Univox Superfuzz - what am I missing?

[JustinFun]

I’ve been preparing for a clear-out of my pile of diy pedals so have been going through testing/playing with them.

It made me realise I’ve built a few Superfuzzes over the years; stock, transistor array, Ibanez variant and more. Basically because the internet seems to love them and I’m always trying to capture the magic everyone else hears.

Honestly I can’t find anything the Superfuzz does that the Fender Blender and (especially) Foxx Tone Machine don’t do better.

What am I missing?

Related: 95% of the guitar sound on Live at Leeds sounds like SG straight into HiWatt to me, so why is this pedal so often linked to that tone?

[Mark Hammer]

I don't think you're missing anything.  I've built a number of SF, and never been terribly impressed by them as octave-up units.  I've never tried a Fender Blender, but the Foxx Tone Machine and PEI Clean/Octave Blend do as fine a job of octaving as I've ever heard, and they both employ a similar method of octave-doubling as the Blender does.  And while  different in many aspects of its design, the Tychobrahe Octavia comes up a close second.  The Roger Mayer Octavia, in theory, ought to be just as good, but I've built it twice and found the octave to be elusive, and somewhat hidden, like in the Superfuzz..

[pacealot]

I feel the need to respectfully present another viewpont — I agree that the Foxx is by far the superior circuit specifically for octave generation, but there are things it won't do, largely due to the very same factors which make it so good at emphasising the octave — primarily there's a lower-gain bite that the Univox has when used with the bridge pickup which I've never been able to get out of the Foxx. But I come at the Super Fuzz from the whole "Steve Hackett and/or every single Canterbury band's organs and basses" side of things, so I have a certain expectation of what it can or should do, and for me, it meets that fully, even if the octave is less than fully realised.

That said, I also have tweaked and trimmed the octaves (and matched components etc.) on my multitudinous SF builds for as strong an octave as possible, and with the best of them I feel I can get about 95% of the octave of the Foxx. My long-term solution? I built an Octavia, a SF, and a Foxx TM all into one big box together, so I have the best of all possible worlds!

As to the whole "Live At Leeds" legend, I too hear almost nothing besides SG-into-HiWatt that couldn't have been done by just about any fuzzbox available in 1970. That "link" gets filed in my mind under the same category as "Buzzaround=Heroes" (it didn't) and "Blue Box=Fool In The Rain" (ditto unless Page put a completely different pedal circuit inside a Blue Blox) as part of the "misinformation lives on forever on the Internet especially if it can be used to sell something" trope...

[Mark Hammer]

You present a very fair assessment.  The SF is a decent fuzz.  However, as your own comments note, GETTING the octave with a SF is no slapdash exercise.  In contrast, a Foxx will get one that robust octave with very little effort or parts-selection required.  A local fellow felt a deep-seated need to own a PEI Clean Octave Blend, so I built him a clone.  I was impressed enough that I built one for myself as well.  Being able to blend in "clean" tone along with the octave up manages to retain some of the girth and guts you feel is lacking in the Foxx.  Heck, that may even be why Prescription Electronics even came up with it.

I always thought "Fool in the Rain" was a Microsynth, but then I wasn't paying close enough attention to note the nuances.

[pacealot]

I've been meaning to build a C.O.B. for a while now but haven't yet, so I can't comment about how well it can achieve the bite-y, bark-y thing I like so much about the SF. I might have to pull out a breadboard and try one soon. But I think part of why I like the SF so much is that I bonded to it first and foremost as just a fuzz, and only secondarily as an octave fuzz, so the timbres it gets, even in a slightly mismatched, octave-compromised state, are ones I'm used to using. (In fact on my "triple octave fuzz" version I included both an internal trimpot as well as an external "fine" octave pot so I can use it in very precisely dialled-in octave settings as well as slightly less so, depending on the needs of the occasion.)

But I do have a very specific criterion for octave fuzz efficacy, which is a guitar part in a song done by an old friend I was very, very briefly in a band with, and which lick I play badly and unendingly whenever I'm testing an octave fuzz circuit. And oddly I've never asked my friend what he actually used on the track, but as soon as I played it through my very first Foxx build, I knew that it had to be the right one. (Or some early Way Huge iteration, as he and Jeorge have been friends forever and Jeorge built some of his very first pedals for him.)

You're probably right about Microsynth on "Fool In The Rain" — all I know is that it sounds nothing like a stock, unmodified Blue Box (there's absolutely no 2nd octave down to be heard anywhere in the track), and yet if you believe the rest of innerwebs, "Fool..." is the Platonic expression of the way a Blue Box is supposed to sound. Something something falsehood something around the world something truth something boots on... 

[JustinFun]

There's probably a whole other thread to be had on 'get that tone' guitar pedal myths. Mick Robson and mki tone bender is another one - Marshall, Les Paul and crybaby will cover almost all his Bowie-era stuff (plus, you know, talent and technique).

Clapton and the Rangemaster is the granddaddy of them all, I guess.

[kaycee]

Coincidentally, listening to the expanded Live At Leeds CD the other night through headphones and I felt that I could hear the octave of the SF on several lead parts, not so much on the rhythm.

[Mark Hammer]

I'm sure it CAN be heard in the right conditions, if the right parts are used and tweaked.  The reason why I like the Foxx is because pretty much any old parts can be thrown together and you get a very audible octave, without any fuss.  I like easy success.

Incidentally, one tends to see two different versions of the midscoop filter  All will use a 1000pf bypass cap and 100nf cap to ground, as well as a 10k and 225 fixed resistor.  Sometimes, you see the 10k "first" and sometimes you see the 22k "first" and 10k second.  The difference is that with 22k first, the scoop begins just under 75hz, while having 10k first and 22k second begins the scoop rolloff at around 160hz.  Big sonic difference.

[antonis]

Am I the only queer guy who regards Fender Blender as the ultimate Octave Fuzz pedal..??

[digi2t]

This discussion comes up periodically, and I never fail to get a chuckle out of them. It ultimately becomes a forest vs. trees affair.

Yeah... that one pic of Pete, with his foot hovering over a Univox SF is iconic. I don't believe he used it all that much though. I have to agree with most, mostly sounds like straight guitar and cranked Hiwatts to me too. But, we all know how the interknot works... if someone were to airbrush a BMP into that picture tomorrow, they'll be a rush on BMP's for years to come.

I profess to be a Superfuzz fan (junkie?). Honey or Maxon versions (the true originals, or the multitude of subsequent moniker sub-variants), I'll take either one. I will take it over a Blender, Scrambler, Machine, Octavia, or whatever other octavey pedal you can name out there, any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Why? Just because. I've tried all the other ones, but the venerable SF always feels like home to my ears. But not just any SF mind you, as for me, it does have to be tuned just so. The balance trimmer is one aspect, but lifting the clipping diodes a bit also plays a big role in it, for me anyway. Tweaking the tone section doesn't hurt either.

First of all, everything you need to know is in the name. Superfuzz. Say it with me... Superfuzz. Louder... SUPERFUZZ! Dissect a bit further, Super. Fuzz. Notice no mention of the word "octave" in sight. That's because the octave isn't the star here. With all due respect to my friend Mark on this one, we've had a bit of conversation on this topic in the past, and I know his feelings on it; for him, it's all about the octave. I respect that, but just having an amazing octave just doesn't cut it for me. In my book, the fuzz is the protagonist, with the octave playing a minor, yet important, supporting role.

Ultimately, the two do need to coexist, but it's a very tenuous coexistence at best. Too much fuzz, the octave gets lost. Too much octave, and chords become a ringmoddy mess. It's like sliding down a 50 foot razor blade on your balls, and trying to avoid the pool of iodine at the bottom. As I mentioned before, tuning a SF just so seems to be the best for me. Getting a perfect blend of buzzsaw roar, with just a tinge of octave. In other words, I want my chords to still sound like chords. Do I need to adjust the instrument controls to get more octave? Sure. Does the octave seem to only be prevalent in the higher registers? Yeah. But, I consider a small price to pay compared to the "across the board" performance that the SF offers me.

Besides, there's been a plethora of artists out there over the decades that turned to it, and still do, so it must be doing something right. Ultimately, all things being equal, it's always going to be a subjective topic, and only your ears will be the the ones to dictate what's "good", or "bad". The cows will come home, pig's won't fly, and the sun will rise in the morning.

Let's face it... playing an entire song consisting of single note runs isn't reality. If octave is your only focus (one tree in the forest), then yeah, SF won't top that heap. Perhaps in that case, you may wish to consider a Whammy? 

[Mark Hammer]

I seem to recall guitarist for The Cramps, Poison Ivy, saying that the SF was her personal favorite, because it "sounded like doom" (I take it she likes the tone switch in the midscoop position).

Pretty much ALL octave-up units demand one play above the 5th or 7th fret to yield audible octaves, so the SF is no different in that respect.  And, with all due respect to my friend Dino, I enjoy the SF.  I just don't turn to it if I want an octave.

"Lifting the clipping diodes a bit" means inserting a small resistance between them and ground.  Many THINK they are needed to yield fuzz, but they actually only play a minor role in that.  If one completely lifts them, you fnd there is still plenty of fuzz, and substantially greater volume.  As I've continued ad nauseum about in past, the diodes are really only there to lend some semblance of constant volume, such that any octave is allowed to come out of hiding after the initial pick attack.  Of course, if one is less interested in the octave, then lifting them entirely, or reducing their limiting action with something under 1k resistance to ground, is perfectly fine.

If one desires sonic chaos, I'll put in a plug for what I like to call the SCrambler+ or D-Scrambler.  The Ampeg Scrambler provides a ringmoddy mess on its own, given its lack of sensitivity control, so I stick a version of the Distortion+/DOD250 in front of it in the same box, with the volume control subbing for a sensitivity control in the Scrambler.  I can get everything from warm grunt, through pleasing octaving, to Neil Young-like sonic implosion.

But while I have you all here, has anyone attempted a SF with a transistor array like a CA3046?  Given that the transistors are fairly matched, I'm wondering if it produces reliable octave without futzing around with trimpots.

[digi2t]

But while I have you all here, has anyone attempted a SF with a transistor array like a CA3046?  Given that the transistors are fairly matched, I'm wondering if it produces reliable octave without futzing around with trimpots.

I have, but with MPQ2222 and MPQ3904 (or the equivalent TPQ prefixes) for the Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q6 positions. My preference leaning towards the MPQ2222, being lower gain than the 3904 version, and slightly tighter to the 100 - 150 gain range which I find to be the magical zone for the SF. The RFT B325Dd/BD360Dd variants work well too.

For Q4/Q5, I've used LM394, 2SC1583, 2SC3381, and my personal favorite the 2N2913 (or 2N2915, or 2N2917). Again, the 2N2913 offers a dual NPN package of matched transistors, in the aforementioned magical range.

Now, there's a couple of things that need to happen here. By my experience;
- Gain is really important. 100 - 150 is the G (F?) spot. Beyond that, the fuzz just starts to get compressed and hissy. Bad. Just bad. (Unless you like that sort of thing.) Like the Arbiter Fuzz Face's, SF transistor selection at the factory was simple... stuff'em in, and ship'em out. Honey, Shin Ei, Univox (and to a lesser degree Guyatone) used whatever was cheap and readily available. From my years of studying the history of the Superfuzz, I've witnessed a fairly wide variety of different transistors used. 2SC539, 2SC828, 2SC945, 2SC536, and even some unmarked Hitachi units, all in various gain ranges, to name a few. A good indicator of the "business first, tone second" mantra was evident just by the way Shin Ei didn't even bother to have new boards made until they used up all the Honey boards that they inherited from the take over first. Transistor choice was no different. I've played some great SF's, and some horrible SF's. The good ones, in my opinion, were ones that probably had transistors that tipped the low end of the gain scale, and maybe even a smattering of drift (in the right direction) in the components.
- With the matched package in Q4/Q5, the trimmer is actually best used as a sort of "detuner" for the octave. Sounds counter-intuitive, but I'll explain. As I mentioned in my previous post, I like my chords to sound like chords, and not like a podgy screaming mess. As such, like prescribing Warfarin, it comes in handy to figure out how much octave will kill the chords, and then knock it back a tad. When I first started building these, I aimed for the max octave I could squeeze out of it, but I quickly found out that this just sucked the blood out of the chord clarity. Like I said, I now use it to tweak back the octave enough to help the chords bloom. Nicely. So... why use a matched package, if you're just going to "unbalance" them? Consistency. If they're matched from the get go, it simplifies the detuning process. No sorting through different transistor pairs. Just plug in, tweak, done. On a subjective level, I just find they sound better.
- And to touch back on the diodes, I totally concur with Mark. Lifting them completely is moot. Not only will doing so kill the tonal character of the SF, but it makes it way too loud as well, overdriving the final stage. 1K, or less, is really the sweet zone.
- Additionally, the tone section, with it's "this or that" selection does a real disservice to the SF. Converting to a pot style tone stack allows for a much better experience. Not only does it open up a wider tonal variation, but the octave character becomes much more interesting within this expanded range.

Like I said, I'm a SF fan. Maybe not to the Kit Rae/BMP level, but maybe... not that far from it. 

[t1redhands]

Like I said, I'm a SF fan. Maybe not to the Kit Rae/BMP level, but maybe... not that far from it. 

that's some excellent info!

with regards to Superfuzz variations like the Boss FZ3 and the Ibanez No. 59 Fuzz Sound, what's your preferred booster stage? Does it make any difference at all what the first gain stage is?

[CheapPedalCollector]

Built and repaired a few, low gain transistors work better (150-200), in my own builds I use the 2nd version schematic which I traced from a real unit I repaired, and change the trimmer to a pot so I can have an extra control to vary the texture I also change the resistors connected to the balance pot to 15k instead of 22k which helps it sound better and get more octave like the original unit. I also gain match the differential pair. I also add a dpdt on/off/on to have a pair of ge, si, or neither for variation.

As for the originals they both do their thing, you can get a strong octave out of a superfuzz but it takes a bit of tweaking, and it will never be as strong as the tone machine. They do sound different, I love them both.