Nastier than a Fender Blender?
- øøøøøøø
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 5984
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:26 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
Re: Nastier than a Fender Blender?
This is what crossover distortion would look like on an oscilloscope when failing to reproduce a sine wave:
Note that the peaks aren't clipped... there's a "kink" in the middle of the waveform at the zero crossing as the positive-phase amplifying device hits cutoff before the negative-phase device is ready to take over.
This does sound like distortion, but doesn't sound exactly like clipping (the distribution of harmonics is different, with predominant third harmonic).
Note that the peaks aren't clipped... there's a "kink" in the middle of the waveform at the zero crossing as the positive-phase amplifying device hits cutoff before the negative-phase device is ready to take over.
This does sound like distortion, but doesn't sound exactly like clipping (the distribution of harmonics is different, with predominant third harmonic).
- mcatano
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 324
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:01 pm
Re: Nastier than a Fender Blender?
IIRC, the zvex machine is based on crossover distortion.
- mcatano
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 324
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:01 pm
Re: Nastier than a Fender Blender?
(it is a truly disgusting sounding pedal)
- øøøøøøø
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 5984
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:26 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
Re: Nastier than a Fender Blender?
Yes, we had a long conversation about that one just above
- doctor_capleson
- PAT PEND
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:49 pm
- Location: Minnesota, US
Re: Nastier than a Fender Blender?
I bought when while in university in 2005, and it was definitely NOT a vintage unit. I don't know specifics, but anecdotally I have reason to believe that there was a run of reissues sometime prior to the 2008 batch.Zork wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 2:31 pmAccording to Fender they were reissued in 2008: https://www.fender.com/articles/gear/vi ... 950s-1980s
I'm pretty sure I bought mine in 2007, though, in a second hand guitar shop in Berlin and the owner told me it was from the 90s but what do I know? This guy used to stretch the truth quite a bit now and then, though. So, it's a Fender Blender reissue. The one with the green PCB that needs to be modded to be loud enough.
- JSett
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 8804
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:33 pm
- Location: Old Hampshire, Old England
Re: Nastier than a Fender Blender?
I've had a 90s Fender Blender I'm pretty sure. There's been two reissues at least...one with a volume drop and one without
I seem to remember the fix for the volume drop was pretty easy, but it was a long long time ago
The most recent reissue was 2005-2010 (I believe)
I seem to remember the fix for the volume drop was pretty easy, but it was a long long time ago
The most recent reissue was 2005-2010 (I believe)
Silly Rabbit, don't you know scooped mids are for kids?
- MrShake
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 1201
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:51 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Re: Nastier than a Fender Blender?
Love it, I had no idea about the earlier reissue, probably because of the fuzz-drenched grunge years.
In case anyone's ever looking for it, somewhere on OSG there are instrux for the volume mod I did to mine about 10 years ago. Snip 2 resistors, replace one with a wire jumper, and swap two wires on the boost switch poles. Turned it from anemic to annihilation.
I still don't have another fuzz that tops it for its raw roar on Tone Boost mode. Don't know if I've ever even heard a fuzz that does.
In case anyone's ever looking for it, somewhere on OSG there are instrux for the volume mod I did to mine about 10 years ago. Snip 2 resistors, replace one with a wire jumper, and swap two wires on the boost switch poles. Turned it from anemic to annihilation.
I still don't have another fuzz that tops it for its raw roar on Tone Boost mode. Don't know if I've ever even heard a fuzz that does.
- fuzzjunkie
- Expat
- Posts: 7280
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:32 am
- Location: Seattle
Re: Nastier than a Fender Blender?
Came across this over the weekend:
4 Knob Blender
The Fender Blender appears to have landed in either 1968 or 1969.
The circuit is the earliest example I have seen of its type of octave up topology. The octave stage consists of a transistor splitter followed by diode rectifiers which are recombined for a full wave rectification effect.
This is similar to the 1967 Roger Mayer Octavia, except that the fragile and expensive transformer has been replaced by a transistor. When Roger Mayer did his first wide release of the Octavia in the late '70s, the transformer replaced with a transistor, like the Blender design.
Similarities to other designs
The Blender may or may not have also found inspiration from the Superfuzz. The Superfuzz was available as early as 1967 in the form of the Honey Baby Crying and other Fumio Mieda designed fuzzes. These pedals shipped with the schematic pasted right inside the chassis. The Superfuzz topology uses transistors as the rectifying elements (instead of regular diodes), but the transistor splitter, diode clipping stage, and switchable tone control are all very similar (Blender has a footswitch tone, Superfuzz has a slide switch tone).
The Ampeg Scrambler began its very short run in 1969. The "Blend" function is shared between the two. I like to think that the "Scrambler" name was an industry inside joke to answer Fender's "Blender" name. The Scrambler's odd circuit appears to have begun as transformerless ring modulator, but then ditched half the ring.
About 1971 the Foxx Tone Machine appeared. This pedal is very similar to the Blender, except the tone switch has been replaced with an octave switch. The octave switch is pretty clever and thus the Tone Machine distinguishes itself apart from the Blender. The Tone Machine also ditched the Blend control. The Tone Machine's overall circuit is quite similar to the Blender, but different enough to suggest that it is an original design.
4 Knob Blender
The Fender Blender appears to have landed in either 1968 or 1969.
The circuit is the earliest example I have seen of its type of octave up topology. The octave stage consists of a transistor splitter followed by diode rectifiers which are recombined for a full wave rectification effect.
This is similar to the 1967 Roger Mayer Octavia, except that the fragile and expensive transformer has been replaced by a transistor. When Roger Mayer did his first wide release of the Octavia in the late '70s, the transformer replaced with a transistor, like the Blender design.
Similarities to other designs
The Blender may or may not have also found inspiration from the Superfuzz. The Superfuzz was available as early as 1967 in the form of the Honey Baby Crying and other Fumio Mieda designed fuzzes. These pedals shipped with the schematic pasted right inside the chassis. The Superfuzz topology uses transistors as the rectifying elements (instead of regular diodes), but the transistor splitter, diode clipping stage, and switchable tone control are all very similar (Blender has a footswitch tone, Superfuzz has a slide switch tone).
The Ampeg Scrambler began its very short run in 1969. The "Blend" function is shared between the two. I like to think that the "Scrambler" name was an industry inside joke to answer Fender's "Blender" name. The Scrambler's odd circuit appears to have begun as transformerless ring modulator, but then ditched half the ring.
About 1971 the Foxx Tone Machine appeared. This pedal is very similar to the Blender, except the tone switch has been replaced with an octave switch. The octave switch is pretty clever and thus the Tone Machine distinguishes itself apart from the Blender. The Tone Machine also ditched the Blend control. The Tone Machine's overall circuit is quite similar to the Blender, but different enough to suggest that it is an original design.