Members johanwastaken Posted March 15, 2008 Members Share Posted March 15, 2008 I really don't have any use for _two_ overdrive pedals, so I'm getting rid of my Alberta. I have the option of trading it for the Dunlop Fuzz Face reissue, the red one. I searched a little and some people seem to hate it. Some other people quite like it. Now, it may not be as good as the turquoise one, but is it good enough to trade it for an unused overdrive pedal? The Fuzz Face is also a little more expensive than the Alberta, so financially I might be making a good choice. It's not worth it if it's a crap pedal though. I mean, can it really be that bad if it's built to original specs? Built to the exact specifications of the Original Dallas-Arbiter Fuzz Face. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitardustin Posted March 15, 2008 Members Share Posted March 15, 2008 I've played a couple and I liked the sound. It's not going to sound exactly like the original fuzz face but it will get you close. From what I've read though they are pretty similar to the old ones in which there are good ones and bad ones. Not all germ transisters are going to sound the same. And with something mass produced they obviously havent tested each one for the absolute best sound quality. But If you can try it out and it sounds good, I'd say go for it. I love fuzz faces, thats what I used for my main sound. It'll get you anywhere from heavy fuzz to light crunchy OD and can even be used as a clean boost with the fuzz turned down. Hope that helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Michael Patrick Posted March 15, 2008 Members Share Posted March 15, 2008 II mean, can it really be that bad if it's built to original specs? The red ones were NOT built to original specs. That's why they sound like ass. You couldn't pay me to take one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members johanwastaken Posted March 15, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 15, 2008 The red ones were NOT built to original specs. That's why they sound like ass. You couldn't pay me to take one. So basically, Dunlop are lying on their website? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members myTakamine Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 Is it red with a smile, or no smile? (the white label visible through a slot in the black pad) I have a with-smile version, and it sounds pretty bad. Analogman has some interesting info about these here, look for "Here are some old updates": there are definitely good ones and bad ones, and Dunlop has changed the transistors used a time or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Electric Catfish Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 The red ones were NOT built to original specs. That's why they sound like ass. You couldn't pay me to take one. What, specifically, are you claiming is different about the circuit? Keep in mind there is no "definitive" fuzz face transistor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Michael Patrick Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 What, specifically, are you claiming is different about the circuit? Keep in mind there is no "definitive" fuzz face transistor. I said it wasn't built to original specs. And the biggest part that was out of spec was the cheap ass fake NKT 275s they stuck in 'em. They didn't look or sound anything like a real NewMarket NKT 275. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Electric Catfish Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 I said it wasn't built to original specs. And the biggest part that was out of spec was the cheap ass fake NKT 275s they stuck in 'em. They didn't look or sound anything like a real NewMarket NKT 275. Not all of the "original" Fuzz Faces had NKT275's, though. That wasn't an "original spec". It was one transistor that they used, out of a few the early ones had in them. IOW, "NewMarket NKT275's" weren't part of the "original specs" at all, since the originals didn't always use them. They are the most popular transistor that was used in them....BC108's (si, which Dunlop is using in the JH model) are pretty popular too. I'm not saying that the Dunlops sound "just as good" (whatever that means) as the "original". I just mean that the "specs" weren't exactly strict on the "originals" at all. That's why I said to keep in mind that there is no definitive FF transistor. Most people prefer the NKT275's or BC108's, but that all came after the fact. Dallas Arbiter was, I'm sure, just doing the same thing everybody else did back then. Using what was available. They weren't aware of "mojo" of NKT275's, at the time...otherwise they wouldn't have switched to BC108's in '69, would they? The "specs" weren't strict, at all. That's why no two of the old ones sound exactly the same. From the wiki Fuzz Face article: There is also a rather large and serious debate amongst Fuzz Face geeks as to which were the first transistors to be used in the unit. Most people generally agree that the AC128[2] transistor was the first, a few say that the NKT275 was the first and still others claim that the "Arbiter" Fuzz Face , (the first run of the unit) had SF363 transistors in it (See 1992 Guitar Player Mag. Distortion Special). However, although this rather interesting (?) debate rages, there is agreement as to which transistor sounds the best (the NKT275), made by the British company Newmarket. So, I guess you're one of the ones saying the original was the NKT275? I have no idea, as I don't have access to one 1966 Fuzz Face, let alone the several it would take to do much research on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members machine gunner Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 Here's a vid w/ a stock red Dunlop, sounds pretty damn good to me [YOUTUBE]YpaT_S7cEis[/YOUTUBE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Michael Patrick Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 Not all of the "original" Fuzz Faces had NKT275's, though. That wasn't an "original spec". It was one transistor that they used, out of a few the early ones had in them. IOW, "NewMarket NKT275's" weren't part of the "original specs" at all, since the originals didn't always use them.They are the most popular transistor that was used in them....BC108's (si, which Dunlop is using in the JH model) are pretty popular too.I'm not saying that the Dunlops sound "just as good" (whatever that means) as the "original". I just mean that the "specs" weren't exactly strict on the "originals" at all. That's why I said to keep in mind that there is no definitive FF transistor.Most people prefer the NKT275's or BC108's, but that all came after the fact. Dallas Arbiter was, I'm sure, just doing the same thing everybody else did back then. Using what was available. They weren't aware of "mojo" of NKT275's, at the time...otherwise they wouldn't have switched to BC108's in '69, would they? The "specs" weren't strict, at all. That's why no two of the old ones sound exactly the same.From the wiki Fuzz Face article:So, I guess you're one of the ones saying the original was the NKT275? I have no idea, as I don't have access to one 1966 Fuzz Face, let alone the several it would take to do much research on it. I've owned just about every version of the Fuzz Face, including one from '67 with NKT 275s. Obviously, that's the version Dunlop was trying to copy. They failed, and I'm saying they failed because they didn't use the proper transistors. And therefore, it wasn't to spec. The new blue one, with the BC 108s, they got right. And that's because they took the time to source the proper parts. If they had done that with the red one with the fake NKT 275s, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Electric Catfish Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 I've owned just about every version of the Fuzz Face, including one from '67 with NKT 275s. Obviously, that's the version Dunlop was trying to copy. They failed, and I'm saying they failed because they didn't use the proper transistors. And therefore, it wasn't to spec.The new blue one, with the BC 108s, they got right. And that's because they took the time to source the proper parts. If they had done that with the red one with the fake NKT 275s, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So, you're saying the NKT275 was the original, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Michael Patrick Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 So, you're saying the NKT275 was the original, then? My use of the word "original" was in comparison to Dunlop's copy. I could have just as easily used the word "vintage" in place of the word "original." I have no idea what Ivor Arbiter used in the very first Fuzz Faces he built. Mine was from early '67, and it had NKT 275s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Electric Catfish Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 Fair enough. I was just pointing out the difference between "spec" and "preference". I've never thought the red ones sounded that bad, myself, from my somewhat limited experience with them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrMunky Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 Unfortunately you need to do more than comply with the original specs for the Fuzz Face in order to make one sound good, because transistors that meet the specifications for the original circuit vary widely. That's why vintage Fuzz Faces vary widely. Some sound good, some sound incredible; most sound awful. Certain value transistors are optimal for a Fuzz Face, but you can't tell by looking at the transistor whether it is optimal or not. You have to go through the rather labor-intensive process of starting with a huge batch of transistors, measuring each one, and tossing the crappy ones if you want to make sure that your Fuzz Face will sound good. The first 10+ years of Dunlop Reissue Fuzz Faces are wildly inconsistent and mostly bad, because like Dallas Arbiter in the 60s, Dunlop used whichever transistors were available and did not test and select the "fuzz-optimal" transistors from the bunch. They recently changed this practice and started being selective about their transistors, so the newer ones without the "smile" tend to be much better sounding than the older "smile" reissues, even though the newer ones don't look as cool and have a teeny little circuit board that's hard to mod. Like others have mentioned, I have heard that their NKT 275 is not the same kind of transistor found with this label in the 60s. What that means is you can get a more "authentic" germanium Fuzz-Face circuit with better-quality parts from Analogman, MJM or some other boutique manufacturers who have sourced 40-year-old transistors and take the time to test them. The newer Dunlop is not the very best germanium Fuzz Face option out there, but it is respectable, and it is one of the cheapest options. You very well may like it a lot. I wouldn't bother trading your Alberta for a red "smile" version Dunlop if you just want to play with it (as opposed to sending it to Analogman or someone for modificaton). There are far better fuzzes out there you could probably swap for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jgyn Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 I have red smile that sounds pretty good, but it doesn't have NTK-275s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fuzzface71 Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 The real deal about Fuzz Faces (vintage, re-issues) is that they would all sound inconsistent, due to the transistors. Early Dunlop's the germaniums were labelled "NKT 275", even though they weren't really real nkt's. I have played and owned way too many, to realise that, they ALL have the same character and same mojo. And every individual Fuzz Face or clone would add a certain "something" that would personalise to your taste. Some might even like tones that to other's, may sound "crappy". Then again you would only hear all this if you are "crazy" enough and "know" the pedal very well. I consider myself very knowledgeable about the FF and it's tone. Mr.Munky is another fellow "brutha" who has intensively studied this pedal (he even owns two of mine). You really can get lost in the "world of the fuzz face" if you finally hear IT "that tone". I know I did. (check out Gary Louris' Fuzz Face tones on The Jayhawks' TTGG and HTH cd). And you also have all these guys who famously used the Fuzz face like Gilmour, Eric Johnson, Hendrix etc..who all have a different Fuzz Face tone, that they would have on recordings! Same pedal, different guys, different tones. Goodluck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the Dust Posted March 18, 2008 Members Share Posted March 18, 2008 I have played and owned way too many, to realise that, they ALL have the same character and same mojo. And every individual Fuzz Face or clone would add a certain "something" that would personalise to your taste. Some might even like tones that to other's, may sound "crappy". get it dude, even the Dunlop has its mojo too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members johanwastaken Posted March 18, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 18, 2008 get it dude, even the Dunlop has its mojo too... Great. I'm getting it. It's more expensive than my OD anyway so if I dislike it I can probably get more money for it than I would for the OD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fuzzface71 Posted March 18, 2008 Members Share Posted March 18, 2008 Great. I'm getting it. It's more expensive than my OD anyway so if I dislike it I can probably get more money for it than I would for the OD. Sell it to me if you don't want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the Dust Posted March 19, 2008 Members Share Posted March 19, 2008 be prepared for some fuzz gas later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.