# Usa, Russian Big Muff, Whats The Difference?



## JimiGuy7 (Jan 10, 2008)

Hi, I am just wonderin, exactly what is the difference between the Russian and USA Big Muffs? I am looking at getting one of the two, but I want to know the differences so I can get my sound, a Jimi type of Fuzz.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

You're about a decade too late. Had this forum been here a decade ago, we would have referred you to former Petawawa/Pembroke kid Jeff Doucette, who was producing a modded Big Muff that he called the Creamer Dreamer. Jeff has since moved on to other lines of work, somewhere in the US I think.

The basic structure of the Big Muff has had two versions: one with op-amps and the other with 4 transistors. The 4-transistor version is VERY similar to the old Supa Tonebender. Since the BMP started coming out, there have been more ever-so-slight variations from Electro-Harmonix than you can count on your fingers and toes and mine together. These have ranged from small component-value changes in the tone network or surrounding the transistors, to changes in the transistors themselves and capacitors determining the quality of the clipping.

I encourage you to take a peek at Ron Neely's website: http://electroharmonix.ronsound.com/
Ron has been extremely diligent in his gathering and explanation of E-H, and particularly Big Muff, history.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2008)

mhammer said:


> You're about a decade too late. Had this forum been here a decade ago, we would have referred you to former Petawawa/Pembroke kid Jeff Doucette, who was producing a modded Big Muff that he called the Creamer Dreamer. Jeff has since moved on to other lines of work, somewhere in the US I think.


I started a Ram's Head build last night and I'm determined to find a way to make it Creamy Dreamer switchable. It's only three paths that I need to short, I was thinking of doing it with a TPDT footswitch. It will rock, I am sure. And going from Ram's Head to Creamy Dreamer will probably tear your head off. :smile:


----------



## kirk1701 (Sep 14, 2007)

There are really only three or four types of Muffs; the rest are refinements of these. 
The first is the 1974 Triangle Muff as used by Dave Gilmour. The knobs are situated in a triangle pattern. The tone is bright, fat, and tight. The lead sounds on Dark Side of the Moon are representative of this sound.
The second is the Ram's Head Muff named for the little EH insignia in the lower right corner of the pedals face. It has a fatter, smoother, and more treble roll off. I like to think of it as the Santana version. 
The third is the black and white label Muff which is the label on the reissue. I own this particular 1977 version. I've read that it is virtually identical to the Ram's Head muff except for perhaps a few refined components. 
Now the Russian version from the eighties is a return to the original Triangle Muff from 74. Gilmour used this pedal for the Pulse tour. 

Originally, Mike Matthews designed the pedal to cop the Hendrix sound. There are rumours that Jimi actually had an early prototype of the Muff. Any of the afore mentioned versions would do just fine. They are highly adjustable from a light, clangy, velcro fuzz all the way to full out Santana saturation.

BYOC makes an inexpensive Triangle copy. The MJM Foxey Fuzz is a nice collision of a Fuzz Face and Muff. Differential Audio Manifestations makes a very expensive, but completely accurate copy. I would not recommend any Muff currently sold by Electro Harmonix. They have a muddy, sludgy tone. I would cruise some used and vintage boards.


----------



## Joey D. (Oct 16, 2006)

Take a lot of what you hear about muff pedals with a grain of salt. There's a lot of hype abound but everything thus far in this thread is spot on, especially about steering clear of the recent re-issues. I highly recommend the BYOC kits (or you can get them pre-built) I prefer the triangle knob version even over my Skreddy Mayo (which to many may seem blasphemy). The ron-sound site should give you all you need to know, also check out 

http://www.gilmourish.com/?page_id=214

:rockon2:


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

One of the virtues of the BMP is also one of its principle sources of confusion. The BMP is a "dual clipper", meaning that it clips/distorts the signal once, then reboosts and clips again. That dual process accounts for the great sustain, since the dynamics of the original input are virtually entirely removed when the sustain control is dimed. The thing is that the tonal quality of the 2nd clipping stage is a function of the tonal spectrum of what you feed it, and the tonal spectrum of *that* is a function of component variations and tolerances. In other words, the dual-clipper aspect is what produces so damn many subtle tonal variations that are simply not captured by "this issue" vs "that issue" comparisons.

So, while there is certainly a kind of common structure to the BMP, and certainly a common category of sound (highly compressed, long violin-ey sustain) that comes from being a dual-clipper, it is a sort of _soup de jour_, subject to a lot of pedal-to-pedal variation. That in itself is not so bad, but the trouble is that people try, or run into, one or two examples of a given issue and draw generalizations about what will be true across ALL pedals of that issue versus ALL pedals of a different issue (which they have also maybe only tried one of). When the nature of the circuit and build delivers a dependably *consistent* tonal outcome, you probably CAN draw generalizations about liking this one or that one from trying out only one example of that design. When the design is iintrinsically subject to so much individual variation, it becomes hard to draw strong inferences from tryng out anything less than dozens of examples from each issue and comparing them en masse. Otherwise, you're into comparisons akin to assuming what is true intellectually of all women and all men from meeting just a couple of each. Clearly there are bigger differences between women, than there are between women and men as groups. There is no doubt in my mind that there are plenty of "Ram's Head" BMPs out there that would make you go " THAT's a Ram's Head?" if you heard them. 

I mentioned the Sola Supa Tonebender in my previous post. I should also mention the Guild Foxy Lady, which was also a progenitor of the BMP, and note that in them days, the lines between Guild and E-H products were kind of fuzzy (pardon the pun) with some of the same folks designing for the one and the other.

During the 70's, E-H was notorious/well-known for using whatever could be purchased cheaply in the way of components. One week it was these trannies and those caps, another week it was those ones. Trannies purchased for this pedal were used for that one. For example, E-H had a "thing" for the 2N5133 transistor, which also has a wide range of hfe/gain values (though not really any wider than many or most other commercial transistors used since then). They used themfor the Big Muff, the Muff Fuzz, and other non-distortion circuits. Grab a fistful of unselected 2N5133s from the bin, throw 'em on a BMP board, run short of 15k resistors so you use some 12ks, run out of the ,004uf caps you got cheap and revert to the nearest common value of .0039uf (also with a wide-enough tolerance), and boom you have an almost entirely different pedal with a different tone. Still with the same compressed sustain that comes from double-clipping, and the same sort of midscoop when the tone control is centred, but a different tonal spectrum.

Over at the DIY Stompbox forum, there are tons of suggested mods for Big Muffs. And I mean TONS, many of them with verified layouts and soundclips. Like I said above, the nature of the circuit is such that little changes here and there, whether deliberate or simply a result of component tolerances, can have a big impact on the resulting tone. Ultimately, tone-hounds are probably best advised to install sockets for a number of key components, and tinker until they find the combination they like. Happily, the overall structure of the circuit has remained essentially unchanged over the years such that the same PCB can be used to make any issue you want, past or future.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

I think we are going a little too highbrow here. Everything said above is true. But I think he just wants to know the difference between the modern day Muff USA and Muff Russia. Has someone tried both that can help him out?

Also, Iaresee I did a creamy dreamer mod to a green russian muff that worked out great. I wish I sketched it out and could give that to you, but yes you are just lifting three resistors that attach to the ground of the first 3 (of 4) silicon transistors. Actually, I did mine with 2. I tried 3 and 2 and could find no difference in tone, just noise levels.


----------



## Joey D. (Oct 16, 2006)

Well said LowWatt

I've had all three current issue muffs at one point or another, Russian, NYC and Little BigMuff.

Current Russian, the most defining characteristic of this model from the others is the amount of gain on tap, very thick but not exactly sustain-y or violin-like which you hear about the triangle, ram's head etc. The most common thing you hear about this pedal is the modern style tone stack, scooped mids with a lot of emphasis on low-end....which is why it sounds awesome on bass.

NYC, not as much gain as the Russian and a lot less focused sounding, a lot of terms like buzz-saw, sludgy, muddy get thrown around .. none of which I'd disagree with. However with some tweaking, keeping the tone knob rolled back and the gain down you can copp some pretty good tones 

LBMP, Falls in between the NYC and Russian, a good balance between the gain and compression makes for a tight smooth sounding fuzz with lots of usable tones. In other words it's easy to get good basic tones, plus, its small, true bypass (doesnt suck your tone on bypass), and tough (aluminum box as opposed to the sheet-metal of the NYC and metal rather than plastic jacks which are found on the Russian) 

Hope that helps, I recommend trying them out in-store but if thats not an option I'd say go for the LBMP its your safest bet that you'll more than likely find some good tones.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2008)

LowWatt said:


> Also, Iaresee I did a creamy dreamer mod to a green russian muff that worked out great. I wish I sketched it out and could give that to you, but yes you are just lifting three resistors that attach to the ground of the first 3 (of 4) silicon transistors. Actually, I did mine with 2. I tried 3 and 2 and could find no difference in tone, just noise levels.


Thanks. I'm cool with what needs to be modded. I just want it to be switchable. That's the tricky bit. I'll try working back from the last gain stage with the jumpering to see when I hit the point where I can't hear a difference any more. I was originally hoping to make it a toggle switch mod, not a foot switch, but a TPDT toggle that's pedal box friendly appears to be a little harder to find than foot switches type switch.


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

the USA muff has more fuzz and is a tad bit harsher sounding.
The Russian muff is a little more laid back and subdued with a darker tone, which is why the bass players seem to love it.

I personally like the russian muff. they are cheap and easy to mod and a great band for your buck!


----------



## Marcel Furlanetto (Sep 14, 2007)

Yup, the american reissue ones are more harsh & the russians are more dark & tight sounding. I have a modded russian big muff for sale (I'm thinking about holding onto it) but if you're in the Hamilton area you could take'er for a test drive & listen to one first hand.


----------



## JimiGuy7 (Jan 10, 2008)

LowWatt, thanks alot for clearing that uo for me. I wanted to know the tonal differences between the 2 and I was'nt exactly getting what I wanted to hear until you cleared it up for me. Thanks again.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

iaresee said:


> Thanks. I'm cool with what needs to be modded. I just want it to be switchable. That's the tricky bit. I'll try working back from the last gain stage with the jumpering to see when I hit the point where I can't hear a difference any more. I was originally hoping to make it a toggle switch mod, not a foot switch, but a TPDT toggle that's pedal box friendly appears to be a little harder to find than foot switches type switch.


I'm not sure who you have in Ottawa, but if you are ever in Toronto there is a computer shop called Honson Computers (going by memory, name might be mispelled) at College and Spadina that has a great collection of pedal parts dirt cheap. 3PDt toggles ($2), BC 108 and 109 silicon transistors ($1), LM 308 chips ($2).

Also keep in mind that it is not a dramatic change. If your original muff's gain goes 0-10, this will send it's range to 2-12. It definitely brings it much more into Skreddy Mayo territory. I sold my Mayo when I realized I was getting a better version of the same sound out of my modded Russian Muff. I sold the Russian when I decided that with a BYOC Muff I could build it exactly as I wanted and probably get something I liked better than both in a much smaller size than the Russian. I'm still waiting for expenses to clear up (broken guitar case, new puppy, bad bridge breaking strings, etc...) so I can buy the BYOC and test that theory.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I've built 3 from the *exact same* schematic, using the *exact same* nominal parts. Every single one sounds different. I am _very_ reluctant to draw strong inferences about this model sounding this way and that one sounding another way.


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

mhammer said:


> I've built 3 from the *exact same* schematic, using the *exact same* nominal parts. Every single one sounds different. I am _very_ reluctant to draw strong inferences about this model sounding this way and that one sounding another way.


If you take a look at the schematics for both the russian and the usa reissue you will see the differences in the circuit. That should help with why they sound different and they do. In general the usa muffs are harsher the russian darker and less harsh. That is what makes these pedals so attractive to modders, slight changes make big differences.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2008)

mhammer said:


> I've built 3 from the *exact same* schematic, using the *exact same* nominal parts. Every single one sounds different. I am _very_ reluctant to draw strong inferences about this model sounding this way and that one sounding another way.


I'm just building #2 now and was hoping this _wasn't_ the case! It's all in the thickness of the solder traces, maybe?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

It's component variation within normal tolerances, plain and simple. Even when the component SAYS the same value, it's often different. Stick an emitter resistor that's 5% higher than nominal value in the first clipping stage with a diode pair that are nonidentical in forward voltage, whether to each other or to a pair in another BMP, and right away you're feeding the second clipping stage with a different signal and evoking different behaviour from that stage. The caps in the tone circuit that determine the location and width of the midscoop have even wider variation than the diodes and resistors used in the clipping stages. It's really like the tonal difference between plugging a Tele with vintage pickups or a LP clone with superoverwound HB pickups into a Fuzz Face and expecting it to sound exactly the same. It won't, because the pedal is being pushed to different degrees by different spectral content, and WILL respond differently in that regard. 

Nine times out of 10, the guys who tell you that this issue sounds this way and that issue sounds that way are drawing mistaken inferences. Let's be clear. I am NOT calling them liars, or idiots. I believe they are *authentically* reporting what they hear VERY clearly, and very fairly. It's the individual variability of the product itself that causes the problem here. The thing is, they rarely get 50 copies of a Ram's head, sample 'em, listen for commonalities, and then do the same thing with a Russian, or other issue. Comparisons are based in isolated examples, to the complete neglect of pedal-to-pedal variation that stems from *normal* component tolerances. It's just one of those designs that works like that. One of the BMPs I built has a nice overdrive sound but nothing I'd call fuzz. Another made with the exact same nominal values and 2N5088 transistors is a raging monster that is difficult to get anything out of that you'd call "overdrive". Unless I told you they were the same, you'd swear they were fundamentally different pedals to try them out, yet it was the identical schematic. 

You can see why I'm difficult to convince about the "consistent" differences between different issues. I have yet to experience consistent performance within the same issue.


----------



## Joey D. (Oct 16, 2006)

Not trying to be argumentative or indeed insulting to your obvious intelligence in the nuts and bolts of what makes a big muff a big muff. That said I think the original poster was trying to get his feet wet so to speak in the world of fuzz pedals. I have no problem with your statements and having owned a few rams head and triangle era muffs I know the tolerance in sound can be astoundingly different but I feel what your saying is applicable to any electric device your sticking your guitar into. For example 2 Marshalls, same year, hell side by side on the line are going to roll out the factory with intrinsic tonal differences but on the whole they're both going to sound like Marshalls. 

Maybe a bad example....? But I think that with modern issue muffs, the pcb boards, factory line assembly etc. there's going to be a common tonal continuity between them. Maybe I'm off base but I've played a few (not 40 but..) modern issue NYC Big Muffs, a few stuck out here and there as being a btt superior but I never found such discrepancy in tolerances to label one over-drive like and and the other on par, with say, a Swollen Pickle. Just throwing my 2 cents into the pot....hopefully the original poster hasn't been scared away from fuzz pedals....there's much fun to be had 

:food-smiley-015:


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

*Nothing* about your posts have been argumentative or insulting, so rest easy. 

Ultimately, I'm just trying to make the original poster's expectations realistic enough that they aren't going to be defeated. In this day and age when so many folks buy their music gear over the net, without actually trying it first, and especially at a time when the net makes so much unsupported mythology the brunt of many beginning musicians' "knowledge" about gear, whether its via H-C forums or even interviews with "big name" stars who know precious little about either their gear or about conveying anything about it articulately, folks need to get themselves "Scotchgarded" against BS and misinformation.

For my part, I welcome any pedal-to-pedal variation as simply another (unintended) tweak that may well serve up its own delights. The BMP is probably not as variable as something like a Fuzz Face, though clearly it is more variable than a Distortion+ or virtually any of the DOD pedals. I would likely agree with you that more recent BMP issues in surface-mount construction form are likely to be more uniform in performance. The problem is with the oldest issues where component variation WAS fairly wide. And that is precisely where all the legends start...as do the "collector" prices.

Is there any role for things like width of PCB traces and such? I really doubt it, when you consider the hfe of the transistors used can historically vary over a range of 250-850 for the same numbered part. 

Much fun to be had? Hey, we're talkin double clippers here. They're all *about* fun!!


----------



## Joey D. (Oct 16, 2006)

Well said. I wish when I was first starting out in the world of pedals that I had someone equally knowledgeable and free of B.S, much like yourself, I would have saved oodles of cash on "supposed" pedals that guarantee "the tone" if you know what I mean. Cheers bro

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Well, I like my USA one. In it's lower settings its very responsive, it doesn't forgive mistakes. Sure, it sounds harsh if I turn the knobs a bit too far to the right, but isn't it supposed to do that?


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Can't say I was too thrilled with my USA BMP re-issue. I found it too dark for my taste. Having said that:



kirk1701 said:


> The first is the 1974 Triangle Muff as used by Dave Gilmour. The knobs are situated in a triangle pattern. The tone is bright, fat, and tight. The lead sounds on Dark Side of the Moon are representative of this sound.
> 
> Now the Russian version from the eighties is a return to the original Triangle Muff from 74. Gilmour used this pedal for the Pulse tour.
> 
> BYOC makes an inexpensive Triangle copy.


Would you say the Triangle era is brighter than the re-issues. If so, would you recommend a Russian Muff or a BYOC clone? I really didn't like how muddy the BMP was. It was fine for single note stuff, but chords sounded terrible through it. Absolutely no note separation, just a mish-mash of sound. Even slightly more complicated solos started to trip over themselves (though that might have been my fault )

I'd like to have a fuzz on my board, but I can't find one I like. I've gone through a Fuzz Factory (too unstable and too over-the-top for me) and a BMP (too muddy) and have concluded that I don't like fuzz. Please help me! I need a new pedal!!! :rockon:


----------



## Joey D. (Oct 16, 2006)

Again merely my opinion or rather my experience with the pedal. A lot of the iconic muff sounds, Gilmour, Santana, some Billy Corgan etc. were used for a really singing lead tone, if your not aiming for that wall of sound in your face tone that you get from playing chords through big muff and you want clear definition go for an overdrive. That said I can't recommend the BYOC muff enough, fairly inexpensive (a pre-built one from Scott at axeandyoushallreceive isn't going to cost you much more than an NYC re-issue) and they sound fantastic. 

:rockon:


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Joey D. said:


> if your not aiming for that wall of sound in your face tone that you get from playing chords through big muff and you want clear definition go for an overdrive. That said I can't recommend the BYOC muff enough, fairly inexpensive (a pre-built one from Scott at axeandyoushallreceive isn't going to cost you much more than an NYC re-issue) and they sound fantastic.:rockon:


It's not that I'm looking for crystal clarity. I realize that with a fuzz you're obviously gonna get fuzz. What I would like is to be able to hear something beyond a muddy, thick noise. It's possible that the re-issue I had was crap, I've heard they are and that some are worse than others, and I'd really like to try another fuzz. The BYOC seems like the way to go. I don't know, maybe fuzz isn't for me, but I'm not willing to admit that just yet.


----------

