The Protoboard Chronicles - 2001: A Fuzz Odyssey/The Fuzz

What if before exporting you group the entire thing, text and graphic, then export?
Not sure that will work because you will still have all of the elements of the image but with text over top. AI gives you an error if you have overlying paths from graphics but not from text. Having the offset space around the text also helps to make it stand out a little better. I am sure there will be something that lets you do this in your software. When I do it with AI, I create an outline of the text, then an offset path, then select both the offset and the image and use the pathfinder trim tool. (Corel will probably have something similar with a totally different name.)

For some reason it actually groups the offset of the text into the image objects and then I have to go in and delete the offset bits from within the image. It is all a bit tedious...
 
Not sure that will work because you will still have all of the elements of the image but with text over top. AI gives you an error if you have overlying paths from graphics but not from text. Having the offset space around the text also helps to make it stand out a little better. I am sure there will be something that lets you do this in your software. When I do it with AI, I create an outline of the text, then an offset path, then select both the offset and the image and use the pathfinder trim tool. (Corel will probably have something similar with a totally different name.)

For some reason it actually groups the offset of the text into the image objects and then I have to go in and delete the offset bits from within the image. It is all a bit tedious...

I’ll take a look tomorrow. Thanks for the tip!
 
@Preverb

So if I’m understanding this correctly, and it does ring a bell from when @SYLV9ST9R was helping me with my Fuzz Face graphics, anything that is not part of the grouped main graphic has to have a cutout of its shape made in the main body of the graphic.

For instance, the HAL 9000 “eye” where my LED will be and my text:

778A6192-9B02-4F84-95CB-44278DA2A5C3.jpeg
 
@Preverb

So if I’m understanding this correctly, and it does ring a bell from when @SYLV9ST9R was helping me with my Fuzz Face graphics, anything that is not part of the grouped main graphic has to have a cutout of its shape made in the main body of the graphic.
Yes, that's how I understand it. You can't have any overlapping graphics or text. Even the image itself is broken up into several separate components which do not overlap. I just received my first batch of UV printed enclosures a few minutes ago. They turned out pretty good. One has a vector image of my cat that has a decent amount of detail. It gives me an idea of what I can do now.
 
Yes, that's how I understand it. You can't have any overlapping graphics or text. Even the image itself is broken up into several separate components which do not overlap. I just received my first batch of UV printed enclosures a few minutes ago. They turned out pretty good. One has a vector image of my cat that has a decent amount of detail. It gives me an idea of what I can do now.

I did it on my Fuzz Face file so I know I can do it again. I’ll just need to write it down until I have the process memorized.

Part of being the only guy using Corel here is that the function and tool terms are not the same. So it’s a learning curve.
 
I think most people are using Affinity or other software. I started to learn that stuff but it seemed to be a headache. I don't think any of these programs are easy to use out of the box. I've already learned lots of tips from people here.

I think my concerns about fine detail are addressed. This is a pic of my cat that I converted to an svg image. It was fairly large and I resized it down to this. I think I used the autotracer site so it would have been even better detail with AI. No gloss.
 

Attachments

  • 00000001).jpg
    00000001).jpg
    466.6 KB · Views: 9
You can't have text just printed over top of a graphic. (Nothing can overlap). So you need to cut out a space in the graphic for your text. In Illustrator, you first need to create 0.5-1mm offset around your text and then use another tool to delete that space from the graphic. (Example below). @SYLV9ST9R helped me figure out how to use AI to do this. I am not sure what the equivalent tool would be in Corel. These graphics programs are far from intuitive! I have been wasting lots of time on it since I still don't have my PCBs.

View attachment 18675
You can just cut out the text from the underlaying image without an offset "border". I just find that with busy graphics, the negative space helps to make the labels more legible. It's a case of what works better for you.
 
You can just cut out the text from the underlaying image without an offset "border". I just find that with busy graphics, the negative space helps to make the labels more legible. It's a case of what works better for you.

In my case I think the yellow against the darker colors should be enough. I just need to remember how to do the cutouts in Corel.
 
Ok. So this morning I figured out how to use the Back Minus Front tool in Corel so the cutouts are easy peasy. Now I am just going to have to learn the Contour tool for the text.
 
Not sure if you sorted out your RF issue, but a small value ceramic cap between power and ground in close proximity to the offending transistor can sometimes help a lot. Also a 100N mlcc in the power filtering in addition to whatever large value electrolytic. You might not need it when it's boxed but those things tend to help me out on the breadboard.
 
Not sure if you sorted out your RF issue, but a small value ceramic cap between power and ground in close proximity to the offending transistor can sometimes help a lot. Also a 100N mlcc in the power filtering in addition to whatever large value electrolytic. You might not need it when it's boxed but those things tend to help me out on the breadboard.

I was talking about my boxed up circuits. I think my general geographic area is more prone to RF anyway.

I've tried it all. I've found the best solution to be a cap across the feedback resistor and even that does not always do the trick.

I usually use caps across B-C on all transistors, a cap across the feedback resistor and bit of series resistance in the form of turning my pre-gain controls down. That pretty much squelches all oscillation and RF. Then you just have to tweak capacitors and stage gains to get back any frequency and signal loss.

Also, I do use MLCC caps in the power section as well and shielded wire.

One draw of the first stage of the Lunar Module that is enticing (among others, particularly faux MK II tones) is it seems to also help with RF.
 
So, I made some changes to the front panel layout:

1637268522329.png

The great back and forth we had today on Si vs. Ge, along with some of the testing I am already doing, has moved in a more definite and scaled down direction.

I really love some of the piece parts of the Skreddy designs. A few of the design choices there are huge. I think the base design will be a modified Silicon MK II Tonebender with a similar control set to the Lunar Module, especially the Presence/Brite control. There will be internal blend trims for some of the caps for easily adapting some of the frequency shaping from Single Coils to HBs.

I'm going to go with a more traditional blend control for the input caps ala the Easy Face. I'm going to expand the range of the Range control for more sweep from closer to 0 dB to the stock Lunar Module gain. Q1 and Q3 will have external bias controls. The ranges will basically allow a nice wide sweep for both of them to mimic MK II, 1.5 and Fuzz Face tones.

Q3 will be switchable to Germanium. There will be a Pre-Gain control in series with a small limiting resistor on the input. Also, there will be internal blend trimmers for the Range and Fuzz capacitors to alter the frequency response there.
 
Not sure @thewintersoldier or @Harry Klippton need any more ammo, but i'm going to lay out my revised design goals for this project.

Disclaimer: Testing may root out useless stuff here and may affirm some of it as well. My desire is not a "Kitchen Sink" for the sake of it type pedal. Initial breadboarding has proved that most, if not all of this is actually useful.

1638278548672.png

Keep in mind my goal is is as follows:

1.) Save board space by providing fairly intuitive controls for going, convincingly, between a few different types of "Refined" fuzzes (MK II/Supa/1.5/Fuzz Face)

2.) Keep Secondary controls for Bias in a prescribed range

3.) Offer a Si/Ge switch for Q3 (the moneymaker)

Section I: Primary Control Set

The main control set borrows from the Skreddy Trio. I've eliminated the Sharpness/Tightness/Body control in favor of a more standard Blend Control ("Color In") at the Input cap. Range has been reworked. My potato math yielded approximately 12 dB-32 dB boost from Q1 across the sweep of the Range knob. I revised it to provide about 0 dB-20dB. Everything else is pretty standard. Level and Fuzz are no-brainers and the Brite/Brilliance/Presence ("Color Out") control is maintained but with and internal DIP switch for selecting the cap.

Section II: Secondary Control Set

Here's where everyone will set phasers to kill....;)

This is not completely set in stone yet. It is subject to change because if a control is not useful on the top-side, there is no reason to have it there.

My goal with the secondary control set is for it to function as a way to switch between the basic characteristics of 4 circuits:

1.) Tonebender MK II
2.) Marshall branded Supafuzz
3.) Tonebender MK 1.5
4.) Fuzz Face

Section III: Tertiary Control Set

These are internal and based solely around setting caps in the "Range", "Fuzz" and "Color Out" circuits. These are basically set and forget but also can be tweaked per the goals of Section II.
 
Honestly, cramming all that in a 125b and wiring switches and jacks would be a nightmare. Also stepping on the foot switch and not hitting knobs would also be difficult. I would opt for a larger enclosure. A 1590bb would make more sense and is still a better option than 2 pedals. I would rather have two pedals if I was going from one total extreme to another but that's me. It would take alot of time to change all the parameters to go from one to the other. In the end I would rather just choose one fuzz than have to mess with 10 knobs. I'm more a set and forget person, but you do you Derek.

I hear you. This also isn't final. This is not at the stage where I'm boxing it up next week. Some of these controls could get chopped, etc. The secondary controls will be using these:


Placement is not final either, as I am not keen on having things close to the stomp switch either.
 
I'm also firmly in the camp of love fuzz but I'm not committed to it either. I can get my sound with any number of devices and at the end of the day I like fuzz for just riffing and find that a more refined articulate sound is really what suites my style best.

You actually sum it up perfectly.

What you say also is a bit of a driving force behind me doing this.

Full disclosure: I've never fully bonded with one Fuzz by itself. They all have something that leaves me thinking, "I wish it did more of this..." or "I wish it did less of that..."

Part of the appeal I think of this project for me is that it is not an attempt to be one pedal that exactly recreates 5 others, but rather it should let me dial in a MK II type tone with "A little more of this..." and "A little less of that...", etc.

There are a lot of controls in the rough draft but they only stay if they are useful and intuitive.
 
Back
Top