BBD mn3207 - mn3102

[bent]

anyone know a good flanger that can be build with those ic...  mn3207 and clock mn3102
just found  the boss BF2-flanger, but the critic are saying it's not bad but not the better flanger....

mistress is sad1024
flanger 301 is mn3007
ultra flanger is mn3007

bent

[bent]

by the way.....

is it possible to modify a circuit that is using a P channel silicon gate process and change it to N channel silicon gate process ?? and vice-versa
exemple : flanger FL301 is using the P gate (mn3007), and modify it to work with a N gate (mn3207) , and changing if needed the clock generetor...? Or the electric mistress using a N gate and change it to a P gate...

bent

[Mark Hammer]

The BF-2 is a decent flanger, but given the range of tricks that people expect a flanger to perform (generally a wider assortment than is expected of chorus or phaser pedals), it is not often the case that people find any single 3 or 4-knob floor-box flanger the be-all and end-all.

The most difficult trick to perform is the sort of ultra-wide sweep from very very "high" (shortest possible delay) to very very low (longest delay and well into chorus or double-tracking territory).  One of the pivotal factors in being able to do that (especially the "high" part) is being able to provide a nice crisp clock pulse to the delay chip, even as it soars above frequencies around the 500khz mark.  The MN3102 can provide high frequencies like that, but not unaided.  And therein lies the shortcomings of the BF-2 and many comparable stompboxes; they use the MN3101 or 3102 clock generator/driver on its own, withuot assistance, so the pedal is generally limited in how high it can sweep.

Note that the capacity for wide sweep and tonal quality essentially have nothing to do with whether it is P-gate or N-gate.  The primary difference between the MN3207 and the MN3007 is that the polarity of some things is inverted (i.e., they are not pin-for-pin plug-in compatible even though all the pins do the same "thing" or serve the same role), and the MN3207 is optimized for running at lower voltages, such that you can run it on a regulated 5V and the bias voltage remains suitable even as the battery starts to decline from 9v.  Any claims or observations of this MN3007 flanger being better than that MN3207-based flanger stem not from the chip itself but from the remainder of the circuit that the delay chip is nested in.

Flangers based around the SAD-1024 have often enjoyed a somewhat better reputation than those based on the MN3007/3207 because the SAD-1024 handles very high clock rates nicely even in the absence of assistance.  The MN3x07 chips could probably sound every bit as nice, but it would taker more parts and sightly higher production cost to do that.  So, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, people have tended to be more appreciative of SAD1024-based flangers.  Again, that remains, in  my view, a function of the circuit support around it, and the extent to which its finer qualities are milked, rather than anything inherent to the chip.

The Ultraflanger does not use an MN3101 for the clock.  It does, however, provide the "assist" spoken of earlier by means of the paralleled invertor sections that bjuffer the clock pulse going to the MN3007 and adding the sort of "oomph" that permits the clock to be nice and square even at very high frequencies.

So, if you can identify a circuit that provides a suitably buffered clock signal going to the MN3207, you should be able to squeeze some nice sounds out of it.

[MetalGuy]

Excuse me for the stupid question but can you add the buffer from Ultraflanger to an existing MN3207 flanger circuit?

[bent]

thank's Mark,

so i could take the mn3007 and put directly in replacement of the mn3207 without changing anything on the circuit? ( all the pin out are the same) and it should do the same...
and do i have to change the clock generator driver to match , mn3207-mn3102   mn3007-mn3101,  except that i have to do a little trick on the pin out to change pin 1 and pin 3 , GND and VDD are each other inverted ,

and i have one other question: what will be the difference on the sound to have the mn3207 clock frequency range: 10Khz-200Khz VERSUS the mn3007 clock frequency range : 10Khz-100Khz....  does the 100Khz more is doing something....? is it what is determine the amplitude ( lower and higher setting) of the flanger....

thank's

bent

[Mark Hammer]

thank's Mark,
so i could take the mn3007 and put directly in replacement of the mn3207 without changing anything on the circuit? ( all the pin out are the same) and it should do the same...
and do i have to change the clock generator driver to match , mn3207-mn3102   mn3007-mn3101,  except that i have to do a little trick on the pin out to change pin 1 and pin 3 , GND and VDD are each other inverted ,

The functions of the pins are the same, but that does not mean that what voltages they are supposed to see are identical.  Personally, I have never understood all the things that needed to be changed, but I do know that it is not as simple as sticking a 3207 in the socket and simply flipping the GND and supply lines.  There is also the issue of the bias voltage.

and i have one other question: what will be the difference on the sound to have the mn3207 clock frequency range: 10Khz-200Khz VERSUS the mn3007 clock frequency range : 10Khz-100Khz....  does the 100Khz more is doing something....? is it what is determine the amplitude ( lower and higher setting) of the flanger....
thank's
bent

The higher the clock frequency, the shorter the delay time feasible.  A clock frequency of 200khz can achieve a minimum delay time that is half of what you achieve with 100khz.  With only 1024 stages, the minimum delay time is only reduced from a little over 1msec to a little over half a millisecond, but that makes a big difference in the tone.  Very dramatic flanger sweeps often require clock frequencies of 1mhz when using 1024-stage BBDs.  If the BBD only has 512 or 256 stages, then the same ultra-short delay can be produced with a much lower clock frequency.

[Dirk_Hendrik]

The functions of the pins are the same, but that does not mean that what voltages they are supposed to see are identical.  Personally, I have never understood all the things that needed to be changed, but I do know that it is not as simple as sticking a 3207 in the socket and simply flipping the GND and supply lines.  There is also the issue of the bias voltage.

When running the bias supply to be able to go from ground to the full supply voltage one should be OK to set it correct for a 3207.
Other than that:
- Reverse the power supply pins. V+ (Vcc, Vbat or whatever) becomes ground and the ground becomes V+.
- Change the output resistor going from output to to V+ in the 3007 case and run it from output to ground in the 3207 case.
- If your supply voltage is higher than 9 volts use a 7809 to limit it to 9 volts far the BBD AND the BBD bias.

For the clock driver the setup is similar. Make use of the datasheets on Mark Hammer's website (BBD Dementia, Panasonic Paranoia or whatever the name was but, and I'll always mention this: Thanks so much for that file Mark!)  for these chips and make a comparison between a chorus like the CE2 (GGG.com?) and any BBD loaded Ibanez chorus found online. The differences in connecting is what you're looking for mand the above will become clear.

[bent]

thank's to both of you....

it's time to put my researcher uniform and do some testing....just hope not to blow too many ....

ill put some result ASAP....

bent