Never heard of this brand or pedal but there is a really nice clip at Jet City music. JFET fuzz. Kinda Zippy-ish fuzz. Sounds nice! .
Here is a description from the website:
Most guitar players either love or hate fuzz pedals. Here at Resonant we had mixed feelings. We love the classic tones of Fuzz Faces and other early fuzz designs, but most of them are prone to splatty, overly-compressed sounds when set to anything but the optimal settings. Modern fuzzes can do some amazing tricks and can produce some unique tones, but often they are one-trick-ponies relagated to the bridge of one song, or random use during late-night jams.
We wanted to design a fuzz pedal that could do it all and never sound out-of-control or unusable. The task was to create a circuit that could produce vintage fuzz style tones, explosion-esque modern fuzz style tones, and everything in between - all without ever getting overly noisy or misbehaving. It took some serious tinkering and an entirely new approach to fuzz circuits, but we did it. This thing will roar, scream, and sing - all at the turn of a knob, and it will never let you down by being unpredictable or unusable.
Just like all of our Field Effects pedals, the Acceleron Fuzz uses a discrete Class A topology and is built with audiophile grade components. This is the fuzz that will replace a pedal board full of other fuzz pedals.
I couldn't find any more shots when I googled it, considered buying it for the hell of it but 225 bucks I'd rather buy a fuzz from John Lyons, a bottle of Bollinger and make a night of it.
Tried to trace from some guts and info from another forum. Couple of traces aren't exactly clear though, and as a result, there are several things I think are wrong. Namely, the drain connection on Q1 (can't see it connecting to anything but the base of Q2) and the connections around D1/D2. Attached is what I've got so far.
Do I spy a bazz fuss lurking in there? mmm, sophisticated.
modman wrote: ↑Let's hope it's not a hit, because soldering up the same pedal everyday, is a sad life. It's that same ole devilish double bind again...
There are still a number of errors in this schemo.
Also interesting you chose to put a (C) on your lifted schematic...just sayin.
I mentioned this in the Manifold drive thread, but finding 5457's with the right characteristics is critical to getting these pedals to sound right. It surprised me initially, because the transistors test virtually identically, but in circuit there are very noticeable differences.
There are still a number of errors in this schemo.
Also interesting you chose to put a (C) on your lifted schematic...just sayin.
I mentioned this in the Manifold drive thread, but finding 5457's with the right characteristics is critical to getting these pedals to sound right. It surprised me initially, because the transistors test virtually identically, but in circuit there are very noticeable differences.
The (C) is there in case anyone tries to claim copyright and have it taken down, which has happened before here. Just a precaution.
Care to confirm the errors? Things that look odd to me are DC coupling between Q1/Q2, particularly considering the current source on Q2's emitter, the location of D1/D2, which would make more sense at the input, or in place of R6 in the current source.
EDIT: Oh, a couple values are slightly off. Shows me to not confirm them before drawing.
mmolteratx wrote:
The (C) is there in case anyone tries to claim copyright and have it taken down, which has happened before here. Just a precaution.
Care to confirm the errors? Things that look odd to me are DC coupling between Q1/Q2, particularly considering the current source on Q2's emitter, the location of D1/D2, which would make more sense at the input, or in place of R6 in the current source.
EDIT: Oh, a couple values are slightly off. Shows me to not confirm them before drawing.
R3 - 49.9Ω
R4 - 1k87
R5 - 47k5
R14 - 1k37
You're on the right track, but any specific help from me defeats the point right?
mmolteratx wrote:
The (C) is there in case anyone tries to claim copyright and have it taken down, which has happened before here. Just a precaution.
Care to confirm the errors? Things that look odd to me are DC coupling between Q1/Q2, particularly considering the current source on Q2's emitter, the location of D1/D2, which would make more sense at the input, or in place of R6 in the current source.
EDIT: Oh, a couple values are slightly off. Shows me to not confirm them before drawing.
R3 - 49.9Ω
R4 - 1k87
R5 - 47k5
R14 - 1k37
You're on the right track, but any specific help from me defeats the point right?
I guess. Went back and looked closer at the pics, I flipped the trace from the junction of D1/D2, so they're definitely at the gate of Q1. Also looks like there's a trace connecting the drain of Q1 to the base of Q2, and I don't see any caps that would reasonably connect the two. I'll see if I can repost the pics I'm referencing here for everyone else. Attached what I've got as of now, and will remove the old one in a minute.
FWIW, I'm definitely close to buying one. Sounds killer in the clips, and I'm trying not to use my own stock of 5457s unless I absolutely have to.