# Zeppelin Fuzz???



## Vox71 (Mar 25, 2008)

Hey Everybody,

I have never used a Fuzz pedal in my 25 years of playing, but I have been intrigued of late and I am thinking of entering the fray. I have been trying to do a little research on fuzzes, and there are so many schools of thoughts as to which is the direction to go, and with so many products available it seems intimidating.

Here is my question what kind of Fuzz unit is Jimmy Page using in the song "No Quarter". I love that fuzz tone, and would be interested in pursuing it. Cheers.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

He used a tonebender a lot. Closest you'll get is a D*A*M MkII Pro, which will cost you an arm and a leg and both kidneys, and even then you still can't get one. So, your other options are the MJM Britbender or Bob Sweet's ProBender (but for obvious reasons, those are no longer in production), or the Throbak Stonebender.


----------



## Vox71 (Mar 25, 2008)

Thanks for the reply, devnulljp. i was actually looking into one of those BYOC kits... so at least your response brings me a little closer in selecting one.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

Vox71 said:


> Thanks for the reply, devnulljp. i was actually looking into one of those BYOC kits... so at least your response brings me a little closer in selecting one.


The BYOC Tone Bender clone is amazing. Does great Zeppelin tones. Just crank both knobs to 10 and control your level of fuzz from your guitars volume control and let the Zeppelin rip.


----------



## Vox71 (Mar 25, 2008)

Thanks LoWatt. I'll check it out


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Vox71 said:


> Thanks for the reply, devnulljp. i was actually looking into one of those BYOC kits... so at least your response brings me a little closer in selecting one.


I've heard good things about those but haven't tried any yet. I think the tonebender clone is the one you want though. A muff will be too gainy and a fuzzface will sound, well, like a fuzzface.


----------



## Vox71 (Mar 25, 2008)

Awesome, thanks


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I remember when the first Zep album came out. We were all in search of the "Jimmy Page Tonebender". We thought it was a product line, not realizing Colorsound/Sola made it.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

mhammer said:


> I remember when the first Zep album came out. We were all in search of the "Jimmy Page Tonebender". We thought it was a product line, not realizing Colorsound/Sola made it.



They're making reissues now too I see. Haven't heard if they're any good though...
Here's the link: http://www.macaris.co.uk/product_full.asp?productID=176&typeID=27&catID=5
They're £129 GBP == $260ish CAD


----------



## Vox71 (Mar 25, 2008)

I think the price of the BYOC kits looks a lot more appealing to me. I wonder what the difference in sound is-----if any?


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Vox71 said:


> I think the price of the BYOC kits looks a lot more appealing to me. I wonder what the difference in sound is-----if any?


My guess would be the BYOC probably sound more like the original...those are NOS OC75s right? The original used OC81s? DAM is now using AC125s I think. What's that RI using?


----------



## Vox71 (Mar 25, 2008)

I think you are right, devnulljp, but I don't know what the reissue is using


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Vox71 said:


> I think the price of the BYOC kits looks a lot more appealing to me. I wonder what the difference in sound is-----if any?



Based on my experience with kits: not a large enough difference to justify the paying more-- not that I notice one.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The mystique behind NOS transistors is starting to wear off. Part of that wearing off is a result of underinformed and overenthusiastic E-bay vendors pawning off large quantities transistors which are not up to spec, and leaky, even occasionally misnumbered. The long and the short of it is just because it is NOS doesn't necessarily mean its good. Remember, it could be NOS because somebody didn't want it in the first place.

Having said that, if you know what you're looking for in the target device in terms of its optimal characteristics, there is no reason why you can't find an acceptable substitute in currently available components. It may need a circuit tweak elsewhere with a passive component value, but big deal; if you get the desired sound, that's enough.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

mhammer said:


> The long and the short of it is just because it is NOS doesn't necessarily mean its good. Remember, it could be NOS because somebody didn't want it in the first place.


This is a good rule to keep in mind about all things vintage. I've told many a friend "a lot of the time the cleanest vintage guitars never got played for a very good reason. Your ears should always be the judge"


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

mhammer said:


> The mystique behind NOS transistors is starting to wear off. Part of that wearing off is a result of underinformed and overenthusiastic E-bay vendors pawning off large quantities transistors which are not up to spec, and leaky, even occasionally misnumbered. The long and the short of it is just because it is NOS doesn't necessarily mean its good. Remember, it could be NOS because somebody didn't want it in the first place.
> 
> Having said that, if you know what you're looking for in the target device in terms of its optimal characteristics, there is no reason why you can't find an acceptable substitute in currently available components. It may need a circuit tweak elsewhere with a passive component value, but big deal; if you get the desired sound, that's enough.


Yes, thanks for clarifying - that's pretty much what Dave Maine (of DAM) said, which is why he's using the AC125s now. And Analog Mike said something like 30% usable trannies out of a box if NOS ones is good (I think?).
The BYOC guys are checking all the gear first though right? They have good rep...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I think most builders have a motive to do pretesting of components over handling customer complaints. The question is the exhaustiveness of the pretest, both in terms of what gets done to each component, and in terms of what percentage of them get tested. It is easy to imagine that some test every component, and some do a spot check for quality control.

When the components are new and unselected off the assembly line, a QC spot-check of one in 10 may well be sufficient, but if the NOS is essentially a compendium of the dregs from this distributor and that which you bought up in lots like remnants, that sort of a spot-check may well not be stringent enough.

I know from a lengthy telephone conversation with him that Steve Daniels at Small Bear tests all of his NOS stuff. As noted above, he sees it as more expedient to have a Memory Man or Tonebender on standby, and plug in each and every MN3005 or Mullard ge tranny and verify that it works, as opposed to fielding the e-mail from people who are displeased. It's tedious, but less tedious than the alternative. Happily, it's also the sort of thing you can do while seated watching a sporting event on the tube.:smile:

Of course, in Steve's case, he's selling NOS components with identified purposes, so all he really needs to do istest them in the target device. In other cases, where the end-use is unspecified, the way you pretest may need to be more comprehensive so as to verify that the device will meet any of the specs it is supposed to meet and work wherever you stick it (within reason).


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

So, here's a dumb question...if you were to grab a couple of those NOS trannies and throw them into say a 90s Dunlop fuzzface, which sounded dreadful, would it make much difference or would you have to replace everything in there and basically just keep the shell?


----------



## soma89 (May 22, 2007)

I thought page used the Supa Fuzz for all his fuzz tones.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

soma89 said:


> I thought page used the Supa Fuzz for all his fuzz tones.


I think the supa fuzz is a marshall-branded Sola Sound Supa Fuzz, which was based on a Tonebender MkII with three OC75s.
The guys on the D*A*M forum seem to know all the ins and outs of every generation of these things...

EDIT: I found the thread on the DAM forum: http://stompboxes.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=532










EDIT: Another interesting thread with great pics up on the DAM board.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

mhammer said:


> The mystique behind NOS transistors is starting to wear off. Part of that wearing off is a result of underinformed and overenthusiastic E-bay vendors pawning off large quantities transistors which are not up to spec, and leaky, even occasionally misnumbered. The long and the short of it is just because it is NOS doesn't necessarily mean its good. Remember, it could be NOS because somebody didn't want it in the first place.
> 
> Having said that, if you know what you're looking for in the target device in terms of its optimal characteristics, there is no reason why you can't find an acceptable substitute in currently available components. It may need a circuit tweak elsewhere with a passive component value, but big deal; if you get the desired sound, that's enough.


:food-smiley-004: you can also buy a few 1970's transistor radios from flea markets and the like for a couple bucks (or cheaper). They often used the same transistors in them  and a little crafty de-soldering and you have .... well at least working original parts.


----------

