cd4069's good for fuzz?

[pinkjimiphoton]

just curious, was gonna build a red lama and discovered i don't have a 4049!



so was thinking...well... maybe time to play with one of these 4069's?

i looked up the datasheet, but for the life of me i can't figure out what's an input, output etc.. or is each pair of pins the input and output?

be gentle, i am but an egg..

[deafbutpicky]

Hi,
it's functional the same as a 4049. If you look at this datasheet

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cd4069%20datasheet&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairchildsemi.com%2Fds%2FCD%2FCD4069UBC.pdf&ei=VFojUaXKBKOo4AT4mYDgCg&usg=AFQjCNHW5lm5s5ThBT9KIdRBwIZ_5OJv1Q&cad=rja

pin 14 is for powersupply, 7 is ground, and each pair 1&2, 3&4, 5&6, 9&8, 10&11, 13&12 are a seperate gainstage in&out
containing what the schematic diagramm shows next to the connection diagramm.

Some say the 4069 has less hiss than the 4049ub...

[Mark Hammer]

4069s are a fundamental part of the overdrive tone of solid-state Laney amplifiers.

[duck_arse]

if you only need 3 inverters/sections, you can use a 4007. it's funn to work out those connections, too, but it sounds pretty good.

[jonasx26]

The 4049 is a level converter. Used for interfacing different logic-families or supply voltages.
The level-conversion capability makes the 4049 input a bit different from the 4069. (Extra zener-diode, clamping and buffering.. I think)
The 4069 is only buffered once per gate. And the 4069 clips symmetrically, 4049 asymmetrically.

Get datasheets from different manufacturers and compare the info. They all have different data/graphs/internal schematics.
An CMOS inverter-amp gain is something like Zfb/Zin+(Zfb/Gm), if I remember correctly.
Where Gm is the open loop gain, which even if it's specified in the datasheet, varies a lot between batches/manufacturers.
Also, Gm is a direct function of supply voltage, frequency, loading.. etc.

So to do any kind of precise analysis you'll have to measure and plot the data yourself..


I was experimenting a lot with CMOS-amps some time ago. Seems to me that the differences between the chips depend a lot on the circuit they're used in.
Long story short: In some circuits there is no audible difference between 4049/4069. Other circuits sound depend on what chip is used.

[B Tremblay]

Build one of these and you can compare when you get a 4049: http://runoffgroove.com/6949.html

[pinkjimiphoton]

thanks brothers.


i tried to adapt this:



into a vero version, subbing the 69 for a 49:



BUT, i think i may have made a mistake as to what is the input/output of each stage. i looked at the datasheet pinouts (after, of course, i laid out a preliminary vero...i am not too brite sometimes) and i don't understand which side is the input... if it's the "cathode" part of what looks like a diode, or the "anode"..
confused... first time i tried to use one of these kind of chips in anything.

did i get it right, or did i blow it?
i didn't label where the lead/rhythm (switch b1 and e1) connect, of where the output of the 1m pot is (I1) or the output to the volume pot is (o1) yet cuz i'm incredibly dense some times. 

i don't mind re-doing it, and left some stuff open in case it needs some diode clipping or something on the output.

also, can i use a THIRD stage, just as maybe a boost stage? i was thinking it may be cool to make an extra stage, and have it footswitchable for a boost.
i had a snarling dogs black dog, loved the tone. i realize it's basically the same as the CA, MH, EH and red lama, so i'd love to build it to replace the one i sold.

also, i think i understand that all the inputs need to be tied to b+ (making the importance of not having stuff backwards even more relevant) but do the unused outs also need to be tied to ground?

thanks for the help guys, i really appreciate it!

[slacker]

Look like you've got it right to me, except the unused outputs pins 8, 10 and 12 shouldn't be connected to anything. Yeah the fat side of the triangle is in the pointy side is out, the odd pins are in and the even numbered pin below it is out.
You can connect unused inputs to ground or V+, doesn't matter which you just don't want them floating.

You could try an extra stage, same as the second one, it might add more distortion though rather than act as a volume boost.

[pinkjimiphoton]

thanks ian, you bailed me out again.
i'm gonna revisit this... ON MY BREADBOARD, for a change. curius to see what i can come up with!
i wonder, could i use two of the other stages to make a simple optical tremolo?
was thinking a REALLY fast oscillator may sound really good with that much distortion.

[earthtonesaudio]

One thing to watch out for:
4049/4069 should be UN-buffered.  If they're BUFFERED they will have a B at the end of their name, i.e. 4069B.
I can attest it is possible to make stuff with the buffered versions, but they don't behave well.

[lapsteelman]

i wonder, could i use two of the other stages to make a simple optical tremolo?

Good luck Mr. Photon. I have tried to make it work  several times and have never been able to keep the oscillator noise out of the circuit. I have a couple of 4049 circuits on the "forum that shall remain nameless" that I posted in a contest, but I had to opt for an "off chip" oscillator. One of the circuits is a clean optical tremolo circuit. Perhaps it will help you in your quest. (also check out the Lunar Collision circuit)

FWIW Craig Anderton has a tremolo that uses the 4049 as an oscillator, I don't have a link but the circuit is out there.

[pinkjimiphoton]

i found a great little opto trem..bonehead simple and totally tickless, buffered, WITH boost even, on a french site.
i used it live last nite for the first time, loud, no ticking, no noise. i was pretty impressed.
here's a linky: http://techniguitare.com/forum/conception/tremolo-transistors-t5429.html

i won't bother with trying to make it work as an oscillator, the thing in the link above sounds very 50's, so i don't need
to add a trem to this. gonna have a play with it this aftrnoon, i think.

thanks for all the great info guys.

[pinkjimiphoton]

WOW, it's been a productive day.
i built up the fuzz i had laid out (slightly modified the layout, actually, didn't bother grounding all the outs)
and it fired right up, sounded pretty good.. but i wasn't satisfied with it. it was ok, and very much like the snarling dog black dog i had had tonally.
ok, but not great.
so i decided to put on my vivisection hat, and molest the circuit a bit.  
first, i changed out the gain pot to a 500k instead of 1meg. it just didn't need that much gain, and there was minimal difference between the two. 500k seemed to have the best sweep, so i went with that.
i added reverse battery protection, power supply filtering, and a 1 meg pull down resistor on the input.
it sounded better, and i almost kept it as is.
but then i got thinking about all them wasted stages, and wondered how it would sound if i paralleled the second stage with the unused 3rd stage.
so i jumped them together.
holy sh*t! THIS @#$%ING THING GOT LOUD!!! like, loud enough to drive a speaker i think. WAYYYYYY more than necessary.
going with my creed of "too loud, it's excellent", i tried a 1k pot for the volume instead of 10k.
that helped a little bit, but not all that much.
so i decided to try and stick a pot as a variable resistor between the 2nd and 3rd out, with the 2nd and 3rd inputs tied together.  it made a minimal difference,
not enough to justify existing.
then i got the bright idea of making it into a tone control...wired as a variable resistor, with the unused terminal going to a cap to ground.
tried .22u, didn't like it. tried 2.2n, same thing. tried .47u, nope. same with .1u. then i tried .047u. bingo. gave a real nice sweep from treble to mud, without getting TOO muddy.
now i could go back to 10k on the output pot. the thing sounded great.
but i had also messed with diode clipping on the output, tried symetrical and asymetrical clippers of various types, si/ge, si &ge, pretty much every type you can think of. 1n60's gave it a bit of octave down, but it was too intermittent to bother with. at some settings of the volume on my guitar i got the most bizzarre tremolo kinda octave down sound. not something i'd really use, so i tried some led's... a pair of super brite clear orange led's gave it a nice edge, AND it looks cool, cuz ya can watch the led's flash with every note you play. but i don't like led clipping all the time, so added another switch.
done deal.
so, when all's said and done, nice very boogie-ish kinda tube sounding overdrive, decent tone control, loud as @#$%!!
when i box it, there will be a tb 3pdt footswitch for in/bypass with led "on" indicator
a second dpdt footswitch with bicolor led (green for rhythm, red for lead) to choose between "lead" or "rhythm" settings
and a switch to turn the led diode clipper off and on. i'll probably mount the led's so you can see 'em thru holes in the top of the pedal.
ANYWAYS, it's a real simple little design that's obviously been done a lot.. but with a couple twists. obviously, using the 4069 instead of the 4049 is the first twist.
the diode clipper is a PREDICTABLE twist.. but i don't recall seeing anyone else use a stage just for a tone control. i am probably wrong on that one, tho.
i'm pretty happy with it so far.. if anyone gets a wild hair across their arse and wants to build it, this vero layout is verified, works great, and imho, sounds pretty freekin' good, too!!



of course, schematic and Stupid Pedal Tricks video coming soon.
rock on and have fun!

[duck_arse]

don't be tempted to ground the outputs of un-used sections, it would have bad results.

cmos can be a hog for current when in linear mode. you might wanna try a pot (1k?) to replace the 100R in anderton's diagram, see if it sounds any.

and three unused inverters sounds like a criminal waste to me.

[pinkjimiphoton]

could always parallel each stage like i did with stage two. but it would be more like an amp made out of three 12ax7's that way...simply too much power.
the original used only 2 of the 6. i think only mark hammer used more than 2, i'll have to re-visit his tube sound adaptor.

but believe me, waste or not, it's not necessary. the tone is most important.

but i too, hate "wasting" stages. still toying with the idea of making a tremo fuzz out of one of these, using the extra three stages as oscillators and a buffer.

or maybe more of a "ring mod" kinda thing. decisions, decisions...

[Tonemonger]

Looks promising - Cant wait for a Pedal Tricks clip !

I've been racking My brain and wading through a drawer full of USB sticks ( to no avail thus far ).
But , I'm sure on of the little 70's British mono-synths had a filter based around a 4069 and not much else.
Ofcourse it would have used a dual supply - But , It could yield a few ideas ( If I could only remember where I saw it ! ).

[petey twofinger]

http://aeeprojects.blogspot.com/2011/09/filters-with-cd4069.html

[pinkjimiphoton]

thanks petey!~!

i'm thinking that a full, amp style tone stack could be easily implemented that would sound ridiculously tube-y.

too lazy at the moment, but it appears rather than tieing all the unused inputs to B+, you could connect them in parallel with the ones used for a big gain boost and tonal shaping from stage to stage.
i mean, use stage one and two for first stage distortion, and treble. use stage three and four for amplification/more distortion and midrange control, use stage five and six for amplification and bass control. full tone stack, each stage buffered, tons of tube flavored distortion on tap, and enough volume to make nigel tufnel grin.

fuzzy goodness!!!

[pinkjimiphoton]

video or it never happened

[Mark Hammer]

I'm a big fan of invertor-based overdrive.  There is a certain quality of grunt to it that one tends not to get by other means.  Personally, I like to feed the first invertor with an op-amp signal, and smack it harder, rather than aiming for more gain within the invertor sections themselves.  My reasoning is that I have better control of the bandwidth properties that way.  And I just like the tone better.  But of course, in the world of harmonic content, personal taste is everything.  I'll also put in a word for pre-clip resonant boosts.

Not that you are any noobie here, but there are some with VERY long memories.  Are you familiar with any of Frank Clarke's "Hot Harmonics" that use 4049s?

http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=61024.0