Funny "MOJO" stuff

[yousufferbutwhy]

I'm late on this & getting slightly OT, but I'm very glad to have found the -384/oct filter! I've downloaded it because I'm thinking it will come in very handy for recording with some of my beloved but noisy instruments & other gear. And shortwave! I'd much rather cut things out surgically when I can than use noise reduction, if it's not something I'm okay with printing as-is.

[Ed G.]

Serious debate time. (and change of subject)

Is it okay to insist on the correct types of parts for something to qualify as being a clone of a specific, rare, early-edition of a vintage effect?  (E.g., ceramic disc capacitors and 2N5133 transistors and carbon comp resistors)

Or is it okay to claim something is a specific, rare, early-edition vintage clone when you're not bothering to use the correct parts?  (E.g., modern high-gain 2N5088 transistors and modern film capacitors and carbon film resistors)

Assuming the difference would be obvious to all upon hearing sound clips, too--not just being arbitrarily nit picky...



On the one hand, it would appear to be false advertising to claim something is a vintage clone when it's not.  On the other hand, to accuse that person of false advertising would appear to be a dick move.

Quandary.

The problem is not just that the "truth" will eventually come out.  The problem is that the general public is largely ignorant of these things.  So being in the minority, a person in the know, makes me seem like a dick if I speak out.

I think I know what you're talking about... I think most people assume that if a circuit is functionally identical, that is, it's got a 470pf capacitor where it's supposed to be, a 220k resistor, where it's supposed to be, etc... then it's functionally a clone.
Fer instance, I've got a 1965 Fender Super Reverb. The tubes have been changed. Some of the caps have been changed. The speakers have been changed. Is it still a 1965 Fender Super Reverb? Well, I realize that to some collectors, it's not worth as much as a dead-mint, kept in a climate-and-humidity-controlled environment museum piece, but for all intents and purposes, it is a 1965 Super Reverb.

Now, I've seen the thread with the BYOC BMP triangle-version that you are talking about. I would say that generally speaking, and we're assuming that the component values are correct, then I would say again generally speaking, it is a functional clone.

I think we know that EHX used different value and types of components throughout its revisions and even within some of their years of production. So it's possible, no, probable, that even within the revered 'triangle' BMPs, there was some variation. I'm just guessing, I don't consider myself a historian.

And I think that leaves it up to you to educate people about what the differences are.

[puretube]

Mojo, FUZZ! ?   

[g.]

Or do you know the cool soundind 'no pass filter' ?
"To modify your signal like no other module, get a No-Pass Filter today!"




http://www.synthesizers.com/q199.html

[MarcoMike]

This is not new to this topic, but always funny....

From some FF enthusiasts on ZV's forum:

Duracell batteries make the Fuzz Factory sound stuffed up and somewhat change the pedals special effects. Carbon zinc voltage drains slowly and sags a little when you hit it hard. Then with the Stab dragging on the battery, Carbon Zinc sounds best to me

[DougH]

Fer instance, I've got a 1965 Fender Super Reverb. The tubes have been changed. Some of the caps have been changed. The speakers have been changed. Is it still a 1965 Fender Super Reverb?

This reminds me of the old joke about "Grandpa's straight razor": "Yes, it's still the original razor he used. The blade's been changed three times and the handle twice..."

[puretube]

and: Another One Bites The FUZZ ?

[8mileshigh]

Puretube,

Thanks, I enjoyed reading that thread.  I have found that two identical circuits with identical components can sometimes sound different.  Go figure....  There are too many variations to deal with, especially  dealing with a circuit as complex as the Super Fuzz.  I drove my self crazy building a similar circuit in the Kay Fuzztone on a bread board.  I'm still swapping caps, transistors and resistors on this one.

It's fun discussing mojo 

[puretube]

Mojo, FUZZ! ?   

DVD out now!

[A.S.P.]

SURPRISE 

[Isaiah]

Speaking of MOJO stuff, can you get JFETs (particularly the J201) in metal can packages?

[foxfire]

SURPRISE 

but weren't Way Huge pedals modded clones, well for the most part at least? cause that means that we could then in theory get a Dunlop Big Muff, all right! yeah!

[puretube]

S*X sells!   

[Jobet]

" Our amps use only the finest Leyden Jar capacitors !"

[puretube]

"nano" - DMM   

[mongo]

"nano" - DMM   

oh! I actually find this cool as hell! is it already available? I  can't find any more info on this baby.

Andy

[Fuzzy-Train]

"nano" - DMM   

Is this thing actually real? I've been hearing a lot of stuff about it today.

If it is real, why didn't they bring it out at winter namm?

[mongo]

according to some other forums and some stores around the world, the "new" deluxe memory man is real, in France a store will start to sell them next monday:

http://www.audiotubetech.com/

[MarcoMike]

I was reading about tube dampers today and found this in the FAQ of a manufacturer:

Q. Will UltraSonic damping instruments extend tube life?

A. We believe that optimal tube life is extended considerably by damping bulb vibration. This has been thoroughly proven with ordinary light bulbs, which are vacuum tubes. Although there seems to be little empirical data, plenty of anecdotal evidence supports this to be true also with audio tubes. Regardless of whether usable tube life is extended though, music will sound better with reduced microphonics.

I love the scientific appoach of these guys!!

EDIT: their website is full of very interesting devices...http://herbiesaudiolab.home.att.net/cdmat.htm

[puretube]

MusikMesse 2008:




REAL: