when is it a "fuzz" box?

[nils]

This may sound stupid or even like a noob question... but when exactly is an effect a "fuzz" effect? I know all these discussions how to differentiate between overdrive and distortion... but where does fuzz fit in this equation?

[Mark Hammer]

It's a question that gets asked again and again, and has to be answered again and again, because there is really no definitive answer.  Here is one answer, though.

If the device/circuit clearly squares the signal, as a process or as an observable result on a scope, then it IS a fuzz.  So, a comparator-based circuit, or anything else that turns a nice busy input signal into something that is essentially only high or low, is a fuzz and cannot be classified as an overdrive or mere "distortion".

Since one of the properties of squaring a signal is the complete elimination of dynamic variation.  Pedals that produce "sustain for days" without requiring any amplifier feedback are generally classified as "fuzz", in contrast to overdrives and distortions that have relatively normal note decay and some noticeable compression but some reasonable capacity to still distinguish between harder and softer picked notes.

As a result of both of the above two paragraphs, many cascaded, multistage clippers (e.g., BMP) that can produce square-like tones with little dynamics get labelled as "fuzz".

Because squared notes produced by a comparator-like action have a critical threshold for doing so, sputteriness is generally assicated with "fuzz" rather than other distorting effects.  If it hangs in there for a while and then just craps out, it's a fuzz.  If it hangs in there for a while and gets less hairy as it decays, it's more of something else.

Because squared notes have outrageous amounts of lower and mid order harmonics, anything that sounds raspy and hoarse will generally be thought of as a fuzz rather than overdrive.

It bears noting that terms like overdrive and distortion came *after* the term "fuzz", historically speaking.  As a result, many tones that were less than clean, earlier in the dawn of distortion history, got labelled as fuzz, but as things like the Boogie amps and other devices arose, producing either more intense or warmer tones, some things that may have been *labelled* as "fuzz" or "distortion" early on were reconceptualized as more like overdrive or "just" distortion (but not fuzz).  For instance, Joe Davisson's "Blackfire" design, is described as being a "high gain boost", but it probably ends up being much "fuzzier" than the original E-H Muff Fuzz.

[nils]

ok, so more or less it's: If it buzzes and doesn't sound "smooth", it's fuzz

[Mark Hammer]

Well that would be MY take on it.  I'd wait for postings from others before you settle on a definition, but the general sequence is that "distortion" pedals are harsher than "overdrive" and "fuzz" are harder than "distortion".  Of course, given the myriad of ways to produce harmonic content not present in the input signal, the boundaries between the categories are generally defined by tone rather than by any specific core design features.  You can have 2-diode clippers that sonically fall into any of the 3 categories.

[brett]

Hi.
I think Mark's comments are excellent.  The only "grey" area is those "distortion" pedals that are raspy and "hard".  They might be squaring the signal, perhaps very much so.  (e.g. the Blackfire).  But I tend to think of them as distortion, not fuzz because fuzz conjures up mental images with some softness, furiness and, well, fuzziness.

cheers