DMCA statement: All media used within this site with the exception of linked youtube videos, is the intellectual property of the author, including but not limited to photographs, schematics and interpreted layout diagrams. Manufacturers and product names are mentioned solely for circuit identification, and where applicable their trademarks are the property of their respective owners who are in no way associated or affiliated with the author. No cooperation or endorsement is implied.
This may also be a good place to note that Section 512(f) of the DMCA creates liability for "Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section (1) that material or activity is infringing"
Now that's done ....
This was originally marketed as a proprietary circuit (erm .... Tonebender) which allegedly used a custom designed "Fuzz IC" which presumably therefore no one else would have access to (erm ... CA3046). Now it is apparently a modern take on the MkII, I'm not going to quote the sales spiel directly but you can read all about it here.
As usual I am often keen to emphasise that when a nice sounding effect is released by a good builder you should endeavour to support him and buy his products so he can continue creating pedals. As such I'll be making this one myself.
My interpretation of the circuit and again, company and product name used for identification purposes only. I would also point out that building this will not give you an original Retro Channel - The Fuzz, to obtain one of those you will need to buy one from the manufacturer or one of his appointed resellers. This will only allow you to build a pedal with the same circuit in a smaller box for less money. Enjoy!
"Pirates? What pirates?"
Update 11-08-2012
 |
| IC transistor pins |
Just ordered a handful of the CA3046. Had to use ebay. None of my usual suppliers had them...
ReplyDeleteWell. At least they mention the Tonebender...
ReplyDelete+m
sup with the DMCA mark?
ReplyDeleteNothing for me :o) although some people may have in the past made spurious claims about other places.
DeleteSounds awesome !
ReplyDeleteYou're the man as usual, thanks for this!
ReplyDeleteAaahhahah.. Just noticed the copyright text on the layout :D
ReplyDelete+m
Just to make sure that there would be no doubt as to whose IP it is so we don't have any silly DMCA takedown notices being filed.
DeleteOkay, has anyone who has built this been convinced it is Tonebenderesque? I'd love for it to be a stable and cheap Mk II but the hype, hyperbole, and negativity surrounding this pedal is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI think the negativity surrounded the builder rather than the pedal. The clips I've heard sound pretty good, although whether it sounds like a MkII to me is a different matter altogether. Still it will only cost a couple of pounds to make one so it's worth a try. :o)
DeleteHi mate, will an LM3046 work for this or does it have to be CA3046? Thanks
ReplyDeleteYes that would be fine
DeleteOrdered one of the fancy "proprietary" chips. I'll let you know when the boat comes in from China!
ReplyDeleteHa ha
Deletei built this one today and while it works, it doesn't sound at all like my '67 vox tonebender or my '69, but it doesn't sound like the posted video either. i checked everything and it's built exactly to the vero, but mine is very nasty sounding, there's way too much fuzz, withNO note definition. i doesn't even clean up with the volume control on my tele or SG. i personally don't care for it at all. the attack pot practically does nothing except at the very beginning of it's rotation and even then, not much. i think that it's just a heavily distorted mess. and BTW, i'm using an RCA CA3046 chip in mine.
ReplyDeleteIMO, it's so bad, i'm going to gut the enclosure and build something else for it.
Oh no!
ReplyDeleteI just ordered one CA3046.. John's description means that i may like it :P
ReplyDeleteSo Mark! If you find an error, don't fix it yet :D
+m
i really don't think that you will like it miro. if it sounded like the video demos, or even somewhat close, i'd would, but for me, it's possibly the worst sounding fuzz i've ever heard. i think that Mark's vero is correct (at least it is if he used the one posted on the La Revolution Deux website), but i don't know how true to the actual Retro CHannel pedal it is.
DeleteYou know what they say about PGS's demos.. They can make ukulele plugged into a potato sound good :)
DeleteBut if it's high gain and ugly, i might like it.. For example, this baby here http://mirosol.kapsi.fi/varasto/boxes/666.JPG is something that i'm never letting go. It's 6 Devi Ever designs in a single box, with all 6 switchable. Thus making the "wrong" switching sounds really out there. Versatile, yes. Useful? Maybe not :) Tens of broken sounding fuzzes in a box. I'm may be using it on some special recording though :)
+m
Haha - maybe an added switch for nasty/not-nasty...
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, John - appreciate the heads up. I was planning on tackling this one this weekend. I may hold off a bit...maybe
ReplyDeleteJohn do you have a Peak analyser? Just wondering what the gain of each transistor is. I'm pretty confident the schematic is ok because people have built it on FSB and been happy with the results, but I'm just wondering how much the gain deviates in the ICs. I've got a few of these ICs and a Peak so I'll check it out sometimes tomorrow and see what I get.
ReplyDeleteokay. i just measured the transistors in it. their gains are as follows:
ReplyDeletepins 1,2,3 = 87
pins 3,4,5 = 83
pins 6,7,8 = 84
pins 9,10,11 = 83
pins 12,13,14 = 86
i also got a second RCA CA3046 and its readings are all over the place.
ReplyDeleteits hfe readings are: 84, 57, 77, 82 and 26, and only on the last one (pins:12-14) the meter also said "diode protection between C-E" before it gave the hfe (gain) reading. the other one didn't do that!!??
With the first numbers you posted, I have to say that if you need 4 matched transistors I can't think of a more consistent way to get them, then you ruined it with your second post! :o)
ReplyDeleteIf you swap the IC is the sound changing? I'll try and find out some readings from the builds that people have said sounded good but I have a feeling your first one is in the right region. I'm sure I saw someone post something about 80 to 100 hfe.
i haven't done that yet since i removed it from the enclosure, but i can't imagine that it would improve using the chip that has transistors with the gains all over the place.
DeleteIt's not that I think it will sound better, I'm more interested if it sounds substantially different which would show the importance of the gain of the transistors rather than it being an "any transistor will do" effect.
DeleteHi Mark,
Deletewell even though it's no longer in an enclosure, i jury-rigged it up to a jack and power supply and tried it with my second CA3046 that has the hfe's all over the place. the funny thing is, i think that it actually works better with that chip. it's still a super fuzzy fuzztone, but the gain has a little more variance, and when you crank it up, it adds low end. it's also better at cleaning up with the guitar's volume control. as a bassist, when it comes to playing guitar i'm all thumbs, but i did make a 3 minute clip of it with my SG in case you'd like the hear it.
.....so, i'd say this one is actually verified. just be prepared for TONS of fuzz.
Very strange, so it seems the gain is important but not in the way we expect. I've got maybe 10 CA3046's so at least I know to audition them all if I'm building it. And yes I'd love to hear the clip, thanks.
Deleteokay. here's the clip, clams and all.
Deletehttp://soundcloud.com/johnk_10/retrochannelfuzz-sg
Cool, I like that, I think it sounds great! Thanks John
DeleteMight work better with discrete transistors instead of the chip! If I could find a schematic...
ReplyDeleteWhich pins are working here (since I am too lazy to trace it)?
DeleteI added a diagram of the IC to the post earlier
DeleteBuilt it. Sounds like what I was expecting from the Fuzz Nutz. Big, meaty, smooth Fuzz. I can even clean it up a bit with my guitar volume ( a little ). Someone on FSB had mentioned trying a larger output cap ( 100n )for the 10n to make it a bit "woolier". Think I'm going to build another and put in a switch for the output caps. It has plenty of bottom end even with the 10n, but I have one strat that is a little thin so I'll be able to beef it up a bit.
ReplyDeleteTried some different output caps today. 100n was a little too dark for being the only option. 82n was better. Finally settled on 56n for kind of a compromise - not too dark, not too bright. Definitely want one with a switch to toggle between 10n and 82n.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info Tim. If you used a 3 position DPDT switch with the pinouts like this:
Delete1--4
2--5
3--6
You could solder a 10n between 2 & 5 along with the in and out wires, a 33n between 1 & 4 and a 68n between 3 & 6. Then you'd get 10n in the centre off postion, 43n in one position and 78n in the other. An extra tone option may be useful.
That's a great suggestion. That's how I did my Meathead with switchable caps. I was actually thinking of a rotary switch with several options, but what you just suggested would be more than enough.
ReplyDeleteI would describe this pedal's fuzz sound as kind of a slightly tamed down ( not by much ) Hyperion. As much as I love the Hyperion, sometimes it's too much, even with the gain all the way down. And this isn't too gated. It actually has a smooth decay ( except for the very end ). Maybe I just got lucky with my chip. I just used the first one in the lot of 5 that I ordered.
My sonic life would be so boring without this site...
Thanks
Interesting. Yesterday at rehearsals i noticed that my amp gets really bad sounding on the clean channel's preamp. Must be a broken preamp tube in that channel, 'cause the dirty channel works perfectly fine with all possible settings (i got a bit worried). So i started to look around for layout to see what tubes are doing what. Then i noticed that Marshall JCM 800 2205 50W has one of those CA3046s inside. Seems like every 2205 has had one since at least '88 to handle the footswitch. God knows where else that chip has been used before that:)
ReplyDeleteAnyway. I got mine and i'll try this circuit out once i get to it.
+m
I built several of these over the last year or so, and they've all been entirely consistent. They are (basically) just a silicon Tonebender using the low Hfe transistors in the "fuzz IC" to get close to the older versions of the original.
ReplyDeleteI tried a few of the 3046s on the peak meter, and the transistors all fell between 85 and 95 (usually with the "substrate" transistor - the highest pin numbers - having the lowest gain).
I've also used the same IC to build the "Superfuzz" circuit, and the long-tailed pair work well as they're so well-matched. You can do away with the trimmer if you use 2% (or selected) resistors in that part of the circuit.
The only clever part of this design is thinking to use the inherently lower gain of the transistors in the 3046 to emulate early silicon transistors.....
Hi i have a quick question about this layout beacuse i found something "wrong" with the cuts.
ReplyDeletein the layout whitout components there is a cut at the far right that is at pin 11 but in the layout the same cut has moved up to pin 12 under 680R resistor. And of course im woundering wich one is correct?
The reason i ask is that iv build one probably with the cut at pin 11 and i have problems with that one. I get a pitch sound when turning the attack knob but just betwen say 2-12 a clock then it goes away. Now do you think its has to do with the cut or my crapy building tecnique or what
Ok thanks if anyone
Well spotted. The bare board layout is the one in error so just put a cut on the pin 12 row it should fix it. Now corrected above
DeleteThanks i guess thats why the pedal didnt realy worked before ok thanks
Deleteyep. I just made the cut correction in mine and it's 1000X better. thanks for catching that Jens.
DeleteAllso the orientation of the attack knot has changera now wire 1 and 3 should be switched ok thanks
ReplyDeleteyep, I noticed that too so I reversed it on mine.
Deleteworks like a charm! brilliant pedal! took some time to get it right cause i did vero and put in components, but didnt solder them, then this error came up and mine had it so i went through
ReplyDeletesome tuff times and had to read all comments.
now it works as it should and sounds real great!
you can get tons of different sounds from it cause it responds well with guitars volumeknob
and Attackknob works whole range and gives you plenty to play around with, from full to minimum.
a recomended build
Could we get the schematic? I've never built something on vero board.
ReplyDeleteaaaaaand here is a gutshot of my Retro Channel build :)
ReplyDeletehttp://s2.postimg.org/snpx1nh2x/IMG_0373.jpg
a great circuit for those who have problems with gettin a good sound out of Tonebenders.
Thank You IvIark and all others! After reading some negative reports here I was little sceptic about authenticity of this layout.
ReplyDeleteI made this fuzz today and I am pretty satisfied.
The first thing I noticed is a pretty warm sound and good note definition for one silicone fuzz.
I have ordered five CA3046's from e-bay (hFE's about: 98, 115, 158, 160, 260). And yes, the one with minimum hFE sounds best. Interesting I did not notice a big difference between 160 and 260. Admittedly I tested it only in my room on a small 20W solid-state amplifier. I'll white here again when I plug it in some serious amp. But now I'm going to do that with some optimism. ;)