# The Protoboard Chronicles - 2001: A Fuzz Odyssey/The Fuzz



## Big Monk

So, it has all led to this.

All the tweaking and breadboarding.

All the frustration.

We want a single fuzz to deliver the classic tone of the Tonebender MK II, the Tonebender MK 1.5, and the Fuzz Face. At least I think we do. I do. I know that.

What do we need?

First, a main control set. Level, fuzz, pre-gain and a blend control seems reasonable.

Second, a secondary control set. These should be the 9 mm pots with the external shaft that acts like a mini knob and has the marker. My thought would be bias for Q1 and Q3, a mid/output knob and emitter resistance on Q2 and Q3.

Lastly, switching. My thoughts go immediately to 3 mini toggles for Si to Ge. Also, a MK II/Fuzz Face topology stomp for getting rid of Q1. Also, mini toggles for input, treble bleed, emitter and output caps.

Sounds insane, right?

It would allow you to switch between all these circuits or Frankenstein your own.

Also, I think a pickup simulator is a must.

Let’s discuss. I’ll design the board and all the build docs and share it completely with the forum.

I've decided to change the OP to reflect the change in course I've taken on this project. This is now essentially a super modified Skreddy Lunar Module. I've also researched and factored in a few things from the Screwdriver and Hybrid Fuzz Driver. I'm still rsearching and assembling a bunch of tweakable things on the breadboard. Stay tuned...

EDIT (11/29/2021) - Changed the title of the thread so I can document the breadboarding without starting a new thread.

This is going onto the Protoboard this week after I get my Aion Ares redo finished. 

The base circuit will have a similar topology to the Skreddy LM/SD/HFD but will be more of a Silicon Tonebender MK II in spirit while retaining some of the circuit tweaks of the Skreddy pedals. 

I’ll be documenting the building and sound testing of the base circuit and also after I add some of the other circuit mods.


----------



## finebyfine

How close does your Swiss Army Fuzz project get to this? I never followed your thread that long after the inception


----------



## Big Monk

The Swiss Army Fuzz is more of a board that allows multiple configurations. 

The Vintage Fuzz Machine adds more features and external controls.


----------



## Coda

https://www.pedalpcb.com/product/gnat/


----------



## peccary

Coda said:


> https://www.pedalpcb.com/product/gnat/


I've built four of these now (modified for an NPN Dizzy Tone) and they all sound pretty damn gruesome and I've not heard a fuzz that reproduces bass frequency so well with just a couple of component changes. I should build a stock one to see how it sounds, but I need to get some higher gain PNPs. This board is the business, though, and that's all I really wanted to say.


----------



## andare

Big Monk said:


> So, it has all led to this.
> 
> All the tweaking and breadboarding.
> 
> All the frustration.
> 
> We want a single fuzz to deliver the classic tone of the Tonebender MK II, the Tonebender MK 1.5, and the Fuzz Face. At least I think we do. I do. I know that.
> 
> What do we need?
> 
> First, a main control set. Level, fuzz, pre-gain and a blend control seems reasonable.
> 
> Second, a secondary control set. These should be the 9 mm pots with the external shaft that acts like a mini knob and has the marker. My thought would be bias for Q1 and Q3, a mid/output knob and emitter resistance on Q2 and Q3.
> 
> Lastly, switching. My thoughts go immediately to 3 mini toggles for Si to Ge. Also, a MK II/Fuzz Face topology stomp for getting rid of Q1. Also, mini toggles for input, treble bleed, emitter and output caps.
> 
> Sounds insane, right?
> 
> It would allow you to switch between all these circuits or Frankenstein your own.
> 
> Also, I think a pickup simulator is a must.
> 
> Let’s discuss. I’ll design the board and all the build docs and share it completely with the forum.


This is something Joe Gore would build. A studio workhorse for sure.


----------



## Big Monk

thewintersoldier said:


> Minus the blend control, it sounds pretty much like a skreddy screwdriver. No impedance issues, pregain, a presence control, a preamp bass control and silicon/germanium hybrid. Unlike a lot of fuzz the gain doesn't have to be cranked and can do everything from low gain boost to full on fuzz. It's not as responsive as a germanium fuzz face on the volume knob, but it does clean up and it's not as drastic as a ff. There is a larger range of lower gain tones on the volume control. I have one built up that I haven't boxed yet, maybe I should get on that.



It doesn't take too much digging to see that modern fuzzes without placement/impedances have either:

a.) Some sort of pickup simulator (less common)

b.) Unity Gain transistor buffer or JFET/MOSFET buffer stage on the input.

Looks like the Skreddy Screwdriver has a MOSFET stage on the input.


----------



## Big Monk

thewintersoldier said:


> Don't do the pick up simulator stuff, I've had them in various fuzz and they suck. Suck the tone, the vibe and all the dynamics out of the fuzz.



I’m going to pull down some schematics this weekend and start researching. 

I’d really love to have just one tweakable fuzz on my board. 

I’ve really bonded with my Silicon Fuzz Face and I think with some modern features and some switching and additional controls, I can make it very MK II ish as well. 

That way I can move my Ge devices and free up some room for stuff that will get played. 

Sometimes I feel I like the idea of Germanium fuzzes more than I like playing them. 

I just seem to bond more with Si units. Stay tuned. I can’t do anything without researching it to within an inch of its life. I’ll be looking at the classic Silicon fuzz face, Skreddy Screwdricer, Skreddy Lunar Module, Basic Audio Scarab for inspiration and emerging with a fuzz that does FF, MK II and MK 1.5 very well but in a single unit. 

I just need to see what’s what and put a schematic together. I know what I want will be silicon based. Maybe a switchable Q3 for Ge but I’m not sure yet.


----------



## Coda

I built the GuitarPCB DSOTM Fuzz, which is based on the Lunar Fuzz (not sure how close it is, to be honest), and I was very underwhelmed. It is hardly a fuzz, not much sustain, and kinda flat. Could by the set of 109s I used, I suppose. My Si Sunface blows it out of the water…


----------



## Big Monk

Coda said:


> I built the GuitarPCB DSOTM Fuzz, which is based on the Lunar Fuzz (not sure how close it is, to be honest), and I was very underwhelmed. It is hardly a fuzz, not much sustain, and kinda flat. Could by the set of 109s I used, I suppose. My Si Sunface blows it out of the water…



I have a feeling I’ll land on a tweaked Si Fuzz Face. Basically I’ll run a unity gain transistor stage at the front (to solve the placement issue), have an external bias control capable of 2.5v-8v (to get some punchier Tonebender type tones) and a few other controls. 

I definitely think the Si Fuzz Face will be the framework. I only threw the Lunar Module out there because the demos I’ve seen were ridiculously good and I’ve got a gang of sweet old Silicons ready for action.


----------



## Coda

Big Monk said:


> I have a feeling I’ll land on a tweaked Si Fuzz Face. Basically I’ll run a unity gain transistor stage at the front (to solve the placement issue), have an external bias control capable of 2.5v-8v (to get some punchier Tonebender type tones) and a few other controls.
> 
> I definitely think the Si Fuzz Face will be the framework. I only threw the Lunar Module out there because the demos I’ve seen were ridiculously good and I’ve got a gang of sweet old Silicons ready for action.


Maybe I’ll dig mine out tomorrow and see if I can get a better tone from it. It should be good, but I wasn’t impressed…though, I did build it the week after the Sunface.


----------



## Big Monk

Coda said:


> Maybe I’ll dig mine out tomorrow and see if I can get a better tone from it. It should be good, but I wasn’t impressed…though, I did build it the week after the Sunface.



The biggest thing I’ve been working through, and one thing I’ve grabbed a hold of, is how much I love my Silicon FF. 

Especially for lead tones. The trick, I think, to replacing my numerous fuzz units with a single vintage style fuzz, will be to give it some of the kerrang that the MK II has while eliminating placement, oscillation and RF issues. 

I already have a rough draft circuit and I think the next step is to research a bunch of similar ones and pilfer what I need for this. 

I think I may need up with the modded FF and Carcosa as my two fuzz units.


----------



## Coda

Big Monk said:


> The biggest thing I’ve been working through, and one thing I’ve grabbed a hold of, is how much I love my Silicon FF.
> 
> Especially for lead tones. The trick, I think, to replacing my numerous fuzz units with a single vintage style fuzz, will be to give it some of the kerrang that the MK II has while eliminating placement, oscillation and RF issues.
> 
> I already have a rough draft circuit and I think the next step is to research a bunch of similar ones and pilfer what I need for this.
> 
> I think I may need up with the modded FF and Carcosa as my two fuzz units.


And the Big Muff makes 3…


----------



## Big Monk

Coda said:


> And the Big Muff makes 3…



You sonofabitch! Get off my lawn!

Seriously though, this revised “Gilmour” Muffin is the shiz:


----------



## Big Monk

While my wife slept and I half paid attention to our Stranger Things rewatch, I formulated a plan. 

1.) RF is a stank bitch. We all know that building a Fuzz Face is like dating a girl whose parents are a flippin’ nightmare. And by nightmare I mean they blast country music through your distortion devices. I don’t want RF. My MO is to always have a Pre-Gain control on my fuzzes. RF is typically squelched by turning that down a little. But maybe I don’t want to. 

2.) I love the lead tones of the Fuzz Face. Frankly, as much as I love the effortless feedback and note bloom, plus bright and punchy Kerrang of the Tonebender MK II, my Silicon Fuzz Face has become my #1. Yet I want to be able to easily approximate the MK II. 

3.) I don’t want to have to worry about where I put my fuzz. I want to put it after my Electrovibe and Phase 90 and I want it to work well with my Wah.

Part of handling 1.) and 2.) is a third gain stage. One of the reasons the MK II deals with RF so well is Q1 and it’s arrangement. Also, the extra gain is what brings in the kerrang and feedback. I’m thinking that a unity gain Q1 stage with a variable resistance on the emitter to boost the gain would kill RF, maintain the Fuzz Face sound, but also allow an approximation of the traditional MK II Q1.

Also, this should help with 3.)

From there it would be creature comforts I have not fully fleshed out. External bias. A dual ganged emitter resistor pot for lower gain Fuzz Face Tone (Ge approximation). To be determined...


----------



## Coda

What about an Si Vox ToneBender? I built the Box 66, which is germanium, but have been playing with the idea of building an Si version. Kinda of the best of both worlds, maybe…


----------



## Big Monk

Coda said:


> What about an Si Vox ToneBender? I built the Box 66, which is germanium, but have been playing with the idea of building an Si version. Kinda of the best of both worlds, maybe…



What I’m going for will have those tones as well but also Fuzz Face and MK II tones. 

If I have time this weekend I’ll draw up a schematic.


----------



## Big Monk

Research:


----------



## Big Monk

I’m going to breadboard the Fuzz Aldrin and see where it goes. 

My Si Fuzz Face will be a likely springboard as well. 

I’ve already gone away from the “do it all” idea. I’d rather strengthen, with small tweaks, the Si Fuzz Face.


----------



## fig

peccary said:


> I should build a stock one to see how it sounds, but I need to get some higher gain PNPs.


Whatcha need?


----------



## peccary

fig said:


> Whatcha need?


I'll drop you a PM. Thanks!


----------



## Big Monk

thewintersoldier said:


> Keep in mind that for every mod, thee will be something you lose about the fuzz you like. Some of the greatest minds in pedals have pondered such things and have come to the conclusion that "it is what it is." I tried the 6 knob does it all fuzz pedals and I spent so much time dialing things in that it takes the run out of playing. Impedance will always be a problem with transistor based fuzz, perhaps what you seek lies in something IC based.



Thank you for saying what needed to be said!

I often “dream big” on my initial ideas and then distill them down to the essentials. Definitely keep me honest!


----------



## Big Monk

After reviewing a number of schematics and doing a quick wish list, I decided on a modified Fuzz Aldrin. I have a bunch of handwritten edits to my printed schematic that I'll try to transfer over sometime this week.

Edit: This will be going on the breadboard this week.


----------



## Big Monk

Most of yesterday and a bit of today I slowly became enamored with what @Chuck D. Bones refers to as the “Holy Trinity” of Skreddy: The Lunar Module, Screwdriver and Hybrid Fuzz Driver.

So, I’ve tamed my wild ambition at the outset of this thread and will be focusing on studying these three circuits, adding a few tweaks of my own, and coming out the other end with an amalgamation. 

Working title is “2001: A Fuzz Odyssey”/“Ready Skreddy Go”.

I’ll be breadboarding this during the week and if it turns out well designing my own board to capture the tweaks and creative comforts I like.


----------



## fig

Jumping juniper!


----------



## Big Monk

fig said:


> Jumping juniper!



I’m really excited about this. I think it will be a very versatile vintage fuzz engine.

If it works out, this will be my Fuzz 2022 giveaway pedal.


----------



## Big Monk




----------



## Big Monk

thewintersoldier said:


> View attachment 18616



I'm working ovah here!


----------



## Big Monk

So @thewintersoldier can sleep soundly:


----------



## Harry Klippton

thewintersoldier said:


> and you just crammed 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag.


My 7th grade geography teacher used to say this all the time 🤣


----------



## Big Monk

thewintersoldier said:


> Maybe you should play play the screwdriver first. 5 knobs is already a lot and you just crammed 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag. It's your pedal, but a lot of that seems unnecessary and dialing this in would give me anxiety. Before you start going crazy, remember with fuzz less is often more, and more knobs does not equate to better tone or feel.



Just to be clear: This has the same 5 knob set as the LM, SD and HFD. There's nothing on the outside that i would not have as a trim pot on my normal Vintage style fuzz builds. Color In is the Body/Sharpness/Tightness control and Color Out is the Presence/Brite/Brilliance control

For instance, I have internal trimmers for Q1, Q2 and Q3 bias on all my current builds. Also, I always put an output volume trimmer on the inside as well. 

The cap selection is simply for the body and presence/brightness controls. 

I get what you are saying 100% but I'm shooting for something that will get me a variety of tones without having to open the pedal up. This is just a mockup anyway. It has to go through the rounds on the breadboard first.


----------



## Big Monk

thewintersoldier said:


> I'm gonna be boxing my screwdriver up this week, in all honesty its about as close to the perfect drive pedal as I can get, there isn't anything I would change about it.



I'll know better what is going to make it into the final pedal once breadboarding is complete. One thing I am curious about: Which guitars are you using with the Screwdriver?


----------



## Big Monk

thewintersoldier said:


> I use single coil guitars with the occasional p90.



That might be why you've bonded with the Screwdriver. I believe @Chuck D. Bones posted a document here written by Marc Ahlfs outlining how he personally felt the Screwdriver sounded best with single coil guitars.

I'm a humbucker man myself. So it's always a little more difficult getting stuff to sound how I like it.


----------



## Big Monk

Breadboard is almost fully loaded. I've got a bunch of tweakable things that will probably go nowhere but will let me adjust things in real time and i tweak and tune.


----------



## Preverb

Big Monk said:


> So @thewintersoldier can sleep soundly:
> 
> View attachment 18625


This is what I was wanting to see more examples of.  Graphics that are detailed and take up lots of the top.  I have used Illustrator to create a few cool designs but I am worried that there are too many elements for the printer to create in detail.  

You have to also create outlines around the text and a small path offset to cut a hole in the background graphic.  (Can't have any overlying paths).  I still don't know if Tayda expects you to delete the drill holes out of the image as well.


----------



## Big Monk

Preverb said:


> This is what I was wanting to see more examples of.  Graphics that are detailed and take up lots of the top.  I have used Illustrator to create a few cool designs but I am worried that there are too many elements for the printer to create in detail.
> 
> You have to also create outlines around the text and a small path offset to cut a hole in the background graphic.  (Can't have any overlying paths).  I still don't know if Tayda expects you to delete the drill holes out of the image as well.



I’m a graphics Luddite. I just move stuff around and tweak things until:

a.) My hardware layer hives with my Graphics

b.) Everything fits on the graphic layer. 

Once it’s laid out I convert everything, including text to curves. I’ve been avoiding black enclosures and white text or graphics because it’s a pain in the buns with having the extra layer of RDG_White, etc.


----------



## Preverb

Big Monk said:


> I’m a graphics Luddite. I just move stuff around and tweak things until:
> 
> a.) My hardware layer hives with my Graphics
> 
> b.) Everything fits on the graphic layer.
> 
> Once it’s laid out I convert everything, including text to curves. I’ve been avoiding black enclosures and white text or graphics because it’s a pain in the buns with having the extra layer of RDG_White, etc.


The text to curves is one step but you also need to create an offset defect from the graphic so there is space for the text. I am sure you will sort it out.  I am still finding it to be a headache to delete the drill holes in the graphic using AI.  It probably doesn't matter if they print first and then drill.

I was more commenting on the design being more complicated and interesting.  I would like to see something like this printed by Tayda and what the original design looked like.  I don't think there are any examples in the big Tayda print thread where the graphic takes up the entire top of the pedal.  I will be interested in how this ends up.  

With the Illustrator image trace feature, you can go in the advanced settings and crank up the # of paths and corner details.  So you can end up with a vector image that is pretty detailed while technically not having any overlying parts.  I just kind of wonder what the limit is for the printer in terms of detail.


----------



## Big Monk

Preverb said:


> The text to curves is one step but you also need to create an offset defect from the graphic so there is space for the text. I am sure you will sort it out.  I am still finding it to be a headache to delete the drill holes in the graphic using AI.  It probably doesn't matter if they print first and then drill.
> 
> I was more commenting on the design being more complicated and interesting.  I would like to see something like this printed by Tayda and what the original design looked like.  I don't think there are any examples in the big Tayda print thread where the graphic takes up the entire top of the pedal.  I will be interested in how this ends up.
> 
> With the Illustrator image trace feature, you can go in the advanced settings and crank up the # of paths and corner details.  So you can end up with a vector image that is pretty detailed while technically not having any overlying parts.  I just kind of wonder what the limit is for the printer in terms of detail.



You lost me! Sorry. I don’t speak the language of graphic design. I do t follow the text issue you are talking about. 

I’m simply following the general rules I used  for my Muffin graphics. 

Definitely give me any advice you think is relevant though. I’m not well versed in graphics.


----------



## Preverb

You can't have text just printed over top of a graphic.  (Nothing can overlap).  So you need to cut out a space in the graphic for your text.  In Illustrator, you first need to create 0.5-1mm offset around your text and then use another tool to delete that space from the graphic. (Example below).  @SYLV9ST9R helped me figure out how to use AI to do this. I am not sure what the equivalent tool would be in Corel. These graphics programs are far from intuitive! I have been wasting lots of time on it since I still don't have my PCBs.


----------



## Big Monk

Preverb said:


> You can't have text just printed over top of a graphic.  (Nothing can overlap).  So you need to cut out a space in the graphic for your text.  In Illustrator, you first need to create 0.5-1mm offset around your text and then use another tool to delete that space from the graphic. (Example below)
> 
> View attachment 18675



What if before exporting you group the entire thing, text and graphic, then export?


----------



## Preverb

Big Monk said:


> What if before exporting you group the entire thing, text and graphic, then export?


Not sure that will work because you will still have all of the elements of the image but with text over top.  AI gives you an error if you have overlying paths from graphics but not from text.  Having the offset space around the text also helps to make it stand out a little better.  I am sure there will be something that lets you do this in your software.  When I do it with AI, I create an outline of the text, then an offset path, then select both the offset and the image and use the pathfinder trim tool.  (Corel will probably have something similar with a totally different name.)

For some reason it actually groups the offset of the text into the image objects and then I have to go in and delete the offset bits from within the image.  It is all a bit tedious...


----------



## Big Monk

Preverb said:


> Not sure that will work because you will still have all of the elements of the image but with text over top.  AI gives you an error if you have overlying paths from graphics but not from text.  Having the offset space around the text also helps to make it stand out a little better.  I am sure there will be something that lets you do this in your software.  When I do it with AI, I create an outline of the text, then an offset path, then select both the offset and the image and use the pathfinder trim tool.  (Corel will probably have something similar with a totally different name.)
> 
> For some reason it actually groups the offset of the text into the image objects and then I have to go in and delete the offset bits from within the image.  It is all a bit tedious...



I’ll take a look tomorrow. Thanks for the tip!


----------



## Big Monk

@Preverb 

So if I’m understanding this correctly, and it does ring a bell from when @SYLV9ST9R was helping me with my Fuzz Face graphics, anything that is not part of the grouped main graphic has to have a cutout of its shape made in the main body of the graphic. 

For instance, the HAL 9000 “eye” where my  LED will be and my text:


----------



## Preverb

Big Monk said:


> @Preverb
> 
> So if I’m understanding this correctly, and it does ring a bell from when @SYLV9ST9R was helping me with my Fuzz Face graphics, anything that is not part of the grouped main graphic has to have a cutout of its shape made in the main body of the graphic.


Yes, that's how I understand it.  You can't have any overlapping graphics or text.  Even the image itself is broken up into several separate components which do not overlap.  I just received my first batch of UV printed enclosures a few minutes ago.  They turned out pretty good.  One has a vector image of my cat that has a decent amount of detail.  It gives me an idea of what I can do now.


----------



## Big Monk

Preverb said:


> Yes, that's how I understand it.  You can't have any overlapping graphics or text.  Even the image itself is broken up into several separate components which do not overlap.  I just received my first batch of UV printed enclosures a few minutes ago.  They turned out pretty good.  One has a vector image of my cat that has a decent amount of detail.  It gives me an idea of what I can do now.



I did it on my Fuzz Face file so I know I can do it again. I’ll just need to write it down until I have the process memorized. 

Part of being the only guy using Corel here is that the function and tool terms are not the same. So it’s a learning curve.


----------



## Preverb

I think most people are using Affinity or other software.  I started to learn that stuff but it seemed to be a headache.  I don't think any of these programs are easy to use out of the box.  I've already learned lots of tips from people here.  

I think my concerns about fine detail are addressed.  This is a pic of my cat that I converted to an svg image.  It was fairly large and I resized it down to this.  I think I used the autotracer site so it would have been even better detail with AI.  No gloss.


----------



## SYLV9ST9R

Preverb said:


> You can't have text just printed over top of a graphic.  (Nothing can overlap).  So you need to cut out a space in the graphic for your text.  In Illustrator, you first need to create 0.5-1mm offset around your text and then use another tool to delete that space from the graphic. (Example below).  @SYLV9ST9R helped me figure out how to use AI to do this. I am not sure what the equivalent tool would be in Corel. These graphics programs are far from intuitive! I have been wasting lots of time on it since I still don't have my PCBs.
> 
> View attachment 18675


You can just cut out the text from the underlaying image without an offset "border". I just find that with busy graphics, the negative space helps to make the labels more legible. It's a case of what works better for you.


----------



## Big Monk

SYLV9ST9R said:


> You can just cut out the text from the underlaying image without an offset "border". I just find that with busy graphics, the negative space helps to make the labels more legible. It's a case of what works better for you.



In my case I think the yellow against the darker colors should be enough. I just need to remember how to do the cutouts in Corel.


----------



## Big Monk

Ok. So this morning I figured out how to use the Back Minus Front tool in Corel so the cutouts are easy peasy. Now I am just going to have to learn the Contour tool for the text.


----------



## mdc

Not sure if you sorted out your RF issue, but a small value ceramic cap between power and ground in close proximity to the offending transistor can sometimes help a lot. Also a 100N mlcc in the power filtering in addition to whatever large value electrolytic. You might not need it when it's boxed but those things tend to help me out on the breadboard.


----------



## Big Monk

mdc said:


> Not sure if you sorted out your RF issue, but a small value ceramic cap between power and ground in close proximity to the offending transistor can sometimes help a lot. Also a 100N mlcc in the power filtering in addition to whatever large value electrolytic. You might not need it when it's boxed but those things tend to help me out on the breadboard.



I was talking about my boxed up circuits. I think my general geographic area is more prone to RF anyway.

I've tried it all. I've found the best solution to be a cap across the feedback resistor and even that does not always do the trick. 

I usually use caps across B-C on all transistors, a cap across the feedback resistor and bit of series resistance in the form of turning my pre-gain controls down. That pretty much squelches all oscillation and RF. Then you just have to tweak capacitors and stage gains to get back any frequency and signal loss.

Also, I do use MLCC caps in the power section as well and shielded wire. 

One draw of the first stage of the Lunar Module that is enticing (among others, particularly faux MK II tones) is it seems to also help with RF.


----------



## Big Monk

So, I made some changes to the front panel layout:





The great back and forth we had today on Si vs. Ge, along with some of the testing I am already doing, has moved in a more definite and scaled down direction.

I really love some of the piece parts of the Skreddy designs. A few of the design choices there are huge. I think the base design will be a modified Silicon MK II Tonebender with a similar control set to the Lunar Module, especially the Presence/Brite control. There will be internal blend trims for some of the caps for easily adapting some of the frequency shaping from Single Coils to HBs. 

I'm going to go with a more traditional blend control for the input caps ala the Easy Face. I'm going to expand the range of the Range control for more sweep from closer to 0 dB to the stock Lunar Module gain. Q1 and Q3 will have external bias controls. The ranges will basically allow a nice wide sweep for both of them to mimic MK II, 1.5 and Fuzz Face tones. 

Q3 will be switchable to Germanium. There will be a Pre-Gain control in series with a small limiting resistor on the input. Also, there will be internal blend trimmers for the Range and Fuzz capacitors to alter the frequency response there.


----------



## Big Monk

Not sure @thewintersoldier or @Harry Klippton need any more ammo, but i'm going to lay out my revised design goals for this project. 

Disclaimer: Testing may root out useless stuff here and may affirm some of it as well. My desire is not a "Kitchen Sink" for the sake of it type pedal. Initial breadboarding has proved that most, if not all of this is actually useful.





Keep in mind my goal is is as follows:

1.) Save board space by providing fairly intuitive controls for going, convincingly, between a few different types of "Refined" fuzzes (MK II/Supa/1.5/Fuzz Face)

2.) Keep Secondary controls for Bias in a prescribed range 

3.) Offer a Si/Ge switch for Q3 (the moneymaker)

Section I: Primary Control Set

The main control set borrows from the Skreddy Trio. I've eliminated the Sharpness/Tightness/Body control in favor of a more standard Blend Control ("Color In") at the Input cap. Range has been reworked. My potato math yielded approximately 12 dB-32 dB boost from Q1 across the sweep of the Range knob. I revised it to provide about 0 dB-20dB. Everything else is pretty standard. Level and Fuzz are no-brainers and the Brite/Brilliance/Presence ("Color Out") control is maintained but with and internal DIP switch for selecting the cap.

Section II: Secondary Control Set

Here's where everyone will set phasers to kill....

This is not completely set in stone yet. It is subject to change because if a control is not useful on the top-side, there is no reason to have it there. 

My goal with the secondary control set is for it to function as a way to switch between the basic characteristics of 4 circuits:

1.) Tonebender MK II
2.) Marshall branded Supafuzz
3.) Tonebender MK 1.5
4.) Fuzz Face

Section III: Tertiary Control Set

These are internal and based solely around setting caps in the "Range", "Fuzz" and "Color Out" circuits. These are basically set and forget but also can be tweaked per the goals of Section II.


----------



## Big Monk

thewintersoldier said:


> Honestly, cramming all that in a 125b and wiring switches and jacks would be a nightmare. Also stepping on the foot switch and not hitting knobs would also be difficult. I would opt for a larger enclosure. A 1590bb would make more sense and is still a better option than 2 pedals. I would rather have two pedals if I was going from one total extreme to another but that's me. It would take alot of time to change all the parameters to go from one to the other. In the end I would rather just choose one fuzz than have to mess with 10 knobs. I'm more a set and forget person, but you do you Derek.



I hear you. This also isn't final. This is not at the stage where I'm boxing it up next week. Some of these controls could get chopped, etc. The secondary controls will be using these:









						250K OHM Linear Taper Potentiometer Round Knurled Plastic Shaft PCB 9mm
					

ALPHA - Get It Fast - Same Day Shipping




					www.taydaelectronics.com
				




Placement is not final either, as I am not keen on having things close to the stomp switch either.


----------



## Big Monk

thewintersoldier said:


> I'm also firmly in the camp of love fuzz but I'm not committed to it either. I can get my sound with any number of devices and at the end of the day I like fuzz for just riffing and find that a more refined articulate sound is really what suites my style best.



You actually sum it up perfectly.

What you say also is a bit of a driving force behind me doing this. 

Full disclosure: I've never fully bonded with one Fuzz by itself. They all have something that leaves me thinking, "I wish it did more of this..." or "I wish it did less of that..."

Part of the appeal I think of this project for me is that it is not an attempt to be one pedal that exactly recreates 5 others, but rather it should let me dial in a MK II type tone with "A little more of this..." and "A little less of that...", etc. 

There are a lot of controls in the rough draft but they only stay if they are useful and intuitive.


----------



## fig

thewintersoldier said:


> but you do you Derek.


He does do a great Derek, yeah?


----------



## Big Monk

fig said:


> He does do a great Derek, yeah?



He's alright. He can sure plan an enclosure with every free space filled, that's for sure!


----------

