modified crybaby wah into fuzz pedal nonsense

[yunger]

like many of you, i wanted to try my crybaby before a fuzz face so i did some research. i modified my crybaby by making it true-bypass, replacing the inductor with a red fasel, cutting out the input buffer and creating an output buffer. i thought the wah sounded good clean but when i placed the fuzz after it, it sounded absolutely horrible. all frequencies shifted up into earpeircing highs, lost a ton of bass, and the transition from heel to toe became so abrupt that when moving the paddle quickly all you hear is an annoying scratch-like sound.
i don't get it. has anyone succesfully made this work? am i missing something?

[yunger]

so here's my circuit. any ideas what is wrong or could be improved?

[nbabmf]

Why not ditch the buffer all together?  Input buffer or output buffer, the next pedal(s) in line is going to see the buffer.

[yunger]

Why not ditch the buffer all together?  Input buffer or output buffer, the next pedal(s) in line is going to see the buffer.

well, without the buffer the wah is completely useless before a fuzz. fuzz before wah is not an option as is a non bypassable buffered pedal between the two. there is appearantly still an impedance mismatch even with this buffer in the wah. is there a better buffer out there that actually works for this situation?

[JohnnyNeck]

I would skip the buffer. I use my crybaby before my fuzz pedals, always have. I've recently removed the input buffer and made it to true bypass. Sounds good, just like before. the only difference is that it doesn't suck tone like before.

[yunger]

i just tried sticking a ts-9 between my wah and fuzz. still sounded bad. then i tried a different, unmodified wah before the ts then fuzz. still sounded bad. i wonder if any wah sounds good before a pnp ge fuzz?

[pazuzu]

ok, this may be a noob question. but i thought all crybabies were t.b.?

my 535q is a mechanical bypass switch, which will work without power, and my original crybaby was the same. damn me for losing that thing.

[Paul Marossy]

Personally, I leave the GCB-95 alone in terms of the bypass switching. I think the input buffer does just fine. Not everything under the sun needs to be true bypassed, sometimes it's ultimately not necessary. Just my opinion, of course. 

[zombiwoof]

ok, this may be a noob question. but i thought all crybabies were t.b.?

my 535q is a mechanical bypass switch, which will work without power, and my original crybaby was the same. damn me for losing that thing.

No, very few of the Crybabies are true bypass.  There is an article on the Dunlop site now that discusses bypass, and lists which pedals have true bypass.  Only the ones in the list that say "true hardwire bypass" are actually true bypass, the ones with the funky bypass are called (as I recall) "hardwire bypass".  If you check that list, you'll see that only a handful of Dunlop wahs really have true bypass, I remember one of them is the Buddy Guy wah.

Al

[pazuzu]

i stand corrected.

when i bought my 535q i just took out the battery to check bypass, i guess i just assumed since both dunlops  i have had were t.b that they all were.

[yunger]

here's a riddle for you. i tried this: guitar-->wah #1(unbuffered)-->wah #2(with output buffer, toe-down position)-->fuzz face. with wah #2 on and in toe-down position, wah #1 works and sounds great when driving a fuzz with a full sweep. with wah #2 in heel-down position, wah #1 does almost nothing.
what does this mean? is the buffer in wah #2 not effecting the heel-down position? can i simulate this effect in just one wah?

[aziltz]

you need an output buffer after a Wah circuit to drive a fuzz.  it has a high output impedance, and the Fuzz has a low input impedance.

Inserting a buffer between the wah effect output and its true bypass switch will remedy this and still retain the true bypass.

[yunger]

you need an output buffer after a Wah circuit to drive a fuzz.  it has a high output impedance, and the Fuzz has a low input impedance.

Inserting a buffer between the wah effect output and its true bypass switch will remedy this and still retain the true bypass.

if you read my post you should see that wah #2 HAS an output buffer and it is configured exactly as you describe with the ability to retain true bypass.

here's a riddle for you. i tried this: guitar-->wah #1(unbuffered)-->wah #2(with output buffer, toe-down position)-->fuzz face. with wah #2 on and in toe-down position, wah #1 works and sounds great when driving a fuzz with a full sweep. with wah #2 in heel-down position, wah #1 does almost nothing.
what does this mean? is the buffer in wah #2 not effecting the heel-down position? can i simulate this effect in just one wah?

[aziltz]

Sorry I should have written more.  I read your post and mine was in response.

The reason it works with Wah 2 in toe down is because the output of Wah 2 is Buffered (like you said), and its passing full frequency at toe down.  So to the Fuzz it looks as if Wah 1 is Buffered, and the sweep works as it should.  No scratchy-ness or whatever.

With Heel Down on Wah 2, you are filtering out all mids and highs, and so you won't be able to hear any sweeping from Wah 1, even though the Buffer of 2 is keeping the peace between the Fuzz and Wah 1.

The Buffer in Wah 2 is always active, whether its Toe or Heel Down.  You didnt mention if Wah 2 works well into fuzz on its own, throughout the Sweep.  I would wager it sounds pretty good, whereas Wah 1 (unbuffered) freaks out like you said in the OP.

[yunger]

hey aziltz, wah 2 sounds horrible with the output buffer into a fuzz. all frequencies shifted up into earpeircing highs, lost a ton of bass, and the transition from heel to toe became so abrupt that when moving the paddle quickly all you hear is an annoying scratch-like sound. the output buffer is the one from fuzzcentral.

[aziltz]

hey aziltz, wah 2 sounds horrible with the output buffer into a fuzz. all frequencies shifted up into earpeircing highs, lost a ton of bass, and the transition from heel to toe became so abrupt that when moving the paddle quickly all you hear is an annoying scratch-like sound. the output buffer is the one from fuzzcentral.

Hey sorry, I misread the original post twice.  So the Wah already has a output buffer, but its mis-behaving.  I'm not familiar with the Fuzz Central Buffer.

Your original description sounds exactly like what happens with my un-output buffered wah when I use it before Fuzz, so I jumped into the fray based on that.


I have installed the Fox Rox output buffer (op-amp based) in wah's before, and they perform the way they should into Fuzz.  This is why I jumped in shouting Buffer that Wah with guns blazing.  It may be that the Fuzz Central isn't the best choice, but I really have no experience there.


I guess the next question is, if your buffered wah freaks out into fuzz, what happens to the unbuffered wah on its own into fuzz?

[yunger]

the unbuffered wah doesn't wah at all into a fuzz just like the bufferd wah didn't when it was stock. i think the fuzzcentral buffer isn't the best choice like you said. i'm going to try the foxrox circuit and confirm that. i hope nobody comes in here and says "a buffer is a buffer" unless they are talking in the context of a wah into a fuzz and have actual experience with such situation.

[aziltz]

i think info on the Fox Rox is available at the other forum.  FSB.org

[phuzle]

I'll have to get my hands on an original crybaby, but I feel like mine with the foxrox doesn't really sound good with the pnp germanium fuzz.  It still has a really limited and non-funky sweep, pretty similar to what it sounded like before i made the so called fuzz friendly buffer.