is there a better way to design distortions?

[darron]

working on a distortion for some time now, i thought i should take a picture of the setup to share:




that's my own design bench power supply with multiple outputs (AC, DC, regulated variable DC). a small breakout box for the breadboard for power, true bypass, and true bypassed attenuation. the breadboard of course with the bulk of the circuit, and two tone stack boards with true bypasses and socketed components for change and comparisons etc. this gives you flexibility to mess around with two areas of tone control. switchable buffer boards may have been good too.




how does everybody else design distortions? i'm looking for ideas to make my life easier.

what i have not shown is oscillator/scope as i haven't made it quickly switchable from guitar/amp. what else has been good is plugging into the comp for frequency spectrum analysis.

[diydave]

Currently I'm working on converting a desktop Psu to a lab bench in which I have +12v, +9V, +5V, -5V, -9V and -12V. The enclosure off the psu will make things nice and tidy, whereas for the moment I'm working with a boss-psu. The wire of the dc-jack is very annoying.

And I use pot's on IC-sockets to be able to interchange pots with different values.



I like your idea of a tonestack-bench though. Very smart.

I've seen somebody using a 9-waydipswitch as a clipping-selector (so you can select silicone, germanium, leds or mosfets as clipping devices) as well, which also looks very interesting.

[darron]

the clipping selector is a good idea. if i'm using diodes back-to-back  it's pretty easy to switch them on breadboard by disconnecting one end. but the switch for capacitors maybe would be a good idea....

[R.G.]

A better way to design distortions?

I like circuit theory, math, and a circuit simulator to check out what I did.

[Labaris]

Establishing goals is very important.
I'm working on a distortion right now, but all I have so far is:

-My ideas about what I want and the "tone" I'm looking for
-Lots of drawings. Gain stages, clipping stages, buffers, and everything I have doubts about, crazy connections...

So, a better way? I think before messing with the "real" electronics you could design everything first. Then see what what happens with electrons in your lab.

BTW, Great ideas in your lab!

[deadastronaut]

hmmm this could be an interesting thread to a novice/dumbass like myself!..

do any of you guys actually play the guitar into your breadboard when designing distortions???
or do you do lots of maths and use scopes etc..then play it eventually, once designed in software??...
as my thinking is that doing maths will always give the same answer 1+1=2 etc..and thus maybe the same sound?..or am i wrong on this.?
also when you design on software do you imagine what it will sound like?..or do you instantly know?..

i must add that i am a novice in the designing/knowledge side of electronics etc...but am learning..slowly, reading lots and lots...
but i do like to mess with circuits, especially distortions...

i use a breadboard with a seperate smaller board with a tone stack on..and a diy 'capacitor substitution box'.
(which is very handy.and i get by with that...but could do with more factual knowledge too..

sorry for the stupid questions...just curious!..cheers rob.

[Labaris]

hmmm this could be an interesting thread to a novice/dumbass like myself!..

do any of you guys actually play the guitar into your breadboard when designing distortions???
or do you do lots of maths and use scopes etc..then play it eventually, once designed in software??...
as my thinking is that doing maths will always give the same answer 1+1=2 etc..and thus maybe the same sound?..or am i wrong on this.?
also when you design on software do you imagine what it will sound like?..or do you instantly know?..

i must add that i am a novice in the designing/knowledge side of electronics etc...but am learning..slowly, reading lots and lots...
but i do like to mess with circuits, especially distortions...

i use a breadboard with a seperate smaller board with a tone stack on..and a diy 'capacitor substitution box'.
(which is very handy.and i get by with that...but could do with more factual knowledge too..

sorry for the stupid questions...just curious!..cheers rob.

Messing with circuits must be one of the greatest things to do inside this DIY world, absolutely.
Theory serves practice, or at least it should. This is a matter of sound, I mean "perception with your ears". If it doesn't sound good it's wrong, even if math says everything's perfect. Wanna try? Just use a hi-end amp for connecting your favorite distortion on it and play...

Well, anyway theory for me matters a lot, and it just because it allows you to make decisitions when you're designing. Theory describes what people observed before in the real world (practice). So theory doesn't create anything, but it shows things that sometimes can't be understood just by hearing the results.

As I said before, for me the best is to translate ideas into sound, by following this simple steps:
1-Establish a goal even if it's small (tone, gain, number of knobs...)
2-Think about everything you know or have seen in other circuits related to that specific goal.
3-Make a schematic of that, not being too technical, but functional. I use boxes, lines, arrows, numbers, and my own symboils and codes...
4-In step 2 you surely did notice that you don't know everything. In this step you can search and search and search information, to "fill in the blanks"
5-The process continues until a final good sounding version is obtained, and that's for sure beacuse it has feedback. When you learn something new in step 4 you can go back to step 2 and add/change the schematic of step 3. Then you realize (by hearing) that there are more things to fix/change, so you continue with step 4 and so on...

[diydave]

For initial test (just to know if the circuit spits out any sound), I use a mp3-player. It's small, and in combination with an audioprobe I can trace back to where the circuit works, if there is no output.
When this test has been passed, I strap on my guitar and fiddle with the knobs, diodes and capacitors.

[darron]

knowing the maths and what will follow will send you in the direction that you need to go, and the other important thing mentioned is to have your goal. i don't know the frequencies that i'm after exactly by number however.... 


i definitely plug in a guitar into breadboard, then have the box to bypass to compare my original clean signal. or you could plug in a noise generator and analyse that.


diydave, does the DIP/pot adaptor work for dual pots too? (: looks like it may

[diydave]

@ darron:
I haven't tried it. But I think it's possible if the distance between the potpins is the same as the distance off the dip-socket.

[earthtonesaudio]

Theory is all you need.













...in theory, at least. 

[MoltenVoltage]

theory is highly overrated - and simulators are like painting with photoshop

just keep your ears open for "happy accidents"

example : aphex aural exciter

"Aphex was the first company to market enhancers, and they claim that their Aural Exciter was discovered quite by accident, when a stereo valve amplifier kit was wrongly assembled. One channel worked properly, but the other produced only a thin, distorted sound. To their surprise, adding the two channels together produced a result that sounded cleaner and brighter than the original. After they had spent considerable time figuring out why this was, they formed a company to exploit the discovery."

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1995_articles/feb95/exciters.html

[R.G.]

theory is highly overrated - and simulators are like painting with photoshop

Yep. That's right. You don't need no steenking theory. Just tinker. Sooner or later you'll discover your own kind of beautiful reality. In fact, knowing what you're doing just gets in the way of doing it.

[darron]

theory is highly overrated - and simulators are like painting with photoshop

Yep. That's right. You don't need no steenking theory. Just tinker. Sooner or later you'll discover your own kind of beautiful reality. In fact, knowing what you're doing just gets in the way of doing it.

And so the fuzz factory was born...

Thanks for all of your contributions Mr Geofex, they have provided the upgrades to much of my self-discovery.

[PRR]

> example : aphex aural exciter

Example: Goodyear's discovery of vulcanization of rubber, Banks' test-tube scum (polyethylene) and a similar scum at DuPont (Teflon).

These aren't random accidents. Goodyear was looking to improve rubber; his genius lay in noticing the thin layer between burnt and raw. Banks was looking what could be done with refinery "by-products", AND thinking this reaction could produce good plastic at low cost (it turned out to be harder than it seemed; fortunately the Hula-Hoop could use all the not-good plastic Phillips Petrol had on hand).

BUT: we seem to get one or two of these per decade. Hoping for "happy accident" could be a long wait.

"Most" useful work comes from an understanding of the goals and knowledge of available tools (rock, axe, fire, amplifier, clipper, filter.....). Call it "theory", call it "tool-savvy", whatever.

[stringsthings]

theory is highly overrated - and simulators are like painting with photoshop

just keep your ears open for "happy accidents"

example : aphex aural exciter

dude, you cannot be serious ....

1) how many aphex aural exciters does anyone still use?
2) what are designers/engineers/hobbyists/etc supposed to be doing while waiting for "happy accidents"?
3) learning theory and applying is generally a cost-effective method .... OTOH, creating an environment for "happy accidents" is somewhat inefficient and cost-wasteful ... and promotes literature in the workplace featuring suggestive pictures of scantily-clad women  
4) knowing and applying basic electrical theory can keep your heart beating while working with potentially lethal AC voltages.  are you referring to working in a safe environment as "highly overrated"?

again, surely, you jest .... ( and yes, i will stop calling you "shirley" ...   )

[MoltenVoltage]

The point I was making, which others have previously debated, is that creating original designs is more of an art that a science.

Of course you need to know the basics, which, based on his setup, the OP obviously does, but I interpreted his question as one asking how to come up with something NEW.

In the field of invention, which I consider distinct from engineering, I believe that a bit of ignorance is healthy and leaves open the possibility of ideas and results that others might tell you are "wrong" and would never consider in the first place.

If you read my post, I never said theory was not important, I said it was highly overrated.


p.s. - safety first - experiment at your own risk - electricity and improperly wired components can injure or kill you!

[earthtonesaudio]

The point I was making, which others have previously debated, is that creating original designs is more of an art that a science.

Of course you need to know the basics, which, based on his setup, the OP obviously does, but I interpreted his question as one asking how to come up with something NEW.

In the field of invention, which I consider distinct from engineering, I believe that a bit of ignorance is healthy and leaves open the possibility of ideas and results that others might tell you are "wrong" and would never consider in the first place.

If you read my post, I never said theory was not important, I said it was highly overrated.


p.s. - safety first - experiment at your own risk - electricity and improperly wired components can injure or kill you!

I agree with the sentiments here, but I don't think ignorance is the right word.  Sure, some may stumble upon inventions through ignorance, but I think most of the time it is imagination and courage that propel us to explore uncharted territory, where others may say there is nothing worth seeking.

And as I write these words I realize how puffed-up and ridiculous they sound in the context of distortion pedals.  But I SAID THEM ANYWAY!
*Cue heroic music*