Sonically, what makesthe Fuzzsound Unique among Tonebenders?

[jimi_dylan]

I want to know what sonic quality of the Fuzzsound makes it unique among tonebenders.

Of course a clip is worth a thousands words, and in all probability clips will soon descend from D.A.M.'s Holy Mountain, but until then I will be satisfied with verbal schooling from some of our experts here. Here is where I am coming from. To me, the 1965 (Sola Sounds MKI), 1966 ("Vox"), and Professional MKII (MKII) each stand alone as individual instruments, each with a flavor distinct from their tonebender bretheren. For example, to my ears, while both are dark and fuller bodied, the 1965 cannot be as clarinet-like smooth as the MKII, the MKII cannot be as ragged-edged as the 1965, and neither can be as thin and bright as the buzzy bee 1966. Therefore, I am assuming that Dave's choice of ending the MKII to begin the Fuzzsound means that the Fuzzsound (MKIII) possesses a uniqueness and that makes it stand alone as an individual instrument, a unique flavor of tonebender. Can it do what none other can? If so, what and to what degree are my main inquiries.

I have heard clips on this forum showcasing MKIIIs from other builders. However, though circuit similarities can beget sonic ones, I do not know to what extent and in what way the upcoming Fuzzsound will sound related.

Thanks!

[Cado]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXzHkDfIfH0
Page is believed to be using a Rotosound MKIII in this clip. Not the greatest recording. It sounds like a Tone Bender but different enough to justify buying a Fuzz Sound, as far as I'm concerned.

[Jazzandmetal?]

I want to know what sonic quality of the Fuzzsound makes it unique among tonebenders.

Of course a clip is worth a thousands words, and in all probability clips will soon descend from D.A.M.'s Holy Mountain, but until then I will be satisfied with verbal schooling from some of our experts here. Here is where I am coming from. To me, the 1965 (Sola Sounds MKI), 1966 ("Vox"), and Professional MKII (MKII) each stand alone as individual instruments, each with a flavor distinct from their tonebender bretheren. For example, to my ears, while both are dark and fuller bodied, the 1965 cannot be as clarinet-like smooth as the MKII, the MKII cannot be as ragged-edged as the 1965, and neither can be as thin and bright as the buzzy bee 1966. Therefore, I am assuming that Dave's choice of ending the MKII to begin the Fuzzsound means that the Fuzzsound (MKIII) possesses a uniqueness and that makes it stand alone as an individual instrument, a unique flavor of tonebender. Can it do what none other can? If so, what and to what degree are my main inquiries.

I have heard clips on this forum showcasing MKIIIs from other builders. However, though circuit similarities can beget sonic ones, I do not know to what extent and in what way the upcoming Fuzzsound will sound related.

Thanks!

I am in the same boat. The pro analog MKIII I had sounded a lot different than the Skin Pimp MKIII I have now.

[Cado]

Taken from the Pro Analog website:

MKIII fuzz... $300.00
A new legend is created, 3 PNP germanium powered fuzz design by Scotty... (click pic for more info)
Video Demo by John McCoy
Video Demo

The PA MKIII is its own thing, I'm not sure about the Skin Pimp.

[Jazzandmetal?]

Taken from the Pro Analog website:

MKIII fuzz... $300.00
A new legend is created, 3 PNP germanium powered fuzz design by Scotty... (click pic for more info)
Video Demo by John McCoy
Video Demo

The PA MKIII is its own thing, I'm not sure about the Skin Pimp.

Gotcha. I remember reading that off his site and hearing some people say it was a cross between and mk1.5 and an mkII or something like that. I am still a little green when it comes to the history of the fuzz.

The Skin Pimp has 3 transistors...but I don't know the specifics...maybe Sickle or Gururyan will chime in.

[Cado]

Keep hangin' aroud here and you'll have a Master's Degree in Fuzz History in no time.

[kb892]

I can't get super technical but I can tell you the MKII circuit is similar to a fuzzface with an extra gain stage feeding it. Kind of an overdriven or booster stacked FF. The MKIII was a "new" circuit in comparison using two transistors in what's known as a Darlington pair configuration which acts like one very high gain device, basically the gain of the two is multiplied... so, you have a different "engine" producing the gain and a different type of fuzz is produced. Doesn't that just tell ya a whole lotta nuthin! I would say from my limited experience that the MKIII sounds more like a fuzz that's moving towards distortion than the fuzz of the MKII and has a more aggressive midrange with it's tone control centered. Rolled to the right it gets real fat and bassy, and rolled left it can be blisteringly trebley. The tone control is similar though not the same as a big muff tone control. My MKIII works better for doing 70's Sabbath than a MKII is a simple way for me to describe it... and I "generally" describe it as an early 70's sound though it was around before then. Another way to describe it is smoother fuzz with a more agressive voice. Lastly these are all just my opinions but even though I have an older DAM MKIII type already, I'm really looking forward to this version based on what Dave said about the Park Fuzz Sound that I believe he used while researching this... could be wrong but still really looking forward to it

[cubba]

I can't get super technical but I can tell you the MKII circuit is similar to a fuzzface with an extra gain stage feeding it. Kind of an overdriven or booster stacked FF. The MKIII was a "new" circuit in comparison using two transistors in what's known as a Darlington pair configuration which acts like one very high gain device, basically the gain of the two is multiplied... so, you have a different "engine" producing the gain and a different type of fuzz is produced. Doesn't that just tell ya a whole lotta nuthin! I would say from my limited experience that the MKIII sounds more like a fuzz that's moving towards distortion than the fuzz of the MKII and has a more aggressive midrange with it's tone control centered. Rolled to the right it gets real fat and bassy, and rolled left it can be blisteringly trebley. The tone control is similar though not the same as a big muff tone control. My MKIII works better for doing 70's Sabbath than a MKII is a simple way for me to describe it... and I "generally" describe it as an early 70's sound though it was around before then. Another way to describe it is smoother fuzz with a more agressive voice. Lastly these are all just my opinions but even though I have an older DAM MKIII type already, I'm really looking forward to this version based on what Dave said about the Park Fuzz Sound that I believe he used while researching this... could be wrong but still really looking forward to it

Excellent description kb.

[JP30]

there I thought that MK3 was nothing more than MK2 with bass-treb control...

I can't wait for the waitng list to open...

[jimi_dylan]

Thanks for the input so far, especially kb. However, what do you and Sickle mean that a fuzz is so high gain that it approaches distortion? I thought that a fuzz is a type of distortion, specifically a distortion with a gain higher than a "distortion" pedal. However, I might be confusing wave amplitude with shape here. Are you guys meaning that the higher output of the Fuzzsound will "distort" the input section of an amp easier than a lower gain chopped wave or something? Maybe I am defining fuzz differently. I do know that it is a wave chopped almost square. However, wave shape and amplitude are not the same, so someone needs to school me. Also, please doctor whatever terms I am misusing.