Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Kindle Fire Video Encoding

Well Santa brought me a Kindle Fire as I was a mostly a good little boy this past year. The cheap bastard in me is reluctant to buy content from Amazon so I've been experimenting with encoding DVDs to work with the Kindle.

To create a useable video file from a DVD you first need to rip a copy of the DVD to your computer. I use the last version of DVD Decrypter which will break the DVD encryption and copy all the files from the DVD to your hard drive in a folder named "VIDEO_TS" which is a subfolder of a folder with the title of the DVD.

Once you have ripped a copy of the DVD to your computer then you need to encode the video to create a file that can be played by the Kindle. According to Amazon's specs, the Kindle can only read the following formats:

H.263 (.3gp, .mp4), H264 AVC (.3gp, .mp4), MPEG 4 SP/ASP (.3gp), and VP8 (.webm).

If you are like me you have no idea what all the standards and acronyms mean. It seems, especially with video standards, that I can never keep on top of all the jargon. In this case, it seems easiest to produce .mp4 files (these are also used on Apple devices) and preferably the H262 AVC standard as the encoded video uses a higher rate of compression.

I have had the best luck encoding video using Handbrake. The program is simple to use and I haven't had problems with video and audio sync which has been the case with other programs. Handbrake seems to have endless options, but the beauty of the program is that there are a number of presets in the right pane which you can take advantage of. Once you have downloaded and installed the program, you first need to select the folder (here the "VIDEO_TS" folder that contains the ripped files from the DVD) as well as a default path for the completed file ("Tools" menu, "Options," "General" tab, "Output Files" and "Default Path"). What has worked for me is to use the preset "Regular Normal," available in the right pane, with a couple of modifications to create the encoded video file. The first time I encoded a DVD the result was stretched vertically, so I have had better success selecting "None" in the anamorphic drop-down box and checking the "Keep Aspect Ratio" box on the "Picture" tab. This will create files of different resolutions and aspect ratios, but will preserve the original size and aspect ratio of the DVD. Bear in mind that the Kindle's screen resolution is 1024X600 (or 1024x580 if you subtract the "softbar" at the bottom of the screen). The end result is that you will have black bars of different heights on the top and bottom of the screen in landscape when you play the video file. The files that I have encoded so far have been automatically resized when played on the Kindle to the full 1024 width, despite the fact that the DVD video standard is 720 pixels. Once you have selected these options, you can hit the start button at the top to begin encoding. You should set this up on your fastest computer to speed up encoding time. One final wrinkle is that Handbrake produces files with an .m4v extension which you can just rename to .mp4 (ignore Window's warnings). These extensions are equivalent. The Kindle spec sheet says doesn't include .m4v but it can read them just the same. You might have some luck reducing the file size in the "Video" tab, "Quality" settings on the main tab as the resulting files can be quite large (600-1,200 mb). The small storage size of the Kindle will only allow you to keep a couple movies at a time on the device.

Finally, you need to transfer the encoded video file to your Kindle. You need a micro-USB cord in order to connect the Kindle to your computer. I picked up one at my neighborhood Office Depot the day after Christmas (my annual post-Christmas cord quest). Connect the Kindle to your computer and unlock the Kindle which will then show up as a drive on your computer. Dismiss the install hardware dialog boxes if you are using Windows--no additional software is needed to transfer files. Videos should be copied to the "Video" folder (books to "Books," if you are transferring .pdf, .txt or .doc files, etc.). Videos that are not downloaded from Amazon are only currently accessible on the Kindle through the gallery app in the carousel--they cannot be played from the Video tab on the main screen.

The first DVD I encoded and transferred to my Kindle was "First Blood" as I need to watch Sylvester Stallone's roid-rage "Rambo" stab David Caruso's "Mitch" over and over and over again.

Leave a comment or send me an email if you have any questions or suggestions. I am no expert in these sorts of things, but I figure I'm not the only one trying to do this.

Friday, December 2, 2011

Fender Jaguar Pickups

If you are installing new pickups in a Fender Jaguar you should always check the resistance of each pickup with a multimeter to make sure that the pickup with the higher resistance goes in the bridge position and the pickup with the lower resistance goes in the neck position. A couple years ago I bought Fender American vintage reissue pickups for my CIJ Jaguar but installed them in the wrong position. I was never able to get good balance between the pickups. It ocurred to me that I should check the resistance for each pickup. I desoldered each pickup and measured 6.38K ohms for the pickup I had installed in the bridge position and 6.58k ohms for the neck pickup. The rule of thumb is that higher resistance values produce more volume. The idea is to locate the higher output pickup in the bridge position where the amplitude of the string vibrations is smaller, thus balancing the pickup output. I couldn't find any values for vintage Jaguar pickups on the intertubz, but Lollar Jaguar pickups are listed as 5.8k ohms for the neck and 6.3k ohms for the bridge and Seymour Duncan vintage Jaguar pickups are listed as 6.5k ohms for the neck and 6.8k ohms for the bridge. My preference is to have the two short extensions on the claw under the low E and A strings, which is consistent with the orientation the claws on vintage Jaguars. CIJ and MIJ Jaguars often had the claws reversed. You should also adjust the pickup height such that the bridge pickup is a bit closer to the strings than the neck pickup, but most of this is according to taste.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

DIY Fuzz Pedal

More kit love. This one is the B.Y.O.C. extra special vintage fuzz kit which is based on a Fuzz Ace and is available here. This is the second B.Y.O.C. kit I have put together and it was an easy build. The board layout is great and the instructions are easy to follow. One caveat with this kit, however, which is that you need to carefully adjust the bias trimpot to get the pedal to work properly. If you do not you will get a thin sound out of the pedal which may lead you to believe that you have done something wrong in the build, which with me is always the mostly likely cause. In this case I started troubleshooting the pedal before I adjusted the trimpot, which the instructions clearly state that you should do first. In my haste, I thought that I had inserted the germanium transistors incorrectly and in attempting to reseat them (I won't tell you how many times I did this), I broke off one of the leads. Fortunately the kit comes supplied with two SS-9013 transistors for testing and troubleshooting and I am currently running these in the pedal until I buy replacement germanium transistors. You can get these through B.Y.O.C.'s parts store here. The pedal sounds awesome as is and I expect it to sound more awesomer when I get the germanium transistors. I'll update the post when I get around to buying them.

UPDATE (1/2014): I have finally gotten around to sorting out the problems with this pedal. I purchased a second set of AC127 germanium transistors (which were used in the original version [rev 2.0] of the pedal) and later a set of  AC128 germanium transistors (which are used in the new version [rev 3.0 of the pedal), neither of which worked. Meanwhile, B.Y.O.C. came out with a new version of the pedal (rev 3.0), which among other significant differences, has replaced the 0.1uf film capacitor (the yellow capacitor in the photos above) with a 0.01uf film capacitor. I thought swapping out the cap for one with the new value would work, and it did the trick. I ordered a .01uf film cap from Mouser, soldered it in, and the circuit worked as originally intended. The internal bias pot now has plenty of range. I still have not gotten the AC128 transistors to work, but the original AC127 transistors work well. I would recommend making this change if you have rev. 2.0 of the pedal and have had problems getting the germanium transistors to work.

Crybaby GCB-95 True Bypass

If you have an old Crybaby you know that it is a major tone suck when the wah is switched off. It's pretty easy to swap out the original SPST switch with a modern 3PDT switch to mod the pedal to true bypass. Really you only need a 2PDT switch but you can use a 3PDT switch, which seems to be easier to find, and leave one of the rows empty. I bought a couple 3PDT switches from B.Y.O.C.'s parts store here. Instructions and photos for rewiring the pedal are available from Castledine Electronics here. Note that their instructions are for a 2PDT switch. You will have to adapt their instructions for a 3PDT switch (or follow what I did in the photo above). Castledine also has instructions and photos for a couple different revisions of the pedal. In my usual manner of screwing things up as I go along, I originally wired the 3PDT switch the wrong way. As in the photo above the three tabs that make one pole of the switch are aligned vertically ( | | | ) rather than horizontally (- - -). Of course I could have checked this with a multimeter before I wired it up. Oh well. The switch is not at right angles in the photo above because the support for the pot is in the way. You will probably need to swap out washers and nuts until the feel of the switch is right. Combine this with a new pot and your old Crybaby will sound pretty darned good.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Mustang or Jaguar?

The answer to this question is of course “both,” but for those of you who are thinking about acquiring one of these less-common Fender guitars, here are some thoughts on the differences between the Jaguar and Mustang.

I currently own both a Jaguar and a Mustang. The Jaguar is a CIJ q-series (circa 2002-2004) which I bought used. I have made major modifications to the guitar, upgrading everything except the tuners and the wood to AVRI parts. This includes a Mustang bridge which, in my opinion, offers better tuning stability and playability. I also made modifications to the wiring to allow both phase and series-parallel switching. This wiring mod is outlined here. The rhythm circuit is stock.

The Mustang is a more recent CIJ s-series (circa 2006-2007) which I bought new. The guitar is essentially stock except for modifications to the wiring to allow series-parallel switching in addition to phase switching. This wiring mod is outlined here.


The Jaguar was introduced as Fender’s top-of-the-line model when production began in 1962. It was priced at $379.50 compared to the Jazzmaster at $349.50, the Stratocaster at $259.50, and the Telecaster at $209.50. The Mustang was intended as a student guitar when production began in 1964. It was priced at $189.50 compared to the Telecaster at $209.50, the Esquire at $169.50, and the Duo Sonic II at $159.50. With inflation the Jaguar would cost $2704.93 in 2010 dollars and the Mustang would cost $1350.68 in 2010 dollars. The Jaguar was designed for professionals and the Mustang for students who, Fender imagined, would eventually upgrade to a professional guitar. The student range of Fender guitars included the single-pickup Musicmaster II, dual-pickup Duo-Sonic II and the Mustang which was essentially a Duo-Sonic with a tremolo. Of course Fender’s marketing, especially for the Jaguar, was wishful thinking. Except for surf music in the early 1960s, the Jaguar and the Jazzmaster were largely ignored in favor of the more popular, and arguably more playable, Telecaster and Stratocaster. The Mustang was hugely successful as a student guitar, but as such was not generally regarded as a professional guitar. By the 1970s the Jaguar and Mustang (and Jazzmaster) had fallen out of favor and were neglected by Fender as corporate-minded CBS focused on the better-selling Stratocaster and Telecaster. By the late 1970s guitarists intent on subverting mainstream rock used Jaguars, Jazzmasters and Mustangs both because used models were less expensive than Stratocasters and Telecasters and because they were offbeat, quirky guitars that fit the aesthetics of alternative music. By the 1980s the Jazzmaster, Jaguar, and Mustang were taken out of production. In the late 1990s Fender USA reissued the Jaguar and Jazzmaster. All three guitars are currently available, being produced in the U.S., Mexico, and Japan, as well as other Asian factories under the Squier brand.


The Jaguar and Mustang have almost identical necks: 24” scale, 7.25” fingerboard radius, 22 frets, thin vintage-style fret wire, and a vintage “C” shape, vintage-style tuners, and in the case of Japanese-produced guitars, poly finishes. The ’65 reissue Mustang has a slab-style rosewood fingerboard while the Jaguar has a veneer cap fingerboard. There is very little difference between the two necks and I doubt I would be able to tell the difference if I swapped them.


Both the Jaguar and the Mustang bodies have offset waists, although the offset is more pronounced on the Jaguar. The offset waists make the guitar more balanced when playing the guitar seated. Both guitars tend to tip neck up when seated, unlike a Stratocaster. The Mustang body is thin, measuring 1-1/2” while the Jaguar is 1-5/8”, like the Jazzmaster, Stratocaster and Telecaster. The difference is notable. The Mustang feels lighter and smaller in all dimensions. The Jaguar body is made of alder, the Mustang poplar. I don’t know if this makes much difference with regard to tone. The Mustang is much lighter. Both bodies are finished in poly, although the finish on the Mustang seems thinner than the Jaguar. An important difference between the guitars is that the Jaguar has contours for the forearm and body like the Stratocaster, while the ’65 Mustang has a slab body like the Telecaster. Fender added contours to the Mustang by the late 1960s. As a result of the body contours the Jaguar is more comfortable to play. While the necks are the same length, the Jaguar seems well balanced while the Mustang seems smaller and a bit cramped, although it is certainly not uncomfortable. Because both guitars are designed around a tailpiece/tremolo that is separate from the bridge, there is a significant amount of body behind the bridge compared to a Stratocaster or Telecaster. As a result the Mustang and Jaguar bodies seem large in comparison.


The Mustang has a master volume and master tone in addition to two DP3T switches for each pickup (on-off-on). The switches are located above the low E string which takes some getting used to. Another quirk is that the sliders operate parallel to the body. If both switches are in the on position in the same direction they are wired in-phase, if they are on in opposite directions they are wired out-of-phase. This produces a thinner sound compared to in-phase wiring. This is the only Fender guitar to have this as a stock wiring option.

The Jaguar has two separate circuits, lead and rhythm. The lead circuit consists of a master volume and master tone, a DPDT switch (on-off) for each pickup and the so-called “strangle-switch,” which adds a capacitor that functions as a high-pass filter. All three lead circuit switches are located on the lower bout. The rhythm circuit, activated via a DPDT switch on the upper bout, selects the neck pickup wired to a master volume and master tone which produces a darker tone and which allows the player to have a preset for the neck pickup. It seems complicated, but it really isn’t.


The Jaguar (and Jazzmaster which used the same design) and Mustang trems and bridges have gotten a bad rap mostly because they are less common and little more difficult to set up than a standard Stratocaster trem. It also seems that there are few shops that can do this correctly. Players unfamiliar with either trem also have unrealistic expectations about what they can do. These are not the equivalent of a Stratocaster trem much less a Floyd Rose. If you want to dive bomb you are going to be disappointed. I have a primer on setting up the Mustang trem here. There are similar sites for the Jaguar trem. Both operate on the principle of a bridge that floats in thimbles and a trem arm connected to a tailpiece which, balanced by a spring, lowers or raises tension on the strings. Either system set up well will not go out of tune. While many forums suggest the contrary, these trems do not require heavy gauge strings to function properly. All my guitars are set up with .010s.

The Jaguar trem is best for light vibrato (think surf music or rockabilly). However, the Mustang trem can be setup with heavy spring resistance to drop the strings a full major fourth and return to pitch in tune. In fact, I’ve heard the Mustang trem described as the Floyd Rose of the 1960s which is not much of an exaggeration.

The Jaguar trem has a longer string distance between the bridge and the tailpiece and a shallower break angle which some players argue creates less downward string tension on the bridge and thus results in strings jumping out of the saddle grooves more easily. The Mustang saddle pieces have only one deeper groove rather than the threaded steel and multiple grooves of the Jaguar saddle pieces. I think the Mustang bridge is an improvement over the Jaguar bridge and have installed a Mustang bridge on my Jaguar. Certainly Leo Fender conceived of his guitars as a continual progression in terms of design and the Mustang bridge was likely a response to problems with the Jazzmaster/Jaguar bridge. Some players opt to install a buzz stop to increase the break angle on the Jaguar bridge or a Mastery bridge to improve tuning stability and sustain.

One other advantage of the Jaguar tailpiece is that the strings are fed in from the rear of the tailpiece straight over the bridge while Mustang tailpiece/stop bar the strings are fed from the bridge side and loop under the tailpiece/stop bar before being fed over the bridge. The Jaguar tailpiece is simpler and quicker for restringing, and it allows you to use heavier string gauges without needing a 180 degree loop. On the Jaguar I have used a .050 and .060 as the lower two strings and tuned them a full octave below standard guitar tuning. The strings did not have to be bent and could be removed and reused easily.

Finally, adjusting the Jaguar trem is much easier than the Mustang trem. The adjustments for the Jaguar trem are a screw for spring tension and the sliding button for the string lock, both easily accessible from the face of the trem plate. The Mustang trem requires and Allen key to adjust the height of the stop bar and you need to remove the trem plate completely to adjust the spring tension to fit your playing style. Of course once you have it setup you don’t need to do this often, but it is more work to make adjustments.


I have heard stock Jaguar pickups described as being very similar to Stratocaster pickups. This seems like a fair comparison, especially of the neck pickup. However the bridge pickup is noticeably weaker than a comparable Stratocaster pickup. I believe that this has a lot to do with the fact that the Jaguar bridge pickup is not angled whereas the Mustang (and Stratocaster and Telecaster) bridge pickup is angled. I think this results in less bottom end when using the bridge pickup alone on the Jaguar. Jaguar pickups also have the a metal “claw” that surrounds the pickup and, depending on who you believe, either concentrates the magnetic field under the strings or further reduces hum. I think the former is more likely. The stock wiring on the Jaguar includes 1meg pots which produces a more treble. I have experimented with 250k and 500k pots which produce a mellower tone, but have gone back to the stock 1meg pots.

(If only all Jaguars had angled bridge pickups!)

The pickups on the ’65 Mustang are lower output compared to the Jaguar and vintage Stratocaster pickups, but they sound great. There is a lot of snap and clarity with both the neck and bridge pickups. For a while I replaced the stock Mustang pickups with Fender Lace sensors but I realized how sterile they sounded and reinstalled the stock pickups. The volume and tone pots are both 250k. Both the neck and bridge pickups are angled in the Mustang and the pickup covers are solid, thus hiding the pole pieces.

Both Jaguar and Mustang pickups are reverse polarity/reverse wound so that when they are used together they act as a humbucker. This is true if they are wired in parallel or series.


In my opinion the Jaguar is a much more comfortable guitar to play than the Mustang. With body contours and better overall balance it is comfortable both sitting and standing. On the other hand, with its thinner poplar body the Mustang is much lighter than the Jaguar. With regard to playability, I find that the Mustang feels more cramped than the Jaguar. The Mustang tailpiece/stop bar is higher than the bridge and does not allow you to rest your palm on the body of the guitar. The switches are also located awkwardly above the strings. The trem arm can be too high if set up the trem with high spring tension. The Jaguar feels more thought out and comfortable. The switches are well located. Despite its 24” scale length, it feels like a big guitar and there is plenty of room for different hand positions.


Again this is subjective. I would describe the Jaguar’s tone as smooth and the Mustang’s tone as raw. I prefer the sound of the Mustang pickups. I think that because the Jaguar has been used primarily by alternative players since the 1970s, people have the impression that it produces a tone appropriate to alternative music, but I don’t think this is the case. Leo Fender designed the guitar as the flagship of the Fender line in 1962. Think maybe jazz or surf music. The Jaguar is a Cadillac, both in style and in tone. The Mustang on the other hand was a student guitar. It is simpler, cheaper and raw. It has significantly more twang than the Jaguar. Mustang pickups, while lower output, sound more alive than the Jaguar's.


The modifications I have made to my Jaguar and Mustang are mostly limited to wiring and pickups, but here are a few observations. The Mustang pickup cavities (and pickups) are shaped like Stratocaster pickups. This allows you to put in just about any single coil pickup without additional body routing. The Jaguar, by contrast, has pickup cavities that are approximately the size of the pickup covers and thus you cannot use Stratocaster pickups without modding either the pickups or the body. Lace sensors would fit, although I haven't tried this. The Jaguar controls includes four pots and four DPDT switches which allows for almost endless wiring mods, including putting in a powered preamp or even an effect in the various body cavities. That said the DP3T switches in the Mustang can be rewired to allow both phase switching and series/parallel switching without adding and additional switch.


After playing both guitars regularly for a few years I would say that I prefer the feel of the Jaguar and the tone of the Mustang.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

DIY Overdrive/Boost Pedal

More kit love. This one is the overdrive 2 kit from Build Your Own Clone available here. This is the first kit that I have put together from Build Your Own Clone and it was a great experience. The kit came complete with all parts including chassis and extra parts for the most common mods. The board was laid out clearly including labels for cap and resistor values. The web site has easy to follow directions, including the most common mods. There is an optional MOSFET conversion kit which can be ordered for an additional few dollars. Here are a couple photos of the kit going together. The magnifying loop in the first photo is only there because of my poor eyesight. I have trouble seeing color stripes on resistors and the loop helps.

The folks at Build Your Own Clone clearly put a lot of effort into the design of this pedal. It it based on the Ibanez Tube Screamer with a host of mods as well as an additional boost channel which can be used separately from or in conjunction with the overdrive channel. There are also two toggle switches, one which lets you select additional silicon or led clipping and a second 3-way EQ switch which adds highs and lows or lows to the tone stack. The kit comes with two op amps which you can choose from, a JRC4558D op amp which was in the original Tube Screamer and the Burr Brown OPA2134 op amp. The chip is socketed so you can swap them out as easily as changing the battery. In addition there are three trimpots on the board for minimum and maximum distortion as well as level in the overdrive channel. You can build the kit according to the original Tube Screamer specs or tweak it however you want. What is truly amazing is that all of this is crammed into a standard 125b chassis.

Building the kit took about three hours, included sorting out the resistors and caps. I am still getting a handle on all of options for the pedal. My wife ran hiding when I first plugged in the pedal and had the pots all opened up. My son nodded knowingly when I got the level turned down with the overdrive all the way up. I recently got a Fender Champion 600 amp and wanted to have a classic overdrive pedal to drive the front end of the amp. This is an awesome kit and is highly recommended.