Hi guys,
Just wondering if anyone could clarify, I built a Pharaoh on the King Tut PCB and I have to admit it didn't quite have as much, well balls, as I was expecting! Just came across another thread which mentions that the coupling caps are 470n, on the King Tut build doc they are stated as 47n (C4, C6, C7, C9 & C12), it looks as though the King Tut values are from the Kit Rae schem whereas every other version I've found has them as 470n, can anyone shed any light on this? And I suppose most of all, would this account for the slightly less beefy sound I'm getting when compared to vids of the real thing?
Cheers!
Graham
looking at |\/|ark's vero layout there are no 47n caps, only 470n, and substituting 470 with 47 would result in less bass.
explanation: coupling caps effectivly form a high pass filter. lower the cap - higher the cutoff frequency, thus less bass
AFAIK the coupling caps in original Pharaoh are indeed 470n and that should make a real difference in oummph and bass content.
^^ Nice one guys! Have ordered some 470n caps so hopefully will give me that doomy growl I'm looking for! 8)
Looking forward to your compare. If you get a chance can you do a quick demo of a before and after? Mine has 47n's in it and wondered the same for a more chunky low end.
Thanks
Cody
Don't change the 47nF caps in the feedback loops of Q2 and Q3 -- increasing those will clip more bass frequencies. Just the ones between each stage.
Quote from: midwayfair on November 03, 2014, 07:28:17 PM
Don't change the 47nF caps in the feedback loops of Q2 and Q3 -- increasing those will clip more bass frequencies. Just the ones between each stage.
That makes sense. Thanks Jon
Cody
Quote from: midwayfair on November 03, 2014, 07:28:17 PM
Don't change the 47nF caps in the feedback loops of Q2 and Q3 -- increasing those will clip more bass frequencies. Just the ones between each stage.
For those of us playing along at home, would that be C6 and C9?
(Build doc with schematic here for reference: http://www.rullywow.com/build_docs/King%20Tut%20Build%20Doc%20v1.1.pdf)
Quote from: lincolnic on November 04, 2014, 06:09:06 AM
Quote from: midwayfair on November 03, 2014, 07:28:17 PM
Don't change the 47nF caps in the feedback loops of Q2 and Q3 -- increasing those will clip more bass frequencies. Just the ones between each stage.
For those of us playing along at home, would that be C6 and C9?
(Build doc with schematic here for reference: http://www.rullywow.com/build_docs/King%20Tut%20Build%20Doc%20v1.1.pdf)
Correct.
Cody
That's correct I think.
Edit: Cody beat me to it...
Ok cool will leave the Q2 & Q3 caps as is, thanks Jon.
Can try and do a before and after demo if you want Cody, only got an iPhone to record with and a 5watt solid state combo amp (my testing rig) though, not sure the full difference will be apparent until I get it through my stack at which point the caps will already be changed unless I socket them, would still only be through an iPhone though! Any good to you?
Could really do with sorting my recording set up (or lack of) out!
Don't know if this has been touched on elsewhere but if I were you I would change these one at a time and listen after each individual change.
If you are changing from 47nF to 470nF you are effectively changing the frequency of the cutoff of the filter by a factor of 10x. i.e. as an example, a filter originally set to break at 400Hz will break at 40Hz. For this filter the frequencies from 400Hz down to 40Hz will be lifted by an increasing amount up to 20dB, that's 10x ! Each filter you change will have that effect separately and they all add up. If you change 3 filters by that factor of 10 you have lifted the response of overlapping frequencies in their ranges by an extremely large amount. That may be too much in one step.
In real life it won't be quite as vicious as that but there is another factor here. With filters which go down very low you are going to allow a lot more hum and low frequency noise through. This is not a hifi application where we want extended bass, the best strategy is to actually set the filters to act a little below the open bottom string on your guitar, which is just above 82Hz. For 82Hz, a 47nF resistor would need to see 43k. This is certainly within the right ball park of the stage design used so not much change to capacitors is required to lift your bass response noticeably.
The schematic I have of the Pharoah shows exactly the same gain stage for each of three stages. Hence the filter effect of each of the coupling caps is set at almost exactly the same point. That's a big potential lift! If you have capacitors available you could try just increasing one of the caps by doubling it at each change and gauge the difference in sound each time. You can make sure to only go as far as you prefer then. Each doubling of the cap value halves the frequency of that filter. You will tailor the sound exactly to your own requirements this way.
It is entirely possible to change the filters to set them at different break points to achieve different degrees of lift across that frequency range. In fact this is often a good thing as it improves transient response and stability in some circuits, (though probably not of interest here).
Also, do you have the unit input resistor 39k/390k High/Low option in your clone? If not what is the value of your input resistor and first coupling cap?
Thanks for the detailed reply man! I think to be honest as I'm just going for a straight up clone of the Pharaoh I will just stick to the stock values. Also I tune in Bb standard so am looking for a lower frequency response by approx. 30Hz to that of standard tuning.
During my trawl of the internet I found this shot of the Pharaoh board, you can clearly see 6 larger caps which I think is logical to assume are all 470n, if you count up the remaining caps as well then it all matches up with the rest of the King Tut bom.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42206482/pharaoh3.jpg)
Will let you know my results when I get chance to swap them out!
Cheers!
Graham
Quote from: bordonbert on November 04, 2014, 02:15:31 PM
If you are changing from 47nF to 470nF you are effectively changing the frequency of the cutoff of the filter by a factor of 10x. i.e. as an example, a filter originally set to break at 400Hz will break at 40Hz. For this filter the frequencies from 400Hz down to 40Hz will be lifted by an increasing amount up to 20dB, that's 10x !
Your numbers are really exaggerating the effect this change will have, and you're also up an entire decade from where the cutoffs actually are, which really makes a big difference in this case. The 3dB cutoff of each stage with the 47nF caps is only 41Hz (~82K [470K/100K] and 47nF). In the original BMP, the 3dB cutoff was 19Hz -- "no" cut for anyone except hi-fi folks, and that was achieved with a 100nF cap. The signal is only down a couple decibels on the low E of the guitar, so even a full decade cut is not that remarkable.
I agree with you that increasing the coupling caps is going to increase the hum in the circuit, though. It's possible that a better mod would be to increase the treble cut(s) at various places in the circuit.
A full decade cut is still only 6dB per octave.
Not enough balls? Never heard that complaint before....
Just curious how yours compares to this demo here of the King Tut.
PCB and Schematic Link:http://www.rullywow.com/product/king-tut-fuzz-pharoh-clone-pcb/
Hi Midwayfair. I think you may have missed the point of what I was trying to say with my example figures. I was trying to put a little perspective into the situation with an example of some basic theory. Unless you know the people who are posting, you can never tell how much they understand of what is going on and it is better that they become aware of a little of what they are doing rather than just plug in values at random. I always take the line that too much info is better than too little with apologies to the already informed. With too little data the wrong issues get addressed and the myths begin.
The numbers I used are certainly exaggerating the effect it will have in this case but the theory is correct and it was only the theory I was trying to illustrate. Multiply the capacitor by a factor of 10 and you drop the cutoff frequency by the same factor. I'm sure we don't disagree on that. I chose 400Hz and 40Hz for my example simply because it would be clear to see that it is a serious issue and needs consideration. It wasn't meant to relate to the real problem that the poster was having.
Without knowing the input impedance of each stage, ('the' reusable stage in effect), we can't guess at the current 3dB point. It is confused by having to take into account the shunt feedback applied via the 470k resistor which drops the value of that resistor considerably from its 470k. You have missed the effect of that in your 470k//100k suggestion, it is not just a case of paralleling the two values! As the feedback resistor has the small input voltage at one end but a much larger voltage on the other output end it appears to the input as though it is a very much smaller resistor than its value, (sort of bootstrapping in reverse)! Then there is also the paralleled effect of the low non linear impedance of the feedback diodes as they turn on and off which we have ignored. I would suggest that that input impedance may even be generally below 40k and could even drop lower than 10k under some conditions! All of this pushes our frequency up way above what you seem to be suggesting. If it slips down to even 40k, (a definite in this situation I would suggest with an open loop gain before feedback of 100x for each stage), the frequency has become: 1/2*Pi*40k*0.047uF which is 84Hz. The lower it goes, the higher the frequency goes and we are already conservatively within the range of the guitar.
The point here is that, as you and I have both pointed out, if the cutoff frequency sits down close to or below 82Hz there is nothing to be gained by changing all of the coupling caps to 470nF at all, and lots to be lost! So I suggested changing the caps one at a time and by values a lot less than 10X and playing by ear as to when to stop. No change? Then change back!
And of course, 6dB/octave and 20dB/decade are interchangeable to all intents and purposes, it is just that often one is clearer to envisage than the other depending on the circumstances, and 47nF to 470nF is also 10x.
Quote from: rullywowr on November 04, 2014, 10:51:55 PM
Not enough balls? Never heard that complaint before....
Just curious how yours compares to this demo here of the King Tut.
PCB and Schematic Link:
http://www.rullywow.com/product/king-tut-fuzz-pharoh-clone-pcb/
I'm only working from memory at this point but my King Tut build doesn't seem to be quite as aggressive as yours sounds in the demo (I'm using a Mex '72 Deluxe Tele and Blackstar Series One 6L6 just as an fyi). It's hard to describe and the difference is only slight but to get close to the sound I want I have to dime the gain on full (silicon diodes) and even then it just sounds a bit polite for a Muff, just not as saturated and snarly and boomy as I was expecting. By comparison my recent Musket build is the sort of over the top fuzz I was hoping the Pharaoh would be, obviously it has the LPB-1 in front for extra hair but even without that on at all it's just a lot more aggressive gain wise and has a bigger low end response.
I'm going to try swapping out all the 47n caps for 470n just to see what it does for my own curiosity but could there be other factors at play like the 2N5089s and MPSA18 I used, is their hFE responsible for any differences here? I seem to remember I just used all the highest ones I had for maximum brootal toanz! ;)
All good fun anyway, I hope this doesn't read as a critique on your board dude cos it definitely isn't, I would probably never have even looked into it had I not by chance read another unrelated post about all the coupling caps being 470n.
Will let you know how I get on!
I posted in another thread:-
"A warning. Different transistors will make no difference to this circuit, (they rarely do), don't fixate on that!
"The circuit uses very basic standard elements to perform each task. The first two transistor stage has been around since Adam and the final stage is a classic single transistor amplifier. They both employ local negative feedback, (it's a GOOD thing), within them. One of the jobs negative feedback is used to do is to make the circuit immune to differences in the gain of the transistors. For all modern transistor types like the ones you listed it works. 'Nuff said?"
That applies here also. It's one of the reasons why designers use negative feedback! As long as you have modern normal gain transistor types in working order their hFE will make no difference at all to this circuit.
Apologies if I give you loads of tech info and explanations you don't want but there are others out there who would be interested to understand what is going on, not just get their pedal moving. This one will work but what about the next and the one after that? Almost inevitably nowadays, info based on good sound engineering fact often spoils what we want to think is the case or points to a solution we don't want to follow. Mostly people are going to do what they are going to do anyway and are really only looking to be told that is the best option.
Anyway, I'm sorry, no more long descriptions from me. :D
Quote from: bordonbert on November 05, 2014, 12:18:47 PM
I posted in another thread:-
"A warning. Different transistors will make no difference to this circuit, (they rarely do), don't fixate on that!
"The circuit uses very basic standard elements to perform each task. The first two transistor stage has been around since Adam and the final stage is a classic single transistor amplifier. They both employ local negative feedback, (it's a GOOD thing), within them. One of the jobs negative feedback is used to do is to make the circuit immune to differences in the gain of the transistors. For all modern transistor types like the ones you listed it works. 'Nuff said?"
That applies here also. It's one of the reasons why designers use negative feedback! As long as you have modern normal gain transistor types in working order their hFE will make no difference at all to this circuit.
Apologies if I give you loads of tech info and explanations you don't want but there are others out there who would be interested to understand what is going on, not just get their pedal moving. This one will work but what about the next and the one after that? Almost inevitably nowadays, info based on good sound engineering fact often spoils what we want to think is the case or points to a solution we don't want to follow. Mostly people are going to do what they are going to do anyway and are really only looking to be told that is the best option.
Anyway, I'm sorry, no more long descriptions from me. :D
I appreciate the comprehensive response man, no need to apologise! While that side of pedal building currently falls outside my level of understanding I am always keen to expand that knowledge!
I'd read as much to know that transistor hFE does not affect the Muff circuit significantly, I suppose I was just musing on other reasons that my build isn't quite hitting the mark.
I've got it into my head now that these caps are going to make all the difference, we'll see I suppose! ;)
Quote from: Hexjibber on November 05, 2014, 05:11:04 PM
Quote from: bordonbert on November 05, 2014, 12:18:47 PM
I posted in another thread:-
"A warning. Different transistors will make no difference to this circuit, (they rarely do), don't fixate on that!
"The circuit uses very basic standard elements to perform each task. The first two transistor stage has been around since Adam and the final stage is a classic single transistor amplifier. They both employ local negative feedback, (it's a GOOD thing), within them. One of the jobs negative feedback is used to do is to make the circuit immune to differences in the gain of the transistors. For all modern transistor types like the ones you listed it works. 'Nuff said?"
That applies here also. It's one of the reasons why designers use negative feedback! As long as you have modern normal gain transistor types in working order their hFE will make no difference at all to this circuit.
Apologies if I give you loads of tech info and explanations you don't want but there are others out there who would be interested to understand what is going on, not just get their pedal moving. This one will work but what about the next and the one after that? Almost inevitably nowadays, info based on good sound engineering fact often spoils what we want to think is the case or points to a solution we don't want to follow. Mostly people are going to do what they are going to do anyway and are really only looking to be told that is the best option.
Anyway, I'm sorry, no more long descriptions from me. :D
I appreciate the comprehensive response man, no need to apologise! While that side of pedal building currently falls outside my level of understanding I am always keen to expand that knowledge!
I'd read as much to know that transistor hFE does not affect the Muff circuit significantly, I suppose I was just musing on other reasons that my build isn't quite hitting the mark.
I've got it into my head now that these caps are going to make all the difference, we'll see I suppose! ;)
I can agree with you also. Mine is not as aggressive sounding as Rullys demo. I have tried it with my SG with burstbuckers and my strat with single coils. I need to open mine up and see what transistors I ended up using since I may have used some NOS ones I had laying around and not the MPSA18 & the 5089's. I will check tonight.
Cody
One last attempt. There are versions of this circuit out there using MPSA12, MPSA18, 2SC1815, 2N5089 and doubtless more transistors. All of these versions work, possibly to different tastes but consider the following:
MPSA12 - min hFE 20,000 (it's a darlington and effectively 2 transistors connected)
MPSA18 - min hFE 500
2SC1815 - min hFE 70
2N5089 - min hFE 400
that's a range of 70 - 20,000. In the light of that, do you think it matters?
(I'm suffering from Cassandra Syndrome.)
since im building this thing too soon (pcb ordered) one question:
where did you read exactly of the different cap values?
this one i found looks exactly like the schematic of the rullyvow document
http://www.bigmuffpage.com/images/schematics/Pharaoh%20Big%20Muff%20Clone%20Schematic.jpg
Quote from: luks999 on November 07, 2014, 09:29:48 AM
since im building this thing too soon (pcb ordered) one question:
where did you read exactly of the different cap values?
this one i found looks exactly like the schematic of the rullyvow document
http://www.bigmuffpage.com/images/schematics/Pharaoh%20Big%20Muff%20Clone%20Schematic.jpg
If you read the Pharaoh thread on FSB there is a schematic showing 470n and also a vero layout.
Plus in that photo I posted earlier in this thread of a Pharaoh board you can see the larger caps.
Here's another, they don't look like 47n to me..
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/11/07/9c81d37c1223eb2b822748161c4c5f59.jpg)
here i found the layout
http://tagboardeffects.blogspot.co.at/2012/02/black-arts-toneworks-pharaoh.html
youre right, all 470n instead of 47n. strange. the rest seems the same to the king tut
hmm yes i know you may be right, but its hard to say. there may be also big 47n caps.
now im confused what i should use :/ guess im stucking with the 47n (read in this thread there may be a bass cutoff when using bigger caps)
seems youre right ;) they seem to be all 470nF
here i found a thread for this:
http://www.madbeanpedals.com/forum/index.php?topic=10249.10
--> interesting thing here is the fifth pot ;) its the attack. i think i will try that one too ;) (if theres space haha)
some veros with this values are verified and to me, the pic also speaks for that (bigger caps)
http://www.sabrotone.com/?attachment_id=2373
i think i will use 470n too ;)
does anyone compared how the 470 sound to the 47n caps?
hi !
I have 2 King Tut builded, one with 47nF and the other one with 470nF. What I can tell is the first one (rullywowr's version) sound pretty good, lows are tight and maybe a little less agresive than the 470n version...this one (.47µF) sounds similar to the demos you find in youtube, more agresive, and with a lot more bass...in general very "brut"...I can't make a sound sample (and even if I could I wouldn't do it, because my guitar playing sucks more than my english :-[), but in the end, which one tends to sounds more like the original? I guess the .47µF version. Which one I prefer?...for my taste, the rullywowr's one, without the no clipping option (too loud for me).
Quotenow im confused what i should use :/ guess im stucking with the 47n (read in this thread there may be a bass cutoff when using bigger caps)
No Luks, it's the opposite. You really need to go back and read the posts again a little slower. The issue is: "higher value caps will
lower the cutoff point and give us
more bass but does it need that doing in the first place? You could say "let's just do it anyway, even if it doesn't make any difference to the sound it won't matter will it?" but that's not true. You don't want to take the cutoff points lower at the bottom or higher at the top end further than they need to be because it doesn't alter your sound, it just opens the door to muck you don't want. 50Hz is less than an octave below a guitar bottom string and 60Hz is even closer! Do you want to increase the amount of hum and low frequency noise? Do you want slight power supply pops to become big thumps? That's clearly spelled out in a number of posts in this thread.
If you have a bigger value or even values available try the following. Change a single cap to 100nF, that's dropping the cutoff point of one filter by a whole octave. If it doesn't change what does that mean? Does it mean you haven't made it big enough? Does it mean they must all need changing? No! If they are well below the value they should be and therefore need increasing there will be a change with the first replacement. So it makes sense to continue to see if there is more to be gained, if it doesn't have any effect there will be no point in going any further so change it back.
If that improves things a little change the second to 100nF. If it does increase the first to 220nF. (I'm doubling the value each time to give you a whole octave of improvement. You will hear any genuine improvement over that range.) See if that improves things more. And so on. Stop when there is no further improvement. That way you will get the best sound you want in the shortest time and introduce no more problems than you need to.
Guessing whether it's alive and poking it with a stick to see if it moves is not going to give you the best results you can get and I'm sure that is what you would want. This doesn't take experience and knowledge, it just takes a little patience and the ability to ignore your signature when you will really benefit from it.
(I take it you don't agree with Newton and his "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" comment?)
hey dudes
sorry i got that wrong, sure the earlier posts say 470n = more bass.
@pierre: Thanks. It sounds i will like the 47n more, because i dont want the fuzz be too bassy, brutal and muffled
too bad you cant make a demo. and dont worry about your playin ;) not everyone here is a guitar pro :) (i play pretty bad too)
@bordonbert: thanks for the detailled info here ;) thats a good idea. so i guess the easiest way would be socketing these caps and try.
another idea that i had: if there is a 5 way toggle switch (found a 4pdt on musikding, but necessary would be a 5pdt), then it would be possible to include a switch to change the fuzz from the rullywow values to the original values. or is that too much effort?
just an idea (but yeah the fuzz has a lot of switches already)
I think it would be easier to socket those caps, or build two King Tut...it's not an expensive project after all...or try fist in a vero layout and see wich one you like more.
Regards from Brussels, city of riots.
I have both a original and king tut. I'll will check those caps and also try to record a soundclip of both so we can check the differences.
One thing I know for sure: those Ge diodes on king tut are Vf=~0,5v 1n34A, so it wont sound the same on that Ge mode - I am planning to substitute those for some other Ge diode I have that got the correct Vf of ~0.30v
cool man, that would be awesome!
so the original one, uses different germanium diodes than the 1n34a. do you know which ones?
germanium diodes with 0,3V are for example those two:
http://www.musikding.de/Germanium-Diode-OA1182_1
http://www.musikding.de/Germanium-Diode-1N949_1
the demo of the king tut sounds very nice! but im still not sure with with specs i should build it. the orginal sounds great too.
what differences do you hear? is the original more aggressive and dark?
The original one I think they are 1n34a with vf=~0,3 (that im sure). But my stock of 1n34a were vf=~0,50 so I built King tut with those. (they are probably fake 1n34a, but they sure look like the real ones, DO7 and all...)
regarding the difference in sound/tone, like I said Ill try to record a sounclip for comparision purposes, as soon as possible, and i'll post it here.
ok thanks! looking forward to it!
ordered some via ebay, dont know which vf they have.
on musikding for the 1n34a there is: Vf = 0,7-0,8V
Well here are some given values for 1n34a:
http://www.reuk.co.uk/Germanium-Diodes.htm
http://www.madbeanpedals.com/forum/index.php?topic=8161.0 - (midwayfair's post)
I mean, you must know what are the Vf test conditions. For example, this graph gives 0,35 @ 1mA:
http://www.mtmscientific.com/1n34a.html
Hi!
so I just opened my original Pharaoh and guess what...
(http://i.imgur.com/pchLHT4.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/7GJNYAi.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/LRDEYBk.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/MtSJaAY.jpg)
.... so there are 6x 470nF ;D
Now I did some sound testing and using 47nF instead the sound is not so scooped, it has a nice mid hump. I like it!
I could probably record some soundclips for comparision purposes, may I have the time...
HINT: 1N60P for Ge diode sounds like a beast! ;D
Thanks man!
so the original uses 1N60P? will try to get some
what you mean with scooped?
so you like the 47nF better?
love to hear some demos :)
Quote from: luks999 on November 17, 2014, 09:26:11 AM
Thanks man!
so the original uses 1N60P? will try to get some
No, it seems like 1N34A Ge diodes for sure, but I also tried out some 1N60P. Killer sound, better than 1n34's imho.
Quote from: luks999 on November 17, 2014, 09:26:11 AM
what you mean with scooped?
so you like the 47nF better?
I mean that King Tut with 47nF have pronounced mid-range compared with the original's 470nF. I firstly thought that it could be some differences on the resist/cap values in the tone stack components, but that's not the case. So I just assume that this 47/470 cap difference could be responsible for that tone change.
One thing I also noticed is that, even though king Tut's pots value are the same as the original, the later have a noticeable less output.
Quote from: luks999 on November 17, 2014, 09:26:11 AM
love to hear some demos :)
I will try to record some sounclips asap. Don't know when but i'll try.
Just thought I would add my findings on this..
I replaced all the 47n caps with 470nf and for my taste at least it has made a noticeable improvement. I've yet to try it through my proper rig but it seems to have changed the responsiveness of the tone controls dramatically, perhaps the combination of more lows being allowed through in some sections (C4, C7 & C12) but being also cut in others (C6 & C9) as a result of the bigger caps has given the overall tone a bit of extra oomph but also some highs in there too which make it seem more aggressive.
To me anyway it now sounds like the sort of sound I was looking for when I built the pedal, pretty dark but lots of wallop and the ability to add cut into the sound so it's not just a wall of mud!
The difference seems night and day to me I'll be honest, but of course these things are subjective! ;) I'm no technical expert, just using my ears and my ears like it!
Cheers,
Graham
yes, that description is accurate with the differences I hear between king tut's 47nf and the original 470nf.
I really need to record that sound clip... sorry, didn't have the time to do it yet. Think maybe this xmas holyday will give me some spare time to do it.
yes! i built this thing recently too.
ive found out that the King tut is basically a rams head clone like on the big muff page
http://www.bigmuffpage.com/Big_Muff_Pi_versions_schematics_part4.html
exact same values as in the TUT
i liked the sound of the Blackarts on youtube and ive built it with 470nF as well :)
the sound is great, although i dont have a comparison, but great to hear you guys like it more
whats kinda awkard at the beginning, is the volume boost on SI and no clipping selection
Hey guys,
I built the pharaoh using the schematic from Big Muff Page, this one : http://www.bigmuffpage.com/images/schematics/Pharaoh%20Big%20Muff%20Clone%20Schematic.jpg
I changed the caps values from 47nf to 470nf, but something is wrong when I switch to the 39k resistor (the high setup) :
it's like the caps are charging or something, I play big chords and the volume is crashing then comeback.
It only work a bit when I roll down the volume from my lp.
It's only my third built so I don't really know what's wrong. I have double checked values and polarity but nothing on this side.
All the schematics I found does not mention a change of values apart from the 470nf 47nf dilemma.
Someone have an idea as to where this problem could be coming from ?
(hey first message here, glad to be part of such a great community :D)
I don't expect this issue changing those caps. Maybe you wrong something. What board are you using? PCB, stripboard...
Check the caps are in the right spot and, if it's possible, if they are well connected.
In case try to come back to the 47nF and test it again.
I'm using a kind of "all Muff purpose" pcb from Coda Effect, a really nice guy from France.
Check this out : https://www.coda-effects.com/2016/01/big-muff-pcb-available.html ; https://www.coda-effects.com/2016/04/black-arts-toneworks-pharaoh-fuzz-clone.html
All ready did an Green Russian clone with the same pcb, work like a charm.
Yeah I will try to replace the 470nf but first I really want to understand why this don't work.
And it's always a pain in the ass to de-solder components.
Anyway thanks for the respond Jack, and happy halloween, halloween, halloween; in advance :D
Thanks! ;D
I figured out that you made some mistake after the caps changing, 'cause before it worked fine, right? If it is so check around them.
Or try to check around the resistors switch.
Nah, I didn't tried the 47nf version (as suggested with the pcb and biggmuffpage's schematic), I went directly with the 470nf caps.
No problem with the high/low switch.
I compared different schematics and layouts with the one I have, can't find a difference.
The curse of the pharaoh takes its tall on me.
Then should be something wrong. Try to check the wiring of the pots, eventually faulty connections or mismatched wires. Probabyl it has nothing to do with it, but I was building a Vemuram JanRay, and I misunderstood a wire connection, so the circuit sounds, but even if all the pots worked fine the sound was puttering and compressed.
Do you suspect that with in the low resistor mode it sounds ok or weird? Did you try to low Sustain and also the volume pot of the guitar and emulate the low mode?
Else, check again the usual things: orientation of transistor and polarity capacitors (did you use the tantalum?), resistors value...