Black Finger

[michael_krell]

I really appreciate your help, however the black finger I have is an older version that does not use opamps and has just one spst switch on the front.

[Marcos - Munky]

Happy birthday, Ricky!!!!!!!!!!!

[Peter Snowberg]

Happy Birthday Ricky!

[Arn C.]

Happy Birthday and Many More Ricky!!!!

Peace!
Arn C.

[petemoore]

HB to you
 HB to you
   HB dear Ricky Don Vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaance...
    Happy Birthday to you
      If you were here, we'd smack you at LEAST 41 times...lol.
        Have a great birthday!!!

[Mark Hammer]

Thanks for both of those, Steve.

Informed viewers will immediately recognize that while the Deluxe Big Muff was presumably a Soul Preacher and a Big Muff Pi in a box, this schematic looks like nothing of the sort.  The "Big Muff" is essentially a Tube Screamer type diodes-in-the-feedback-path distortion, and the Soul Preacher is also different than any schematic I've come across.

There is a mod article in DEVICE issue 1-7 (http://hammer.ampage.org) by Thomas Henry, which discusses series/parallel switching for the unit.

Happy returns Ricky.

[Hal]

wow, I didn't know that the old BF didn't use tubes.  Thats kinda funny...I mean, I guess everyone loves tube effects nowadays, so it would sell better that way, but it surprises me that they would "reissue" an effect with the same name with a totally different schematic.  Its not even close to the same effect!

[puretube]

the schem I traced some 20yrs ago looks amazingly close to (thank you once again) Stephen`s.
I hadn`t ever drawn the blend/switching part, after the compressor circuit looked so strange to me, with unknown components (FET/diodes),
but the actual pedal (which btw is still opened up since...) must be the series-mod when I think of the sustain...
(a quick breadboarding of the dist-section alone this morning didn`t get close to it...)

I stopped the attempt to trace the complete circuit, after the guy I had borrowed the pedal from, donated it to me when he had bought an MXR comp and a Boogie Mk1...

[puretube]

...it surprises me that they would "reissue" an effect with the same name with a totally different schematic.  Its not even close to the same effect!

     it`s the same with the "RI" Hot Tubes, the "RI" PULSAR, and partly the (Tube) Zipper:
Mike Matthews ("Mr. E-H / Sovtek / New Sensor") sometimes has these nice nostalgic "deja vu`s" or resemblences of his old successful units - so why not name them the same, when they`re doing the same?

Just gotta love that attitude...  

[chumpito]

This one plus a SmallStone is instant Ernie Isley....

My favorite guitarist :mrgreen: Now I'll have to build both :wink: .

[puretube]

This one plus a SmallStone is instant Ernie Isley....

My favorite guitarist :mrgreen: Now I'll have to build both :wink: .

Ernie donated these his 2 pedals to BOOTSY (Collins), who took them to Dave Stewart (former Eurythmics), to record "Heart of Stone" with Dave,
using them both on the solo, which reminds of "That Lady" very much;
Bootsy lent them to Dave for his tour, where they were stolen :twisted: .

Dave told me this story...

[Jim Jones]

Did the original Black Finger work very well?

I remember reading disparaging comments about it in that old GP pedal issue, and I've played through one that I hope was broken...  

Jim

[Mark Hammer]

Whenever I hear about the reputation of somethng from long ago, I am always reminded of what the press said at the time about Thomas Edison's wax cylinders that he would use to record your voice (for a fee) at state fairs and such.  the newspapers declared that it was impossible to distinguish between the wax recordings and an actual voice.  They were amazed.  Of course you and I read this and scratch ourheads "What they hell were they thinking?"", but you need to remember that it was the first time, there was nothing to compare it with, and people were amazed that you could simply have something replayable (well, for a little while).

I think whenever you inquire about the reputation of a pedal that is more than 20 years old, and especially one that is more than 25 years old,  there are a few things you need to take into account first:

1) What was the availability and quality of the key semiconductors at that time?  E.g., what were the noise, input impedance, and current consumption specs of those components that fell in the range of a "musician-focussed" pricepoint?  Is it possible to replace a couple of older parts with contemporary ones for a few pennies, and vastly improve the performance?

2) What were the expectations or experiences of musicians/consumers at that time?  E.g., were they impressed that such an effect could actually be produced?  were there plenty of other comparable devices on the market that did the job better, or perhaps equally poorly? were such things available but normally beyond the means of everyday musicians?  Did they know what you *could* do with such a device? (one knob phasers are a good case in point)

3) Did people know how to use the damn thing?  Every couple of weeks someone will post a query on-line about the "ideal" order of some pedals, and describe their own signal path.  Invariably there will be some sequence that arouses debate.  In the case of compressors, after people using them with guitar for several decades, I still find a real dearth of common knowledge about what they do and how to use them.  (Of course, how many years have we had tea, and how many folks STILL don't know how to make it properly? :wink: )  In other instances, misunderstandings, or poor information about power requirements, signal requirements, etc., may have hampered

4) Did the device's reputation revolve around the difficulty of operating it or nailing its optimal working circumstances?  Envelope-controlled filters and noise gates are perfect examples of this, and plenty of fuzzes needed just the right input signal or the right speakers to go to to sound as good as you hoped for.  Similarly, more complex phasers and flangers would often bamboozle technically inexperienced musicians, and lead them to declare "Piece of crap!  I can't get the damn thing to work properly!!".  Were component-value fluctuations/variability likely to lead to inconsistent copies over time?  case in point is the venerable Fuzz Face - they weren't ALL keepers as many folks can tell you.  Hell, we routinely complained about fuzzes in 1971 that they wouldn't keep the tone long enough and would falter prematurely when we tried to hold notes.  I canb easily recall a period when Telecasters fell out of popular favour because they were too thin-sounding.  I was loaned a rosewood Tele in one badn I played in and was genuinely surprised that it sounded better than its reputation suggested.

5) Did the device offer as much control flexibility as it had the potential to or was it set up right?  Again, one and two-knob phasers are a great example.  It's hard to believe, but the addition of a simple slide switch on many of the one-knob E-H pedals often provided a step up in controllability and tonal options for some musicians.  Of course, now we find this a real constraint.  There were plenty of cases where the range of control offered by the pedal was exactly what you wanted, maybe too much for the number of degrees of pot rotation, or maybe didn't cover the values you wanted.  Maybe there were presets that just didn't match your needs, but they COULD have been turned into variable controls and captured your wildest dreams.

So what about the Black Finger?

Well, first off, as stated, a lot of folks are basically clueless about the workings and operational constraints of compressors, so it shouldn't surprise us that reputation may have been based on feeding it with impedances or signal levels that brought out its worst, or control settings that turned it into a full-time hiss machine.  Did they routinely stick it at the front of their signal chain as recommended?  Maybe, maybe not.

Second, look what's in it.  Hell, I feel squeamish about sticking a 5532 in a compressor and this baby lives on 741's!!  Yikes!!.  Perhaps a simple chip change would make it behave eloquently and cleanly.  Similarly, I have no idea if the house numbered bipolars at the input and output stage were the kind of thing you'd want to stick in a device like a compressor.  Did they afford the right/optimal input impedance?  Were they consistent or variable as parts?  Were they as noise free as you could get in that price range?  As for the 3080, well that never stopped the Dynacomp from being popular and it shouldn't here.  On the other hand, maybe the envelope time constants for the device (fixed in 2-knob compressors) were chosen a little better in the Dynacomp than in the BF.

Third, TWO batteries?  Now there is a 1974 deal breaker.  Two batteries meant you couldn't use an adapter, and batteries were expensive...even when you could still get a Radio Shack battery of the month card ( :wink:   Now THAT takes me back).  Even though the Dynacomp had no adaptor jack at the time, the one-battery requirement made our day.

The bottom line here is that there are a lot of reasons why something that that acquired a golden reputation 25 years ago might leave us going  "THIS is what people are paying $400 for on E-bay?", or "I can't see what the problem was.  This is as good as anything I can get now.", or "This is a good design for the most part, if you just change this and that."

The Black Finger probably WAS noisy in its typical usage, and probably COULD do with replacing the 741 by something a little better quality.  Is it discriminably better or worse than contemporary compressors, after such changes?  Maybe, maybe not.

[Jim Jones]

Thanks Mark, but that's a lot of typing!  You could've just said "Yes it was  a piece of shit," and leave it at that.  

Jim

[Mark Hammer]

Actually, that was the long way of saying people *thought* it was a piece of shit because they didn't know what to do with it and maybe there is a lot that is easily salvageable.

[jimbob]

I always read, study, and appreciate his long articles, replies..I look at it like--quiet---the "Hammer" speaks. "Hammer knowledge" is one very important tool I have to further my abilities in effect building. From the wise Hammer, i will learn. Till then-Hammer time :lol:

[Jim Jones]

Hi Mark,

I know where you were going, but I think you were being a little too kind.  

Jim

[cd]

[Mark Hammer]

Jim,

Too kind is all I know how to do!!

The redrawn BF gave me pause to look at the schem for the PAiA "Hot Lyx" compressor.  Similar in core design.  Both use a 3080 in the feedback loop of an op amp to vary gain.  Where the BF has a bipolar input stage, the Hot Lyx uses an op-amp with variable gain.  The BF also uses a bipolar recovery stage to compensate for the passive loss through the tone control network.  In contrast, the Hot Lyx just plunks a 1k volume pot after that op-amp gain-control stage.  However it also sticks an op-amp at the head of the envelope follower section (tapped from the output of the op-amp gain stage), which helps isolate the output level pot from the envelope follower section.

The tone control on the BF was likely included to offset the treble loss that is common to compressors when compression gets cranked.  That's a nice motive, but I'm not so sure the BMP hipass/lowpass panning tone control is the optimal way to do it.  Assuming the redraw posted immediately above is accurate, the R13/C7 network isn't exactly the best way to keep highs since it forms a lowpass filter rolling off at 1590hz, using the component values listed!  T'wer me, I wouldn't build this one just yet, folks.

Question for the cleverer people:  What is the practical difference between directly controlling the gain of a 3080, as in the Dynacomp/Ross or Boss CS-2, and using a 3080 to vary the gain of an op-amp, as in the BF and Hot Lyx?

[michael_krell]

Ok, does anyone have the black finger schematic that I am looking for?? all of the ones you have there use IC's. mine uses transistors.

here is a pic or 2 of it.



[/img]