Review: Dave Hunter book

[Mark Hammer]

First off, happy New Year to those who observe this particular calendar.

Popped into a local mega-bookstore yesterday to pick up the current issue of Vintage Guitar and try to spend a gift certificate I was given back in November.  Went to check out the music section and found the new book (and I mean new; it was reviewed in that issue of VG) by Dave Hunter titlted "Guitar Effects Pedals: The practical handbook" (http://www.backbeatbooks.com).

The book attempts to cover a lot of ground: a history of effects, an explanation of how they work (including some schematics, though be forewarned - these are frequently inaccurate or incomplete), a stroll through the history and most prominent models of a large number of manufacturers (including boutique types), some tips on using them effectively, 58 pages of interviews with notable designers/makers (Matthews, Cornish, Fuller, Vex, Voodoo Labs, Frantone, Visual Sound), and a CD with 92 nicely documented sample tracks of a wide assortment of contemporary and vintage pedals, both boutique and major maker.  All in all, a pretty reasonable yield for the $35 I paid at the till.

The writer clearly has a bias towards analog and seems to be the sort that finds images of sloppy overburdened pedal-boards with a dog's breakfast of devices crammed in with patch cords running everywhere just the sort of thing he wants on his wall calendar in the garage/basement (GET A LOAD OF THE KNOBS ON THAT ONE!).  Perhaps because of the language barrier or just because you can meet a lot of folks justy hanging around New York, there is a decidedly American/British slant to the coverage.  Not to say he shuns Boss, Ibanez, Guyatone, et al, but that he doesn't really have a lot of juicy insider stuff to offer about them the way he does with English-speaking makers.  There is, as you'd expect of a 2004 book, a keen awareness of the emergence of the vintage market, and the challenge of knowing when stuff from the old days was good, when it has been surpassed by more contemporary stuff, and what constitutes a bargain vs a ripoff.

Chapter 2 has schematics to more precisely explain the inner workings of different kinds of pedals, but it's not clear what he's getting at.  The circuits shown do not have accompanying "walkthroughs" such as you'd see in a project article in ETI.  They show component values, but in most instances there are a few seemingly randomly selected components where values are not shown, and in other instances the diagram leaves you just scratching your head.  For instance, the schematic intended to explain analog delay shows a chip labelled as "NE577 BBD IC" doing all the work.  Um, yeah.......that's the chip you see in just about every commercial delay line since the first Memory Man.  I'm not sure if he was simply trying to delicately skirt around patent/copyright law or if he and his editor just don't understand enough to know how off they are.  DO NOT plan on building anything based on those diagrams.....but it's nice to at least see someone try to provide more technical detail.  There is, of course, the requisite discussion/mention of the JRC4558 and germanium.

The alphabetical maker-by-maker listing of effects could have benefitted by colour pictures (it's B&W throughout) but then I guess I would have paid a lot more than I did), however there are decent shots of lots of items, some fairly recent, some quite old, with production years and controls listed for each pedal, as well as a brief description of its general sonic properties.  Some nice old ads thrown in for good measure.

The interviews are interesting.  So far I've read the one with Mike Matthews and forum regular Zachary Vex.  Those folks dreaming about a career in the "glamourous" life of boutique pedal-making would do well to read the interviews of folks like Zach.  I am reminded of the requirement Jewish rabbis have to "turn away" those seeking religious conversion three times, so as to spare them from lightly undertaking a change which they know will be hard and unforgiving in its demands.  The interviews with the "old farts" like Matthews certainly give a better understanding of how things evolved.  Mike Matthews' interview is fascinating in that regard, although I question the veracity of his memory sometimes.  There are occasions when the physical reality of the pedals themselves contradicts a memory that is heavily influenced by 3 decades of immersion in marketing blurb (e.g., if he is so besotted with having control over everything and allowing players to produce sounds on the edge without constraints, how come E-H has such a long tradition of "one-knob wonders"?).  Still, interesting to know that apparently Hendrix DID own an early Big Muff, what the hazy relationship was between Guild and E-H, where the LPB-1 came from, and that the Sovtek thing essentially grew out of Matthews having a Russian girlfriend with military connections.

One interesting tidbit. As of the printing of the book, Bill Finnegan of Klon Centaur fame was able to brag about having sold some 5,000 units.  That sounds like a lot (actually it is), and yes the Klon costs a pretty penny, but do the math and figure out how much Bill makes from each pedal after factoring in overhead.  Then spread that out for 5000 units over the number of years he has been making it, and tell me it's making him rich.  Thanks, but I'll keep my government job and build on weekends.

Haven't heard any of the sound samples yet (that'll be today's cleanup music later on), but I'm looking forward to it.  Many are pedals I've heard OF, but never heard.  To his credit, Hunter includes a sort of reference sample of a tweed Tremolux to compare against pedal tremolos and pedal overdrives.  There are also 4 samples of *bypass* using different bypass circuits to give a sense of tone-sucking potential.  Now THAT'S hip.

If granny gave you money for Christmas because she didn't know what to get you, buying this book with the money will make you appreciate her very very much.

[gez]

If granny gave you money for Christmas because she didn't know what to get you, buying this book with the money will make you appreciate her very very much.

Not quite, but I did get some book tokens so I'll check this out.  Thanks for the review, much appreciated!

[wampcat1]

excellent review!!!

I"ll have to check the book out!

[Mark Hammer]

Just an addendum.  Finished the Roger Mayer interview over lunch and a visit to the "throne room".

As a graduate student I ended up taking some 6 or 8 courses in statistics and research methodology at different universities and one of the things you learn about methodologists is that they have little patience for how anyone else does things.  They are almost all impatient elitists or have a streak of it running through them.  Long time pedal designers seem to be a little like stats professors.  They have a way of doing things and tend to look with disdain on others' methods.  I suppose it would be unreasonable to expect any of these folks to NOT promote themselves (they do have businesses to run, after all).  But all of that stuff aside, Mayer provides a very interesting and satisfying interview.  A great deal of what is covered is stuff that has been rehashed and rehashed on this forum many times over, and I'm pleased to say that there is a great deal of agreement between what Mayer says and what we tend to agree on here.  Among the points:

- almost useless to aim for emulating your favourite player via the purchase of a single or even combination of pedals; in most instances what you believe you hear is the product of MANY other stages of processing, not the least of which is miking and post-production in the studio, and miking and reamplification on stage

- what works well on stage is not necessarily and often NOT what works well in the studio

- psychoacoustics, and the role of volume level in determining that, matter

- how a pedal FEELS to the user, both in terms of ergonomic aspects and responsiveness to playing, is critical, fundamental, and the starting point of design

- pre-clip EQ-ing and post-clip EQ-ing are both worth exploring and occasionally responsible for magical sounds

- many boutique manufacturers are essentially rehashing existing achievements in effects pedals and not really adding anything new to the landscape

- the desirability, and meaningful difference, of different types of bypass strategies will depend on context (a quote: "The whole true bypass thing came from one person in America who started selling three-pole double-throw switches and wanted to make that a feature.  It's marketing.  It's not based on any technical advantage whatsoever.  It was based upon a myth  of many years ago that some pedals had a very low input impedance and sucked the tone from the guitar, even when they were off - but modern pedals, nah.")

- germanium sounds nice but it's a pain in the arse because of the inconsistency of supply and the wide range of tolerances

- in some cases there ARE properties of older components that help to deliver unique sonic properties, but in most cases modern components are simply higer quality

- carbon comp resistors are not all that special

- there are some things digital does well, but a lot of things it doesn't do well (Mayer makes an interesting point when he notes that being 24 bit doesn't mean that the decay of a note - the softer portion - is going to be encoded by more than maybe 10 bits of those 24 at most)

- infringing on copyright is one thing, but not paying ANY respect to the original designer, or claiming that a clone is BETTER than the original is, to put it mildly, disingenuous

Some interesting points made along the way:

- the bulb originally used in Uni-Vibes is no longer available because of the toxicity of its internals; replacements will not have the same properties as the original

- a great many of the classic effects we associate with Mayer were on the spot tweaks or something that only a handful of units were made originally

One of the things that gets you thinking is this.  If folks like Mayer and other manufacturers have to buy up lots of 10,000 of some component to find enough "good ones" to produce a limited run of some pedal, what the heck happens to the "other ones"?  I doubt they trash them.  Presumably they get resold.  So, uh, what is it that the REST of us get when we buy germanium things or other limited stock items?  Do we get what folks like Mayer didn't want because it wasn't good enough?  Does that mean we'll never be able to mimic devices that need NOS parts because they've all been picked over already?  Makes you wonder.

[analogtom]

WOW! That's one of the most impressively in-depth reviews of a gear book I've ever read.

Mark, I can't wait to see your review of Analog Man's Guide To Vintage Effects.

[puretube]

Hunter`s book is on my next wishlist...

[george]

- the bulb originally used in Uni-Vibes is no longer available because of the toxicity of its internals; replacements will not have the same properties as the original

hmmm .... that one sounds like a bit of a "mojo myth" to me.

I checked out RG's "The Technology of the Univibe" and RG's take on this is:

"The original bulb in all except one original unit I've repaired is a nominal 28V, 40ma bulb. The cold resistance is just over 100 ohms. I have sucessfully used 12V/40ma and 12V/80ma bulbs here. "

IIRC, RG's clone of the Univibe, the Neovibe calls for a 12V/25mA bulb.

If you don't even need a bulb of the same rating to successfully clone the univibe it tends to suggest that it doesn't really MATTER that replacements not have the same properties of the original

I'm nowhere near the expert you are Mark but this part of the book seems a bit open to question.

[Mike Burgundy]

Dave Hunter...wasn't he senior editor of the Britisch "Guitar Magazine" or something?
Name's familliar...

[Paul Perry (Frostwave)]

The problem with the bulb, is thermal inertia. The bulkier the filament is, the more it tends to flatten out the shape of the LFO. More noticeable at higher LFO frequencies. Which is similar to the effect of the LDRs, except the LDRs seem by nature to have a sharpish attaqck compared to the decay, while the bulb (i think) is more symmetric. Anyway, the two interact, so if you want to emulate exactly the original, then LFO shape, bulb type, and LDR type are all important.. but there is nothing to say that you can't get an identical effect with DIFFERENT bulbs, LDRs, and LFOs.. and of course nothing to say you can't get a BETTER result :wink: if you don't want a replica.

[Mark Hammer]

George,

I'm not saying whether I think Mayer's argument is rock solid.  I'm just relaying what he says in the interview.  I have no reason to dispute him, though.

Mike,

Yes, former editor of Guitar Magazine (UK)

Paul,

The end-goal is some rate and range of change in the resistive element in each stage.  Part of the criticality of the bulb is the extent to which it complements the asymmetrical resistance change in the LDRs.  Mayer himself notes that the response to light (and drop in LDR resistance) is faster than the response to darkness (increase in LDR resistance).  The bulb's properties simply build in the needed "compensatory waveform".

Seems to me, though, that all you really need is a means of generating that idealized LFO waveform.  (The LDRs obviously can't be changed, so the LFO needs to be.).  The bulb makes it easy, but there are going to be other ways too.  Any source of appropriately asymmetrical change in illumination *ought* to do, in principal, making things like LEDs suitable.  That could even be a PIC reading from a wavetable of the "ideal" waveform.  Alternatively, if it is feasible to generate the wave more directly with some simple oscillator and a touch of post-VCO waveshaping, that would do nicely also.  In the case of the Voodoo-Vibe, Mayer uses an 8038, LEDs, and LDRs.  The 8038 is perhaps not the best oscillator chip in the world from some perspectives, but it permits some trimpot adjustment of the waveform "skew" that lets the LEDs light up the LDRs in a pleasing manner.  Conceivably something like the diode-based waveform shaping of LFOs for Tremolo units might be helpful in making a simple LED-lit unit like the Easyvibe come closer to the properties of bulb+LDR sweep.

[Paul Perry (Frostwave)]

Mark, I agree entirely on your comments re univibe, but don't forget one of the characteristics (neglected in some rough emulations) is the apparent drop in modulation depth as LFO frequency increases. Due of course to thermal inertia in the bulb and possibly LDR lag as well.
Which you can get around with a cap and resistor.
As for the 8038, it's a perfectly good chip if you aren't using batteries :wink:

[george]

George,

I'm not saying whether I think Mayer's argument is rock solid.  I'm just relaying what he says in the interview.  I have no reason to dispute him, though.

sorry Mark I'm a bit skittish because I'm planning to build a Neovibe ... though it sounds like not having an original type bulb isn't necessarily a BAD thing ...

[jmasciswannabe]

I'm going to have to second analogtom....

[Mark Hammer]

George,

I'm not saying whether I think Mayer's argument is rock solid.  I'm just relaying what he says in the interview.  I have no reason to dispute him, though.

sorry Mark I'm a bit skittish because I'm planning to build a Neovibe ... though it sounds like not having an original type bulb isn't necessarily a BAD thing ...

The idealized Uni-Vibe sounds kind of chewy, like you have a wad of bubble gum a little too big to manage in your mouth.  Part of that comes from the manner in which the sweep range and sweep shape is affected by the sweep rate, and part of THAT is just as much LDR-related as it is bulb-related.  So, don't be skittish.  Use an LED and LDR.  It will take you a big part of the way for very little money.  Mayer's caveats are for those who wish to go ALL the way and make it sound exactly like the original.  As he notes, there are aging effects on the bulbs too, so even if you scored a NOS bulb of the original type, it still wouldn't have 10 years of use under its belt, would it?

Incidentally, one doesn't have to be confined to thinking about optical coupling in terms of one light source butting its head up against an LDR.  For instance, different sorts of light-to-resistance curves could be created by having, say, two parallel or even series LDRs, at different distances from the light source such that they were differentially affected, producing different rates of resistance change.  The "right" bulb and "right" LDR, and "right" oscillator circuit make it easier to accomplish, but they still just provide a means to accomplishing a specific resistance-change curve that can be accomplished in numerous other ways.

[Mark Hammer]

Didn't notice until today that the book contains some acknowledgements to a bunch of familiar names: R.G. Keen, Aron Nelson, and Jack Orman.

[puretube]

Mark: big thanks for telling us about the existence of this book!
I noted a while ago, that I put it on my next wishlist (which`d concern my birthday end of summer...).

To my big surprise and great pleasure, the book was hidden this morning beneath a couple of chocolate eggs, and an easter bunny...

A great read (though I hope not to face questions about the book`s schemos in this forum (ahemmmh...)).  :wink:

It`ll back & forth swap the #1 position in my "throne-room" library with AnalogMike`s book for the upcoming weeks...  

[Ardric]

- there are some things digital does well, but a lot of things it doesn't do well

That's true, with qualifications.  It usually comes down to the particular implementation.

(Mayer makes an interesting point when he notes that being 24 bit doesn't mean that the decay of a note - the softer portion - is going to be encoded by more than maybe 10 bits of those 24 at most)

A 10 bit signal out of 24 bits is around 6dB*(24-10) = 84dB down from the signal peaks.  If that's not deep into the hum and hiss, you're clearly achieving much better SNR in your analog stomps than I. :shock:

[troubledtom]

nice job hammerman :wink:
   good info,
       peace,
            - tom

[petemoore]

I'm glad I caught this onebefore it went 'under' to page two, which I don't often get to.
 Nice Article Mr. Hammer !!

[wampcat1]

Didn't notice until today that the book contains some acknowledgements to a bunch of familiar names: R.G. Keen, Aron Nelson, and Jack Orman.

Hey Mark - I got the book the other day - great read!
Where did you see RG's, Aron's, and Jack's names? I didn't see it?

Thanks,
Brian