Tuesday, 22 January 2013

Soulsonic Hunny Bunny

Beautiful sounding overdrive. Check the full descpription and sample at Soulsonic FX website.
A simple opamp/MOSFET overdrive gets a variety of sweet tones.



18 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tag it!

    Sounds really nice. Medium - medium-high gain. Lots of harmonics and plenty of bite -- perfect for darker amps.

    I'm going to try a 10k Log for the honey pot -- the linear one doesn't do anything until the last bit of the pot's sweep.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent, nice one matey

      Delete
    2. actually, you'd want to use a reverse log if the linear doesn't do much until the end of the sweep.

      I just built this one today. it's NOT my cup of tea at all. IMO, it's way too harsh and buzzy and has an ugly distortion sound to it, and that's even after I added a tone control at the output and rolled the highs all the way down. IMO, this one is not 'sweet' at all.

      Delete
    3. okay, just for kicks, it tried another brand of LM301N. the first one was a National semi and the second one an ST Microelectronics one. both of them sounded identica (like ass!). overly compressed, spongy and UGLY! then I tried a good 'ol 741, ad TL072 and an OP07 and all of them sound great in it (i.e. smooth & articulate!)i'm going to use a reverse log pot for the honey control and this one is now easily worth boxing it up. funny how just a single chip in this one makes a HUGE difference between liking it a lot and throwing it in the bin.

      Delete
    4. I should try other ICs too and another pot for Honey 'cause I don't like it that much either stock. Although there's something in the sound that I really like, if it wasn't so harsh. so thanks John for the chip-suggestions

      Delete
  3. would a1N5817 instead of the 1N5819 make much difference here? I know that for certain things you can try different diodes but sometimes it doesn't alter the sound

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, they're identical except the 1N5819 is rated for a higher voltage

      Delete
  4. Do you guys think there is any way of getting a bit more gain out of this thing? I love the sound of it (with LM301 or LM308) but was wondering if it would be possible to push it into more of a distortion territory by some sort of a mod.

    Perhaps a booster in front? Will be greatful for any suggestions!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wouldn´t it be a good idea to mention in the layout picture that the honey pot taper is wrong... I think many people order parts just by looking at the layout and not reading through all the comments. There are other layouts too with "wrong" tapers mentioned. Ofcourse the pot might be wrong in the orginal too, but it´s obvious that a pot should not work like (for example) the honey- pot in this one. Other that comes to mind is the TS808 with bass control -layout that has wrong taper in the bass -pot mentioned in the layout pic. And Purple plexi 800 I think had something wrong too.

    Just a suggestion, but might help many people when ordering parts for different builds...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If something is wrong we will always change the information shown in the layout, but if a pedal can just be improved we don't necessarily do the same thing. I'd say 95% of the layouts on the site can be improved in one way or another, but I wouldn't dream of changing a value used in an original unless there was a really good reason to do so, like it simply doesn't work. A good example of this is there are many many layouts on the site which use linear for feedback loop gain pots and volume controls, both of which always have a preferable sweep with log. But if we change the layouts then we're not showing you how to make a circuit match for the stompbox involved.

      Incorrectly selected sweeps can often be cited as a selling feature of the original, just look at the amount of people on TGP saying the Jan Ray or Amp 11 sound nothing like a Timmy, and yet the vast majority of Jan Ray and Amp 11 sounds should be achievable with a Timmy, and yet because they sound different and the same tone pot rotation (for instance) some people would swear blind they are nothing alike and nonsense such as one of them works better with a Fender amp than the other.

      So the only thing I would suggest if you want to build a pedal is just to spend 5 minutes reading the comments to see if any of the mentioned improvements (if any are mentioned) would suit you. Basically the layout shows you how to make a replica of the original pedal, the discussion often tells you how to make it better.

      Delete
    2. Second that. We draw these per the schematics. If the taper on the schem is lin, then we'll go with lin.
      +m

      Delete
  6. True ofcourse, but I can´t see why anybody building a pedal would want to put a pot with 300 deg rotation where only last 10% does anything if one could make it "right" straight away. That´s why I still think it would be a good idea in obvious cases to mention it (like you have done in some layouts ("try C10K")).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Even if an obvious improvement can be made and I know about it before I start the layout rather than afterwards, I'm still not going to change the layout, because I want to show how to make a stock pedal as you could buy in the shops and not my interpretation of what is better. I may mention something in the main post or add a comment about something working better, but I'm not necessarily going to make mention within the layout, unless it's something where the original parts are difficult to obtain, like you will see with some layouts where the original used older BCE pinout transistors which are hard or expensive to source like the 2SC828. In those instances I may well make the layout based on more easy to get modern CBE pinout transistors and mention that in the layout. But that's a case of availability more than anything else. If there was a cheap source for those transistors in good quantities then I'd still be doing the layouts with them in mind, even if it would make more sense to change it to suit modern equivalents so people don't feel they have to buy something in specially.

    At the end of the day, no matter what we mention in the layout, reading the comments is always a good idea because someone may mention that something works better with single coils (or humbuckers) and so you may see info that is pertinent to your gear. And where do we draw the line on what "improvement" to mention. If I'm building something I read all the comments and also the entire thread at FSB (if there is one) or other forums before committing myself to parts selection, just so I know what other people have discovered, and then decide what I want to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would second that. I would rather see a layout which was as true a reflection of the 'original' (term used loosely in the case of some manufacturers). Excepting of course points Mark has already covered. From there any adaptation can be made whether that is to suit one's own gear or to improve the basic circuit or simply the parts available to us in our kit. At least the base is there for all to experiment with or simply to create a copy of the market pedal.

      Before starting a project I would always read the full thread and any other information available, just so I'm aware of what has been done already - no point re-inventing the wheel. It also means you can make a note of any sockets which may be required for experimentation. This is done before ordering the parts, unless I just want to add them to my kit and they are not too expensive. I'm fairly new to this and am trying to learn as I go, and amass my parts kit so I have spares and alternatives.

      It is great that Mark and Miro (and others) do this for us and for the community to share their experiences. I certainly couldn't afford to buy all the pedals I intend to build - I probably can't afford all the parts I want to get to build 'em as it seems I'm becoming addicted to this hobby. Learning and experimentation I would say is all part of the fun.

      Delete
  8. I get your points. As personally I´d rather not build a pedal at all if I cannot be sure it can be made to the orginal specs. My orginal point was that such a thing could and should be modified that only affects useability, certainly not something that affects the sound of a pedal. Like you wouldn´t want to replicate a bad footswitch that switches only every second kick in a clone even if one was used in the original (some early Ibanez toneloks comes to mind) (really stupid analog, but you got the point).

    Ofcourse you are doing this great work all for free so you don´t have to please anybody, but I think many would like see that info in the layout pic I mentioned.

    But we simply just disagree with this. Keep up this amazing work anyway, I´m back to building now...

    ReplyDelete