Well, they do say that now

I don’t think I am in a small minority at all. I’m sure many people love the looks, but I hear from people every single day through my Big Muff Page website. Several hundred this year. I have never talked to anyone who bought, is looking to buy, or collects vintage Muffs simply because they like the looks. Not a single one. Questions and our discussions are almost always centered around components and sound, then about differences in versions. The only time looks come up is regarding identification of versions. The only Muff I have ever heard people talk about how cool they look are the 1990s Sovteks.

I would also add that practically every time a vintage RH, V3, or Triangle goes up on ebay I get several emails from people looking to buy their first vintage Muff asking my opinion. Usually I get asked what questions they need to ask the seller regarding the sound, if mods have been made, or if all components look original. They don’t want some modded or defective Muff that won’t sound right. If people were just buying for looks I would likely not be getting all this email.

But my point was, a reissue should not only sound as close to an original as is possible on a modern production pedal, but it should LOOK like the original it is supposed to be replicating. Imagine the Dynacomp script reissue with the original sound in a completely different enclosure with no script, or a Rat reissue with the original chip in a smaller modern Rat II box. I’m buying it for the vintage sound, but I would much prefer it look like the original vintage dyna, or Rat. It’s all part of the mojo around a vintage pedal. A reissue in a modern nano box will not cut it. If EHX tried to market that it would fail.

Quote:

Quote:

If you want Daka-Ware for a vintage restoration though, Daka-Ware was the brand name for products produced by Davies Molding. Davies Molding is still going, and they do still make some parts you might find useful.
Looks like they still make these:

yeah, those ones I linked to are genuine Daka-ware made by Davies.

I’m pretty sure those are the exact knobs EH used for the reissues the first year or so they were made. Seems there were several companies that made the original V2-5 Muff knobs in addition to Davies as there are at least four different injection molds. Here are a few of them.

Either a V3 or V4 will be very close in SD tone when doing rhythm stuff. Are those your photos?

I just noticed when posting over at the Gear Forum that the tone knob is almost at 11:30 in your pedal board photo, past the word OFF. A stock V3 pot won’t go that far because it is mounted upside down on the V3. It should stop at the “O”. So two marks against it being a V3.

Actually, if you look closely, the Muff in those pictures is the same Muff pictured in the recent Blog. The scratches are all the identical (though the recent photo has a few more), especially the big chip in the red line above the letter M. “AC” is visible on the top, indicating this is a V3 or V4. You can see it if you alter the brightness and contrast of the photo, below.

You can also see Billy’s white tick marks showing the same settings as the knobs in his recent photo. The actual knobs in your pedal board photo are not set to those marks, but it looks like the board has not been set up completely yet either. But look closely at the tone knob, It’s almost at 12 o’clock. You can’t do that on a stock V3 since the tone pot is upside down. So from the two photos we have two pots that don’t jive with the V3 pot sweep, just the V4.

Interesting. Are you sure those photos are from the Machina tour? (EDIT – Never mind. I see Billy’s Cenobite skirt! It’s Machina)

That would all depend on what a person was looking for from other peoples gear and tone. This is more about puzzle solving for me, as I am a collector of Muff info and don’t play SP songs. I got my own sound over twenty years ago when I started playing guitar and when I had a band (all original songs) and could care less about sounding like anyone else. These days I look at figuring out other peoples exact gear and tones as a puzzle that is enormous fun to solve, especially in the Muff arena.

Since you bring up cloning others people sounds…some people who just play cover songs, or are in tribute bands, are looking to sound as much like a certain artists as possible, and want to have the exact gear that particular artist had. They may have no desire, or skill, to create their own sound. Nothing wrong with that. Then there are the majority of novice home players and beginners who do this as a hobby and desire to have a certain “sound” as a starting point. Many have no frame of reference for “their” own sound and learn by emulating others. A small group of those will take those tonal influences and one day have their own sound that spins out of it, and hopefully play in a band. Evey major guitarist I have ever listened to has cited a certain artists they grew up with as people they emulated when they were younger, though none of them sounded much like those influences once they became successful. Everyone takes their cues from all the experience playing and influences from listening to others, then your brain mixes that all together and spits out your own thing. So I encourage beginners to emulate and learn from all of their favorite artists.

Nice. I’m still looking for a three knob Foxey Lady for my collection.