|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 5, 2005 5:26:08 GMT -5
Doug - Sorry for putting your keyboard at risk. It just shows that the internet can be a dangerous place. I suggest engaging the C&C filter in your internet security settings.
Your divider sounds interesting. Ever looked under the hood? It would be interesting to know if it is based on chips or transistors, and how many it has. The reviews of also provide some insight. Alot of people seem to like it but some dont. They also mention problems of tracking the lowest and highest notes. What do you think of it?
On my fuzzdivider, as currently set up, tracking is very good through the lowest three strings (since thats what CC is intending it for). Theres also no delay. The higher strings seem to need more signal to track properly, it will be interesting to try to figure out what controls this.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 5, 2005 8:20:38 GMT -5
Further to above, I can make the tracking much better if the two 1MFD caps which connect to the diades are reduced in value, to around 0.33 to 0.47MFD. It now tracks fine from low E to 1st string, around 6th fret
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 5, 2005 19:00:31 GMT -5
Here's todays version - with some mixing between the divided and undevided fuzz, using a 100k pot as a blender:  The output is approx guitar level, and it could go to a master volume for further mixing with the rest of the guitar Thers a 0.47 cap on the right of the circuit - you could try a lower value for a brighter bass sound John Where's the blender pot? Didn't see it. [*looking*] Doug - Sorry for putting your keyboard at risk. It just shows that the internet can be a dangerous place. I suggest engaging the C&C filter in your internet security settings. Indeed. ;D Your divider sounds interesting. Ever looked under the hood? It would be interesting to know if it is based on chips or transistors, and how many it has. The reviews of also provide some insight. Alot of people seem to like it but some dont. They also mention problems of tracking the lowest and highest notes. What do you think of it? Are we talking about the PAiA or the Danny? On my fuzzdivider, as currently set up, tracking is very good through the lowest three strings (since thats what CC is intending it for). Precisely my intent. Also, I want to make it a bass only application, tho I don't mind a little fundamental octave fuzz if that gives it some flavor. Basically, it's like having a Warr Guitar, with bass and guitar capabilities on the same neck, if not the same copious compliment of strings. (Try 14!!  ) However, that said . . . Further to above, I can make the tracking much better if the two 1MFD caps which connect to the diades are reduced in value, to around 0.33 to 0.47MFD. It now tracks fine from low E to 1st string, around 6th fret . . . I am looking to be able to switch from the dedicated 2 or 3 pole pickup to a tap off of the Duncan (no, not referring to splitting or coil tapping). The idea is that I want to have what would amount to a 6 string bass. Basically, I would have three settings. 1) Guitar by itself, 2) Guitar with some Bass action, courtesy of the dedicated pickup, and 3) no Guitar, but a 6 string bass. I haven't worked out a switching convention yet, but I would need three discrete positions and several poles to route the wires, between toggling between the EAD pickup or the Duncan neck pickup, and toggling between guitar, bass, or both. Theres also no delay. The higher strings seem to need more signal to track properly, it will be interesting to try to figure out what controls this. Excellent! Chesh |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 5, 2005 21:37:58 GMT -5
Chesh - What Im calling the blender pot, is the 100k thing on the right of the diagram. each end of it goes to some 10k and 39k resistors, at one end, picking up the direct fuzz, and at the other, the pure bass. Its intended to be a way to try different sounds, you might, having experimented, go for some different blending arrangement
I was referering to the Danny, theres some stuff worth reading following its threads.
If one of your options is 6 string bass, you should try the smaller caps (see previous post) in place of the 1MFD ones, it seems to extend the high end without spoiling the low end.
The more this circuit is fiddled with, the better it gets, so dont treat any of my values as definitive, try variations to get it working best for you, partiucularly since you are going to use as pecial pickup. BTW, all my testing is based on the neck humbucker, usually with full tone cut (although this has not made as much difference as I thought it would)
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 5, 2005 22:52:11 GMT -5
Chesh - What Im calling the blender pot, is the 100k thing on the right of the diagram. each end of it goes to some 10k and 39k resistors, at one end, picking up the direct fuzz, and at the other, the pure bass. Its intended to be a way to try different sounds, you might, having experimented, go for some different blending arrangement Oh, okay, I see. I was thinking it would be a zig-zag like other pot notation. Interesting idea. How about a trimpot so as not to clutter up the face of my guitar? Find the right setting and then leave it in that preset. I was referering to the Danny, theres some stuff worth reading following its threads. Interesting! I will investigate. If one of your options is 6 string bass, you should try the smaller caps (see previous post) in place of the 1MFD ones, it seems to extend the high end without spoiling the low end. I like that idea. The more this circuit is fiddled with, the better it gets, so dont treat any of my values as definitive, try variations to get it working best for you, partiucularly since you are going to use a special pickup. BTW, all my testing is based on the neck humbucker, usually with full tone cut (although this has not made as much difference as I thought it would) Yeah, I can definitely tell that the possibilities of experiementation is endless and boundless! Since you mentioned that this sounds like musical elephant farts, and it's about a funky bass sound, how about the Elephunk circuit? Hmm? ;D Chesh |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 6, 2005 2:21:41 GMT -5
Sorry, zig-zags are in the same category as little wire loops where wires cross - too hard for me to darw!. A trimpot is a good idea. I think you'll find the best setting, then not really want to change it. The circuit as drawn filters most of the high harmonics out of the divided sound, leaving mainly the low octave (which is what it is for). The higher harmonics sound better from the fuzz circuit, and give you better dynamics, so a balanced blend is good, adjusted to taste.
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 6, 2005 19:25:45 GMT -5
Sorry, zig-zags are in the same category as little wire loops where wires cross - too hard for me to draw!. Ah, indeed. I wasn't sure if you were drawing them or using a schematics program to graph it out. A trimpot is a good idea. I think you'll find the best setting, then not really want to change it. Probably. The circuit as drawn filters most of the high harmonics out of the divided sound, leaving mainly the low octave (which is what it is for). The higher harmonics sound better from the fuzz circuit, and give you better dynamics, so a balanced blend is good, adjusted to taste. Cool. Incidentally, I'll throw this into the mix. I need a switching convention to switch between the three settings. I don't want to do two toggles or anything because I want this as clutter free and as simple as possible. I was debating using a tele blade switch - the three position one - but I already have a SuperSwitch and I think it would look redundant, as well as obtrusive. A rotary switch is a possibility, but that would eat up a lot of internal real estate. Any ideas? Wolf? The one thing I don't want to do is dedicate more than one switching convention to this particular function. Of course, I could skip the "6 string bass mode" altogether, and just have one switch to toggle the added bass capacity on and off, but it is just too easy to create the full bass mode not to do it. Chesh |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 7, 2005 5:02:12 GMT -5
Chesh
I think you should get the circuit working on a breadboard and try it before deciding how to configure it. It may be that it performs differently with the two different pickups, and to optimise it for the special pickup, you have to compromise it for the other ones. You wont know until you try it
I like your idea of a dedicated pickup – you could balance the signal level to blend with the normal guitar sound at full volume, maybe feeding it in after the guitar volume control, rather than before. Then you can turn down the guitar if you only want to hear the bass., Turn it up to play chords on your top 3 strings and a single bass line on the lower strings. You’ll have the only octave divided guitar that can do chords (OK – excluding certain digital monsters). You would just have a DPDT toggle, one side of it applies power to the circuit, the other connects the output. I expect it will be best to have it completely disconnected from the normal pickups when not used, so that it does not affect the guitar tone.
Do this with the additional 6-string bass option, using just a toggle switch, seems to need a 3-pole on-off-on, which I have never seen but no doubt can be found in the US. The 3 poles would take care of pickup switching, output connection and power.
Have a play with it first.
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 7, 2005 13:36:37 GMT -5
Chesh I think you should get the circuit working on a breadboard and try it before deciding how to configure it. It may be that it performs differently with the two different pickups, and to optimise it for the special pickup, you have to compromise it for the other ones. You wont know until you try it. Well, I could either make two distinct, dedicated, seperate circuits, or perhaps I could find middle ground on one of them. I also have full onboard 3 band EQ, so that's possible. I can also add an EMG-PA2 preamp to the dedicated pickup to boost the signal to an equal level with the reappropriated Duncan signal. I like your idea of a dedicated pickup – you could balance the signal level to blend with the normal guitar sound at full volume, maybe feeding it in after the guitar volume control, rather than before. Then you can turn down the guitar if you only want to hear the bass., Turn it up to play chords on your top 3 strings and a single bass line on the lower strings. You’ll have the only octave divided guitar that can do chords (OK – excluding certain digital monsters). You would just have a DPDT toggle, one side of it applies power to the circuit, the other connects the output. I expect it will be best to have it completely disconnected from the normal pickups when not used, so that it does not affect the guitar tone. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . I'm gonna chew on that for a while. Well, I could even go to four poles, as in 4PDT, but exactly how would that work? See, I thought I would need something of a routing nature . . . hey!! wait!! You mean like, left would be 6 string bass, middle would be guitar (bass "off" iow) and then the right would be guitar plus low bass strings? Kinda like on-(off)-on would be on 6SB - (off)G - onG+EAB? Something like that? Chesh |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 7, 2005 15:48:48 GMT -5
Yup , thats what I meant J |
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 7, 2005 17:05:18 GMT -5
Yup , thats what I meant J Cool. BTW, how does an on-(off)-on toggle work? What connects to what? Chesh |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 7, 2005 21:51:12 GMT -5
If you mean the switch itself, an on/off/on is like a normal two position switch, but with a central position where nothing is connected.
If you mean, how to connect it in your circuit, that will need a diagram, but not today!
Can you say more about the rest of the guitar, what kind of pickups and controls and wiring does it have?
John
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 8, 2005 22:20:55 GMT -5
If you mean the switch itself, an on/off/on is like a normal two position switch, but with a central position where nothing is connected. If you mean, how to connect it in your circuit, that will need a diagram, but not today! Actually, I was curious about both aspects, so as to gain greater understanding. But, yes, a diagram that explains the switching convention would help. Can you say more about the rest of the guitar, what kind of pickups and controls and wiring does it have? John Eh, let's just say "a lot" of all the above. Let me meditate on that. Chesh |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 13, 2005 7:39:06 GMT -5
Chesh - if you are still interested, i thought Id post a Mk4 fuzzdivider: people.smartchat.net.au/~l_jhewitt/circuits/fuzzdividerMk4.gifBy looking at this and the others, you can see some of the variations that can be used to tune the circuit to run at its best. On this version, some of the values have a range, and I think if I built it permanently, Id put trimpots for these. My son wanted his gear back, so I got hold of some new bits to try it again. The current transistors are BC548B. It has slightly changed the way it runs, and needed tweaking of the values. The current version takes the fuzz sound after the first transistor, where it still has alot of dynamics, and a nice contrast to the steady bass growl undernreath. If you pick gently, just the bass comes through, pick harder and a decaying fuzz comes out over the top. Just slide a finger up and down the low E string and its like a deep pipe organ. Theres a few irregularities, but I think I have pushed this circuit as far as it will go, and its not bad for a simple design. It tracks quite well over all the strings, but there are a few notes where the sound skips up an octave - all part of its character. Ill probably build it into a small box as an effect. John |
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 13, 2005 18:25:55 GMT -5
Chesh - if you are still interested, i thought Id post a Mk4 fuzzdivider: people.smartchat.net.au/~l_jhewitt/circuits/fuzzdividerMk4.gifBy looking at this and the others, you can see some of the variations that can be used to tune the circuit to run at its best. On this version, some of the values have a range, and I think if I built it permanently, Id put trimpots for these. My son wanted his gear back, so I got hold of some new bits to try it again. The current transistors are BC548B. It has slightly changed the way it runs, and needed tweaking of the values. The current version takes the fuzz sound after the first transistor, where it still has alot of dynamics, and a nice contrast to the steady bass growl undernreath. If you pick gently, just the bass comes through, pick harder and a decaying fuzz comes out over the top. Just slide a finger up and down the low E string and its like a deep pipe organ. Theres a few irregularities, but I think I have pushed this circuit as far as it will go, and its not bad for a simple design. It tracks quite well over all the strings, but there are a few notes where the sound skips up an octave - all part of its character. Ill probably build it into a small box as an effect. John Looks very interesting! Got a sound file by any chance? Chesh |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 13, 2005 21:48:12 GMT -5
Ill post a couple more sounds tommorrow
John
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 14, 2005 11:29:17 GMT -5
Ill post a couple more sounds tommorrow John Coolness! Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 14, 2005 20:16:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 19, 2005 23:58:52 GMT -5
So far everything is excellent! I figured out a good switching convention for the three options: a 4 pole, 3 position rotary switch . . . which I only got for $6! Sweet, eh? I was looking at $40 about a week ago. I also got all the components, in fact, enough for two circuits, plus spares, just in case things get messy and tangled. I'm going to start with either Mk 2 or Mk 3, and then work my way up from there. I actually want to get some sound going before I start getting cute. Chesh |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 20, 2005 6:55:56 GMT -5
Good luck. Ive got myself a piece of 'Veroboard' (do you have that in the US?), to solder it up on - Ill get to it soon.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 20, 2005 7:55:44 GMT -5
Good luck. Ive got myself a piece of 'Veroboard' (do you have that in the US?), to solder it up on - Ill get to it soon. John Cool! Perhaps you could post a pic? Veroboard? Hmmmmmmmmm . . . not sure. Maybe. Got a link? |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 20, 2005 16:48:23 GMT -5
Ill post a pic when Ive built it - at the moment the Mk5 is still on a plug-in type 'breadboard' I wasnt sure if Veroboard is a UK based product or generally available, but it is a circuit board with a grid of holes at 0.1" centres, and copper strips on the back that you can solder to, link or cut. It is a quick alternative to etching a pcb, for a one off project, and can be just as compact. Maybe theres something similar in Radioshack. You can do a google on Veroboard. Heres a link which shows something neatly made, I have no idea what it is for! www.sprentice.fsnet.co.uk/veroboard_version.htm |
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 20, 2005 18:24:36 GMT -5
Ill post a pic when Ive built it - at the moment the Mk5 is still on a plug-in type 'breadboard' Cool, tho, to be honest, seeing a breadboard version right now would also be immensely helpful. I've never worked with one before. I get the concept, but seeing it in action relative to this project would be helpful. I wasnt sure if Veroboard is a UK based product or generally available, but it is a circuit board with a grid of holes at 0.1" centres, and copper strips on the back that you can solder to, link or cut. It is a quick alternative to etching a pcb, for a one off project, and can be just as compact. Maybe theres something similar in Radioshack. You can do a google on Veroboard. Heres a link which shows something neatly made, I have no idea what it is for! www.sprentice.fsnet.co.uk/veroboard_version.htmOh yeah, we have that. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 20, 2005 19:26:51 GMT -5
OK, take a look at this: people.smartchat.net.au/~l_jhewitt/circuits/fuzzdiv5.jpgYou can see the battery leads. The white and black clips on the left go to the lead to the guitar, jack tip and sleeve respectively. The yellow and green clips on the right go to the lead to the amp. I wouldnt try to follow the rest of the layout from the photo, it is better to work off the schematic and kep a clear mental picture of what you have plugged to what - but you get the general idea. Make sure you know the connections to your transistors, and it should all work. But start with jsut the fuzzface part, being the two transistors at the left of the diagrams. John |
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Jul 21, 2005 7:59:04 GMT -5
I've watched this from a distance and been fascinated. Haven't weighed in because I really can't contribute much on this exotic design approach. But I do keep wondering if you objective of sub-octive w/ fuzz would not be a lot easier to get with a foot petal. My Digitech GNX will do all of that and more with 2 minutes of patch programing.
Just curious. You guys are sure having some fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 21, 2005 14:05:42 GMT -5
Excellent! Just the visual reference that I was looking for! I wouldnt try to follow the rest of the layout from the photo, it is better to work off the schematic and keep a clear mental picture of what you have plugged to what - but you get the general idea. Indeed, and that is exactly what I was going to do. But since I've never done this, it does help to get an idea of how it's supposed to look in a general sense. I do keep wondering if you objective of sub-octive w/ fuzz would not be a lot easier to get with a foot petal. My Digitech GNX will do all of that and more with 2 minutes of patch programing. Indeed, it would be considerably easier as a pedal. Without question. However, I'm not doing this as an effect. The idea is that I want to do walking and other independent basslines on my Utah, and even beef up various chords and what not. To this effect, I am creating a dedicated, two pole pickup which will be embedded in the neck under the E and A strings (and possibly the D string) that will then run straight to the divider. That whole schematic will then be treated as a seperate pickup to be configured into the entire mix. IOW, have you ever heard of a Warr Guitar? Chapman Stick? They have a full compliment of both bass and guitar strings on one neck, so you can play both. It's kinda like taking a piano and morphing it into a type of Guitar. Well, I can't quite get that going on, but I can pull a signal from the 2 or 3 lowest strings and divide the octaves, thus creating an effective bass effect. Now, granted, I'll still have the signal from the low string running thru the other pickups as a regular signal, so I can't eliminate those from the mix (at least, not without a lot of crazy circuitry in addition to what we're doing here . . . which would be interesting to say the least . . .) but then I don't know if that's such a bad thing really. That would make a really thick sound, with the doubling effect, which would also be interesting. But ultimately, I want to be able to produce independent basslines from my Utah, and not just do a global effect on the overall sound. Now, that said, since we have the circuitry available to divide the octaves, and the other pickups in place, then why not run an entire pickup thru the circuit, with the regular guitar signal off, and create a six-string bass effect? Just an extra lead and a switch and it's a done deal. So, it has other possibilities. Speaking of other possibilities, I got thinking even farther on this. What would happen if we incorporated a bit into the circuitry where an extra signal from the dedicated pickup doesn't get divided, but flipped 180 degrees, cancelling out any other E and A string signals from the other pickups, and while the first signal gets divided, leaving only the bass effect in place? That would mean that I would have, in essense, a guitar with low E and A bass strings and D, G, B, & E guitar strings. IOW, no doubled effect on the E and A, just bass. What do you think, John? Chesh |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 21, 2005 21:49:43 GMT -5
RW and Chesh
All good ideas. Using a ready made modern digital box based on sampling would be easier, and a lot more sophisticated since it could preserve the tone of the sound as it divides it.
I believe the fuzzdivider could have been built anytime from the 1960’s onwards. 40 years later, there has to be some other options! The 21st century version probably has 1 million times as many transistors in its chips – (so I’m not going to draw a diagram for one).
The fuzzdivider works here because we can custom build it, and it can be made very small, and Chesh wants to build it into the guitar.
But how about another way to get the effects you want? You could build in the extra 2-pole pickup, and wire it directly to the second channel of a stereo jack socket, via a simple switch to disconnect it. Then take a stereo lead and plug it into a box. In the box, you could have the fuzzdivider, and the mixing circuits to combine the pickups. If you switch the bass pickup off on the guitar, nothing comes through except the main pickups, and you have a normal guitar. Switch it on, the fuzzdivider gets a signal and the bass cuts in. It could also do the phasing option you mentioned.
The advantages of this is that you can build the circuit with more freedom and space, outside of the guitar, where its easier to tinker with. But also as an alternative to the fuzzdivider, with a different and much simpler box, you could make a splitter to feed the bass pickup to a digital box such as RW is describing, and back in to mix it. You’d have both options and less work to the guitar.
On the phasing idea, I think it would work, but it would probably need an active buffer (there’s lots of one transistor ones on the net), to keep the two pickups separate. Otherwise, in feeding an out of phase signal to the guitar from the bass pup, some of the guitar signal would also come back the other way. The fuzzdivider hates more than one note at a time, and your separate pup may be the key to it, so you wouldn’t want to get it mixed.
cheers
John
|
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Jul 22, 2005 15:50:53 GMT -5
Yeah, that was my first thought, the old stereo guitar concept. Around the early eighties a bunch of manufacturers came out with stereoed guitars. A bud of mine had one from Carvin, and if you had the additional amps and speakers and time, you could get some fun effects. So two pups two signal streams, two boxes would get you there as well.
But you guys are having too much fun to put the brakes on now.
This 'embedded' pup idea is one I am not sure I understand. Embedded under what?
When Zappa was alive, I read an article on guitars he had in his own development pipeline. He was big on onboard electronics, but his tone always sounded inorganic to my ears. None-the-less the reason I bring him up is that he was having his luthier build him a guitar (I think based on his SG type) where underneath the fretboard were embedded piezos up and down the neck as a separate signal string, or maybe series of signal streams. I was not completely clear on his intent, I think it was to enhanse tapping playing technique, but he overdrove everything, so no telling what or where he was going. but it reminded me of this embedded idea.
You guys are true GuitarNutz
|
|
|
|
Post by CheshireCat on Jul 25, 2005 14:18:59 GMT -5
To answer some questions and put things into context, here is a front and back shot of what the Utah looks like. front shotback shot(woulda looked a lot cooler if the IMG function was working) That battery you see will go over to one of two battery boxes I have installed out of frame, and in it's place will be a GraphTech GHOST System, which will include Piezo and MIDI. The little ledge you see next to the battery obscured by the big blue boxy cap (the mythic and legendary .33uf, 400V isocap we've heard so much about . . . which I get for $0.50 locally) is a section of wood onto which the circuit board for the Sustainiac will perch. This is one of the reasons why the offboard, stereo leads approach for the bass and guitar thing won't work. It needs to be internal because that final guitar signal will have to go thru two more stages before leaving the guitar in a dedicated multi-switch stereo jack specifically designed for use with the GHOST system, ergo, just wanting to boil things down to one bit of circuit board and a lead to one of the onboard 9-volt batteries. You might also notice the vacant coil space in the neck position where the Sustainiac "pickup" [read: magnetic driver] will go. Because of that, and the fact that space will be limited, I will be embedding the dedicated, two-pole "bass" pickup into the neck itself, specifically under the E and A strings in the 20th fret scallop. I will then drill a hole from the neck cavity to the side control cavity, and connect the pick-up with a microheader harness so that way it can be easily unplugged when I need to remove the neck for maintenance. Basically, the two pole pieces will protrude from the neck, without any indication of copper coils. In essense, the neck itself will serve as a pickup cover, which will lend it a certain aesthetic quality methinks. Make sense so far? Chesh |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 26, 2005 7:02:42 GMT -5
Its cool Chesh - and that oblong look is quite appealing. How small a space do you need to be able to squeeze the bass circuitry into?
|
|
)