R.I.P. EQD Cloven Hoof

maplebar · Oct 6, 2020

Randomly browsing Earthquaker's site and noticed that they're no longer producing the Cloven Hoof:

Cloven Hoof Fuzz Grinder — EarthQuaker Devices

cusar5 · Oct 6, 2020

Oooo too bad, that was an outstanding fuzz. If you’re looking for a Muff with great high mid presence it’s a solid choice.

crguti · Oct 7, 2020

Has someone compared the ‘Cloven Hoof’ to the ‘Hoof’?

johnk_10 · Oct 7, 2020

they both use basically the same circuit but with a few different components. the cloven hoof replaces the hoof's two low gain silicon 2N3904 transistors with higher gain 2N5089 ones, the two germanium 2N1308 transistors with silicon MPSA13's, removes one 470pf capacitor, and replaces the red leds for clipping with 1n4148's. the cloven has more low end and more fuzz.

cusar5 · Oct 7, 2020

Cloven is way better for bass than the standard Hoof or Hoof Reaper.

catcauphonic · Oct 7, 2020

I haven played the Cloven but the Hoof is fabulous on bass if you want a lighter creamy fuzz. There is a Cloven in the TB Effects classifieds looking for a new home right now

skydivingninja · Oct 9, 2020

The Cloven Hoof is definitely the best fuzz I've ever owned or played through so far. Just means my board is now a little extra special for having a discontinued EQD on it.

DosiYanarchy · Oct 10, 2020

I've just ordered one. Some places still have them in stock in the UK, however some are out and that could well be it.

I thought the regular Hoof was okay on bass but I'm looking forward to the Cloven.

cusar5 · Oct 10, 2020

I mean, I guess it depends on your needs, but for me, after A/Bing all 3 Hoof variants, the Cloven had the most headroom and low end, which made it the clear choice for bass.

maplebar · Oct 11, 2020

crguti said: ↑

Has someone compared the ‘Cloven Hoof’ to the ‘Hoof’?
Click to expand...

Here’s a classic:

blizward said: ↑

First post on Talkbass. I own a standard Hoof fuzz and was looking for a comparison with the Cloven Hoof. Didn't find what I was looking for so I bought a Cloven Hoof to figure things by myself. I believe this can be useful to somebody else so here are my impressions:

Let's make it quick and dirty: the description on Earthquaker Devices' website is accurate. The Cloven Hoof has indeed a "grittier, more bass heavy tone with more crunch that can not be achieved with the standard Hoof" along with "higher gains and cleaner cleans". I love the sound of the standard Hoof but I felt I could use more gain. Since I'm greedy, if I can also have a usable clean sound by just twisting a few knobs, that's all the better. It fits my bill on paper, now let's see how the Cloven Hoof fares in real life alongside its bigger sister. I played them with a passive bass sporting stingray style humbuckers into a solid state Acoustic Image amp paired to a Markbass 2x10. Pretty neutral rig colorwise. I chose to rely on stompboxes to color my sound.
For my own use and purpose, I always keep the fuzz cranked to max on the (standard) Hoof. I mainly use two settings: Either with the tone and shift rolled off to achieve a very woolly fuzz or with the shift and tone set somewhere round midnight to open the sound of the fuzz and get a more "all out" distorsion sound.
Well the Cloven Hoof can get you there and then some. It does have more gain. It sure does. While the standard Hoof is already cranked to max, the Cloven Hoof's gain control is only at 3/4 of its course. The last quarter hides a huge fuzz, buzzy but not shrill, compressed but still singing with an edge that the standard Hoof cannot reach. Think Radiohead's myxomatosis or Muse's Hysteria but with more high gain distorsion feel that lends itself to palm mute chugging. That's a third setting that fits my needs dirt-wise.
I haven't got much other points of comparison, these being my only, and first, "serious" fuzzes but, to my hear, both pedals tread (or sometimes trample) the line between fuzz and distorsion which is a good thing.
The difference between them relies on the different combination of transistors. While the standard Hoof sports two germanium and two silicone transistors, the Cloven Hoof uses four silicone ones. And it shows. The Standard is definitely warmer while the Cloven is clearer. This is particularly obvious on the lower end of the gain spectrum. When the fuzz knob is set to minimum, the Cloven gets clean-ish with just a touch of overdrive edge while the Standard keeps its dark and creamy fuzzy character. I love this clean-ish sound that imparts just enough color and punch to the bass dry tone. One more useful setting for me.
The Cloven Hoof would appear to be more polyvalent if not for a small (or huge depending on your needs) drawback. It doesn't seem to stack so well. To fit the "edge of breakup" sound I love, I use an Earthquaker Monarch. It adds just enough body and edge to my bass. Perfect. I put the Hoof before it and use the Monarch to give the extra edge and grit that the Hoof can use. Standard Hoof and Monarch make a great team covering the whole spectrum of bass dirt with flexibility. Using the Cloven in the same setting, i.e. driving the Monarch, the sound appeared muddy and lacking in articulation. The Standard Hoof, on the other hand, kept its openness and definition. I must insist on the fact that both Hoofs (Hooves?) were set to produce the exact same sound. The problem didn't occur with the Monarch doing the driving and pushing the Cloven further. Still, yeah, a bit of a dent in my enthusiasm for the Cloven Hoof but not a big deal since it can drive the extra mile all on its own. Moreover, as a side note, the Monarch has a warm and bassy tone that complements the standard Hoof better than the Cloven.
Last comparison, revealing quite a huge difference: the level. The Standard Hoof can get WAY louder than the Cloven Hoof when you crank the level knob up. It's not an issue for me because the Standard will get much too loud for my needs. I don't want to push my (clean to a fault) solid state amp into oblivion. I don't use a tube amp but other bass players (so I heard!) do and I guess that the standard Hoof would be a better choice if you rely on a pedal to cook your tubes.
For the kind of sound and feel I'm trying to achieve right now, the Cloven Hoof comes on top of this showdown but I know that the standard Hoof can and will give me a feel and character all of its own that will prove a better choice in a different context.
Yes, there's quite a lot of overlap. Pretty much all the sound you can achieve with the Standard are matched by the Cloven who then offers a broader range of gain. It's really useful and opens the Hoof sound to new territories. The difference lies in their character. It depends if you're looking for a dark/warm or clear/edgy tone. I'll go out on a limb and advise that if you're into tube amps, go for the Standard, if you're into solid state amps, go for the Cloven. I won't keep them both on my pedal board but I won't sell the standard Hoof anytime soon either. It's such a beauty.
Both are focused fuzzes full of presence and should prove their worth in a band setting. From vintage to modern, I have my back covered. The Cloven Hoof bites and scratches while the standard Hoof barks and growls. Pick your poison. I prefer cats over dogs myself.
Click to expand...

Primary · Jun 14, 2021

Here are some related products that TB members are talking about. Clicking on a product will take you to TB’s partner, Primary, where you can find links to TB discussions about these products.

Browser not compatible

Log in / Register

Forums

R.I.P. EQD Cloven Hoof

maplebar

cusar5

crguti

johnk_10 vintage bass nut Supporting Member Commercial User

cusar5

catcauphonic High Freak of the Low Frequencies Supporting Member

skydivingninja

DosiYanarchy

cusar5

maplebar

Primary TB Assistant

Share This Page

Log in / Register

Useful Searches

R.I.P. EQD Cloven Hoof

johnk_10 vintage bass nut Supporting Member Commercial User

catcauphonic High Freak of the Low Frequencies Supporting Member

Primary TB Assistant

Share This Page