Vintage Vs Modern Fuzz face Pedals... is there a difference?

[@davidpreston9685]

I had a 68 Dallas Arbiter fuzz face, (stolen by Phil Enright in Etobicoke Ontario) and the best setting I found was full volume, zero fuzz through a tube amp. Overdrove the pre amp section and was glorious! Phil, I want my pedal back!

[@marksvideochannel3592]

Come on Phil, Fess up!! :)

[@jacobthebatchbandit3092]

Funny if I ever hear of that guy I’ll give him shit for that 😂

[@sepherus]

It sounds like one just needs to be biased a little to get pretty close to the other.

[@CorbCorbin]

GCKelloch Oops

[@javiceres]

Right.

[@javiceres]

notmyrealname Yes

[@RobertNolan]

I was going to say this as well, a bias is probably needed and we're talking about something that's 50 years years old vs maybe 10 years old? If it's been played even have as to shit as it looks, it may have some worn in or fading components. That is to say, setting aside tolerance and measurements of modern components in pedal building of today's grade.

[@trentkraemer7109]

@@RobertNolan I’ve got a silicone fuzz face mini but I much prefer the vintage’s tone in this video. How do you think I could rapidly age my pedal to get that sound lol

[@travislee9662]

The first time I plugged into my JH fuzz I was picking up a spanish radio religious station. I joke that the first time I plugged in I heard "the voice of God” lol

[@neoaureus]

Hahah…that’s the funniest tone joke ever

[@will2181]

The other guitarist in my band is constantly picking up radio stations whenever he uses his fuzz face 😅

[@will2181]

Did you find a way to stop your fuzz face from picking up radio stations?

[@letmeooze]

I preferred the old one, but I know it would disappear in a mix. On its own I'd get lost in it for hours.

[@jppagetoo]

It's good to see Travis back! I like the vintage unit. It sounds "violent." In a band mix the new unit would be better to stay out of the low end area and be heard. That sound of the vintage unit would be killer in the studio where you could move it around a bit with some EQ.

[@kevinklotz9398]

I'd take the reissue all day long.

[@Shamilt3]

Me too

[@funkadelic1967]

And me.

[@curtrod]

me three

[@yourguitarist]

I'm with you Kevin... even the way it cleans up is better.

[@hearpalhere]

Cool, seems like there are a lot of us that prefer that one :-)

[@al6667]

I love that vintage unit, way more sputtery breakup so ballsy. They should definitely sound more similar a fuzz face should be a benchmark sound.

[@bluesrocker137]

I'm shocked to say it, but the reissue sounds night and day better.

[@taylorshattler]

I find it brighter and more compressed. But the vintage fuzz breaks up more has more low end so I guess it all depends on preference. Personally I like the sound of the vintage one more.

[@Davidmichael210]

The vintage for sure when you got on Marshall it had that crackling ripping fuzz effect like hendrix at Isle of Wight very nice

[@tomfoolery2082]

I had 1 of the dallas arbiters in 73,74 ,the germaniums must of been havin a bad day again or it couldve been an operator problem, so it went sailin into a cornfield. After a couple years wish id kept it, probably too late now i bet.

[@Esquire-ul9xs]

Which cornfield? Asking for a friend...

[@adamlucas5451]

That bypass tone was incredible with the Marshall!

[@marcospintor1333]

They sound really different. The old one is really nasty and kinda cool actually

[@theWARMJET]

much more abrasive and real

[@Sir_Peppers]

Hella nasty but girthy

[@reinotsurugi]

@@Sir_Peppers Just like me.

[@D91Mart]

They sound so different they both sound good, but the old one sounds way better in my opinion. Please make a reissue that sounds identical to the old one the old one sounds soooooo good 😍😍😍

[@johnballantyne3458]

Travis! Good to see you again. Great video. The vintage one is awesome and has serious mojo, but the reissue sounds like the one to take out gigging.

[@chrisnagy1429]

Excellent videos. Thanks. I prefer the vintage by far. It just has that low-end swagger and some mean high note fuzz buzz. Loved it. This is the best video I have seen yet from Wampler. Keep em coming..

[@javiceres]

The main difference is they are biased differently. Period. They can sound a lot closer to each other with a simple internal tweak.

[@evilgiraffe]

Exactly!

[@cracken77able]

How?

[@javiceres]

@@cracken77able Adjusting the bias

[@Bob-Sacamano314]

@@javiceres then how come ur not pumpin out 1:1 reissues ?

[@heggy_69]

@@Bob-Sacamano314 1:1 with what? Take 10 vintage fuzz faces and you're most likely going to get 10 different sounding pedals

[@gordrock]

Really great comparison. Definitely preferred the reissue myself. Odd.

[@billtice5057]

The BC108 transistor makes for the greatest Fuzz sound of them all. A Wampler Tumnus Deluxe before a MXR BC108 Classic Fuzz is a beautiful thing to behold.

[@bushibayushi]

Excellent video, please make more of these "old vs new" :).

[@FLORIDAERO]

Both are real nice. I thought I was sold on the original. But the re issue had it's moments. Thanks.

[@HansBaumeister]

It would be great to hear about the similarity (or lack thereof) of the circuits - after all, just because they use the same transistor doesn’t mean all that much. Also, one of the main issues with vintage computers should play a role here as well: the degradation of electrolytic capacitors. A device from the 70’s will not sound today as it did when it was new, probably not even close.

[@TheErilaz]

Very possible.

[@josiahlee1982]

True but also the tolerances on the parts weren’t as tight as today’s standards either. Caps were leakier and resistor, transistor, and cap tolerances were 10%+ sometimes.

[@SilentJayBird]

My experience with vintage is more home stereo/music-based, and I agree with both opinions here.

[@lonewolf5973]

The old one hands down✌

[@BenBollinger]

I like the reissue way more in the clean amp but both were awesome in the dirty one.

[@TonyHookedonVanlife]

The older one, while slightly quieter, was more wooly-sounding & unruly, which I dig! The newer one sounded 'cleaner', so I guess it just depends on how Fuzzy you want your Face... 😂 (see what I did there? LOL)

[@MiguelBaptista1981]

I really like the old one, for different reasons. One is Dr. Jeckyll , the other is Mr. Hyde. The biggest difference I can see is really on the bias. Just put an old dying 9v battery on the new one and you'll reach the same kind of sound.

[@TonyHookedonVanlife]

@@MiguelBaptista1981 have you heard/tried the Hoof fuzz from Earthquaker Devices? Holy lord, it's wicked cool!!

[@sepherus]

Also, vintage units are all over the place in sound and quality, even the silicon ones.

[@JobyP]

Is Travis back? The reissue sounds great the original sounds incredible!

[@JobyP]

Edit: it just sounds like Travis is trying to tame the untamable pony... I dig that sound!

[@brittisaacrossman]

I agree with Travis, both sound good but different, and could serve varied purposes. Sounds like the vintage one is biased a bit off? Gain is higher for low freq's, but that spitting in the top end sounds a bit more broken than it should. Still a great sound! @Brian and Travis, thanks for the neat demo!

[@mrshatters]

Thank you for not making us guess which one was vintage this time.

[@michaelwade379]

I would say that day to day I would probably get more use out of the reissue but would love to have the vintage for certain situations (especially through that dirty Marshall). Frankly they both sound great.

[@carloslunetta]

You play so well that it doesn't matter

[@betterinsodapop]

People are so biased toward liking the older, rarer gear. Confirmation bias in full effect.

[@letmeooze]

It goes both ways. There's a lot of people that also disregard older, rarer gear just because it's old and rare.

[@davidjameschamberlain]

It is a bias thing, but it's the transistor biasing.

[@CLaw-tb5gg]

Or maybe they just like it? I'd far rather like the new stuff as it's so much cheaper. In this instance the vintage one just sounds explosive and insane whereas the new one sounds much more polished and well-behaved and.. boring.

[@JohnMichaelBurns]

The old one sounds amazing to my ears. I love behringer pedals so I have no boutique/vintage bias to speak of.

[@GunsNRoosendael]

the intro part was blind and the one i liked more turned out to be the vintage... old gear often got cheap and irregular caps which makes each unit unique, so it's a bit of a treasure hunt

[@fishypaw]

From what I've read/heard the old germanium Fuzz Faces varied so much that Jimi bought many to find the one(s) he loved, and then switched to the silicon ones because they were more consistent. It makes me wonder how much variance there is between the silicon ones, even the new ones. Next test, buy several or a couple of new silicon ones and compare. Also although I do love my Fuzz Face the thing that annoys me a bit is that it's such a BIG pedal. I know that they do the mini ones with allegedly the same circuitry but from comparison videos I've seen there is often a noticeable difference between the regular and mini ones too. I'm even tempted to transfer the circuitry of the one I have to a smaller pedal box but at the same time I do love the look of the old Fuzz Face enclosure. Ho hum, so many decisions and choices. P.S. Just thought, did you test or use brand new batteries in both? I'm sure you know that the Fuzz Faces sound changes as the battery "dies".

[@wampler_pedals]

We used batteries, two brand new ones measuring the same voltage

[@fishypaw]

@@wampler_pedals I guessed it would be the kind of thing that you'd check, but I had to ask. :)

[@PhilHeesen]

I was wondering the same thing regarding the batteries. The vintage sounded like the battery was on its way out. Thanks for clearing that up, Brian!

[@shoegazeforever8810]

I thought so too but Roger Mayer told me that Jimi switched to silicon Fuzz Faces because they were more readily available. Choices were very limited in the 1960s. Today we are overwhelmed by choice.

[@TheChadPad]

Shoegaze forever ....you talked with Roger Mayer. You lucky bastard

[@sbklein]

A Dallas Music Industries Fuzz is NOT what typically is considered to be the progeny of the 1966 Arbiter Fuzz Face. Even in the early 1970s, the fuzz face lineage traced to Arbiter. The components of the Arbiter and Dallas Music version differ considerably (btw: an early 70's Dallas Music FF will cost 1/4 of the [admittedly insane] price of an early 70s Arbiter FF).

[@DaviTrombela84]

Sure, but the modern Dunlop model he is comparing to is based on the Silicon transistors version, not on the earlier Germanium ones.

[@jpnoll1781]

ok, from a technicians viewpoint, I see (hear?) several things that make up the difference 1) Possibly Germanium VS Silicon Transistors. 2) The original probably needs new capacitors because they are old. 3) Also in the old one, transistor "regrowth". All of these things can affect the sound. AND, not to mention, the company (Dunlap) "may have" made circuit design changes as well. The only way to compare is to ALSO examine the circuit and its components. Personally, I like the reissue better, it has better tone while also getting that gritty sound w/o all the nasty "break-up". IMHO

[@ebiddy4276]

How much of the sound difference can be attributed to the difference in drift of values due to the age of the capacitors in the circuit?

[@SunflowerandFriends]

E Biddy a lot. Careful bias measuring and testing of the caps (and drifting resistors as well) can be measured and in most cases be recreated. The trick is having an example to examine first, otherwise it’s all a matter of experimenting until it sounds the way someone wants which can be a very complex/time consuming process.

[@kj4ilk]

when you turn the volume down its not competition the original may be softer but it produces that classic tone the reissue sounds like its not even on its like its not even hooked in line its so bright clear and chimey

[@rikmcrae]

I preferred the sound of the reissue. Does it make a difference that the reissue was first in the chain, going into the vintage unit?

[@stratochuck69]

Rik McRae I was thinking the same thing about the signal chain and order. Maybe should have not had them hooked together or and a/b box

[@iagobroxado]

Prolly not since there are no buffers.

[@hendrix1175]

I like them both!

[@FLORIDAERO]

Great shirt.

[@juddalexander5642]

Ok so they do sound different, and both sound great. Now ... the nerd in me wants to know exactly why they sound different. I know part tolerance is going to be a big part of it....but curious if Brian can analyze the old one and come up with an explanation of what is going on differently between to two. Are the part values exactly the same or does the reissue have slightly different values to intentionally tighten it up? Is it difference in transistor leakage/gain, perhaps another quality or capacitor value allowing more bass through to make the old one bloom and be a little ‘fartier’? :-) Killer vid.

[@simplecircuit]

I totally agree. Is there something different going on in the circuit other than variations in tolerance? Totally different sounds, and I actually like the re-issue better. However, I know that my old MacBook speakers aren't doing either one much justice.

[@PFDarkside]

On the old ones they grabbed two of the next transistors and soldered them in along with the next resistors and caps in the bin. The gain of the two transistors is incredibly important to the sound of the Fuzz Face. On the new boutique ones (and probably the signature Dunlop ones) they sort for the gain range they want on each transistor to get the tone they want. Old ones varied all over the place, new ones are actually pretty consistent now. Brian could easily measure the gain, resistance and capacitance of each of the components and clone that fuzz if he wanted to. The funny thing is, to those that hate fuzz, they all sound the same and to those that love it, they all sound different.

[@chasebeavers]

The Hendrix reissue has a tweaked circuit, with more midrange. A better comparison would be the dark blue Dunlop reissue. I believe Dunlop also uses a different volume pot value.

[@CockySoupNazi]

@@chasebeavers The blue mini fuzz face has more gain than the hendrix one, definitely. I have both, the blue mini is a monster of a fuzz. I agree they should do a match up between the blue mini and the vintage.

[@saculsheet]

the modern one is corrected biased because its micro-trimpots inside(the copper side) .

[@soupforare]

love when TF is on. vintage one on guit isn't my taste compared to the new but I think I'd love it on rhodes

[@FlesHBoX]

Immediately I preferred the vintage. It has that "About to fall to pieces after a lifetime of abuse" sound that I love.

[@graxjpg]

FlesHBoX it’s actually a “biased incorrectly because people didn’t know anything back then” sound that we both love.

[@rikardocarvalho]

No. You love the sound of "its kinky to have a old pedal just because its old and expensive whatever it may sound like"

[@CorbCorbin]

grant johnson This is how I explain the vintage Fuzz Faces as well. I’ve had the oooh to play many of them, and own a couple. Some are just shit, with circuits that definitely needed to be rebuilt. Dunlop used to be terrible at making these reissues, with seemingly very little quality control on choosing transistors. The JHF1 in this video is what I use most often, as it stacks very well, and with the right buffer there are no problems with a Wah in front of it.

[@AeolianSeventh]

On the topic of vintage fuzzes and newer clones, I've noticed that all of my vintage Super-Fuzzes have no background noise while playing and stay dead quiet for a fraction of a second after I stop playing, then suffer a massive rise in noise floor. Meanwhile, every modern clone I've played has a noise floor which drops to silence a fraction of a second after I stop playing. I've always wondered why that is, and if it would be possible to make new Super-Fuzzes with the noise pattern of the vintage ones, since it's much, much more useable with a gate.

[@paulcalugar1438]

I always roll back the fuzz to about 3 o’clock.. seems to clean up better and warm up if its a silicon fuzz…

[@StratsRUs]

'' Neither ! " - that killed me

[@nullfusion]

i love the old one

[@Mark-bl6oe]

2:15 That bend sounds very Hendrixy! Love that. But I'm not a massive fan of either really... Tonebender style would be my preference

[@southport65]

ok, i preferred the vintage one, but won't say it blew the new one out of the water. the difference was perceivably there, but you can't say the new one sounds bad, not by any stretch. i owned the hendrix 108 reissue and hated it when i had it, but would be curious to try one again based off this demo. the vintage one here to me has a bit more tighter, ripping, and gnarly sound. both sound great.

[@johncore363]

Nice video Travis

[@mark7166]

The new sounds much better.

[@mookmook5715]

The old sounds right as in that is what all reissues are chasing.. the Hendix sound.

[@dollarsignho]

It seems more fun to play the old one

[@jobckts682]

That was Awesome. TS808 vs Today.

[@brettmarlar4154]

I think the vintage one sounded a bit tighter in the Marshall. Something about the preamp tubes seemed to "trim the edges" more than the re-issue. Just my opinion. But I did prefer the sound of the re-issue in the Bravado. One thing about Fuzz pedals is they can get a bit out of control, hence my apprehension to employ one in many cases.

[@hearpalhere]

I preferred the reissue by a long shot! It sounded really sweet while the old one had a bit of top end fizziness that I just didn't like.

[@stevengriffin1676]

The Arbiter has more mojo than the Dunlop. It sounds more "Hendrix" !!! Get Mr Wampler to take the backs off and check the wiring, components, etc., and THEN tell us they are exactly the same... THAT'S what I would be interested in!... Nice playing Travis!

[@theamericanpatriotshow3993]

The OLD fuzz!! Wow

[@jlopez47]

The vintage one sounds like it's not biased properly. You can tell when he claimed it was supposed to clean up well but didn't. That was farty as hell. My guess is he payed lots of money for that vintage one and may have a confirmation bias that keeps him from seeing that that thing sounds like trash.

[@markferguson3745]

Pretty sure it can be biased internally, like the newer ones.

[@jlopez47]

@@markferguson3745 the earlier models don't have internal trim pots like the moderns ones do. That's why Jimi Hendrix was recorded to have bought cases of these pedals to find the ones that sounded right to him, i.e. properly matched transistors and biased. The bias pots were added by copycat-ers later for that very reason.

[@xsvanx]

Old one wins, no chance, the deep of the vintage fuzz is insane... P.S. Hello Mr.Scott Hill!

[@plugitin4656]

Different input/output capacitor size maybe? Guessing 70's input cap is bigger or showing it's age.

[@waynegram8907]

WAMPLER, it would be nice to make a video lesson how to make a fuzz face circuit get those hendrix BELL Clean tones when rolling back the strat volume pot, then making a fuzz face circuit get those glassy SRV clean tones, then making a fuzz face get those velvet david gilmore velvet fuzz tones.

[@jamesemerson4102]

Could I ask how you recorded this? sounds really good! Thanks!

[@ThePortolio]

The Dunlop JH-F1 uses BC108B Transistors as the original Arbiter uses the BC108C. The BC108B [B!] is low gain, hence the difference ;) It sounds warmer and more „germanium“ like

[@TheErilaz]

Early units used NKT275 germanium transistors. Later on, BC183L, BC183KA, BC130C, BC108C, BC209C and BC239C silicon transistors were used. The American made versions used BC109C transistors. Arbiter reissues used AC128s.

[@FilipeReishandmade]

Holy Fuzz Brian !

[@stevenburvenich168]

Sepherus is correct. Modern pedals are biased to be "tight". Vintage pedals were rather "put together" without tweaking or the transistors not matched. Which ment pedals were chosen, not the parts.

[@jfmax2000]

BC108 Chip... Lol.. It's Ok Man (I'm a Multi Instrumentalist But Also a Electrical/Electronics Engineer) Awesome Playing and Demo Bruh ☺☺😎💪💪👊💯 (Man I Had a Early 70's Red Face One When I was Like 11-12 Years Old I Don't Know Who Got Me For It.. But God I Wish I Still Had It 😢😢💔💔 )

[@FunkHitsTheFan]

I'm surprised that vintage one is for sale on guitar centers website for just $900 but it has seen it's days.

[@EBJorge-ql1ii]

Did you put them in series?

[@trentkraemer7109]

Is there any pedals that sound like the vintage fuzz face?

[@stevenroper6125]

You can get one of the newer reissues and play with the bias trimmer. It should be able to change enough to get that spittier tone.

[@trentkraemer7109]

@@stevenroper6125 I’ve got a mini si fuzz face, is there a trimpot inside?

[@stevenroper6125]

@@trentkraemer7109 I know on the mini Hendrix and mini germanium ones I had they had a bias trim pot inside so I would imagine it does. Be sure to mark where it is before you move it in case you want to set it back to the factory setting. Also don’t over turn the pot. Those mini trim pots can be delicate if you try to keep turning it once it has reached its max.

[@ansowillo9478]

Great vid! But note that the Hendrix fuzz has a little less gain than the Original. I think the blue FFM1( With a little bias tweaking) would’ve stood a better chance!!!👍

[@wampler_pedals]

Less gain? Are you referring to the transistors or what are you referring to?

[@khalaziafaqih367]

Love the reissue

[@odomis07]

The original has that gut fuzz that us fuzz nerds love.

[@the_nondrive_side]

So which of the three caps are different

[@rwagner501]

The best way I can describe it... Vintage seemed to have a more pronounced fuzz tone at all settings whereas the modern had a more pronounced clean at all settings if that makes sense. Vintage almost sounds more like a Germanium fuzz to me. I like the vintage better.

[@SeanKerns]

I prefered the one that played first in the video.

[@Atttuner]

Sounds insane through the Marshall great vid! Is there a vid on how to manage noise using compressor for 80s tones? I love my ego comp but it’s bringing the noise and I don’t want to use a gate if possible

[@wampler_pedals]

Any compressor will boost up any noise that’s in the chain, simply due to how a compressor works

[@Atttuner]

Wampler Pedals thanks for the reply! So if I’m running strat straight into my Ego then into interface then using IR’s (cleanest poss setting) the noise is coming from my single coil correct?

[@tetsuyama5116]

I'm hearing more harmonics from the vintage unit. I have a newer Dunlop FF ...

[@TheGuitaristChannel]

I actually prefer the newer one

[@timndel]

Are these running in series? It appears (by the cables) that the modern one is running after the vintage unit. Perhaps this could be affecting the signal of one or both. Either way, the modern unit sounds good, and looks to be a worthy buy.

[@fuzzface8252]

They're true bypass, always have been.

[@felippecezar9117]

I had no idea Sean Astin played the guitar that well.

[@WTFeasterBand]

Felippe Cezar thanks? And at least you knew his real name. Most people just say Rudy. 😂

[@adm66gal]

Goonies never say die! 🤣🤣🤣

[@coreyclark6505]

The new one is more tame and probably more controllable.

[@shaunzimmerman661]

on this video u said they are the same transistors why do they sound so much dif. is that just the dif in gain factors and dif in one transistor to another even though they are the same. i know there are dif gain factors in the same trans. but didnt realize it would change the q that much that the reissue had way more mids and less bass. or are there value changes to the tone stack to make the newer one tighter and cut more. less farts going on lol. just wondering always have been into the inners of circuits

[@druwk]

In the Marshall the older Fuzz came to life, the reissue became harsh? Overall, I feel like every Fuzzface is a little different from each other?

[@SaxyCalzone]

I love the buzzy, pissed off bumblebee quality of the vintage. Almost sounds like a shitty old horn but I like it. But I’m an EJ fan and he always uses it that way.

[@kolombijec]

This dude is so funny..love this show....why dont you guys play together though?...Bryan playing one pedal and this friend here another? (Sorry..dont know his name....!)

[@timndel]

That's Travis Feaster, a re-known musician here in the Indianapolis area.

[@WTFeasterBand]

Juro Chovan it’s because I can’t hang with Brian on that country stuff!

[@Esquire-ul9xs]

Speaking of funny.. check out old Chasing Tone Podcast episodes with Travis, Max and Brian, absolutely hilarious!!

[@chanceterrill5346]

The reissue eats that thing

[@FiveseveNp90]

You should match the input high-pass filtering to see if they'd sound more similar. Maybe another video? :D

[@awwwyeaboyeeee]

Reissue sounds better for that light but warm OD sound. Other than that the original kicks its ass.

[@thechannelforeverything2170]

I honestly thought in the intro you were playing the original one just based off of how good it sounded.

[@etrivard]

Great video, but I hear some wampling in the background at the beginning. Ever tried a wampressor?

[@Frank00064]

The new one is better biasing according with my taste. Using a potentiometer for biasing the second transistor there is a pallet of interesting sounds you can get from this pedal.

[@Voodoo66Chile]

The vintage one sounds so much better to me but I believe the difference is mostly the bias... I'm sure you could get the reissue closer to the vintage with a bias tweak. The reissue sounds biased properly in my opinion, simply by how it sounds will rolling off the volume.

[@raflanna]

Should it sound the same after 50 years?

[@satchmodog2]

For playing at home I would dig the older one, but playing with the band it would need to be the reissue. Way too much mud on that vintage not to get lost in the bass player's space, but damn does it sound cool AF. I'm curious since they are supposed to be identical guts if it's not just degraded components inside that make the vintage sound farty and whether it sounded like the newer one when it was also new.

[@julioedivan2298]

Awesome

[@mickeyburns3494]

Reissue sounds more useable. The original is wild fun though.

[@Shamilt3]

The "trick" with all fuzzes (DA Muffs treble etc) all require an amp to already be clipping to sound their best, imo. Ive never liked them through a distortion channel, but for example my old dr103, with a slight start to clip, muff's and fuzz's sound EXCELLENT. The reissue is more impressive than I thought it would be.

[@kevinklotz9398]

Agreed! My fuzzface clone sounds such better through a slightly dirty amp.

[@jupitermoongauge4055]

The Jimi fuzz component values stray from the original in 2 areas quite significantly, the NFB resistor and a limiting resistor on the fuzz pot. Take away these 2 mods and the fuzzes would sound a lot more similar. It is very was to build a vintage spec bc108 fuzz face that would be indistinguishable in sound from a vintage unit. One good thing about the Jimi fuzz though, is that it seems to like wahs in front better than most, not perfect, just better.

[@Ian_sheridanuk]

In conclusion...fuzz is joyous.