WHAT: Twelve germanium fuzz circuits compared and analyzed. These represent the sounds of almost every fuzz pedal introduced between 1962 and 1968.
WHY: A tool to help players identify the circuits most relevant to their musical needs. This isn’t about particular brands of pedals, but the circuits they employ. If you hear something you like, you can either do as I did and build a clone from the schematic, or buy one based on that particular design. (The relative merits of rival clones is another story.) Of course, if you’re rich and you desire an ancient pedal that probably doesn’t sound as good as a new clone, you can always purchase a vintage original. 😉
HOW: I tried to establish a “level playing field” by removing as many sonic variables as possible. I used the same signal chain, the same guitars, the same musical material, etc. (Tech details below.)
WHO:
Maestro FZ-1 Fuzz Tone
Sola Tone Bender Mk 1
Hornby-Skewes Zonk Machine
Sola Tone Bender “Mk 1.5” (similar to Vox Tone Benders)
Dallas-Arbiter Fuzz Face
WEM Pep Box Rush
Sola Tone Bender Mk II (same as Marshall Supafuzz)
Mosrite Fuzzrite (germanium version)
Orpheum Fuzz (germanium version)
Selmer Buzz Tone
Sola Tone Bender Mk III (same as Park Fuzz Sound, Carlsbro Fuzz)
UPDATE:Based on cool info supplied by YOU, dear readers, I’m expanding the scope of this piece. I’m furiously wiring up clones of some very rare models, and I can promise many cool and interesting surprises. Thanks, guys! :beer:
Okay, now that we’ve all gotten that silly “reading” stuff out of our systems with Book Week, it’s time to get back to the real focus of this blog: nasty, filthy fuzz pedals.
Those posts generated many interesting comments — plus some misinformation on my part. For example, I said that the original Fuzz Face circuit is a close cousin to the Tone Bender Mk I, which would mean, for example, that known Mk 1 user Mick Ronson was essentially using a Fuzz Face between his Les Paul and his Marshall. But subsequent listening and reading makes me believe I was wrong. So I figured it was time to play fuzz detective and sort the facts from the other stuff.
First, I made clones of all the early commercial fuzzes. I’ll be posting a compare-and-contrast video in the coming days. (The audio forensics will be quite incriminating.) Here’s the lineup:
The usual suspects. (Incriminating audio/video evidence to be posted soon!)
I’ve also re-read the experts, and man, even my most trusted sources contradict each other right and left, especially when it comes to those darn Tone Benders. While I have absolutely no inside dope on what actually transpired, I think David from D*A*M Stompboxes offers the most convincing Tone Bender chronology, which you can read here.
Anyway, here’s my best guess about how the early fuzz years unfolded:
UPDATE [06.16.2013]:Build instructions updated to v02.
The Fuzz Face has inspired countless spinoffs since Ivor Arbiter unveiled the device in 1966. Some introduced meaningful improvements. Many didn’t.
The goal of this project, created by my friend Mitchell “Super-Freq” Hudson, is to create a pedal very similar to the original. It’s a great way to explore one of the iconic sounds of ’60s rock (and lots of ’60s-influenced rock).
You can order a kit from Mammoth for $45. (Disclosure: Neither tonefiend nor super-freq has any financial stake in these kits. I simply asked the Mammoth guys to create one for your parts-sourcing convenience. All necessary parts are readily available from other vendors.)
But before you attempt the project, please be aware of some of its quirks. (And if you’re curious, you can read about how I customized the pedal I used in my video demo.)
Most sentient guitarists love Hendrix, but not everyone is equally fond of his signature distortion pedal.
So what’s your take on the Fuzz Face?
I used to hate them — but only because my sole exposure to them was via the crappy reissues of the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s. They sounded so brittle and harsh! Not till this century did I encounter the pedal in its original incarnation.
What a difference!
Vintage-style Fuzz Faces produce tones that are warm, rich, and unbelievably dynamic. It was like the first time I tasted a vintage-style daiquiri. Like the Fuzz Face, the classic daiquiri is a delicate concoction made from a few simple yet complexly interactive ingredients — nothing like those nasty blended drinks that taste like Slurpees spiked with Everclear.
Here’s everything I love about vintage Fuzz Faces, compressed into 60 seconds:
My DIY version is based on inventor Ivor Arbiter’s original 1966 schematic. That’s also the basis for a new DIY project created by my stompbox-buildin’ pal Mitchell Hudson, who runs the cool DIY site Super-Freq. We’ll both be posting it on our sites in the next few days. You can source the parts on your own, or order a kit for less than $50 — not as cheap as some of our other DIY projects, thanks to its two relatively pricy germanium transistors.
Most lore about “mojo” stompbox parts is utter nonsense, but there is something harmonically unique about the germanium transistors used in ’60s fuzz pedals, including original Fuzz Faces. (See my “Germanium Mystique” post/rant for more info.) You don’t need germanium for a good fuzz sound — there are many great tones available via silicon transistors, integrated circuits, and digital modeling. But one problem with those god-awful Fuzz Face reissues was that they often simply substituted high-gain silicon transistors for germanium ones without modifying anything else in the circuit. The result was more gain, but at the cost of harsh, excessively bright tones and inferior dynamic response.
In the last decade or so, builders have wised up. Numerous manufacturers offer authentic ’60s-style replicas. Meanwhile, the DIY community has created countless variations, many of which use post-germanium parts to great effect. These days it’s pretty easy to find a Fuzz Face that doesn’t suck.
I’ve build many Fuzz Face variants, but until Mitchell created his Fuzz Face project, I’d never done a strict original, with positive-ground wiring, PNP transistors, and few latter-day “refinements.” (Don’t sweat it if those terms mean nothing to you — they’re all explained within the project.)
Anyway, that’s the circuit you hear in the video above. It’s not a fuzz for all seasons — it doesn’t have a ton of gain, and its loose, spongy distortion is unsuitable for metal and modern hard rock. But I love its warm, non-macho timbre and phenomenal dynamic response. It’s simple, classic, and delicious, much like this.
Most sentient guitarists love Hendrix, but not everyone is equally fond of his signature distortion pedal.