Important: boutique sections closed... DMCA kicks in.
Maybe you can tell me, where there is a current mirror used in the Retro Channel design ?
It speaks volumes that neither you nor mictester can see it for yourselves. Maybe it's because it's something you haven't seen before, and you are therefore not familiar with it?
But wait, doesn't that defeat your argument that it is in no way a novel circuit topology? Clearly in some part it must be, otherwise, why so confused?
And please enlighten us mictester: How well does the original MKII tonebender circuit work if you simply replace the germanium transistors with silicon transistors?
Exactly the same, but with no temp issues? Or perhaps, not too well, actually?
We both know it's the latter. So then explain to us all how a bias scheme that makes it work correctly can be a waste of parts and battery current, as you claim.
On another note RnFr claims to build and sell pedals.
Under what brand?
Are these devices original designs or lifted designs obtained from this board?
It's a fair question I think.
Is it that you share ideas but don't sell designs shared here with the general public for financial gain, or do you have a company that builds and sells the designs of others?
If you do lift designs and sell for profit it would make you no better than the brands you profess to debunk would it?
Just a thought
It speaks volumes that neither you nor mictester can see it for yourselves. Maybe it's because it's something you haven't seen before, and you are therefore not familiar with it?
But wait, doesn't that defeat your argument that it is in no way a novel circuit topology? Clearly in some part it must be, otherwise, why so confused?
And please enlighten us mictester: How well does the original MKII tonebender circuit work if you simply replace the germanium transistors with silicon transistors?
Exactly the same, but with no temp issues? Or perhaps, not too well, actually?
We both know it's the latter. So then explain to us all how a bias scheme that makes it work correctly can be a waste of parts and battery current, as you claim.
On another note RnFr claims to build and sell pedals.
Under what brand?
Are these devices original designs or lifted designs obtained from this board?
It's a fair question I think.
Is it that you share ideas but don't sell designs shared here with the general public for financial gain, or do you have a company that builds and sells the designs of others?
If you do lift designs and sell for profit it would make you no better than the brands you profess to debunk would it?
Just a thought
BTW, the Fuzz Face part is NOT temperature stabilized, only the first transistor stage, can you tell me why ?
The fuzz face circuit topology uses negative DC feedback to maintain bias stability, whereas there is no DC negative feedback around the first transistor stage, making it prone to DC bias drift with temperature.
You knew that and were just testing me, right?
The fuzz face circuit topology uses negative DC feedback to maintain bias stability, whereas there is no DC negative feedback around the first transistor stage, making it prone to DC bias drift with temperature.
You knew that and were just testing me, right?
- minnow
- Breadboard Brother
RnFR's The Toe Cutter: https://www.freestompboxes.org/viewtopic ... 678#p39950pedalguru wrote: Are these devices original designs or lifted designs obtained from this board?
It's a fair question I think.
Is it that you share ideas but don't sell designs shared here with the general public for financial gain, or do you have a company that builds and sells the designs of others?
If you do lift designs and sell for profit it would make you no better than the brands you profess to debunk would it?
Just a thought
Please search - you've been advised before, a few times already, by a number of people, on a few different occasions.
- tube-exorcist
- Resistor Ronker
No, I only know that if you build a Fuzz Face with BC108 and you touch the first transistor the collector voltage of the second transistor will drift. Not so much as with germanium, but it will drift. Try it for your own.pedalguru wrote:The fuzz face circuit topology uses negative DC feedback to maintain bias stability, whereas there is no DC negative feedback around the first transistor stage, making it prone to DC bias drift with temperature.BTW, the Fuzz Face part is NOT temperature stabilized, only the first transistor stage, can you tell me why ?
You knew that and were just testing me, right?
"I've noticed there's an inverse relationship between cost of gear and talent. If you need the most expensive gear to get decent tones, then you suck as a player."
- tube-exorcist
- Resistor Ronker
Therefore I asked a guru, but sadly no reasonable answer.pedalguru wrote:It speaks volumes that neither you nor mictester can see it for yourselves. Maybe it's because it's something you haven't seen before, and you are therefore not familiar with it?Maybe you can tell me, where there is a current mirror used in the Retro Channel design ?
Not confused, only curious.pedalguru wrote: But wait, doesn't that defeat your argument that it is in no way a novel circuit topology? Clearly in some part it must be, otherwise, why so confused?
"I've noticed there's an inverse relationship between cost of gear and talent. If you need the most expensive gear to get decent tones, then you suck as a player."
- tube-exorcist
- Resistor Ronker
One additional question for the guru:
When the duty-cycle of a square wave changes, does it have an effect on the sound or not ?
When the duty-cycle of a square wave changes, does it have an effect on the sound or not ?
"I've noticed there's an inverse relationship between cost of gear and talent. If you need the most expensive gear to get decent tones, then you suck as a player."
jreeves47 wrote:Dude it's a silicon tonebender
Go dazzle tgp with your germanium voiced circuit theory current mirror topology.
Dude, you started this whole exchange by making claims you ultimately could not substantiate.
Still can't, I take it?
Then why don't you dazzle everybody here: be a man about it and just admit that you have no proof to back up your claims, and publicly withdraw them?
Or you can just resort to name calling and diversion and hope the whole thing just goes away and people forget that you were called out and was unable to provide a meaningful response.
- culturejam
- Old Solderhand
Information
- Seiche
- Old Solderhand
Is there maybe another possibility?pedalguru wrote:Is it that you share ideas but don't sell designs shared here with the general public for financial gain, or do you have a company that builds and sells the designs of others?
If you do lift designs and sell for profit it would make you no better than the brands you profess to debunk would it?
sorry, maybe you should keep your thoughts to yourself next time. thinking doesn't seem to be one of your strengths.pedalguru wrote:Just a thought
Please explain why "not too well" Mr. Guru, you seem to be quite knowledgable on the subject. Possibly defending your awesome proprietary design?pedalguru wrote:And please enlighten us mictester: How well does the original MKII tonebender circuit work if you simply replace the germanium transistors with silicon transistors?
Exactly the same, but with no temp issues? Or perhaps, not too well, actually?
We both know it's the latter. So then explain to us all how a bias scheme that makes it work correctly can be a waste of parts and battery current, as you claim.
how about this? It doesn't work? A Tonebender seems to be military or spaceage technology if the same principals applied to make a si fuzz face work don't apply here. It's magic surely.
- culturejam
- Old Solderhand
Information
Oh well now, this sure does explain things. Looks like our guru shares an IP with another recent poster.
- Seiche
- Old Solderhand
culturejam wrote:Oh well now, this sure does explain things. Looks like our guru shares an IP with another recent poster.
Seiche wrote:thinking doesn't seem to be one of your strengths.
- tube-exorcist
- Resistor Ronker
Mr. Guru, did you start now to talk with yourself ?pedalguru wrote: Dude, you started this whole exchange by making claims you ultimately could not substantiate.
Still can't, I take it?
Then why don't you dazzle everybody here: be a man about it and just admit that you have no proof to back up your claims, and publicly withdraw them?
Or you can just resort to name calling and diversion and hope the whole thing just goes away and people forget that you were called out and was unable to provide a meaningful response.
I am still waiting for your answers....
"I've noticed there's an inverse relationship between cost of gear and talent. If you need the most expensive gear to get decent tones, then you suck as a player."
Glad you bring this up, because it basically is all you have been able to present to defend your position so far. Ask yourself: Does the original germanium design have a resistor from collector to base? No. Does the original germanium design have a resistor between emitter and ground? No. Would this somehow change the input impedance from the point of view of the guitar? Yes. Do things such as input impedance affect how a pedal sounds? Yes. Therefore, is it the best possible solution to replacing the germanium input transistor with a silicon transistor, if the objective is to make it sound exactly the same?
I'll leave you to figure that out for yourself.
I'll leave you to figure that out for yourself.
- tube-exorcist
- Resistor Ronker
Yes, a virtual, it is inside the transistor. Ever heard about leakage ?pedalguru wrote:Glad you bring this up, because it basically is all you have been able to present to defend your position so far. Ask yourself: Does the original germanium design have a resistor from collector to base? No.
Yes, the emitter resistor will increase the input impedance. If it gets too high for you, you can simply add a resistor with the desired impedance at the input.Does the original germanium design have a resistor between emitter and ground? No. Would this somehow change the input impedance from the point of view of the guitar? Yes.
see aboveDo things such as input impedance affect how a pedal sounds? Yes.
I figured, and now I have another question:Therefore, is it the best possible solution to replacing the germanium input transistor with a silicon transistor, if the objective is to make it sound exactly the same?
I'll leave you to figure that out for yourself.
If the input stage is so important for the sound, why don´t you ommit the Fuzz Face part ?
And yes:
If the collector voltage of the second transistor in the Fuzz Face part varies, does that have an effect on the duty cycle ?
Maybe you could be so kind and make some tests on an rectal-chanel pcb ? It is easy, you only need a cold-spray, a heating gun and an oscilloscope. Or should I do that for you and present the results ? I only don´t want that you will say: That´s a different circuit.
So what do you think will have more effect on the sound:
The input impedance, or the duty cycle of the square wave generated by the Fuzz Face part ?
"I've noticed there's an inverse relationship between cost of gear and talent. If you need the most expensive gear to get decent tones, then you suck as a player."
Yes. But I've also heard that semiconductor junction leakage is usually represented as a current source, not a resistor. There is a big difference. Have you heard?Yes, a virtual, it is inside the transistor. Ever heard about leakage ?
You think so? What about the non-linear input impedance presented by the BE junction? How do you compensate for the fact that the emitter resistor has linearized the transistor input impedance with yet another linear impedance?Yes, the emitter resistor will increase the input impedance. If it gets too high for you, you can simply add a resistor with the desired impedance at the input.
The theory of operation of the input transistor is large signal. Your suggestion of a small-signal compensation will not hold up in practice.
All this harping on about the temp stability of the FF section: Be careful, because another position taken by your compadres is that Si circuits are already temperature stable enough that making claims of temp stability are redundant.If the collector voltage of the second transistor in the Fuzz Face part varies, does that have an effect on the duty cycle ?
Are you now suggesting that there may actually be something to it?
Look, I think we can at least agree that the amount of drift for a Si FF is negligible for all practical purposes. You could add circuitry to make it sensibly zero drift, but you would be well beyond the limit of diminishing returns, and in this particular instance mictester would have a good case to claim the effort was a waste of parts and battery current.
- mictester
- Old Solderhand
Information
Yes - because you got the resistor values wrong!pedalguru wrote:BTW, the Fuzz Face part is NOT temperature stabilized, only the first transistor stage, can you tell me why ?
What a maroon!
"Why is it humming?" "Because it doesn't know the words!"
mictester wrote:Yes - because you got the resistor values wrong!pedalguru wrote:BTW, the Fuzz Face part is NOT temperature stabilized, only the first transistor stage, can you tell me why ?
What a maroon!
Er, I think you'll find I didn't actually write that to begin with.
Who's the maroon now?
- coldcraft
- Diode Debunker
this is true. pedalguru just recently learned how to properly quote.pedalguru wrote:
Er, I think you'll find I didn't actually write that to begin with.
Who's the maroon now?
Black Dynamite wrote:you need to shut the fuck up when grown folks is talkin.