Retro Channel - The Fuzz

mganzer · Post by **mganzer** » 07 Oct 2011, 19:49

Yes, wild fuzz!
Steven_M
I'm a tele guy too.
I expected it to be bathing suits or less it ... In fact this is how my tone sounded bender earlier in the match with three oc75 and I can guarantee that improves 150% with a matched set - q1 VFE 62, L272 - q2 VFE 71, L174, and q3 86, L273 from smallbear. I think there is a real mojo here, the parts are identical on the outside but the exchange highlighted the best effect that has to respond to the volume level of the guitar: first reduce the volume when the signal just died immediately after the note, now, with a matched trio just keeps ringing, only clean.

Guys, sorry if I slip into English, I'm not fluent ...

mictester · Post by **mictester** » 08 Oct 2011, 12:02

One of the good things about using the 3046 or 3086 in a circuit like this is that the transistors have quite low hfe - just like early silicon transistors. That's why the use of the "proprietary fuzz IC" in the Retro Channel effort was actually quite an astute move by the designer. Little Lance was actually sold the "temperature compensation" and the concept of a "proprietary Fuzz IC" (I really hope he had to pay $$$ for each IC!)... The reality of the design is that it's quite an intelligent use of a common transistor array IC, but that wouldn't have sounded so enticing to the idiots on TGP!

Incidentally - the 3046 (or 3086) works brilliantly in a Superfuzz - the long-tailed pair is great for the frequency doubler circuit, and you can eliminate the trimmer if you use matched base bias and collector resistors (I just select from a bag of 5% resistors of each of the required values). Again, the low gain transistors in the IC fairly accurately match the kind of gain you'd get out of ordinary silicon devices at the end of the 60s.

To my ears, you can improve the Recto-Fuzz by reducing the gain of the first stage slightly.

mganzer · Post by **mganzer** » 08 Oct 2011, 14:22

This guy have balls to say that in times like this. marketing hype in information era need a real base.
For the price, thinking to buy one 3086 more, and try your suggestion.Thanks.

Cub · Post by **Cub** » 08 Oct 2011, 18:30

Mic, would you say a chip like this would be good for the Silicon Tone Bender or are the transistors inside it too low on hfe for that ?

method · Post by **method** » 24 Oct 2011, 01:15

Just noticed that the BYOC Large Beaver kit includes an option to build a Swollen Pickle version of the circuit with the array (included in the parts kit):
http://www.buildyourownclone.com/beaver.html

That version of the kit has been for sale since 2007.

Maybe BYOC will release a kit for the time machine they obviously have built.

Greg · Post by **Greg** » 24 Oct 2011, 02:58

method wrote:Just noticed that the BYOC Large Beaver kit includes an option to build a Swollen Pickle version of the circuit with the array (included in the parts kit):
http://www.buildyourownclone.com/beaver.html

That version of the kit has been for sale since 2007.

Maybe BYOC will release a kit for the time machine they obviously have built.

Yup.. the Swollen Pickle was always based around an array.

roseblood11 · Post by **roseblood11** » 26 Dec 2011, 02:48

Has someone really built a Retro Channel Fuzz clone?
-> Is marshmellows schematic verified?

Just made an enclosure with this design:

mictester · Post by **mictester** » 26 Dec 2011, 14:40

Cub wrote:Mic, would you say a chip like this would be good for the Silicon Tone Bender or are the transistors inside it too low on hfe for that ?

I used to build Tonebenders using the 3046, with 4066 electronic bypass. They sounded really good. I built one version that used 15V on the supply rail (with the 4066 operating across +/- 7.5V) and it always sounded amazing. I used a secret sauce of a slightly more complicated tone control, and also had an input tweak that allowed you to choose how much input capacitor there was in the circuit, giving a high-pass input characteristic.

One version that I still have some bare boards for was a "dual bender" with two complete Tonebenders and their associated switching on one board - players who liked the sound of these could set up "rhythm" and "lead" settings on the two benders, with an optional "insanity" mode when they were connected in series! I stopped making the dual ones because I could no longer get the dual-concentric pots and knobs I used.

My first transistor array pedals were built in 1972 - there were two Tonebender variants, a Tremolo, a top boost, an over-driving tone control thing and a couple of others. I suppose I should send Little Lance a "cease and desist" notice for using MY "proprietary fuzz chip"!

Mich P · Post by **Mich P** » 26 Dec 2011, 16:37

Did it too.Not boxed. Sounded ok but not beat my Ge version especially that tone with neck pickup around the twelve fret who makes that singin' note (think muff here). I'm not have it with the retrobush miss low end maybe !
Mich P.

HEAD · Post by **HEAD** » 27 Dec 2011, 16:26

mictester wrote:
Cub wrote:Mic, would you say a chip like this would be good for the Silicon Tone Bender or are the transistors inside it too low on hfe for that ?
I used to build Tonebenders using the 3046, with 4066 electronic bypass. They sounded really good. I built one version that used 15V on the supply rail (with the 4066 operating across +/- 7.5V) and it always sounded amazing. I used a secret sauce of a slightly more complicated tone control, and also had an input tweak that allowed you to choose how much input capacitor there was in the circuit, giving a high-pass input characteristic.

One version that I still have some bare boards for was a "dual bender" with two complete Tonebenders and their associated switching on one board - players who liked the sound of these could set up "rhythm" and "lead" settings on the two benders, with an optional "insanity" mode when they were connected in series! I stopped making the dual ones because I could no longer get the dual-concentric pots and knobs I used.

My first transistor array pedals were built in 1972 - there were two Tonebender variants, a Tremolo, a top boost, an over-driving tone control thing and a couple of others. I suppose I should send Little Lance a "cease and desist" notice for using MY "proprietary fuzz chip"!

Hi Chris,

as nearly always: Interesting and interested. Hope you'll find some time to tell and show us more of it.

Helge

mictester · Post by **mictester** » 30 Dec 2011, 06:31

Helge

Any early silicon effect circuit works well with these array ICs. The transistors have low hfe (compared to modern transistors) and you just have to remember to ground the "substrate" pin in all cases. You'll find that temperature compensation is unnecessary!

I'll dig out some of the older circuit scribbles and post them here.

greenskull · Post by **greenskull** » 31 Dec 2011, 05:42

Mich P wrote:Did it too.Not boxed. Sounded ok but not beat my Ge version especially that tone with neck pickup around the twelve fret who makes that singin' note (think muff here). I'm not have it with the retrobush miss low end maybe !
Mich P.

I built it up and agree..... does not beat GE Tonebender!
Maybe that "proprietary chip" would have better results in Superfuzz circuit? I'm not skilled in doing layouts so I may never know firsthand .

roseblood11 · Post by **roseblood11** » 31 Dec 2011, 10:38

Maybe the original uses a CA3086? They have the same pinout, and as far as I remember, CA3046 was just a guess.

And measure the collector voltages please, maybe it would make sense to replace some of the collector resistors with trimpots?

Has anybody compared a clone to the original pedal?

Seiche · Post by **Seiche** » 31 Dec 2011, 10:44

roseblood11 wrote:Maybe the original uses a CA3086? They have the same pinout, and as far as I remember, CA3046 was just a guess.

And measure the collector voltages please, maybe it would make sense to replace some of the collector resistors with trimpots?

Has anybody compared a clone to the original pedal?

didn't ibodog compare them and find they sound the same?

Mich P · Post by **Mich P** » 31 Dec 2011, 15:08

Seiche wrote :
"didn't ibodog compare them and find they sound the same?"

Yes he did. I remember have compare original voltages with mine and they were the same
so i think roseblood11 could be right to tweak it to see.
Mich P.

jighead81 · Post by **jighead81** » 09 Jan 2012, 12:15

I guess I missed a post somewhere but did anybody ever verify that marshmellows schematic worked for the Retro Channel Fuzz?

roseblood11 · Post by **roseblood11** » 09 Jan 2012, 14:29

I think that greenskull and Mich P used it. Mich P used my vero layout, which is based on marshmellows schematic.
Maybe you could ask marshmellow via PM if he built a clone and compared it to an original pedal...

marshmellow · Post by **marshmellow** » 09 Jan 2012, 14:58

No I haven't. My schematic is 1:1 based on Ibodog's trace, which was verified by himself as completely identical to the original.

greenskull · Post by **greenskull** » 10 Jan 2012, 00:24

Ah, forgot to mention I like my Tonebenders with a .1uf output cap anyway..... should wooly it up a bit more to my taste. Will switch it out soon after clearing my bench off and report back.

greenskull · Post by **greenskull** » 22 Jan 2012, 07:53

greenskull wrote:Ah, forgot to mention I like my Tonebenders with a .1uf output cap anyway..... should wooly it up a bit more to my taste. Will switch it out soon after clearing my bench off and report back.

Hard to believe it's taken me nearly 2 weeks to swap the output cap out, but I finally did. Definitely an improvement to my ears. I'm really liking it with my guitar's volume pot just slighly less than full up...... I gotta agree with Mictester about reducing the gain of the first stage, that would probably save some trouble with knob fiddlin' too. Now how exactly would you go about that? A resistor on the emitter of input transistor of the array or a bigger inline input resistor?

Retro Channel - The Fuzz [traced]