what do you guys suppose this is?

Started by zachary vex, March 17, 2007, 03:14:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Paul Marossy

QuoteIt's a Crash Sync and implemented an Uglyface' sensitivity and threshold control to it. So it should not be Crash Sync nor Uglyface.

...should be more close to Autocrash.

Hah! I thought it was based on the Crash Sync. Are you the guy selling the pedal?

Antero

Sounds pretty cool whatever the hell it is.

shadowmaster

Quote from: Paul Marossy on March 18, 2007, 12:27:02 PM
QuoteIt's a Crash Sync and implemented an Uglyface' sensitivity and threshold control to it. So it should not be Crash Sync nor Uglyface.

...should be more close to Autocrash.

Hah! I thought it was based on the Crash Sync. Are you the guy selling the pedal?

No I'm not. That's just my guess. I've toyed with the Crash Sync before on breadboard so I pretty much basically know how close the sound is compared with the pedal on topic in this thread. I tried different modifications suggested here in this forum and from the Moosapotamus site. Sounded really cool but I never built one. It's just that modulation and delay pedals became my priorities to build.

Peace.

rockgardenlove




Processaurus

Quote from: $uperpuma on March 17, 2007, 06:19:36 PM
hope he's kicking Tim Escobedo down a little scratch. His licensing fee is more than reasonable.

I emailed Tim after I sold a mini triple fuzz but he never got back to me, you know what his fee be?

Processaurus

Out of curiosity is there any fundamental difference between the crash sync and the uglyface beyond the front end, and the envelope and threshold control?  I see Tim uses the output pin (7) for the output, but Hollis uses the discharge pin (3)?

$uperpuma

dual opamp/386 amp chip... the outputs probably have some to do with it.... breadboard here I come...
Breadboards are as invaluable as underwear - and also need changed... -R.G.

Paul Marossy

QuoteNo I'm not. That's just my guess. I've toyed with the Crash Sync before on breadboard so I pretty much basically know how close the sound is compared with the pedal on topic in this thread. I tried different modifications suggested here in this forum and from the Moosapotamus site. Sounded really cool but I never built one.

Oh. Well, your guess sounds pretty reasonable to me.  :icon_cool:

slacker

#28
Quote from: Processaurus on March 19, 2007, 06:22:07 AM
Out of curiosity is there any fundamental difference between the crash sync and the uglyface beyond the front end, and the envelope and threshold control?  I see Tim uses the output pin (7) for the output, but Hollis uses the discharge pin (3)?


No not really, if you remove the envelope and threshold controls from the Uglyface then the 555 part is essentially the same as the Crashsync. The Crashsync is a textbook astable arrangement, while the Uglyface is wired up slightly differently but gives the same results. According to this excellent 555 tuturial pin 7 can be used as an output in the same way as pin 3.
The input stages on both also do the same job, which is to provide a hot enough signal to trigger the reset pin.

Processaurus

Thanks for the link to that and answering my question, slacker.  I got to try making an uglyface/crashsync using the triangle wave output sometime soon. 

slacker

No trouble :) I'm going to have to try the uglyface again sometime, I built it ages ago and I don't know if it was my layout but I had terrible noise problems on the ground lines that I couldn't get rid off, that made the pedal unusable.
It might be cool to try hooking an LFO up to pin 5 for some FM modulation. In fact that might also be a different way to do the envelope control. Might be one for the breadboard.

mars_bringer_of_war

"Can you let me off the hook, for old times' sake?"
"Tell Mikey it wasn't personal, I always liked him."

-Abe Vigoda as Sal Tessio in the Godfather.
I will quietly resist.

Processaurus

Quote from: slacker on March 20, 2007, 07:24:03 PM
It might be cool to try hooking an LFO up to pin 5 for some FM modulation. In fact that might also be a different way to do the envelope control. Might be one for the breadboard.

I tried that, you can't get as wide a sweep range possible with Mr Escobedo's LED/LDR approach.  But it definitely will do something.  an LFO sounds compelling.  It would be wild to do a thing where it crudely or generally tracked the pitch, so the tonality would change where you are playing on the neck, maybe super clean square wave high up the neck, but the gnarl jagged wave at the bottom of the guitar scale.

For the noise on the ground rail it'd be worth it to try the CMOS 555, like small bear sells.