DIYstompboxes.com

And what do I have to change to do so?
CD4047 is still useable,no. It all comes down to scaling down the voltage supply, I guess

Ho Ho Ho: have you hugged your search-button today?

lol

I had asked something similar a while back, I was told that it requires a lot of changes in the power supply. From what I remember, the 3007 uses a neg supply, and the 3207 uses positive, or something like that.

I'd like to see or even try designing a chorus that uses the MN3207 and CD4047 sometimes, to be the cheapest chorus possible, but I'm not sure if the sound quality would be that great.

The sound quality would be fine.  Many very pleasing choruses use the 3207, both then and now.

Quote from: Mark Hammer on December 06, 2005, 11:53:29 AM
The sound quality would be fine.  Many very pleasing choruses use the 3207, both then and now.

Well thats good to know. I didn't want to go saying that it would be great, since I didn't know for sure. I've read people report adding MN30expensive-as-all-hell BBD in their chorus makes it sound better, which I understand has more to do with the size of the BBD, but even still, I wasn't sure if it would sound ok using the two cheapest parts.

Quote from: PenPen on December 06, 2005, 11:36:48 AM
I had asked something similar a while back, I was told that it requires a lot of changes in the power supply. From what I remember, the 3007 uses a neg supply, and the 3207 uses positive, or something like that.

I'd like to see or even try designing a chorus that uses the MN3207 and CD4047 sometimes, to be the cheapest chorus possible, but I'm not sure if the sound quality would be that great.

Changing - to + shouldn't be that big a problem. Reversing some electrolytics... Gonna have a look at the schematics.

 :icon_mrgreen:

Fp

Quote from: PenPen on December 06, 2005, 12:26:54 PM

Quote from: Mark Hammer on December 06, 2005, 11:53:29 AM
The sound quality would be fine.  Many very pleasing choruses use the 3207, both then and now.

Well thats good to know. I didn't want to go saying that it would be great, since I didn't know for sure. I've read people report adding MN30expensive-as-all-hell BBD in their chorus makes it sound better, which I understand has more to do with the size of the BBD, but even still, I wasn't sure if it would sound ok using the two cheapest parts.

It's not the size (# of stages) that makes the 30XX sound better, but the headroom that they have. You don't want more than 1024 stages for a chorus, many good ones use 512 stages. But if properly designed, the 30XX will sound better than the 32XX as your signal will not be squashed so much in the chip. Sorry to be so scientific in my terminology  :D

Have you tried the MN3207 in the small clone? (of course doing whatever mods necessary to the power/etc to be able to do so).

Fp

Quote from: analogmike on December 06, 2005, 02:23:00 PM

Quote from: PenPen on December 06, 2005, 12:26:54 PM

Quote from: Mark Hammer on December 06, 2005, 11:53:29 AM
The sound quality would be fine.  Many very pleasing choruses use the 3207, both then and now.

Well thats good to know. I didn't want to go saying that it would be great, since I didn't know for sure. I've read people report adding MN30expensive-as-all-hell BBD in their chorus makes it sound better, which I understand has more to do with the size of the BBD, but even still, I wasn't sure if it would sound ok using the two cheapest parts.

It's not the size (# of stages) that makes the 30XX sound better, but the headroom that they have. You don't want more than 1024 stages for a chorus, many good ones use 512 stages. But if properly designed, the 30XX will sound better than the 32XX as your signal will not be squashed so much in the chip. Sorry to be so scientific in my terminology  :D

To expand on what Mike said, both the MN3207 and MN3007 are rated for 2.5% max THD at a certain input voltage level.  For the MN3007, this level is 0.78V RMS.  For the MN3207, it's 0.25V RMS!!  The gist of it is, the MN3007 can take a higher max input signal level, which means more dynamic range, and less noise.

Interesting.

Still, I'd like to know if Mike has been able to use the MN3207 in circuits that use the MN3007 (from what he said it appears that he has).

I'm not asking how, just if it's possible, as some here in the forum have stated that it isn't.

Even if it meant using a different power supply for the ics.

Fp

Quote from: cd on December 06, 2005, 02:52:15 PM

To expand on what Mike said, both the MN3207 and MN3007 are rated for 2.5% max THD at a certain input voltage level.  For the MN3007, this level is 0.78V RMS.  For the MN3207, it's 0.25V RMS!!  The gist of it is, the MN3007 can take a higher max input signal level, which means more dynamic range, and less noise.

Is there a way around this? Being totally ignorant to the way BBD's work, would it be possible to run the signal line parallel into two 3207's to avoid this?

And what happens to the signal, does it come out sounding compressed, or does it actually clip and distort? Could a limiter stage before the BBD's correct this?

Quote from: PenPen on December 06, 2005, 03:10:28 PM

Quote from: cd on December 06, 2005, 02:52:15 PM

To expand on what Mike said, both the MN3207 and MN3007 are rated for 2.5% max THD at a certain input voltage level.  For the MN3007, this level is 0.78V RMS.  For the MN3207, it's 0.25V RMS!!  The gist of it is, the MN3007 can take a higher max input signal level, which means more dynamic range, and less noise.

Is there a way around this? Being totally ignorant to the way BBD's work, would it be possible to run the signal line parallel into two 3207's to avoid this?

And what happens to the signal, does it come out sounding compressed, or does it actually clip and distort? Could a limiter stage before the BBD's correct this?

Think of it this way.  You can feed a 0.78V signal into the MN3007 and get only a little bit of distortion.  However, if you feed that same signal into a MN3207, you'll get TONS of distortion and bzzzz bzzz bzzz hard clipping.  Not nice if you want a nice clean chorus.

What is the solution when using the smaller headroom of the MN3207 - yes, you can use a limiter, but more commonly, effects use a combination compressor/expander (NE570 compander chip) to compress the signal (so it doesn't distort, and uses the maximum available dynamic range of the delay line) then once it's out of the delay line, expand it back to its regular dynamic range.  Read the NE570 datasheet for a far better explanation.

Quote from: Fp-www.Tonepad.com on December 06, 2005, 03:09:50 PM
Interesting.

Still, I'd like to know if Mike has been able to use the MN3207 in circuits that use the MN3007 (from what he said it appears that he has).

I'm not asking how, just if it's possible, as some here in the forum have stated that it isn't.

Even if it meant using a different power supply for the ics.

Fp

I've done it once (a Zombie Chorus variation) a few years ago. It was REALLY painful as it was my first BBD build, but I got it working. It wasn't too nice a chorus, but I bet someone who knows what is doing can get good chorus or flanger out of it.

Luck

Miguel

CD, thanks for clarifying my techical terms  ;D

No, I have not tried using the 3207 as I have stockpiled enough 3007s to last till I retire (I hope soon!)

Well, I was planning to use the compander trick on it anyway.
Actually it goes further than that: I would use two boards and make a dreaded "Small Dimension"  ;D or something of the kind.
A third board would have companders and PCB mounted jacks for mono/stereo switching and zero flanging.
I have a nice angled enclosure box around of (in centimeters) 8 width, 15 length, 3 height in front, 6 height in back. The two boards would take 7x11 cm² and would fit in nicely

I started this reply before I had to go off to a meeting, so my apologies if some of it could have been more useful earlier on, or seems incongruous at the moment.

I'm not sure if I am in total agreement with you on the ranking of BBDs for chorus purposes.  In principle, the higher supply voltage in the 30xx series ought to be associated with greater headroom and all the good things that follow from that.

Across equivalent BBD size we see:

MN3007:  Vs -15V, S/N 80db, THD 0.5%, Insertion loss - 0db, Max clock 100khz
MN3207:  Vs +5v. S/N 73db, THD 0.4%, Insertion loss - 0db, Max clock 200khz
MN3307:  Vs +1.8 - +5v, S/N 69db, THD 0.6%, Insertion loss - 0db, Max clock (at +5v) 500khz

What we also see is that distortion levels covary with:  input signal level, input bias voltage, supply voltage.

What this tells me is that in the real world, the odds of being able to absolutely nail the optimum conditions for forcing both noise and distortion characteristics to be their absolute best for chip X are pretty damn low.  If anything, starting out from the base of using a 9v battery for power source means that possibilities for regulating the supply voltage to maintain it at the optimum conditions would suggest that the 3207 wins over the others by a nose, since you can regulate 9v down to 5v over some reasonable period of time, and design the circuit predicated on a stable 5v supply.

I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud.  I'm merely noting that it is the operating context, not the chip specs that make the biggest difference here.  If it is easy to maintain the optimum operating conditions, then you can obtain the ideal chip specs.  If you can't maintain the optimum conditions, then you may get those ideal specs for a short period or intermittently, but not always or predictably.

The other thing to consider is that whatever noise is contributed by the BBD likely pales beside the noise contributed by the presence of a HF clock.  Whatever you do to fix THAT noise will address the noise emanating from the chip itself.  The other thing is that whatever the minute differences in distortion and headroom are between the chips, they are probably lost if: a) you aren't using a compander to keep a ceiling on input signal levels (whihc can easily exceed what even the very best BBD's can handle under the best conditions), and b) you aren't adjusting the bias voltage with a scope and a distortion meter.  When all is said and done, the sonic quality is probably going to be affected more by the clock range used, the filtering applied, and the support circuitry (e.g., quality of clock pulse, mixing of complementary outputs, etc) than the BBD itself.

For all these and other reasons, I'm not going to favour any one of these chips over the other.  My sense is that many companies that make 1024-stage choruses have stuck with the 3207 because the possibility to regulate a 9v battery down to +5v permits the circuit to perform more consistently over time.  I don't know about you, but I've been using the same strings (D'Addario XL110's) for well over 20 years now, not because they sounded that much better than any others, but because they sounded as good as they could for a much longer period than others I tried, many of which would sound fabulous for 3 weeks and sound worse than the D'Addarios after that.  I think the same principle applies here.

You can find something at  www.diyitalia.com  ;)

Thanks for the link!  :icon_smile:

Interested parties should check this one out:  http://www.diyitalia.com/index/schematic/Guitar%20FX/Luix%20Chorus.gif

To answer FP's question and confirm Mark's thoughts I have made a Small Clone using  MN3207. I couldnt get a 3007 in OZ so I checked out the datasheets for both and decided to give it a try.
I modified the power and gnd tracks for the chip on Tonepad's Pcb layout to take the MN3207 then etched my board. To my ears it sounds exactly like the sound samples of the real thing. Go for it if you can spare the time and effort to modify the PCB  :icon_biggrin:.

Regards
Trevor

Hey, what about revealing  your PCB modifications then to the world?  ;D
How did you do the mods? Did you scan a print out or what?

Quote from: Mark Hammer on December 06, 2005, 06:51:38 PM
Thanks for the link!  :icon_smile:

Interested parties should check this one out:  http://www.diyitalia.com/index/schematic/Guitar%20FX/Luix%20Chorus.gif

Hey! That is just brilliant! Well, it's not a lot different, is it?

Thanks for the confirmation. I am also very interested in what changes to the stock build it took. Even just a revised schem would be fine with me, I don't mind sweating through making a layout myself.

The Small Clone just jumped a few notches in my build list, now that I can source the parts relatively cheaply. I had put it off until I had more experience, because that 3007 chip is too expensive for a newbie like me to fool around with. But if I can use the 3207, I'll be putting one of these together soon!

Also, big thanks to hippo for that Italian site, and Mark for finding the chorus schem. That is exactly what I was looking for, something using the 3207 and CD4047 that I can follow. Thanks again!

BL3207 + CD4047 = 4â,¬ (4.8$ ?)
MN3007 + CD4047 = 10â,¬ (11.8$ ?)

Well you can mess it up about two times ;)
Of what I know and read here I guess there is no difference between the two in sound when using it for chorus. For flanging you can easier results with 3207 for it is designed for higher clock rating. Yet Mark explains with some well-thought ciruitry you can "overclock" the 3007 too.

10â,¬=11.8$

Thx, edited.

You have to admit one thing: BBD's are fun. It's pure analog electronic designing.
Digital modulation (usually one-chip-adventures) doesn't need electronic skill, but programming skill, doesn't it!
yuck...

Honored to be linked in this great forum...

I build the luix chorus because I can find MN3207 in big quantity and at good price, as you can see is a collage of various ideas found on the net...

The very first sample is disponible  here  (http://www.diyitalia.com/index/elettronica/effetti/CAMPIONI%20EFFETTI.htm), this was taken on the prototype with a tamaki guitar (horrible) and a Rogers 30W amp, were the sound is distorted is due to the bad guitar condition.

The PCB is the definitive (i think)...

Quote from: luix on December 07, 2005, 06:52:04 AM
Honored to be linked in this great forum...

I build the luix chorus because I can find MN3207 in big quantity and at good price, as you can see is a collage of various ideas found on the net...

The very first sample is disponible  here  (http://www.diyitalia.com/index/elettronica/effetti/CAMPIONI%20EFFETTI.htm), this was taken on the prototype with a tamaki guitar (horrible) and a Rogers 30W amp, were the sound is distorted is due to the bad guitar condition.

The PCB is the definitive (i think)...

I can't see the parts placement (pcb TOP) in the zip file...

Is in the zip file named luix chorus top.jpg!?!?!

Anyway here it is:
(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/8397/luixchorustop0gl.th.jpg) (http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=luixchorustop0gl.jpg)

Grazie!

Couldn't read the file: it was blank.
(only file I couldn't read by the way)

Di niente... ;D

It's strange... I will ask around to see if someone else can't wiev it...

I stand by CD's post about the chip spec differences. Hand waving arguments aside, all things being equal, a 3007 based circuit must sound better than a 3207 circuit. If you are investing hundreds of dollars in your own time to build a pedal, you might as well spend a few more bucks for the real Japanese made  MN3007, Small Bear has thousands of them in stock. They will easily last 25 years, we don't know how long the Chinese chips will last yet. Have fun!

Meet you back here in 25 years and we'll see if it makes a difference! ;) :icon_lol:

I guess there are so many Chinese that ... sorry Chinese chips ;), that you can swap them quickly.
After all I don't think that a Japanese tech advantage is still reliable as advice 30 years later. I mean: the Chinese will know how to make by now, won't they. They have men in space, the Japanese don't.

Interesting.

Quote from: Mark Hammer on December 07, 2005, 10:52:09 AM
Meet you back here in 25 years and we'll see if it makes a difference! ;) :icon_lol:

Will do!

By then, forums will be just like meeting in person, face to face, but not in real time. Will be able post sound clips that appear to you in hifi any time. Will be able to see pedals and designs in 3D, in detail. Maybe even smell them? "My TS-8000000008 fried, does this smell like a diode or transistor to you?".

A/B'ing two otherwise identical builds except one uses MN3207 and the other MN3007 now that we have that italian schematic shouldn't be too hard at all.

time to re-name that gadget to: MINI-CLONE

or: " Pico - Copicolono "

Quote from: analogmike on December 07, 2005, 09:23:00 AM
I stand by CD's post about the chip spec differences. Hand waving arguments aside, all things being equal, a 3007 based circuit must (emphasis added - MH) sound better than a 3207 circuit. If you are investing hundreds of dollars in your own time to build a pedal, you might as well spend a few more bucks for the real Japanese made  MN3007, Small Bear has thousands of them in stock. They will easily last 25 years, we don't know how long the Chinese chips will last yet. Have fun!

Again, I have to question what "must" requires in order to be valid.

*** IF I was running a pedal from a regulated 15v supply (instead of an unregulated 9v battery), and
*** IF I did tight-spec'd bias-voltage setting for the pedal (instead of tweaking a trimpot until it sounded okay), and
*** IF I took care to keep the input signal level sensible (instead of plugging myhigh output fuzz directly into the BBD-based pedal), and
*** IF the rest of the circuitry holds up its end in the way of noise-elimination/attenuation (instead of cutting corners to keep costs/size
       down)

THEN...

*** I can pretty much guarantee the S/N ratio will be optimized to the limits of what the chip can do,
*** I can pretty much guarantee the overload-based distortion can be kept to a minimum
*** I can pretty much guarantee the samples are as high quality as the technology permits.

I have no quarrel with any of that.  Once somebody makes themselves a Zombie Chorus, or something similaly lean in design that has no supply regulation, provides a supply voltage much less than an MN3007 can take, does all set-up by ear, and inserts abusive signals into it, whatever advantage is provided by one chip over another in the ideal world simply disappears.  As an example, if one looks at the datasheets for the 3007/3207/3307, it is fairly clear that deviations of a half volt in bias-voltage can have significant implications for THD levels.

I'd like to think one could depend on chip specs to make decisions, but all too often we ask chips to do things that are impossible unless we provide them with the support they need.

As for the relative quality of Chinese vs Japanese chips, I am curious as to what it is that Beiling makes.  Those with more industrial process knowledge are likely better-placed to say what happens.  My limited understanding of the matter is that Matsushita decided to be completely "done" with these devices, so I am assuming they sold the dies and license to Beiling and Beiling simply carries on the making of the same chip in the same manner, only in a new place with new people.  I doubt whether there are any design changes to the internal workings of the chips, though I could be naive in that regard.  Certainly, if I were Beiling, it makes more business sense to simply buy the rights to making a product which I didn't have to sink R&D money into and keep making it for as long as there are clients, and as long as I don't have to sink money into making any changes to the product.  Now, is it possible that there are differences in production quality control that result in a different number of device failures per million units shipped?  Sure.  But assuming the device "works", I can't see how there would be differences in sonic quality.

Forums in "smell-o-vision"?  Ummm, I dunno.  There are days when I decide to surf when I should be showering. :icon_rolleyes:  I can't imagine I'm the only one.  Cripes, if you thought there were too few women here NOW......   :icon_lol: :icon_lol:  As for the capacity to have sound samples easily, I'm not too sure about that either.  When was the last time you visited a music store on a Saturday?  On the other hand, if radio keeps going the way it does, you may well HAVE to come to places like this to even hear any guitar! :icon_eek:

Quote from: A.S.P. on December 07, 2005, 12:16:01 PM
time to re-name that gadget to: MINI-CLONE

or: " Pico - Copicolono "

Here in Chile "pico" is the slang for penis... So this effect name would then read as "cloned dick"...  Ok, I'll take my hat and coat and leave...  :icon_redface:  ...but wait! the Swollen Pickle is out there!...  Ok, I'm leaving, just couldn't help it!  :-X

OK - let`s make it: " Piccolo Copico "
(just to keep it italian-sounding)

[i wonder, why "p*co" isn`t named: "gr*ndo" in chilenish  :icon_smile:]

AHAHAHAAH :D :D :D :D

Italian sounding eh!?!? 
You can call it clonetto or coretto or piccoletto.....

Quote from: Mark Hammer on December 07, 2005, 12:22:50 PM
On the other hand, if radio keeps going the way it does, you may well HAVE to come to places like this to even hear any guitar! :icon_eek:

Oh, no, they've got Canada too I see!

Luckily for me (and others) there is this nice dutch radiostation "Arrow" that pumps out classic rock 24/24. The jingle has this nice words in it: "...and surely no hiphop and R&B: than you simply listen to Arrow!"

Let's try to keep on topic, is anybody going to try the mods on the small clone based on the italian chorus schematic?

Fp

Quote from: Fp-www.Tonepad.com on December 08, 2005, 11:26:11 AM
Let's try to keep on topic, is anybody going to try the mods on the small clone based on the italian chorus schematic?

Fp

Well, I intend to, but it will be a while until I can. Still dont' have a workspace set up, and that will be in the garage, where half of our stuff is, still packed in boxes, so until I can get everything out I'm out of building for a while. BUT, once I am able to, it will be the one of the three projects I'm going to start up.

Hi guys, can you remember this post?

Finally I've recorded some sample of the chorus with MN3207 here they are:

CLEAN GUITAR  (http://www.diyitalia.com/public/Clan01.mp3)

CHORUS 1  (http://www.diyitalia.com/public/ch1.mp3)

CHORUS 2  (http://www.diyitalia.com/public/ch2.mp3)

CHORUS 3  (http://www.diyitalia.com/public/ch3.mp3)

The sample was registered with a CD player, as you can hear there is some noise that I don't know if is for the non shielded cable I used or for the bad audio card ( PCI sond blaster 128) or for the sample...

I will try the chorus on a guitar amp and let you know how sound...

Always sorry for my bad English ::)

Nice.

Anybody else tried this yet?

Fp

I built this chorus very recently and found it an excelent project.
I saw some similarities with the EH SmallClone, another great chorus in my opinion.
I used a DP3T switch to toggle thru trhee different caps (27pF, 100pF & 470pF) regarding delay time ranges. It makes it a bit more close to EH POLY- XXXX stuff, with very weird pitc shifts or a subtle phasing aproximation. I think about to adapt a feedback stage inspired by som flanger project I saw recently that uses an OpAmp to regultate the feeding back signal.
I used a bit lower cut frequency on the BBD filters. Just a bit, but made the sound more rounded, darker.
I  would like to do some kind of MOD to switch between two ranges of RATE, aproaching a Ring Modulator texture.
It's undoubtably in my pedalboard and congratulations to the Luix himself, his site seems out of work for now...

My LuxChorus MP3 sample:
http://rapidshare.com/files/8552139/LuxChorus.mp3.html

It has been a while but the Luix Chorus can now be found here:
http://www.diyitalia.eu/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=55&catid=49

after more than 13 years I decided to revive this thread.  I got the layout from a friend.  I've built it and it worked. But, there are some things you should look carefully.
- the location of the jumper,
- the BBD IC to be used,
- the orientation of the diode,
- the type of transistor used for each IC.
I hope this helps.  thank you.

(https://i.postimg.cc/PvtRzfyT/Screenshot-20211031-103421.png) (https://postimg.cc/PvtRzfyT)

(https://i.postimg.cc/qg0SdQTS/Small-Clone-2021-10-31-10-31-09.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/qg0SdQTS)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aucIgS_qavIfbb_fycI8uBoIYKGQ70nx/view?usp=drivesdk