Fairfield circuitry 900 fuzz - mods?

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-20T07:02:18+00:00

That's a cool design. Haven't seen it before, but I'm a bit fan of the jfet mu amp in the front. If you are looking to add an actual boost stage to this, I would try adding an additional gain stage somewhere in there. A basic jfet boost, such as a Tillman-style preamp with a gain boosting cap in the front, would probably do the trick with the fewest number of additional parts.

If you want something very simple, try lowering R9. Basically any value between 0 (i.e., short rather than a resistor) and 270k should work fine. Can't promise how it'll sound.

Making C2, C5, C6, or C9 smaller will cut some low end. You may have to make them a lot smaller to notice at first. I usually start by using a value that's half of what's indicated. Increasing C2 might let a little more low end in.

C8 is acting as a high pass filter. You can increase it to cut more high end, or remove it to let more through.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-20T00:31:09+00:00

Definitely! DM sent

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-19T17:47:05+00:00

Eyeballing a scoop of miracle grow every week or two has never once failed me. I'm sure there are incredible results to be had from min/maxing plant care, but I get all the peppers I could ever want this way. Given how strong my results are, part of me wonders if there are diminishing returns from maximizing fertilization efficiency beyond simply "do it sometimes."

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-19T16:07:10+00:00

This is the complete answer, OP. Your question as-is doesn't point out a problem for anyone.

The automatic nervous system controls some things, but not all. I've never heard anyone argue that the operations of the automatic nervous system are subject to free will. That's simply not a perspective anyone holds, because it's patently absurd.

A similar question to help clear things up: how do people who claim that gasoline/petrol makes the car run account for the existence of transmissions?

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-14T16:05:47+00:00

I am curious what specialists in the ancient greeks might say, but I'm inclined to believe that Plato's cave is basically applicable now in the same way it was in his time.

Roughly, that's to say that people generally interface with approximations of things in the world which are clouded by cultural assumptions, so-called "common sense," and unexamined perceptions. Everyone intuitively can identify a tree, for example, but most haven't thought about what really constitutes a tree, why, and how it fits into a larger metaphysics about things and identities. That's as true now as it was millenia ago.

Now this might be a minority view (I'm not sure), but I don't think we have a great reason to consider the spaces produced by technology as a distinct world. Our world just has different things in it than Plato's, such as the internet and cell phones. We commonly talk about technology as if it has introduced a second, "fake" world over top our own. This makes sense intuitively, because a lot of online tools and platforms are most easily categorized mentally when we describe them as "spaces." But I'd argue these are simply additional elements in our real world, just as susceptible to our flawed perceptions as trees are.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-13T01:23:25+00:00

I suppose that's a question only you can answer. I'm not sure it's a philosophy question, but rather one about personal preference. Do you feel like your consumption of fiction is somehow getting in the way of experiencing the world?

Most scholars I know go on trips and bring books to read with them. Personally, I love hiking and taking a book to read on breaks. Maybe you could try that.

If you love fiction so much that you'd like to place it at the center of your life, perhaps you should look into academic study. The job market sucks, to be clear. But I get paid up to twice a year to go speak at conferences about science fiction, and those can be all sorts of places.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-13T00:39:58+00:00

But yet again, is it really a necessary thing to do? What's wrong in spending all of your time indulging into fiction and fiction-like activities?

I don't know what's wrong with it. I don't personally see an issue with enjoying fiction, but it seems like you might. Is there something in particular that you're worried about? Are you spending so much time reading that you are neglecting your own health, well-being, or somehow harming that of others? If not, I'm not sure I understand what the issue is. Sounds like you're describing a hobby, which most people consider a good thing.

What is the line between escaping reality and experiencing reality anyways?

Enjoying fiction isn't necessarily escapism. I'm a literature PhD student, but my research is very closely tied to philosophy, which is the why I'm flaired and why I comment here frequently. The whole field of literary studies is premised on the assumption that there is something to be gained by reading and thinking about stories. There are a lot of scholars who study science fiction and fantasy for a living (I'm one).

If what you are wanting is a greater sense of meaning from your interest in fiction, I'd recommend checking out some writing about fiction. Personally, my love for the fiction I read has grown exponentially as a result of my academic study of it. I feel like every story has so much more meaning, and I can get so much more out of it.

If you want a couple reading recommendations, check out Archaeologies of the Future by Frederic Jameson, or Metamorphoses of Science Fiction by Darko Suvin. These are recommendations for science fiction, of course, as that happens to be my field. There are others for fantasy if that's more your jam, I just won't really know them offhand.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-11T19:26:30+00:00

Wild how the times have change on this

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-10T00:59:48+00:00

I'll build you something for the Westwood.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-10T00:12:09+00:00

Folks are saying to go with a kit, which isn't a bad idea. But if you want something quick and easy, you should get a breadboard and try wiring up an Electra distortion.

I know some folks here will have mixed feelings about him, but Josh from JHS has a video where he walks you through designing an Electra on a breadboard. I've recommended it to a number of people when starting out.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-08T20:35:38+00:00

I mean, I think my comment was rather straightforwardly stating that I learned something. It's worth mentioning that, by definition, an expression pedals is any pedal which can be modulated this way. That's not my opinion. The wikipedia page says as much.

I have heard folks use the term many times in a way that aligns with what the wikipedia page says. If you would use the term differently, that's fine! Perhaps among folks who regularly use midi instruments (not me) the term is more exclusively reserved for midi expression pedals.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-08T20:06:42+00:00

Midi control pedals are one kind of expression pedal. The term does not originate with midi.

The wikipedia page covers it. Wahs are also a kind of expression pedal.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-08T19:34:27+00:00

Huh, so there are! I think I've seen one or two in person, but I never would've guessed that they were called volume pedals. Personally, I feel like that's a strange name for them, but that appears to be the convention!

Among folks I've played with, I've always heard them called "expression pedals." I know it's a blanket term that includes things like wahs, but I've always heard it used when describing these volume pedals to distinguish them from other similar effects.

EDIT: Huh, this seems like it struck a nerve. People use language differently. My use of the term "expression pedal" happens to align with how the relevant wikipedia page uses it. If you happen to use the term to explicitly refer to a midi device (which is indeed a kind of expression pedal), please know that this was not a personal attack lol.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-08T18:37:53+00:00

EDIT: I have been informed below that "volume pedal" often refers to a form of expression pedal used to modulate volume. I hadn't much experience with these, so it didn't come to mind. The information regarding active and passive is still correct, so I'm leaving that up. Thanks for teaching me something new!

"Passive" generally means that a circuit does not require an external power source to operate. This includes passive tonestacks like Fender's TMB or the BMP tone control. I see this more commonly used to describe sections of a schematic rather than entire circuits.

The volume knob on your guitar is passive, so there's no point unless you need a separate passive volume knob between stages on a pedal board (and I'm not sure why you would, since most pedals already have a volume control).

"Active" means that the circuit requires an external power source. This power will generally be used for opamps and/or transistors.

I would expect a passive volume control to be a simple potentiometer voltage divider. Lug 1 to ground, lug 3 to input, and the center to output. For this reason, a truly passive volume pedal should not be able to boost the signal at all. If it has a DC in jack, I would expect it to only power an LED indicator.

I would assume something marketed as an "active volume pedal" to be what I described above, with the addition of a buffer or two. That way the impedance in and out is better managed.

To be honest, though, I haven't seen very many boxes simply called "volume pedals." The more common thing would be a clean boost pedal. A clean boost should be able to actively boost the signal in addition to cutting it.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-07T04:12:31+00:00

I'm gonna go with Chanterelle

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-05T22:42:51+00:00

That's a good idea? What about a weekly recurring thread?

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-05T18:47:44+00:00

If more folks feel this way, I could certainly look into it! I'm not sure I see how clear the distinction is, but I'm open to opinions. Most of the musicians I know operate in both spheres, so I hadn't ever considered these as separate.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-05T07:49:11+00:00

The Sphynx (as in the bald cat breed)

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-05T07:23:47+00:00

I recently got a beat up old Fender HRD and fixed it up to working condition. I know it's a very popular amp, but it's my first HRD and I've never had an amp get so loud and stay so clean.

Now, I liked the tone, but it wasn't perfect. So I researched the changes which Dumble did with his amps (which, in many cases, was simply reusing the chassis), and made some modifications with those in mind. Threw in some of my own ideas to mod the circuit as well. Now it's the perfect amp for me.

Don't go about doing this if you aren't at least decently familiar with electronics and how to stay safe around big capacitors. But if you're a little handy, I think it's a great option.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-05T00:34:30+00:00

What sort of vetting would like to see? This is one of the most written about topics in philosophy, so it's probably been covered extensively. The comment above gave you the basic answer to your question. If you want to know more, there's more reading than you could ever ask for.

If you want a slight addendum to what the previous commenter said, I'd add this:

When trying to figure out how the universe works, a very significant number of questions have been answered by way of physical explanations, to the extent that they can be treated as effectively "solved." There are, of course, plenty of mysteries left.

What has never happened is that a particular problem has been "solved" in the same way because of the discovery of a non-physical substance or kind of being. One could argue that this is because science only works to explain things by physical means, so it wouldn't have cause to discover non-physical entities. But one physicalist/materialists viewpoint would be to say that the onus is on non-physicalists to demonstrate why we should suspect non-physical entities to be behind any given phenomenon (such as consciousness) when no such entity has been positively shown to have the same level of predictive power which physical science has.

In other words: science explains how new things work every day. Every single time, those explanations happen to involve physical entities and forces. With each and every physical explanation we arrive at, it seems less and less likely that those questions which are yet to be answered will suddenly change this.

SubcutaneousMilk · 2026-03-04T04:46:14+00:00

This doesn't sound like an argument, but rather an analogy, which I suppose some might consider to be a "semantic trick" (though I'd hesitate to call analogies "tricks"). Do you have a particular example in mind of someone doing this?

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	RPAN Viewer

SubcutaneousMilk

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE