ilovefuzz.com

rickenbastard wrote: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmiB6a8Bas4[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmiB6a8Bas4

edit: in addition to this following, rickenbastard

OK, gonna write a little about the Monobius. This was definitely my fav of the box! Which is not to slight any of the others.... Pretty much resigned to getting all the RMAs at this point anyway

For a long time I purposely ignored the Monobius, because I had heard the legend of Polybius and I figured I was just going to hold out for the big boy, so I didn't want to be tempted by the Mono. I know.

Luckily, Chankgeez knew better, so at some point I got to try his and realized the error of my ways Could have saved myself some money going after an Elta Ring Stinger, because Monobius is by far the "dirty" ring mod for me. And I say dirty because it is easy to dial in nasty, raw, edgy, and, yes, always meaty, sounds. But the thing is, I can also dial the Monobius in to sound way cleaner than the Elta, or my belovely Mooseapotamus CA ringmod, or lordgalvar's Wilson Mycellium that I had once for a loverly loan. So, yeah, even before you get to any tricksiness, Monobius has hella range.

I got started with ringmods on the clean end of things with a Randy's Revenge and an MF-102--and I still lurve those for the ease of setting up purty bells and chewy tremolos, and they do have range of their own to get a bit nastier (moreso the Moog), but when I got to try the Moose and Mycellium it opened my ears to another soundworld and then I was hooked.

I snagged the Elta b/c it was a "steal" compared to its regular price, but it was still more than a Monobius I think. And, sadly, its sound just ain't doin' it to my earhole. It lacks the power of the Monobius, doesn't do clean stuff as well, and it's tricksiness doesn't even turn me on or seem deeper than Monobius.

The Monobius in full roar is like an enraged cyber-grizzly set loose in a nature selfie convention room. Full throated clangarwaar. Elta is like one of the conventioneerz' Mom, pissed that he didn't clean his basement room and take out the trash before biking over to the Doubletree on convention Saturday. Grating but toothless.

But, hey, this isn't meant to be a slag Elta or Ring Stinger thang (hell, maybe mine just needs to be calibrated better?) Well, not primarily. Cuz, see, the thing is, I don't really think the Elta is truly bad. It just doesn't come out looking so sweet compared to the RMA. Speaking of which....

So, yeah--there are bells and trems with a bit more 'tude than Randy and his crowd. There are also fuzzrwoar and harsh noise on tap of course--to me it joins the Outer Rings in the upper echelon of ringmod-as-noise-fuzz-in-excelsis, but it won' t leave you in the lurch when you want actual, you know, ringmod sounds.

As for tricksiness--there's more than one way to get complex or chaotic pulses running alongside clang and fuzz, and you get there by exploration. The controls are interactive, and at times surprising. I don't believe this is because of a messy control schema, but rather because of my need to get a better grounding in the circuit and how the ranges and interactions create different effects. In short--I do need more time to get to know Monobius (Chank, can I borrow yours before you send it back to Curtis? )

So, that depth, necessity for exploration, is a feature for me, but I can see why others might prefer more simplicity.... I really think Curtis has hit a sweet spot in terms of number of controls, range and interactivity to bring out as much of the possibilities of the circuit without things getting too bewildering. Also, more time will tell, but I don't think this is a Fuzz Factory scenario, where it's frustrating to re-find your sounds--the three ranges are especially helpful in that regard.

What else? Ah, yes, in true RMA fashion, your bass remains intact

So, kudos on this one--Eris willing, 2019 is going to be a Monobius year for me. Holy shit, just thought: what would a Polybius year be like?

Polybius 2020

Chankgeez wrote:Polybius 2020

That might not be too far from the truth. I've settled in on some design criteria for the Polybius, and true to my fashion, it hinges on aspects that benefit some other build ideas and requires me to learn some new skills. Some of the technology demanded by the Polybius is employed in the current Mudlark, but it'll be a while in the making and ultimately the Polybius and Monobius will occupy two different strata, so one will not obsolete the other. I'm happy to hear the Monobius lived up to to expectation/reputation/whatever-ation.

Moving forward the Monobius has a PCB up-rev, that allows for the Triad TY-250P (+/- 1 db @ 20 to 20 kHz) to be used in lieu of the TY-141P (+/-2 db @ 200 to 15kHz) (the 141 variant is the one on tour, as no 250 variants are in the wild just yet) and does away with supporting the Pacific transformers from 1974 that I was employing as an inductor in the bandpass section, since those are OOP. The TY-250P also has a different secondary configuration to allow for some more hot-rodding angles on the modified units (I've still got the footprint for the TY-141P punched in there for shits and giggles).



Awesome write up Dandolin!

Dandolin wrote:As for tricksiness--there's more than one way to get complex or chaotic pulses running alongside clang and fuzz, and you get there by exploration. The controls are interactive, and at times surprising. I don't believe this is because of a messy control schema, but rather because of my need to get a better grounding in the circuit and how the ranges and interactions create different effects. In short--I do need more time to get to know Monobius

Yeah, I tried (though somewhat ineffectively) to illustrate that there are more than just one swept range between two ends of some of the controls, carrier gain especially has regions along the sweep that revert or morph to another "function" beyond or below a certain point. Once you get a hang of the thresholds it becomes easier to dial yourself out of or into a tail spin. Control messiness plays a part as the two level controls are dual gang, so you're winding up the gain in tandem with the level which can dislodge things. The more knobbed modified variety offers a little more control at the expense of option clutter - I think my favorite single knob modifier is plumbing a feedback control into it which essentially introduces a very potent hallucinogenic stimulant into that cyber-grizzly analogy.

But, it seems the standard Monobius is already outside the range of interest for a lot of people (due to control clutter has been my take-away) so I only soup 'em up by request.

So, good news on all fronts

Awesome write up, Dandolin!

I sent off the tourbox to the next stop on Monday.

Here is a Stone Splitter video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Ft87jD1xE[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Ft87jD1xE

An active guitar and mostly a Yamaha SGV300 (eternal thanks Dandolin!) with 5 string 'cause one broke into stone splitter into beta lead.

EV 667a to Mackie vlz1202 to tascam interface to audacity to imovie to YouTube (no sound editting, post effects, or anything except some level adjustments here and there to keep the volume in the zone).

Stone Splitter is really a lot of fun. Like all RMA that I've tried it's easy to find a ton of great sounds but there is significant depth. Splitting the signal into high and low filters and then dividing each section is such a great idea and it is very well implemented here.

The filters allow tracking and timbre to be tailored to the instrument. The added "rounding" waveshapes really adds some interesting harmonics, a different gain sound, and a different playing experience beyond the basic mixer of the division sections. Even with the octave dialed out, the basic gain/fuzz sound is really useful. The built-in feedback is an added bonus and can mimic some of the old Dirty Doper sounds when patching a feedback loop.

I think the controls are very intuitive and well laid out.

Sounds: I got everything from detuned synth-esque sounds (video around 5:05) to basic octave fuzzes. There are some great osc fuzz arp settings, gated octave fuzzes, non-traditional octave sounds. It's amazing and deep.

I also had a bit of a wild ride with it. My cord I guess went bad about the time I first plugged in and it made some wild feedback. The feedback was still useful and awesome! I could control it with the strings, muting, and my volume. Using an active guitar in front of it (or probably a very basic booster) would make the feedback sections behave a bit different too (first minute of the video is cord problem+active guitar).

I really enjoyed this one and probably spent the most time with it in the tourbox (I already have a ton of RMA in house).

Crustacean Brick
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lR5rBPpD2g[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lR5rBPpD2g
Just crustacean Brick to 3 mixer channels. I was messing with levels and panning on the mixer but audacity was set to "mono" and I didn't realize until later. I kept the video because it shows that there is enough space and dymanic in the noise channels to trigger envelopes (the throbbing tremolo like sound throughout).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuLGKHHTSNQ[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuLGKHHTSNQ
Running the brick through a Flanger and a lpg (with sq-1 doing the opening of the gate). Kinda trying to see how the lpg and Flanger do on the different noise sections in a kind-of buchla style quick noise drum setup. I probably should of used my eurorack because the Tortam is fairly limited and I didn't have full envelopes to mess with (which is my excuse for the boring rhythms haha).

The crustacean Brick is a neat little building block for a larger setup. I think the big crustacean v1.2 I have is more suited to being a processor and performer whereas the brick is a good start point to let other effects do their thing. The brick is elegant and kind of frees me from making constant adjustments so I can focus on something else.

Versus the v1.2, I think the brick is more stable and the low noise section is more full sounding (that could be because I tend to use the mix out on the big one instead of the individual outs).

The sound: the low section is something awesome. It's just so warm and rumbling in its own unique way. The Flanger couldn't really even break through it unless it was self oscillating! The middle/normal noise section is as advertised. The crackle noise works well for other utility things too (like triggering things and in like a comparator to make rhythms*). There is plenty of volume. Phones and my computer speakers really don't do the sound any justice, especially the low noise. When I was playing it live with headphones on, there is a real presence to the sound that is unique.

I think the brick has significantly more character in the sound than the LAL sandstorm or other filtered noise generators. With clever planning, some mixing, and some basic gear it could provide a lot of neat variations, sounds, and a solid base to a pedal/table top setup. I could see using it as a sample and hold source, random trigger generator, base for drum sounds, noise walls.

* I should have done this. I'll get to it on my the v1.2 eventually. Here is an example of what I mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGhYZqh94-Y

V1.2 processing a 0-coast http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-FHYurxhX8

lordgalvar wrote:Versus the v1.2, I think the brick is more stable and the low noise section is more full sounding (that could be because I tend to use the mix out on the big one instead of the individual outs).

The low pass section has always been the tipping point into (non useful) chaos with these, the earlier versions would run away into self oscillation if parts tolerance swung one way or another (I believe it had to do with differences in transistor beta) so I'd have to damp out or restrain stages in the low pass section to keep it from oscillating, and the fixes wouldn't carry over to a new batch of parts so there are numerous renditions of the DIRT section in existence. The current version has a better localized feedback path to keep things stable, and by and large I can maintain a reasonable level of consistency.

Thanks for the feedback!!

Finally uploaded another
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOFtOVlaZY4[/youtube]

rickenbastard wrote:Finally uploaded another
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOFtOVlaZY4[/youtube]

I dig it when you hit a low note and everything vibrates.

That's like all his videos.

I’ve definitely sacrificed a level of my hearing for the sake of accurately demonstrating how stuff sounds at excessive volumes haha there’s no faking what insane sound waves do to a phone camera. These toys get my torture testing seal of approval capable of sonic destruction

Sounds freaking awesome on bass! Always love the camera shake and the weird screen tear/wobble these codecs try to fix.

I tried to show the differences between the older and newer Mudlark.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqgKux9wPQM[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqgKux9wPQM

After 3:59 I don't do any volume adjustments (DAW, amp, elsewhere) when switching between the pedals.

I don't really have anything to say or really add to Dandolin's excellent review.

I still find the actual character of the Mudlark extremely hard to capture for whatever reason. There are nuances and frequencies I've never caught on tape.

The newer one (as said before) is much brighter/open/clear, more gated, and significantly louder. The previous version is darker, less gated, more compressed sounding, and hangs right around or slightly above the incoming signal. I think my older one needs to be hit with a hotter signal to really come to life, but the current version doesn't need it because of the sonic changes.

Both are awesome.

I thought I signed up for this tour box ages ago...maybe?

If so I’m sure it was before I moved...Can you let me know, Curtis?

raj007 wrote:I thought I signed up for this tour box ages ago...maybe?

If so I’m sure it was before I moved...Can you let me know, Curtis?

You did, and your slot is nearing fast on the list.

I'm replying in open forum because I'm sure you're not the only person with this question, seeing as how it took me so long to pull it all together.

The way I'm running the box now is that when it ships, I'll message the (already re-confirmed) destination party the tracking number and ping the next in line regarding continued interest and address confirmation. That way everything is up to date and there's no repeat of an ages long wait where shit can shift around once again.

lordgalvar wrote: I tried to show the differences between the older and newer Mudlark.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqgKux9wPQM[/youtube]

Both are awesome.

Thanks!

The problem I ran into with the first generation of Mudlark was that of falling short of unity gain. I think some of my workarounds were pretty clumsy, which is why that build dropped off the radar for a while.

The circuit path is largely identical between the two, but I selected two stages and designed the circuit board such that I could build either or both as common emitter (higher gain, inverting) or common collector (less than unity gain, non-inverting and with a lower source impedance). The first generation builds had the lower gain/lower impedance stages whereas the current revision employs higher gain in both slots.

One of those slots is in the EQ stage (which I feel isn't as strong as ideal, but that just gives me the excuse to cough up an EQ design at some point), and changing that stage from a non-inverting to an inverting drastically changes a regional feedback loop that is engaged with the right hand switch. So it's largely a pile up of small shifts that has paved way to the difference in behavior between the two.