pairs whereas a bag of BC108s Si (for example) will yield  nearer to 80% usable and even more so with more modern silicons.  This doesn't make a Ge FF any tougher to make than a Si FF once you have a suitable pair.  Baring in mind that the OP has a working Ge FF build would it would be safe to assume he had sought out matching pair?  I would have thought maybe so.

LastMantra

So, can you spot how many time RHC contradicts himself? A prize goes to the person that gets nearest to the actual figure.

randomhandclaps

LastMantra said:

So, can you spot how many time RHC contradicts himself? A prize goes to the person that gets nearest to the actual figure.

@LastMantra

Dave, I know you enjoy picking an argument but try confining being a needless antagonist to Speaker Corner.  The more you talk the clearer it is that you don't know what you are talking about.  I was bought up around the pedal making business.  I have myself (at an extremely conservative estimate) built at least 500-1000 FF.  The more you try and create an argument just for the sake of trying to look smart the sillier you look and the less help this thread becomes to the original poster.

I remember on the MR days you would flagrantly accuse people of 'hypocrisy' only to clearly demonstrate you were incredibly flaky about what the term really means and when it was actually applicable.  It seems the same applies to the term 'contradict' around here. 

Like I say if your sole purpose for posting is to start is to start a dick-swinging argument then take it outside this thread and PM me.

suspiciousminds

C'mon guys, no need for arguments to break out - the help i've had off you all in my threads concerning my efforts making pedals has been very helpful the GE one sounds really great so i'm happy with that - the pcbs come as a pair - npn and pnp so the fact i've managed to populate one and get it working from scratch is cool from my point of view.
Who needs two anyways!

imalone

suspiciousminds said:

C'mon guys, no need for arguments to break out - the help i've had off you all in my threads concerning my efforts making pedals has been very helpful the GE one sounds really great so i'm happy with that - the pcbs come as a pair - npn and pnp so the fact i've managed to populate one and get it working from scratch is cool from my point of view.
Who needs two anyways!

I'm sure two is always better. Do you have anything you can use to measure the voltages? Very hard to say what's wrong otherwise.

LastMantra

randomhandclaps said:

LastMantra said:

So, can you spot how many time RHC contradicts himself? A prize goes to the person that gets nearest to the actual figure.

@LastMantra

Dave, I know you enjoy picking an argument but try confining being a needless antagonist to Speaker Corner.  The more you talk the clearer it is that you don't know what you are talking about.  I was bought up around the pedal making business.  I have myself (at an extremely conservative estimate) built at least 500-1000 FF.  The more you try and create an argument just for the sake of trying to look smart the sillier you look and the less help this thread becomes to the original poster.

I remember on the MR days you would flagrantly accuse people of 'hypocrisy' only to clearly demonstrate you were incredibly flaky about what the term really means and when it was actually applicable.  It seems the same applies to the term 'contradict' around here. 

Like I say if your sole purpose for posting is to start is to start a dick-swinging argument then take it outside this thread and PM me.

Don't worry it took me a few attempts to get it right too. :P

LastMantra

I judge a FF almost entirely by it's characteristics. Does it clean up nicely/smoothly when you roll back the volume on your guitar? Does it go from clean to nice valve-like warmth and on to an awesome crunchy rock sound? Can you move through this palette of distortion smoothly in a Jimi fashion? At the other end does it have a long, smooth sustain that fades out nicely and has pleasing harmonic content? Can you make it feedback in a musically pleasing way when you push it? Does it interact well with other pedals? 

If it does all these things exceptionally well then IMO it is a good FF. TBF it either does these things well or it doesn't, and there's not that many ways to do it with so few parts.

I think it would be awesome if me and RHC both built a FF that turned out to be the exact same spec, just that we arrived there from different directions.

If the component values on that schematic are so critical, why do most of these builders not use very low tolerance components?