I'm probably imagining this, but I thought I read here that the A/DA Flanger does TZF. After looking at a schematic, it doesn't appear that way. Assuming it doesn't, what makes it such a special circuit?
It does NOT do TZF, however it gets very very close to zero delay and has an extremely wide sweep (MUCH wider than a BF-2), which is why it enjoys such a good reputation.
Where can I find a copy of the schematic? Is there any layout?
Cheers
Search ada flanger and stephengiles!
"You may have meant to search for Adah flange and strangles."
???
Score. Maybe ill get to doing a layout for it, if I ever get everything else finished.
sorry for hijacking...but it looks like an ended thread. What makes the sweep so long?. is it the way the driver attacks the delay ic?, or the lfo?. can this same circuit (lfo/clock/driver), be used with a mn3007?. thanks a lot!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/StephenGiles/ada_MI_1024.jpg
For the 200th time! If I provide seach help, please use it. By the way, Dave pointed out that there are two IC3C's in my drawing - I will try to figure out what went wrong wih the numbering........how come nobody else spotted this?
Stephen,
I've been looking over this schematic this week and ordered the parts last night. I have a question about the power supply to the SAD1024. It looks to me like the power pins (7 and 9) are pulled to ground via resistors. Should the ground connection shown at the 10R resistor on pin 7 be +15 volts?
Oh wait, I think I just figured out that the upwards pointing open triangle are +15v connections. Can you verify this?
Thanks,
Ry
Stephen, there's a couple of trivial errors on there as well:
- 470R near IC4a goes to ground not +15V power
- 47R near lower IC3c goes to ground not +15V power
- 10R near IC8 goes to ground not +15V power
- IC1a, has power symbol instead of ground
- IC4a doesn't have a ground for it's power connection
- IC2a missing power connections
- IC3a missing power connections,
one of the IC3c's is presumably IC3a but neither of the IC3c's has power
- The 4u7 tantalum should be a have a polarized symbol
- The output cap should be polarized?
- The digital ground should connect back to the analog ground at some/one point
- Are IC's 5, 6, 9 supposed to be powered from +15V?
looks funny that they connect to the analog power.
Many people will automatically filter out these trivial things.
I have been wanting to build the ADA since I started, but am too nervous about doing the etch for it. Those lines are so small and so close together! I usually spend an hour fixing bad/smeared traces on just a regular sized circuit! So RaceDriver, if you do a layout for it let me know! The sad1024 situation is a bummer also, I only have one....and have been debating wether to build the 9v electric mistress with the possibility of making it a tzf or finally getting the guts to try to the ADA. Oh, and the stripboard ada picture I have seen....wow. Legendary.
Quote from: Ry on September 30, 2006, 01:06:11 PM
Stephen,
I've been looking over this schematic this week and ordered the parts last night. I have a question about the power supply to the SAD1024. It looks to me like the power pins (7 and 9) are pulled to ground via resistors. Should the ground connection shown at the 10R resistor on pin 7 be +15 volts?
Oh wait, I think I just figured out that the upwards pointing open triangle are +15v connections. Can you verify this?
Thanks,
Ry
verified
Quote from: Rob Strand on September 30, 2006, 01:25:05 PM
Stephen, there's a couple of trivial errors on there as well:
- 470R near IC4a goes to ground not +15V power
- 47R near lower IC3c goes to ground not +15V power
- 10R near IC8 goes to ground not +15V power
- IC1a, has power symbol instead of ground
- IC4a doesn't have a ground for it's power connection
- IC2a missing power connections
- IC3a missing power connections,
one of the IC3c's is presumably IC3a but neither of the IC3c's has power
- The 4u7 tantalum should be a have a polarized symbol
- The output cap should be polarized?
- The digital ground should connect back to the analog ground at some/one point
- Are IC's 5, 6, 9 supposed to be powered from +15V?
looks funny that they connect to the analog power.
Many people will automatically filter out these trivial things.
Thanks for pointing these out. In fact the unfilled triangle is ground whichever way it faces, so no problems there. I usually assume that folks know that opamps need power, so sometimes I include connections and sometimes I don't! 4u7 tant is configured as -ve to ground.ICs 5,6,9 are powered from 15v, possibly via a 10R resistor and filter cap. We're off to bed now but I'll look at the original circuit tomorrow if I have time.
I'll also update the circuit in due course. It's just a form of art to me!!
Another Q: why was the threshold pot plus associated parts omitted from the schem? Is it not necessary soundwise?
Markus
Because it is not necessary, oddly enough it is quite quiet enough. I draw circuits because it amuses me to produce a work of art from ther sometimes appallingly drawn ones. Please feel free to alter it as you feel fit. Paint is good for this.
Thanks for your answer Stephen! :)
Hm, one more Q. Comparing the schem for the Mike Irwin mod to the old original SAD1024 schem the SAD1024 is wired slightly differently: in the old schems pins 5, 6,11 and 12 are mixed via four 270 ohm resistors while in Mike Irwin's mod only pins 5 and 12 are mixed via a 1k pot (parallel multiplex operation). I understand that the 1K pot is used for clock nulling. Is there any advantage of one method over the other and what's the difference soundwise? Sorry for the dumb questions. :icon_redface:
Markus
Dont know I'm afraid - on second thoughts, and quickly as I'm being dragged off to breakfast, the null pot can considerably cancel out clock whistle at lower clocking frequencies. Now........eggs!!!
>I understand that the 1K pot is used for clock nulling
On other units I've compare the nulling pot with just shortting the outputs together or using equal resistors and I could never detect any difference in the "whistle" level. I can see why most commercial effects don't have nulling pots.
I think that using a scope, the nulling can be done pretty accurately. Does anyone want a copy of my Excel file of the flanger drawing to play about with?
Maybe I'll include both options into the layout (the one with 5/12 + trim pot and the one with all four outputs mixed by the four 270 ohm resistors.
QuoteOn other units I've compare the nulling pot with just shortting the outputs together or using equal resistors and I could never detect any difference in the "whistle" level.
The 9V Mistress also has just two equal resistors and there is no clock noise :)
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 01, 2006, 07:48:22 AM
I think that using a scope, the nulling can be done pretty accurately. Does anyone want a copy of my Excel file of the flanger drawing to play about with?
This would be great! Thanks a lot in advance! you got pm. :)
Markus
Yes ,sure I would like the exel file very much.
Thanks indeed , Stephen
Alfafalfa
Another Q ;)
Is it possible to mod the ADA Flanger for stereo out (in air mixing)?
Would it work to take the delayed signal from the output of IC1a and to break the connection to the mixing IC 2b? Feedback wouldn't work in case of stereo out I suppose. Any ideas?
Markus
Try taking the delayed signal from different points to see which sounds best.
QuoteTry taking the delayed signal from different points to see which sounds best.
Thanks for your answer! :)
Think I will do some Spice simulations to see how the different stages around the output affect filtering of the signal.
Since Stephen and Charlie suggested to combine the both current ADA Flanger threads:
from http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=50003.0 (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=50003.0)
QuoteIf enough folks are interested, I might be willing to do the work and post the layout for review prior to ordering. Any takers?
Thanks for the great offer!
Unfortunately, I think my growing list of mods makes the use of a stock schematics layout pretty difficult. Obviously, some knot in my brain prevents me from building any circuit stock ;)
So far I'd like to add to the stock version: (not hard to guess from my previous post I suppose)
* TZF option (could be easily integrated by adding two pads for insertion of a second delay line on an add-on pcb)
* For the second delay line one pot for regulating the delay would be cool; I would love to have it mounted to the top pcb but this already would be hard to be impletmented as an option
* stereo out: could probably be integrated relatively easy by tapping the signal off ic1c's out, again just two pads; but probably the delayed signal would need additional filtering for getting rid of residual clock noise, (don't know how much the ic2b stage contributes to clock filtering) might be done with a small add-on pcb
So I'm not sure whether it would'nt be better to design a layout around my wish-list.
Any comments are highly appreciated :)
Regards,
Markus
Read this before you do any layout!
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=25380.msg166584#msg166584
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 03, 2006, 01:53:27 PM
Read this before you do any layout!
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=25380.msg166584#msg166584
Thanks for that link!!!!! Already bookmarked, copy/pasted-saved, backuped.......... ;)
Excellent link, Stephen! We're rockin' now... 8)
Marcus - Sounds like the mods you are interested in just require a few extra pads on the board, yes/no? So, probably a nice option for those who want to "experiment". I'm still down with it... Have you started laying anything out, yet?
I've been messing with bill bergman's powerpoint layout, tweaking colors and resolution to try to make it a little easier to see. Next, I was going to trace through it with Stephen's schematic to see how they match up.
Separating clocks and audio, adding ground planes (on both sides) is of course all totally doable on a fabbed PCB. 8)
~ Charlie
"I've been messing with bill bergman's powerpoint layout, tweaking colors and resolution to try to make it a little easier to see. Next, I was going to trace through it with Stephen's schematic to see how they match up."
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp.......I'm going on holiday!!!
??? Have a nice time, Stephen.
~ Charlie
I wish!
QuoteMarcus - Sounds like the mods you are interested in just require a few extra pads on the board, yes/no? So, probably a nice option for those who want to "experiment". I'm still down with it... Have you started laying anything out, yet?
Hey Charlie,
I'm still planning. Also I want to compare rev3 and rev4 by doing Spice simulations. The sims hopefully also will reveal whether additional filtering for the stereo option is needed. Adding the pads for the stereo out option shouldn't be a problem. Don't know whether it would be of interest for you to e.g. have an additional filtering output stage for the stereo option included into the layout/design. I fear it will take quite some time until I could start with a layout or at least provide you with my suggestions on the mods.
Re the TZF option: the pads could be easily integrated. Adding the additional delay pot for the fixed delay to the main pcb (assuming that the fixed delay is on a second board) probably could be done, but in case of not using the TZF option the 5 "standard" pots would be distributed assymetrically on the board. The other possibility would be to have the 5 pots as they are and add the fixed delay pot somewhere else to the enclosure wired off board.
So I don't know if you want to go that far in modifying the layout just to have some options included that probably just a few of the pcb buyers would use.
After modding the Mistress for TZF I just know that I want a TZF ADA. The stereo out isn't included in my TZF Mistress but I assume that it would be cool to have "in-air-mixing". So I want it for my ADA. ;)
BTW, did you yet decide on the enclosure? Maybe a 1590D (or DD) would be nice.
Regards,
Markus
For what it's worth, when the sweep on the ADA gets right up there, the volume drops considerably so it's fine in your music room at home, but in a band stuation?????
QuoteRe the TZF option: the pads could be easily integrated
Do it, I swear to god! A Through-zero ADA Flanger would finally quench the desire for 'jet engine' that people have. We would have the ultimate flanger, which is why I entered this game in the first place. It would be nice to make that my final effect.
Seriously, I can't stress enough how important making this ADA + TZF layout is. It would be a great achievement everyone!
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 04, 2006, 07:13:05 AM
For what it's worth, when the sweep on the ADA gets right up there, the volume drops considerably so it's fine in your music room at home, but in a band stuation?????
Suppose that is primarily in "odd" mode (if I got it right in odd mode the phase of the delayed is inverted compared to the dry signal) because I didn't observe this phenomenon with my TZF Mistress which doesn't have a phase inverter. With the Hoax if the phase is inverted there is complete cancellation at TZF.
QuoteDo it, I swear to god!
I for sure will do in my unit ;) but since the pcb Charlie wants to design is supposed to be a forum-pcb I believe it should also be a forum decision.
Once more mod: for TZF it probably would also be a good idea to have a "ultra-slow" switch for the LFO because the rate actually is multiplied by 2 if the fixed delay is engaged, at least with a symmetric TZF point. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Markus
You could have a VCA on the output which kicks in as the sweep approaches the TZF point to compensate for the volume drop - an opto perhaps, driven by appropriate circuitry.
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 04, 2006, 07:13:05 AMFor what it's worth, when the sweep on the ADA gets right up there, the volume drops considerably so it's fine in your music room at home, but in a band stuation?????
Like Markus said... I'm also assuming that this just happens in "odd" mode, yes/no?
Quote from: markusw on October 04, 2006, 05:34:13 AM...I want to compare rev3 and rev4 by doing Spice simulations.
Yeah, I guess that would be interesting. I'm actually still a little confused on the whole "version" question. The way I'm interpreting all the info that's flying around right now is that the one to build is Mike Irwin's SAD1024 adaptation as shown in Stephen's schematic. I don't mean to beat a dead horse on this question but, in my mind, he's still got a little kick left in him. So, am I on the same page as everyone here?
Quote from: markusw on October 04, 2006, 05:34:13 AM
... Adding the pads for the stereo out option shouldn't be a problem.
... Re the TZF option: the pads could be easily integrated.
... Adding the additional delay pot for the fixed delay to the main pcb...
So I don't know if you want to go that far in modifying the layout just to have some options included that probably just a few of the pcb buyers would use.
I think it makes sense to include all those mod options (and any others that we might think of :icon_mrgreen:). I don't think adding pads for this stuff will take up much more space on the board than several resistors. While we may not know exactly how the mods will be done, it seems we can at least determine where to insert some extra pads to allow for whatever "experiments" folks want to try. Then, at some later date, perhaps someone could design a "daughter board" that could be tied into the main (stock circuit) board to implement all the mods.
Quote from: markusw on October 04, 2006, 05:34:13 AMBTW, did you yet decide on the enclosure? Maybe a 1590D (or DD) would be nice.
Exactly what I was thinking... 1590DD is my first preference (7.38" x 4.70" x 1.3" deep, just a bit deeper than a 1590B).
The 1590D is 2.05" deep which is about twice as deep as a 1590B.
http://www.hammondmfg.com/dwg.htm (http://www.hammondmfg.com/dwg.htm)Another thing to consider is whether or not to have all the pots mounted to the board. Just look at all those traces that are needed on the rev.3 and rev.4 boards just to get the pots to line up in the desired order and mount to the upper section of the PCB. It increases the size of the PCB by maybe ~30%.
But, there are pros and cons...
PROS
I it eliminates a lot of off-board wiring and saves a lot of time.
Reduces the chances of making a wiring mistake.
Simplifies troubleshooting.
CONS
It eats up a lot of board space.
Could require a larger, deeper enclosure.
Takes up space that could be used to add off-board modifications (i.e. TZF).
Takes up even more space if the builder wants to orient the controls differently (i.e. on the side of the enclosure).
If the pads for wiring to the individual pots were simply grouped together on the PCB (i.e. 2 pads for the speed pot located right next to each other, 3 pads for the range pot located right next to each other, etc...), the wiring would at least be less confusing than if the individual pads were scattered around the board. I'm not totally opposed to keeping the pots mounted to the PCB. Just weighing the options.
Any other thoughts?
Thanks
~ Charlie
The only snag with pots on the pcb is that it restricts the type of pot used. Personally I would rack mount this beast, then there would be plenty of space for expansion - then perhaps have a footswitch for on/off and other switching.
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 04, 2006, 10:08:11 AM
You could have a VCA on the output which kicks in as the sweep approaches the TZF point to compensate for the volume drop - an opto perhaps, driven by appropriate circuitry.
One more module to add as an option :)
QuoteThe way I'm interpreting all the info that's flying around right now is that the one to build is Mike Irwin's SAD1024 adaptation as shown in Stephen's schematic.
This is also my interpretation. Should be rev4 + the MI mods if I got it right.
QuoteI think it makes sense to include all those mod options (and any others that we might think of ). I don't think adding pads for this stuff will take up much more space on the board than several resistors. While we may not know exactly how the mods will be done, it seems we can at least determine where to insert some extra pads to allow for whatever "experiments" folks want to try. Then, at some later date, perhaps someone could design a "daughter board" that could be tied into the main (stock circuit) board to implement all the mods.
I think we just have to figure out whether the stereo out option needs an additional filtering stage and whether this stage should be incorpotated into the main pcb.
QuoteExactly what I was thinking... 1590DD is my first preference (7.38" x 4.70" x 1.3" deep, just a bit deeper than a 1590B).
The 1590D is 2.05" deep which is about twice as deep as a 1590B.
If we can fit the main board into a DD then a DD could be used for the stock ADA and a D for the modded two-pcb version.
Re pots: I still would love to have them pcb mountd or at least to have the pads aligned for making the pots optionally pcb mounted.
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 04, 2006, 11:51:54 AM
The only snag with pots on the pcb is that it restricts the type of pot used. Personally I would rack mount this beast, then there would be plenty of space for expansion - then perhaps have a footswitch for on/off and other switching.
I believe if we go for e.g. 16 mm alpha pots it would be a good choice because they are easily available. They could be pcb mounted (by using three pieces of solid wire; works pretty nice IMHO) or alternatively off-boardwith using stranded wire . Also the 16 mm pots could be adjusted for height when pcb-mounted using solid wire. So there could even be some components placed below the pots.
For me the one Q is: should the pcb be designed around the options (e.g. having the second delay line's pot as well as a possible filtering stage for stereo out on the main pcb) so that it can also used be for the stock schem. This way the mods could probably be more easily incorporated. Or should it be designed around the stock schem which would cause more off-board wiring in case of doing the mods. Probably, the decision will depend on how many of the buyers want to add the mods.
Markus
I suppose I always feel that a rack on top of an amp looks more flash. Still that's just me. If you can get it in a small box, all well and good.
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 05, 2006, 02:37:51 AM
I suppose I always feel that a rack on top of an amp looks more flash. Still that's just me. If you can get it in a small box, all well and good.
Suppose it's not going to be a really small box more like a
BOX. ;)
Rack would also be cool but I think a 1590D/DD should be possible.
I would much prefer a box, even if it's pretty large.
I agree that the stock PCB should fit in a DD sixe box.
Of course that would not prevent someone from building it into a rack enclosure if they wanted to. 8)
Same for adding the mods... could probably be the builder's choice, D size box or rack enclosure.
~ Charlie
OK, still gathering my thoughts on this and going back over the discussions...
There's a few things I'm not seeing in Rob's corrections to Stephen's schematic.
Sorry if some of them are kinda dumb... Am I mixed up on any of these?
Quote from: Rob Strand on September 30, 2006, 01:25:05 PM
Stephen, there's a couple of trivial errors on there as well:
- 470R near IC4a goes to ground not +15V power
- 47R near lower IC3c goes to ground not +15V power
- 10R near IC8 goes to ground not +15V power
- IC1a, has power symbol instead of ground
- IC4a doesn't have a ground for it's power connection
- IC2a missing power connections
- IC3a missing power connections,
one of the IC3c's is presumably IC3a but neither of the IC3c's has power
Doesn't the lower IC3c get power through the 47R (R62 on Rev4 scheme)?
- The 4u7 tantalum should be a have a polarized symbol
Right... C2 on Rev4 scheme?
- The output cap should be polarized?
Wouldn't a non-polarized cap be fine, perhaps even a nice metal or poly film type?
- The digital ground should connect back to the analog ground at some/one point
I see how this is done on the Rev4 scheme and layout, but isn't it good practice to keep them separated?
- Are IC's 5, 6, 9 supposed to be powered from +15V?
looks funny that they connect to the analog power.
On the Rev4 scheme, IC5 and IC6 are shown connecting to +15V.
Would that be a problem to put them all on +15V (I haven't looked at the datasheets, yet)?
Many people will automatically filter out these trivial things.
On the Rev4 scheme there is also a resistor (R47) going to ground between IC4a and IC4b that I don't see on Stephen's drawing. Was this left out intentionally or have I missed it?
On the subject of mixing all the outputs of the SAD1024, I'm inclined to go with only mixing pins 5 and 12 through the 1k trimmer, per Mike's adaptation, as shown on Stephen's drawing. My thinking is that this option provides for some adjustments to be made, while mixing pins 5, 6, 11, 12 through fixed resistors does not. Anyone looking at this differently?
I'm still thinking 18V wallwart for power. I'm also thinking (ouch!) that in the space that was originally used for the on-board power transformer you could fit a PSU circuit using the same Maxim power chip that's used in the Dunlop DC brick power supply (I don't remember the number, but I have one at home). I think that would not only give you regulated power for the ADA, but also allow you to build in several 9V and 18V outputs to power the other pedals on your board. :o
Yeah... OK, maybe that's not a "must have". But, it might be kinda cool. 8)
~ Charlie
If that Maxim chip doubles the DC voltage by means of charge pumping, I wouldn't recommend using it at all-I know the MAX1044's switch puts off a high frequency that will heterodyne with your delay clock. After many hours of trying many different clock speeds out of the MAX1044 to get the noide to go ultrasonic, I gave up because I was still getting AM radio noise out of the background, but that was with an Electric Mistress.
Maybe some thought should also be given to other possible delay chips? Given the recent buy up of SAD1024 chips, it appears that they are in very short supply. I just ordered one from Small Bear, who has it in stock again. I was quoted € 30 a chip by Banzai when I enquired if they have any, they have taken the chip off their webpages.
I think it was Stephen who pointed out previously that the Morley sapphire flanger used a MN3207 and a similar LFO to the A/DA flanger. Maybe this would give similar results if correctly tweaked?
Also does the fixed delay for the tzf option have to be a SAD1024, there was some discussion previously on the TZF electric mistress thread (suggested by Stephen Giles, and explained by Mark Hammer) the use of an over clocked BL3207, or MN3205 (Sorry cannot get the link to work) this could provied separation of the clock frequencies, or am I missing something.
Just some thoughts.
Kevin
Let me point out again that my circuit works as is. You can call the changes what you like, but they are certainly not "corrections"!
QuoteOn the subject of mixing all the outputs of the SAD1024, I'm inclined to go with only mixing pins 5 and 12 through the 1k trimmer, per Mike's adaptation, as shown on Stephen's drawing.
Since mixing 5 and 12 with equal resistors works in the Mistress I'm fine with the trimmer version too :)
QuoteI'm still thinking 18V wallwart for power.
IMHO 18V wallwart + 15V regulator is the way to go. Also wouldn't want to risk having a high frequency generating charge pump in the box.
Re the sad104, since Stephen's ADA works with the SAD1024 I would like to go for it. At least I do not feel experienced enough to redesign the ADA for using another BBD. ;)
For the fixed delay a BL3207 should be fine. Actually, it should need just an adaptation re clocking frequency. Maybe it will require a bit more filtering than the SAD1024 since there are not 2 Stages that can be run in parallel-multiplex mode to reduce noise clock.
Maybe someone with more experience can comment on this! ;)
Also I think that with separate ps filtering for each delay line heterondyning caused by overlapping clocking freq ranges shouldn't be a huge problem...at least I didn't experience any issues with the TZF Mistress.
Markus
Hi Stephen
I was not trying to imply that anything was wrong or needed correcting with your schematic. I was just pointing out that the SAD1024 is getting scarce. Very scarce, implied from the email I got from Steve Daniels when I asked if he would be getting anymore in stock.
Versions 3 and 4 of the ADA flanger used the MN3010, Mike Irwin adapted the circuit to SAD1024 in 2003, which you schematic is a version of. Probably sooner than later the SAD1024 will go the same was as the MN3010 - rare than hen's teeth...
It just seems a shame to waste all the work being proposed here.
Kevin
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 06, 2006, 08:53:58 AM
Let me point out again that my circuit works as is. You can call the changes what you like, but they are certainly not "corrections"!
Sorry for the semantic slip, Stephen. :icon_redface:
I guess the questions were more about things that, as you already replied, are either assumed or not shown in your drawing, like the power supply and the separation/connection between the analog and digital grounds. So, I think that's all sorted out, at least in my mind, thanks to you and everyone else in this thread!
Yeah, nix on that Maxim chip idea. This'll be a straight-up 15V regulator circuit that will run on an 18V wallwart.
Time to start building the layout in ExpressPCB... finally. 8)
~ Charlie
Just when you thought it was safe to go outside - have you considered bounce?
envelope-controlled? :icon_wink:
Quote from: puretube on October 06, 2006, 01:14:42 PM
envelope-controlled? :icon_wink:
evelope controlled....OK......... but what's bounce? :icon_redface:
Think we are definitely at the rack unit now. ;)
http://home.debitel.net/user/jhaible/jh_storm_tide_flanger.html
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 06, 2006, 01:34:18 PM
http://home.debitel.net/user/jhaible/jh_storm_tide_flanger.html
Another great read! Thanks :)
Will have to read it a few times to understand what's going on ;)
it`s safe to go outside, now...
here it`s cold and wet, though...
:icon_smile:
QuoteTime to start building the layout in ExpressPCB... finally.
~ Charlie
Sorry that I won't be of much help within the next 2 weeks. Pretty busy workwise :P and in addition I swore an oath to myself that I wouldn't start with a new project until my old ones are done.....even if it would be by far more interesting to start with the ADA. There is still one more circuit from about one year ago that I really need to put in a box.
I hope that I can do at least some sims on the filtering to get an idea if an additional filtering stage might be needed for stereo out.
Seems the Eventide might easily find it's way to my to-do list, btw ;)
Quote from: puretube on October 06, 2006, 01:47:46 PM
it`s safe to go outside, now...
:icon_smile:
if you refer to
QuoteWill have to read it a few times to understand what's going on
then you can go outside till about monday ;)
Quote from: puretube on October 06, 2006, 01:47:46 PM
it`s safe to go outside, now...
here it`s cold and wet, though...
:icon_smile:
We have had more rain here in England during the last week than the whole of the period from end of May to mid September, too windy for umbrellas!
Just the opposite here in Sacramento, Steven.
NO rain for the *entire* month of August.
VERY dry year :-\
Yes, i'm following this thread, just not much to add ;)
T
Getting cooler, with occasional rain here in New England. And, the leaves have begun to turn.
But, it sure is raining in here... Envelope controlled bounce!?! Hey, then we really ought to add foldback too, right... I mean, since we're in the neighborhood anyway, right?
Hey, Markus. That daughter board is going to be bigger than the main circuit board! :D
Quote from: markusw on October 06, 2006, 01:52:25 PMSorry that I won't be of much help within the next 2 weeks. Pretty busy workwise...
No sweat. I'm already on my way, but it might be almost that long before I have some images to proof, anyway. Might just need some feedback on where to include all those extra pads for the future mods. ;)
~ Charlie
Moose,
I really appreciate the effort you're putting into this! I just got all the parts from Mouser and an SAD1024 from Small Bear this week. I'm not trying to rush you by any means, I'm just really excited to do this project. I can wait as long as it takes.
Ry
Awesome, glad you guys are getting into this.
QuoteNew England
Where is 'New' England?
Quote from: RaceDriver205 on October 06, 2006, 07:35:38 PM
Awesome, glad you guys are getting into this.
QuoteNew England
Where is 'New' England?
Since I can't add anything worthwhile to this topic other than I as well am very excited about this -
New England is the northeastern states in the U.S.; Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts.
Hey everyone, sorry to chime in hear with a dumb or obvious question but I've been looking for THIS version layout of the ADA for a real long time and think I have had everyone involved in creating the files and material (possibly anyone who's ever had it to ! : ) BUT my question is... is the only purpose of all the talk going on and the work Charlie doing for the layout , ONLY to get Fab'd boards done for folks?? meaning , though obviously the layout will be changed (double sided, large ground planes ,etc..) to take advantage of PCB fab services. ...
IS there known to be anything wrong with the NEWEST version Layout AS-IS???
I don't think I have much a problem with very tight traces , my etches are usually very clean down to very thin traces. So I would really hate to put off building it asap , Unless there is going to be a very improved layout done, and also available to print, "other than" as a manufactured board
again sorry to hijack but to me a relevant question since this all looked to start after notice of tight traces. Surely it's been built from that layout, and is verified? If so I for one an FINALLY, more than happy to build it from this layout as is!
Quote from: analog kid on October 07, 2006, 01:31:49 AM...is the only purpose of all the talk going on and the work Charlie doing for the layout , ONLY to get Fab'd boards done for folks??
There are a number of folks who also want to add some cool mods, like TZF, stereo outs, ... So, the other idea was to also create a layout for the (new) stock circuit that includes additional pads in all the right places to make experimentation and modifications easier.
Quote from: analog kid on October 07, 2006, 01:31:49 AM... I for one an FINALLY, more than happy to build it from this layout as is!
Go for it! 8)
~ Charlie
QuoteNo sweat. I'm already on my way, but it might be almost that long before I have some images to proof, anyway. Might just need some feedback on where to include all those extra pads for the future mods.
Cool! 8)
Will try to modify Stephen's schem for the TZF and stereo mod. thanks again btw for sending the excel file! :)
Had a look at the schem again and now I'm pretty sure that one additional opamp stage would be necessary for stereo out. Otherwise the even/odd switch would change its function to the opposite in stereo. Anyway, will do some sims.....
Markus
This had gone quiet!
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 08, 2006, 01:22:46 PM
This had gone quiet!
Didn't find any time this weekend to do the schem mods. :P
Hopefully will be able to post my first suggestions tomorrow.
Let me know if you need any help with the excel symbols.
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 08, 2006, 02:06:27 PM
Let me know if you need any help with the excel symbols.
Thanks for the offer!! :)
I just realized that diode arrangement around IC1b in the input section (as shown in both the Rev4 scheme and Stephen's drawing) does not match the Rev4 PCB layout! It looks to me like it's done this way on the Rev4 PCB...
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAinput.gif
Actually, I can't be absolutely positive about the orientation of the diodes, because that's not indicated on the Rev4 PCB layout. But, that's the general arrangement that I come up with when I trace the layout. Does that make sense?
Stephen, you have built yours per your drawing and verified it. So, I'm inclined to go that way with my layout. But, I still find it curious that ADA's documentation does not match.
Does anyone know if one way would be better, or different sounding, or anything?
Thanks
~ Charlie
QuoteInsert Quote
I just realized that diode arrangement around IC1b in the input section (as shown in both the Rev4 scheme and Stephen's drawing) does not match the Rev4 PCB layout! It looks to me like it's done this way on the Rev4 PCB...
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAinput.gif
The inut section you've drawn looks exactly like in rev3. I believe the layout in the Power Point file is also rev3.
Markus
This time in the morning - it's 7.45am here!!! I'll check out the various versions of original revs this evening. I have to do battle with mums taking their kids to school in 4x4 monsters in a minute!
Thanks, Markus. I think I was using the Rev4 scheme to trace through the Rev3 (powerpoint) layout. :icon_redface:
So, like I said, I'm planning to do it the way Stephen has it in his scheme. 8)
Next question...
What about those opamps? Do they really need to be all different? Why couldn't they all be the same, like TL074 or something?
Thanks!
~ Charlie
I remember Mike Irwin telling me that the MC3403 has better drive of something and also recommended the MC 33074 (I think). I'll look to see if I still have the thread. However, nothing to stop you using TL074s at all.
Here's the modded schem with my suggestions for mods. Actually, it's just the modded part. I simply was too stupid to get it all in a jpg. ;)
Anyway, the relevant parts of the schem are shown.
In addition, for ultra slow LFO When if TZF mode) another cap might be added switchable to the 33µ cap in the LFO. Could probably be 33µ too, don't know what value is necessary to divide the LFO rate by 2. Is there a linear correlation between LFO frequency and cap size, btw??
The second output for stereo could be taken directly from the output of IC1c. W/o the optional jumper delayed and "dry" signal would be send to the two output jacks separately with the feedback not active. Probably, it would be interesting to have the "optional jumper" added to see whether feedback would be possible in stereo mode this way. In this case the added 68k would just be needed for stereo (i.e. the mono/stereo switch would connect only in stereo mode).
Don't know if it is necessary to connect the neg input of the additional opamp output stage to e.g. Vb when in mono mode? IIRC a not terminated opamp input may cause problems. Any ideas?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v21/markusw/ADAmods2nd9-10-06.jpg)
While drawing the schem I realised that for true-bypass-switching in stereo the second output probably also had to be swtiched (3PDT + millenium??).
I'm pretty confident that the stereo out w/o feedback should work. Don't know if feedback is possible this way though.
Comments are highly appreciated ;)
Markus
To get the whole circuit in a jpg, highlight the cells it covers as if you are setting a print area, copy and paste into Paint, do Image/attributes and alter the sheet size, then save as whatever you want.
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 09, 2006, 02:20:39 PM
To get the whole circuit in a jpg, highlight the cells it covers as if you are setting a print area, copy and paste into Paint, do Image/attributes and alter the sheet size, then save as whatever you want.
Thanks for the tip! :icon_redface: ;)
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 09, 2006, 02:20:39 PM
To get the whole circuit in a jpg, highlight the cells it covers as if you are setting a print area, copy and paste into Paint, do Image/attributes and alter the sheet size, then save as whatever you want.
BTW, do you think about the stereo out? Might it work??
Provided that the levels are the same, it should work.
That looks good, Markus. I don't think you need the extra 68K. You could just use the pad that the jumper goes to. In fact, maybe that would be the spot to put the switch. I think this might also be the spot to put in a wet/dry (vibrato) control option, replacing the two 68K's with a 150K pot, if desired. If you add the stereo mod, the two 68K's could perhaps optionally be replaced with a dual pot to control the balance between the two outputs, if you want.
Another option that would go well with the vibrato option would be to add a dry, direct output. Again, levels might have to be tweaked, but a switching jack that would break the connection on one side of the 68K thats attached to IC1b would do well (at Markus' TZF jumper). This would also be like an easy psudo-stereo type mod.
Here's another interesting read on making stereo...
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=11254.0
And, I'm gonna dredge this up 'cause it's a really good discussion...
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=25681.0
... and, there's some good info in there on opamp selection, among other things. ;)
I've also come across a few posts in the archives that talk about a level change when the effect is active, versus bypassed. I'm going to guess that if the effect is modified for true bypass, this could be an issue? So, might it make sense to maybe replace the output buffer's 4K7 feedback resistor with a 10K trim pot, or some other means of adjustment for output level matching?
I've also found some talk about the configuration of those diodes in the input section... I'm sure y'all already knew their purpose, but I was very interested to learn that they act as a limiter that tames the regeneration (enhance) at extreme settings, or something like that. Anyway, it seems that the older ~Rev3 configuration is preferred.
Also, another interesting comment about the threshold control...
QuoteThe "Threshold" control is designed to cut off the delay mix section wen you're not playing. Many flangers continue to "whoosh" when you are not playing, but the A/DA is dead quiet. If you run the threshold control all the way up, it takes a pretty hefty signal to kick the flange back in but I wouldn't say it's something you can play with like you could, say, an auto-wah. Not really in the same league as far as interactivity goes.
But, there's still lots of reports out there about how quiet this circuit is without the threshold control. It would certainly simplify the build to leave it out. And, I think it takes up too much space to leave as an option. So, I'm still mulling it over. Anyone have any other thoughts about this?
Quote from: StephenGiles on December 17, 2004, 08:07:04 AMYes, I have a variable capacitor in my ADA Flanger.
Stephen
Sorry, Stephen. I know that's a pretty old quote. But, it just made me curious... do you have any recollection?
Thanks!
~ Charlie
Indeed I do, which I bought from Maplin no less! I used it for the 4047 timing capacitor - if that's what it's called. Vibrato - perhaps you need a VCA on the control voltage so that it comes in gradually??
QuoteI don't think you need the extra 68K. You could just use the pad that the jumper goes to. In fact, maybe that would be the spot to put the switch.
The additional 68k would be just for testing whether feedback works in stereo. If this is case, in think the switch -as you mentioned- might be placed instead of the jumper.
QuoteI think this might also be the spot to put in a wet/dry (vibrato) control option, replacing the two 68K's with a 150K pot, if desired.
I like the idea of the wet/dry pot! :) Including the TZF delay pot this would be 7 in total ;)
Thanks for the links! Definitely some interesting reads!!
QuoteAnyway, it seems that the older ~Rev3 configuration is preferred.
But in Stephens schem the rev4 configuration is used??
Regards,
Markus
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 10, 2006, 02:59:48 AMIndeed I do, which I bought from Maplin no less! I used it for the 4047 timing capacitor - if that's what it's called. Vibrato - perhaps you need a VCA on the control voltage so that it comes in gradually??
Nice! I'll bet that sounds pretty cool, yes? Do you recall what value you used?
I did a similar thing in a small clone chorus. I used a rotary to switch between 4 different timing caps (from 33p up to 330p) on the 4047. You can hear it in the clips of my
wavy gravy (http://moosapotamus.net/THINGS/wavy.htm). Individual caps on a rotary does give a bit of a 'pop' when you switch them, tho.
Maybe a foot pedal input to control the wet/dry mix would be the next best thing to a VCA for vibrato?
Quote from: markusw on October 10, 2006, 10:31:57 AMBut in Stephens schem the rev4 configuration is used??
Perhaps Stephen just didn't have a chance to go back to revise the scheme?
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 05, 2004, 01:50:48 PMI think at Mike's suggestion I replaced the diode network on the input with the simpler limiter network on one of the earlier versions.
... additional details in Stephen's build report, repeated a little further down in that same thread. ;)
My remaining questions...
1) Should there be output level control(s) to allow for matching the effect and bypass levels?
2) Should the threshold control and all the related components be left out?
I'm inclined to answer 'yes' to both of the above.
Thanks
~ Charlie
QuotePerhaps Stephen just didn't have a chance to go back to revise the scheme?
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 05, 2004, 07:50:48 PM
I think at Mike's suggestion I replaced the diode network on the input with the simpler limiter network on one of the earlier versions.
Hm, an easy explanation! :)
QuoteNice! I'll bet that sounds pretty cool, yes? Do you recall what value you used?
From the same thread:
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 05, 2004, 01:50:48 PMI also managed to get a 22p - 65p variable capacitor from Maplin Electronics
QuoteMy remaining questions...
1) Should there be output level control(s) to allow for matching the effect and bypass levels?
2) Should the threshold control and all the related components be left out?
I'm inclined to answer 'yes' to both of the above.
1) Yes
2) No, if there is enough space. If not used it could be turned off anyway. Probably at some rare occasions it might be good to have it, don't know.
Markus
Quote from: markusw on October 10, 2006, 12:53:22 PM
From the same thread:
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 05, 2004, 01:50:48 PMI also managed to get a 22p - 65p variable capacitor from Maplin Electronics
:icon_redface: I just finished reading that! Thanks! :icon_wink:
Well, I'm with you as far as the "don't know" part about the threshold control. But, I have not been able to find a single post about the threshold control being useful. In fact, everyone reporting to have already built this seems to indicate that the threshold control is not really needed because the circuit is already very quiet on it's own. I'm just hesitant to include something that may be unnecessary. What about a couple more extra pads in the main layout that would allow it to be built on a small separate piece of perf and easily added as a mod?
~ Charlie
QuoteI'm just hesitant to include something that may be unnecessary.
It's just my spleen to build it as close as possible to the original ;)
Edit: On the other hand..... I browsed through some reviews at HC and it seems you can do some interesting sounds with the threshold pot. So probably for fun factor I would keep it.
Markus
Do think what North Korea has built is near to the original :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen:
Better to be in bad taste than to taste bad!!
"Perhaps Stephen just didn't have a chance to go back to revise the scheme?"
At the time there was no need, my build worked well, and I was just waiting for access to an A3 size printer so I could print and frame the drawing!!!
QuoteShould there be output level control(s) to allow for matching the effect and bypass levels?
Do you plan an additional control on the enclosure or one (two) trim pots? Trim pots wouldn't even be needed since
QuoteI just had to make 2 component changes to my ADA flanger because having found and installed an spdt footswitch, I discovered there was a volume drop on the flanged output. This was easily rectified by soldering a 39k resistor in parallel with each 68k resistor connected to the inverting input of the output mixer, making approx 24K, so probably 27k would do.
Stephen
For the dry/wet pot mod tapering resistors might be added to a 100k pot (just thinking loud ;) )
Markus
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 10, 2006, 02:21:12 PM
"Perhaps Stephen just didn't have a chance to go back to revise the scheme?"
At the time there was no need, my build worked well, and I was just waiting for access to an A3 size printer so I could print and frame the drawing!!!
Thanks for the confirmation! ;)
Stupid Q: do you remember the difference in sound between the two diode arrangements??
From the same thread:
QuoteThere is so much variation of flanging sweeps available on this beast. I am going to have the max clock trim as a panel control because it provides continuous control of which part of the sweep area can be used. So, for instance, if a narrow sweep is set up, the max clock trim can fix whether that sweep is in the high or low end.
Another panel mount pot?? ;)
Quote from: markusw on October 10, 2006, 02:52:35 PM
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 10, 2006, 02:21:12 PM
"Perhaps Stephen just didn't have a chance to go back to revise the scheme?"
At the time there was no need, my build worked well, and I was just waiting for access to an A3 size printer so I could print and frame the drawing!!!
Thanks for the confirmation! ;)
Stupid Q: do you remember the difference in sound between the two diode arrangements??
None as far as I can remember.
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 10, 2006, 02:09:18 PM
Do think what North Korea has built is near to the original :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen:
Better to be in bad taste than to taste bad!!
LOL :icon_lol: I wonder where they got the schematic!?!
They must have had to do their own layout, too. :P
Stephen & Markus - Thanks for chiming in on all this stuff! 8)
OK. I think I've reached my threshold on the threshold question. :icon_mrgreen: Might as well keep it.
And, nix to the level trim(s). Like you point out, Markus, the two 68K resistors can be adjusted as needed for either straight-up level matching or as taper resistors if installing a wet/dry mix pot.
RE: max clock trim... that sounds cool, too. Easy mod to bring that out as a panel mounted control if desired.
RE: enclosure... I'm still thinking the 1590DD will be nice, but I think it might also be nice to orient it vertically so it fits better on a pedalboard. (Am I driving you crazy yet, Markus :icon_razz:). Placing a 1590DD sideways would be like the original, but would take up the space of ~3 normal size pedals. Vertically, it would take up half as much space, width-wise. Just a thought... ;)
Here's my current list of potential mods, so far...
- TZF (second delay line TBD)
- True stereo outputs
- Additional direct/dry output (pseudo stereo with vibrato mod)
- Vibrato (switch to eliminate dry signal, or pot to control wet/dry mix)
- Foot pedal input jack for wet/dry mix
- Ultra slow/fast switch for LFO (dual, extended speed range)
- Bounce & Foldback (envelope controlled?)
http://home.debitel.net/user/jhaible/jh_storm_tide_flanger.html
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/StephenGiles/bnce_clock.gif - Variable cap(s) for 4047 timing capacitor
- Trim pots brought out as panel mounted controls
Also, Stephen - You suggested using a VCA in a couple different places... to bring up the output volume during deep sweeps, and to bring the vibrato (wet/dry mix) in and out. These seem pretty complex to me. Were you thinking of a relatively simple way to do these?
Any other mod ideas that I might have missed?
Thanks again, y'all!
~ Charlie
I could be talking rubbish here, but couldn't the LFO drive an opto in the feedback of an opamp , which is configured for unity gain until the voltage reaches a point near to the high end of the sweep, when the volume reduces, and then provides a gain as required. When the sweep falls back down again, the gain would need to reduce back to unity. I'm assuming that the voltage rises for the top end of the sweep. If it falls, then I reach for the gin bottle!
For the Vibrato, doesn't the Boss Vibrato have a VCA on the controll voltage?
why is everybody talking about a "fixed delay" when it comes to TZF? ... :icon_wink:
Quote from: puretube on October 10, 2006, 05:27:59 PM
why is everybody talking about a "fixed delay" when it comes to TZF? ... :icon_wink:
I think Markus caught that earlier on in this thread....
Quote from: markusw on October 03, 2006, 01:35:06 PM* For the second delay line one pot for regulating the delay would be cool...
When I was listing the potential mods and wrote "second delay line TBD," I guess I was kind of leaving the configuration of that whole second delay section as an open option. ;)
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 10, 2006, 05:14:43 PMI could be talking rubbish here, but couldn't the LFO drive an opto in the feedback of an opamp , which is configured for unity gain until the voltage reaches a point near to the high end of the sweep, when the volume reduces, and then provides a gain as required. When the sweep falls back down again, the gain would need to reduce back to unity. I'm assuming that the voltage rises for the top end of the sweep. If it falls, then I reach for the gin bottle!
Sounds really cool, Stephen. But, how would you set the trigger point (voltage) to boost the gain (start lighting the LED) at the desired point in the sweep? Could it be as simple as just a trim pot on the voltage to the LED? And, might it be OK if I reach for tequila instaed of gin? :icon_mrgreen:
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 10, 2006, 05:14:43 PMFor the Vibrato, doesn't the Boss Vibrato have a VCA on the controll voltage?
Dunno... gotta check that out. :o
~ Charlie
Quote from: puretube on October 10, 2006, 05:27:59 PM
why is everybody talking about a "fixed delay" when it comes to TZF? ... :icon_wink:
With a fixed delay that can be adjusted with a pot the TZF point could be set anywhere between symmetric and completely assymetric TZF.
What would be the advantage soundwise of having the second delay line with an LFO too? :)
Hoaxy...
Quote from: puretube on October 11, 2006, 01:43:47 AM
Hoaxy...
Will have to check out on my Hoax..... ;)
QuoteVibrato (switch to eliminate dry signal, or pot to control wet/dry mix)
Another Q: in the Hyper Flanger there are "LFO out" and "Delay CV in" jacks. By feeding the LFO out into an expression pedal and then back into "Delay CV in" the amount of vibrato can be adjusted with the pedal. The expression pedal acts as an external LFO depth control. What would be the difference to a dry/wet pedal for vibrato?
The WEM Infinite Flanger did it with 2 variable delay lines perhaps 20 years ago using MN 3004.
The WEM Infinite Flanger did it with 2 variable delay lines perhaps 20 years ago using MN 3004 - each clock was modulated by LFOs working in opposite directions, or whatever the technical jargon is. Incidentally, I was listening to a Kasey Chambers gig in Chicago on my way to work this morning - good voice and good band too.
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 11, 2006, 08:05:58 AM
The WEM Infinite Flanger did it with 2 variable delay lines perhaps 20 years ago using MN 3004 - each clock was modulated by LFOs working in opposite directions, or whatever the technical jargon is. Incidentally, I was listening to a Kasey Chambers gig in Chicago on my way to work this morning - good voice and good band too.
Thanks for the information! :)
Do you know whether it were two entirely separated LFOs or one LFO that was shifted for e.g. 90° or 180° ?
Hm, you don't happen to have a schem? ;) Sorry, had to ask :icon_redface:
Quote from: markusw on October 11, 2006, 08:26:42 AM
Thanks for the information! :)
Do you know whether it were two entirely separated LFOs or one LFO that was shifted for e.g. 90° or 180° ?
Hm, you don't happen to have a schem? ;) Sorry, had to ask :icon_redface:
Is it this one (http://www.milton.arachsys.com/nj71/index.php?menu=2&submenu=6)? Mr. Hammer posted a link to an Infinite Flanger a couple of years ago. Remarkably, the link still works, but I don't know if it's the same device.
Edit: Probably not, since this one uses TDA1097's.
No, that was from Home & Studio Recording magazine, which was an excellent publication, eventually swallowed up by Sound on Sound which I do not like at all. I may have the circuit somewhere.
QuoteI may have the circuit somewhere.
:)
Here's the cleaned up version of that circuit: http://hammer.ampage.org/files/INFLSCHM.gif
Quote from: Mark Hammer on October 11, 2006, 12:18:51 PM
Here's the cleaned up version of that circuit: http://hammer.ampage.org/files/INFLSCHM.gif
I think it's the same version that Dave_B posted. It has one fixed delay. Nevertheless, thanks!!
You're welcome. This thread got pretty long pretty fast and I stopped keeping track of it a ways back, so I may have posted something that had already been posted.
Quote from: markusw on October 11, 2006, 01:54:09 AMAnother Q: in the Hyper Flanger there are "LFO out" and "Delay CV in" jacks. By feeding the LFO out into an expression pedal and then back into "Delay CV in" the amount of vibrato can be adjusted with the pedal. The expression pedal acts as an external LFO depth control. What would be the difference to a dry/wet pedal for vibrato?
You could keep the depth turned up, even to the point of self-oscillation, and continuously fade between wet and dry. I think that would sound pretty different compared to continuously changing the LFO depth.
~ Charlie
QuoteYou could keep the depth turned up, even to the point of self-oscillation, and continuously fade between wet and dry. I think that would sound pretty different compared to continuously changing the LFO depth.
I had a look at the hyperflanger docs again and it seems that in virato "mode" the dry/wet pot is set to 100% wet. So it has to sound different. Should read more carefully :icon_redface:
Anyway, seems like another interesting mod to our list. It's just 3 more pads. ;)
Do you think it would work to have 100k expression pedal wired in parallel to the range pod?
Tell me, are you trying to build something to gig with or to muck about with at home?
Quote from: markusw on October 11, 2006, 08:26:42 AM
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 11, 2006, 08:05:58 AM
The WEM Infinite Flanger did it with 2 variable delay lines perhaps 20 years ago using MN 3004 - each clock was modulated by LFOs working in opposite directions, or whatever the technical jargon is. Incidentally, I was listening to a Kasey Chambers gig in Chicago on my way to work this morning - good voice and good band too.
Thanks for the information! :)
Do you know whether it were two entirely separated LFOs or one LFO that was shifted for e.g. 90° or 180° ?
Hm, you don't happen to have a schem? ;) Sorry, had to ask :icon_redface:
Sorry, can't find it but from memory it was one LFO and an inverted version.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/uncle_boko/modulation.gif
I found this snippet. Perhaps the rest is still on my old laptop.
approaching B*ss chorusses now...
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 11, 2006, 02:33:22 PM
Tell me, are you trying to build something to gig with or to muck about with at home?
Hm, actually both. So at least for me some of the suggested mods are justoptions because otherwise we really had to go for a rack unit ;)
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 11, 2006, 05:01:31 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/uncle_boko/modulation.gif
I found this snippet. Perhaps the rest is still on my old laptop.
Thanks a lot! It quite explains it :)
> There's a few things I'm not seeing in Rob's corrections to Stephen's schematic.
> Sorry if some of them are kinda dumb... Am I mixed up on any of these?
I wouldn't call them corrections just anomalies and things to check.
> - The digital ground should connect back to the analog ground at some/one point
> I see how this is done on the Rev4 scheme and layout, but isn't it good practice to keep them separated?
If the analog and digital circuits are powered of the same supply then you can't keep them entirely separate both analog and digital circuits need a ground. Also if the analog and digital circuit interract at any poin then the grounds of the two systems must connect.
What you don't want to do is intermingle analog and digital grounds on the same tracks on the PCB. You want to keep the tracks separate.
At some point you have to connect them together. The best place to do this is usually back the low impedance power supply. That prevents any junk on the digital ground causing voltage fluctuations on the analog grounds.
So the meaning of separate here usually doesn't mean *entirely* separate.
This thing sounds like its getting complicated really fast!
What features have been agreed on?
Quote from: RaceDriver205 on October 12, 2006, 05:12:52 AM
This thing sounds like its getting complicated really fast!
What features have been agreed on?
Good question ;)
How long is a piece of string? How many North Vietnamese does it take to dig a hole? Yes folks it's North Vietnam joke time - don't theirmilitary wear silly hats!!!
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 12, 2006, 08:18:34 AM
How long is a piece of string? How many North Vietnamese does it take to dig a hole? Yes folks it's North Vietnam joke time - don't theirmilitary wear silly hats!!!
I find their leader's hairdoo rather amusing. ~8{
Quote from: Rob Strand on October 12, 2006, 04:30:04 AM
If the analog and digital circuits are powered of the same supply then you can't keep them entirely separate both analog and digital circuits need a ground. Also if the analog and digital circuit interract at any point then the grounds of the two systems must connect.
In the nyquist aliaser circuit that JC Maillet presented, there is passive isolation between not only the audio and clock ground rails, but between the power rails, too. JC discusses it on his web page...
http://www.lynx.bc.ca/~jc/nyquistAliaser.html
... and, this is how I tried it...
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/nyquist/NyquistENV2.gif
It seems to work well. But, maybe comparing the nyquist to the ADA is apples and oranges?
Quote from: Rob Strand on October 12, 2006, 04:30:04 AM
What you don't want to do is intermingle analog and digital grounds on the same tracks on the PCB. You want to keep the tracks separate.
So, that's the deal with the star point in the ADA layout, right?
Thanks!
~ Charlie
While on the subject of the ADA...
As I said before, I'm just trying to clean up the SAD1024 Mike I layout (the one based on the Bill B layout which is a rev3) and not do a complete redesign/relayout as I understand you guys are doing.
I have run into a problem here and could really use your help. Moosapotamus, you seem to have all the files and a good eye too. My problem is this, I can't find the coupling cap that comes straight off the clock null trim in the Mike I layout. In the Giles/Irwin schematic this one is 0.22u. In the original rev3 there is a coupling cap C13 (.1u) isolating the MN from the next op amp stage too. Have I just gone blind from staring at the files too much, is it truly missing from the Mike I layout or is it perhaps not needed at all due to some reason I can't think of??? Help!
Best!
Pelle G
Quote from: Gripp on October 12, 2006, 10:28:43 AM
...I can't find the coupling cap that comes straight off the clock null trim in the Mike I layout. In the Giles/Irwin schematic this one is 0.22u.
I don't see it either, but I would add it.
But, you did see the note on the layout to add a 0.01 uF between SAD1024 pins 1 & 2, right? ;)
Quote from: Gripp on October 12, 2006, 10:28:43 AM
As I said before, I'm just trying to clean up the SAD1024 Mike I layout (the one based on the Bill B layout which is a rev3) and not do a complete redesign/relayout as I understand you guys are doing.
Let's clear something up...
I am not really thinking about this as a re-design at all. I am working on a "stock" layout that incorporates the following...
- Mike Irwin's SAD1024 adaptation
- Rev3 diode limiter configuration
- Rev4 everything else
- Extra pads to make mods and experimentation easier
Aside from adding a few extra pads, I think that's more or less the same thing you are doing, Gripp... right?
Quote from: RaceDriver205 on October 12, 2006, 05:12:52 AM
This thing sounds like its getting complicated really fast!
What features have been agreed on?
Building it should only be as complicated as the person building it wants to make it. ;)
Building it "stock" should be relatively straightforward. The mods you choose to add will be up to you, but there will be extra pads where needed to simplify any additional wiring that might be needed for whatever mods you choose to do. 8)
A lot of the potential mods have been discussed in some detail here in this thread. I think the list of potential mods that I posted the other day still holds...
Quote from: moosapotamus on October 10, 2006, 04:21:03 PM
Here's my current list of potential mods, so far...
- TZF (second delay line TBD)
- True stereo outputs
- Additional direct/dry output (pseudo stereo with vibrato mod)
- Vibrato (switch to eliminate dry signal, or pot to control wet/dry mix)
- Foot pedal input jack for wet/dry mix
- Ultra slow/fast switch for LFO (dual, extended speed range)
- Bounce & Foldback (envelope controlled?)
http://home.debitel.net/user/jhaible/jh_storm_tide_flanger.html
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/StephenGiles/bnce_clock.gif - Variable cap(s) for 4047 timing capacitor
- Trim pots brought out as panel mounted controls
I think that's the first time I ever quoted myself. :P
There's been some discussion about using VCA's for some other mods, but I'm going to assume that those would need to be implemented in the same way as the TZF mod, on a small separate board that can be wired into the main PCB.
Any other potential mods to add to that list?
Thanks
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on October 12, 2006, 11:19:56 AM
Quote from: Gripp on October 12, 2006, 10:28:43 AM
...I can't find the coupling cap that comes straight off the clock null trim in the Mike I layout. In the Giles/Irwin schematic this one is 0.22u.
I don't see it either, but I would add it.
But, you did see the note on the layout to add a 0.01 uF between SAD1024 pins 1 & 2, right? ;)
Thanks! Will add it. Yup, I saw that note fortunately.
Quote from: moosapotamus on October 12, 2006, 11:19:56 AM
Let's clear something up...
I am not really thinking about this as a re-design at all. I am working on a "stock" layout that incorporates the following...
- Mike Irwin's SAD1024 adaptation
- Rev3 diode limiter configuration
- Rev4 everything else
- Extra pads to make mods and experimentation easier
Aside from adding a few extra pads, I think that's more or less the same thing you are doing, Gripp... right?
Well, I'm just cleaning up the Mike I modded layout graphically because it was kind of low resolution, probably due to format conversion somewhere. I've tried a new (for me) method of doing this so it's an opportunity to learn too. Taking the gif to vector and edit in illustrator. So, I'm going to go with this, meaning using the rev3 (Bill B) for everything except clock, BBD and associated parts.
Are there any obvious advantages in using rev4 for everything else? I just haven't thought about rev4 since the Bill B layout is rev3.
Any other potential mods to add to that list?
Thanks
~ Charlie
[/quote]
How about a switch to turn off the LFO? This would make it easier to use the voltage control pedal as a comb filter. Wouldn't have to reach down to adjust the range pot every time you wanted to use the comb filter function. Thank you!
Quote from: Gripp on October 12, 2006, 12:41:35 PM
Are there any obvious advantages in using rev4 for everything else? I just haven't thought about rev4 since the Bill B layout is rev3.
I guess that's a good question that I don't really know the answer to. It looks like the main differences between all the rev's and Mike's version (Stephen's scheme) is the LFO... They are all slightly different. ??? But, Mike's is very much like Rev4. The only difference I can see between the Rev4 LFO and Mike's version is R47 going from the junction of R60, R61 and the speed pot to ground. So, I'm leaning towards Rev4 LFO because it'll be easier to just leave R47 out if it runs better that way.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on October 12, 2006, 01:06:51 PM
How about a switch to turn off the LFO? This would make it easier to use the voltage control pedal as a comb filter. Wouldn't have to reach down to adjust the range pot every time you wanted to use the comb filter function. Thank you!
Functionally, kind of like the filter matrix switch on the DEM? Sounds cool to me. 8)
Thanks
~ Charlie
Will it make any difference if the CMOS chips (4007, 4047, 4049) are buffered or unbuffered?
~ Charlie
hi Moose, Usually....if U are going to use the CMOS digital chips in an "analog way",
then, U should use the unbuffered versions.
The bufferers are for digital drive called "fanout"; i.e. how many other gates it can drive.
When biased into the linear region, the buffers are not needed.
And, from most of what i've read, the buffers are detrimental to the analog useage.
Though, i've never done a side-by-side scope or sound comparason.
Maybe someone has ???
Staybuiding
tone
> It seems to work well. But, maybe comparing the nyquist to the ADA is apples and oranges?
That is a valid way to isolate, but it can only be applied in some instances. There is a trade-off with that circuit in that the ground resistors cause voltage drops between the ground. On that circuit the ground drop can be accommodated. On say a circuit using a BBD it's not so easy because the BBD chips don't have separated analog and digital grounds. As you reduce the ground resistances the drops reduce, in the limit you end up with track resistances. Most of the time it's good enough just to split the tracks and make sure each arm has good supply decoupling and that they connect back to a low impedance supply.
> So, that's the deal with the star point in the ADA layout, right?
I haven't seen it but I would say that is precisely the case - it's a very common practice.
I'll do some guesswork here...
Isn't an LFO disable switch superfluous? Doesn't turning range to zero give full control to manual or CV jack?
Re buffered/unbuffered CMOS, my thinking is this (still guesswork). All of the CMOS chips make up a high frequency CV controlled square wave bi phase clock, so the end result is in a way digital. The 4049 is there to make sure that there is good drive to the BBD in order to overcome gate capacitance so it wouldn't hurt to have this one buffered.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
/Pelle G
LFO - yes
CMOS - I used whatever I had - like I always do!!!!!!! :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin:
Grounds - I doubt if you hear the difference above a drum kit :-\ :-\ :-\
Our friends from Argentina/Chile of course will be using the subjunctive about all this because nothing is certain!!
Es importante que ADAmos :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin:
Sorry oldschoolanalog, I read to quickly and didn't see the part about not having to adjust the range pot to get the static comb filter effect.
When done, my pedal will end up on a table close by for tweaking.
Best!
Pelle G
Quote from: toneman on October 12, 2006, 09:34:25 PM
Usually....if U are going to use the CMOS digital chips in an "analog way",
then, U should use the unbuffered versions.
Thanks, tone 8)
Quote from: Rob Strand on October 13, 2006, 04:16:09 AM
Most of the time it's good enough just to split the tracks and make sure each arm has good supply decoupling and that they connect back to a low impedance supply.
Thanks, Rob 8)
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 13, 2006, 07:14:54 AM
CMOS - I used whatever I had - like I always do!!!!!!! :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin:
Grounds - I doubt if you hear the difference above a drum kit :-\ :-\ :-\
Well, I guess that sums it up nicely. :D Thanks, Stephen 8)
~ Charlie
Here's a silly question - I'm watching this thread with much interest, as I kind of want a new flanger, and this seems like a it will be a fun, challenging build to try at some point in the future when layouts are done. And everything I've heard about this flanger makes it sound super cool.
But it occurs to me, I've not exactly sure what flanger this is based on - but it occurs to me my friend has a rack-mount ADA flanger in his studio - is this the thing this is based on? Is there a model # or something for this flanger? Realizing that this may well be the same flanger he's been using just doubled my interest, because I loved that thing when I tried it out.
(I'm probably missing something in the beginging of this thread that answers my question, but I'm not seeing it)
moose has posted what he could gather in a "zip"...
you don`t even need the search-function - it`s all hidden in a link from this very thread :icon_wink:
have you read reply #23 thoroughly enough :icon_question:
Nobody has mentioned power requirements - is this a consideration do you think?
no problem for a rack- mount unit...
or what about a step up regulator like http://cache.national.com/ds/LM/LM1577.pdf with a choice of wall wart or battery for a portable
Quote from: Horace on October 14, 2006, 09:44:40 AM
or what about a step up regulator like http://cache.national.com/ds/LM/LM1577.pdf with a choice of wall wart or battery for a portable
Would the 52 kHz oscillator on this chip create heterodyning issues? I believe this is the reason the MAX1044 was decided against. Interesting chip, though. Probably very useful in other apps.
I don't know if any heterodyning between the LFO and the 52kHz oscillator would be an issue or even within human hearing range. The MAX1044 has a 20kHz internal oscillator that would be more likely to cause problems if any.
the LFO will hurt nobody (except for "clicking", caused by wrong layout...),
but as can be read from the calibration page,
the clock goes from 34.8kHz to beyond 1MHz,
which means: it goes "through 52kHz",
and that`s where the regulator can hurt the clock or vice versa...
this can be cured/prevented by proper layout, though,
and special filtering measures,
especially easy in rack mount units.
(where OTOH, with a built-in PS, switched regulators are not needed... )
i am sorry, you are completely correct, I utterly forgot about the clock :icon_redface: and was stupidly trying to think how 52kHz heterodyning within a clockless flanger could be a problem . I have just finished building a badstone clone and must have LFO's on the brain (a bad lm324 was the problem). I just want to try to build the ADA clone in a stompbox version for gigging (although, having the option of the extra's to eventually build a rack mountable would be brilliant) , the rest of the band would never forgive me if we had to try to find more room to drag along an extra rack for effects. :icon_wink:
To me, reaching up to plug my guitar into a Marshall amp on top of 2 4 x12 cabinets is the ultimate, but to fiddle around with a rack mounted ADA Flanger on top of that is in another dimension!.........but then so is seeing my tulip bulbs grow early next year!!!
:icon_lol: ...now you put it that way....bring on a rack mountable. please picture our gig mobile, http://www.lansingpd.org/images/overloaded-car.jpg
Speaking of power supplies...
My PC is not well, dead in the water, couldn't do a thing all weekend (I'm writing this from my PC at work ;)). But, I'm hoping to be back in business sometime tomorrow. I'm waiting for dell to replace my motherboard & power supply. ::)
But, I think an 18VDC wall wart + bog standard LM7815 regulator circuit (two big caps and a diode) should do it for the ADA, right?
~ Charlie
Rev 4 has (after the FWR); 470uf to gnd on the input side of the reg, and 1uf tantalum to gnd on the output side. IMHO, nice and simple like this is the way to go. If it works for A/DA; it works for me! Thanks!
Sounds good to me - even at 6am in Gatwick Airport!!!!
QuoteBut, I think an 18VDC wall wart + bog standard LM7815 regulator circuit (two big caps and a diode) should do it for the ADA, right?
Sounds good to me too :)
One Q for Stephen, and of course all of you ;)
QuoteThere is so much variation of flanging sweeps available on this beast. I am going to have the max clock trim as a panel control because it provides continuous control of which part of the sweep area can be used. So, for instance, if a narrow sweep is set up, the max clock trim can fix whether that sweep is in the high or low end.
Actually via the manual pot it should also be possible to set the sweep to the high or low end. What do I miss? ;)
How's it going?
Aye, could someone summarise where were at with this thing, so as to keep focus?
Flan-ger Dut-dut-dut, Flan-ger dut-dut-dut! (I love flangers the most 8))
Search me, I've been to Spain and back since the last post.
Well... I am about 3/4 done with the layout. Would like to be done by now, but I've just been pretty busy with the stuff of life, mostly good, some not so good, you know? Wish I could go to Spain, again. Anyway, making steady progress. 8)
~ Charlie
Keep up the good work Moose!
Our visit to Spain was for visiting a relative in hospital, but it was nice to take the ambience for a couple of days - decent espresso coffee and wonderful food. I noticed the complete lack of electronics mags as in England!
Good on ya moose. I look forward to the sounds of jet engines flying by.
Quote from: moosapotamus on October 22, 2006, 09:42:12 PM
Well... I am about 3/4 done with the layout. Would like to be done by now, but I've just been pretty busy with the stuff of life, mostly good, some not so good, you know? Wish I could go to Spain, again. Anyway, making steady progress. 8)
~ Charlie
Cool! Thanks for doing all the work!
Markus
Thank You for doing all this work. Just out of curiousity; did you end up making this a 2 sided board?
Here's a silly thing to suggest
One can pick up a Danelectro Fab flanger for a pittance these days. Buying two of them is cheaper than buying almost any other individual flanger. Strikes me that figuring out where the dry-side mixing resistor is and removing it, and feeding a pair of them with a splitter, then taking their outputs to a 2-input mixer, would provide a pretty darn quick introduction to through zero flanging.
Note that this would provide limited access to both symmetrical and asymmetrical TZF. For latecomers, asymmetrical TZF involves having one very short fixed delay and a second swept one. The through-zero poin occurs as the swept delay gets shorter than what the fixed delay is set to. How "long" the sweep spends on the other side of zero depends on the sweep speed and depth, but also on what the fixed delay is set to. A symmetrical TZF involves having two counterswept delays driven by the same LFO, with the through-zero point being where they each achieve the identical time delay (one on the way up, the other on the way down).
Using a pair of Fab flangers provides speed, width and regen controls for each delay. The individual LFOs are not readily sync-able, although I suppose some invasive surgery could cure that, but I'm aiming for quick-and-dirty not lengthy-and-involved. By keeping the sweep rate VERY slow, and the sweep width minimal, that would permit one of the delays to be relatively constrained (although obviously it would change a bit). Increasing the sweep width equally on each pedal would provide something closer to symmetrical TZF, though clearly not as predictable as something like diyfreque's modded Dimension C.
Note that the switching scheme on such pedals almost always involves use of a single FET to connect or lift the delay signal from the mixing stage. So, if you remove the dry signal from the mixing stage, stepping on the pedal's bypass switch will get you stoney silence. The bottomline is that should one wish to use a pair of pedals in this manner for gigging or other performance contexts, I suspect your only choice would be to use the whole mess with a loop selector pedal. Still, you have to admit that a pair of $15 flangers, and $10 worth of mixer-splitter stuff and patch cables is pretty inexpensive.
Sounds a great idea Mark.
Yeah, that does sound like a fun idea. 8)
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on October 24, 2006, 06:18:42 PM
Just out of curiousity; did you end up making this a 2 sided board?
Yes, I'm replacing almost all of the jumpers with traces on the top of the PCB.
~ Charlie
This is just a taste, because I know it's been a while and it's all been just talk, so far. But, this will at least give y'all an idea of how far along things are...
Preliminary Layout (http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAflangerLYT.gif)
It may not look like much to some, but there's a lot of work in there, and still lots to be done... insert a few missing traces, correct footprints (especially for proper cap types and sizes), insert pads to allow all those mods, etc... I've also tried to compact the layout as much as possible to keep the cost down. In fact, it could probably still be a bit smaller. But at this stage, with an order of 10 boards, the cost would be ~$25 each. For 20 boards, the cost goes down to a little over $20 each. I don't know about anyone else, but I doubt I could etch a board like this myself (5 traces underneath an IC is pretty tight).
Anyhow, I know there are some errors and ommissions in there. It's still a work in progress. But, as you can see, it is starting to take shape. 8)
~ Charlie
Words cannot describe the Joy I am feeling looking at this!!! :icon_biggrin:
Thank You would be the understatement of the year, but, Thank You!!!
Not having the bypass switch on the board seems to have freed up a nice little piece of real estate in the lower left hand corner. Hmmm...
This is looking great so far, thank you for the hard work you are putting into this !
I would very happily pay over $25 for a PCB.
Hi Charlie
That is really starting to look something. This is something I would never dream of attempting ~ I lack the knowledge and skill to do this. I appreciate the time and effort you are making.
Kevin
That is a work of art Charlie - why spoil it by soldering components to it. A great many people are not aware of the artforms which exist in music electronics. A well drawn circuit diagram for instance will look good in a frame on the wall. My wife is inclined (only inclined though!) to agree with me.
Now that I've wiped up all the drool; are any comments/ideas welcome ?
wow....looks great and even better you eliminated my biggest fear.....
Quote from: moosapotamus on October 30, 2006, 11:27:33 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but I doubt I could etch a board like this myself (5 traces underneath an IC is pretty tight).
I will definitely order one if they are available!!! Happy Halloween!
Ian
ps - on a very, very side note....did anything come of that live vocal pedal with the xlr and mixer that you were talking about a while back?
Wow, great work Charlie! Quite some progress already! :icon_cool:
BTW, what are the board dimensions?
Markus
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on October 31, 2006, 10:56:35 AM
Now that I've wiped up all the drool; are any comments/ideas welcome ?
Absolutely!
Quote from: markusw on October 31, 2006, 11:58:54 AM
BTW, what are the board dimensions?
5.6" x 3.65", at the moment. I think it could still be made a bit smaller, too.
~ Charlie
Just one suggestion. Re-orient the V reg, 470uf cap, and diode to make as much room as possible in the lower left hand corner. This would be a good place to put a daughter board. IMHO, its better to have the space and not need/use it; than to need the space, and not have it. Now a couple of questions. What do you think the approx. current drain of this unit will be? And, on a related note, is it too early to discuss op amp selection?
As always, Thanks for all your efforts!
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 01, 2006, 08:38:03 AM
...make as much room as possible in the lower left hand corner. This would be a good place to put a daughter board.
Definately! I think one of the main things would be the second delay line for the TZF mod. I don't have a circuit for that. But, if folks could post their ideas for that, we could iron out the details and I could try squeezing it into that lower left corner. ;)
The other thing to maybe squeeze in down there is the additional output buffer circuit for stereo outputs. Markus posted an idea for that a few pages back.
Yet another option would be to just fill the open area(s) with perf or vero, which would leave the options wide open to use that open area for whatever experiments or mods you can dream up.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 01, 2006, 08:38:03 AM
What do you think the approx. current drain of this unit will be?
I have no idea... anyone else?
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 01, 2006, 08:38:03 AM
And, on a related note, is it too early to discuss op amp selection?
A few pages back, there is a link to a thread where Stephen posted a really great build report. I was planning to follow his lead on opamp selection.
~ Charlie
BTW...
Stephen,
You brought up the idea of adding 'bounce' as a mod, and I came across this drawing that you made of the CV section from the AMS100...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/StephenGiles/bnce_clock.gif
Do you think that could work in the ADA? I'm guessing you would just need the lower section with the four 324 opamps, but not sure how/where to stick it in... after the range pot?
I just took another quick glance at the Storm Tide...
http://home.debitel.net/user/jhaible/jh_storm_tide_flanger.html
...and, think I need to mull that over for a bit, too.
In addition to the 'bounce' mod, I think I also really like Jürgen's TZF idea - to add an insert for a second (external) delay instead of a dedicated, built-in delay line.
~ Charlie
QuoteThe other thing to maybe squeeze in down there is the additional output buffer circuit for stereo outputs.
This would be my personal preference :) I think that the second delay line will require some experiments. I suppose a BL3207 would be preferred over a SAD1024 ;)
Most likely one pot for setting the delay would be sufficient (provided it's a fixed delay). Also I fear that the space on the lower left corner might be a bit too small to have the BBD plus driver plus associated parts.
QuoteI think I also really like Jürgen's TZF idea - to add an insert for a second (external) delay instead of a dedicated, built-in delay line.
I like the idea too. One could either put the second delay line in a separate box or on a daughter board.
Recently I browsed once more through puretube's "guidelines" on having two separate delay lines in http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=25380.msg166584 (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=25380.msg166584)
Therefore I'd suggest to put the insert point somewhere around the output of IC1a (referring to Stephen's MI schem) to avoid the two BBD inputs interfering with each other. I didn't do this for my TZF Mistress and there is a low noise level when in TZF mode (seems to be caused by the two BBD inputs beeing connected more or less without separate filters/buffers; at least the noise is already present if I just connect the second delay line's input to the main board).
Some more Qs: Charlie, do you think it's possible to put the 5 pots in a line so that pcb mounting them would be easier? Do you plan to add the options for the blend pot and the ultra slow LFO switch?
Regards,
Markus
Quote from: markusw on November 01, 2006, 12:18:12 PM
Some more Qs: Charlie, do you think it's possible to put the 5 pots in a line so that pcb mounting them would be easier? Do you plan to add the options for the blend pot and the ultra slow LFO switch?
Yeah, Markus. I'm going to try rotating the pads for the the threshold pot so they line up with the other pots. The blend pot option is a definate 'yes'. But, I'm going to need some guidance on the LFO speed switch. Do you know what component(s) in the LFO are determining the maximum/minimum speed?
~ Charlie
Yes, stick the bounce after the range pot. It should work, but don't forget the ADA power is +15v and 0v. The bounce is + & -15v so you need to adapt it.
In a VERY oversimplified way of explaining; doubling the value of the cap in the integrator section of the LFO will halve the speed. f(in Hz)=1/4R1C x (R2/R3) R1 is the totat R (Pot & fixed resistor) between schmitt trigger output and integrator input. C is the integrator cap. R2 is the R in the schmitt trigg feedback. R3 is the R between the schmitt trigg input and the oscillator output. I just want to thank my EE buddy, Len for explaining this to me. Useful stuff. Hope it helps!
This just in. After doing a bit of # crunching, I believe the correct values for R1 & C should be the ones in Mr. Giles schematic. The Rev 4 #s just dont work out right. This wouldnt be the first time a schem had the incorrect values, so... Anybody else??
Thanks, Stephen!
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 01, 2006, 02:13:34 PM
In a VERY oversimplified way of explaining; doubling the value of the cap in the integrator section of the LFO will halve the speed.
So, in Stephen's scheme, that would be the 33uF in the IC4b feedback, yes? I can just add pads to put another cap in parallel with it. Folks can install sockets and try different values to see (hear) what they like best.
Thanks!
~ Charlie
Hi,
Nice circuit work. You might need to make the pads a little fatter though, otherwise drill bits might eat them up.
$0.02
more bounce (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=50622.new#new) to the ounce...
Yes. 2 pads seems like the way to go. After "auditioning" cap values, wiring up a switch would be EZ as can be.
All the Best!
Quote from: puretube on November 02, 2006, 06:52:33 AM
more bounce (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=50622.new#new) to the ounce...
It was a few years ago that I drew that Ton!!
ooops, I thought it were a different circuit - hadn`t compared them...
(didn`t know it was yours, even)
:icon_redface:
Quote from: woolley on November 02, 2006, 06:03:33 AM
Nice circuit work. You might need to make the pads a little fatter though, otherwise drill bits might eat them up.
I'm planning to have these fabbed... no drilling.
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 02, 2006, 08:25:20 AM
Quote from: puretube on November 02, 2006, 06:52:33 AM
more bounce (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=50622.new#new) to the ounce...
It was a few years ago that I drew that Ton!!
Thanks for digging that up, Ton. Nice drawing too, Stephen. At least a SAD1024 is easier to find than a SSM2040 (and more affordable, too!).
Does anyone know where you can hear a good example of what 'bounce' sounds like? The descriptions sound interesting, but I'm not sure I've ever heard what it actually sounds like.
Thanks!
~ Charlie
Hey Charlie,
I will do some Spice simulations on the various LFO versions this evening. Should give us a clue of the frequency ranges they cover.
Again, thanks for all your work!!
Markus
I did the LTSpice simulations of the rev3, rev4 and Stephen's MI LFO.
Here are the three schems in comparison:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v21/markusw/ADAFLangerLFOsschem.jpg)
The calculated frequency ranges of the three LFOs are pretty similar.
Rev3: 40 mHz to 18 Hz
Rev4: 35 mHz to 13.7 Hz
Stephen: 45 mHz to 9.5 Hz
Specs of the original: 30 mHz to 10 Hz
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v21/markusw/LFOcomparisonFFT-1.jpg)
(V(rev32) is for rev3 with double integrating capacity)
As predicted by oldschoolanalog doubling the integrating cap halves the speed (just checked for ver 3: 20 mHz). Thanks for the formula btw! :)
Interestingly, the slow sweep frequencies are all exactly at multiples of 5 mHz. I suppose this somehow correlates with the 200s ( Took ages neverthless ;) ) I used for simulation time and the method of calculating the FFT. Maybe someone can shed some light on it ? :)
Markus
http://www.aronnelson.com/DIYFiles/up/bounce3.mp3
http://www.aronnelson.com/DIYFiles/up/bounce2.mp3
http://www.aronnelson.com/DIYFiles/up/bounce1.mp3
These are samples from my TDA1022 Standard Electric Mistress with bounce, which give an idea of what it can sound like.
goodness: what did you feed in there? :icon_smile:
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 02, 2006, 04:43:34 PM
http://www.aronnelson.com/DIYFiles/up/bounce3.mp3
http://www.aronnelson.com/DIYFiles/up/bounce2.mp3
http://www.aronnelson.com/DIYFiles/up/bounce1.mp3
These are samples from my TDA1022 Standard Electric Mistress with bounce, which give an idea of what it can sound like.
Wow ! Sounds great. 8)
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 02, 2006, 04:43:34 PM
These are samples from my TDA1022 Standard Electric Mistress with bounce, which give an idea of what it can sound like.
Fortunately, the ADA Flanger has CV in :)
Wow! CoOoOol sounds, Stephen! Thanks for posting those clips. I think I'll be after that one. 8)
~ Charlie
I'm not sure that the placing of the bounce control is understood. I'll post a drawing I did speculating what an ADA circuit with bounce might look like.
http://www.aronnelson.com/DIYFiles/up/ADAflanger_bounce.zip
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 03, 2006, 05:04:20 PM
http://www.aronnelson.com/DIYFiles/up/ADAflanger_bounce.zip
Thanks a lot Stephen! Now it's clear :)
One Q: did you ever try envelope + bounce on Flangers??
Markus
Not to be a buzz-kill, but the bounce thing (while interesting) doesn't sound like something very useful (musical) to me. :icon_neutral:
Quote from: markusw on November 04, 2006, 08:06:20 AM
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 03, 2006, 05:04:20 PM
http://www.aronnelson.com/DIYFiles/up/ADAflanger_bounce.zip
Thanks a lot Stephen! Now it's clear :)
One Q: did you ever try envelope + bounce on Flangers??
Markus
No!
Quote from: RedHouse on November 04, 2006, 09:05:01 AM
Not to be a buzz-kill, but the bounce thing (while interesting) doesn't sound like something very useful (musical) to me. :icon_neutral:
Well, it's useful to my ears in just one setting where the sweep goes up to the top, starts to go down and then sweeps up and down again. The sounds on the samples are extreme I would agree and useless in a band situation, but aren't 90% of effects???
... aren`t bands useless when playing with effects? :icon_razz:
Yes indeed! ;) ;) ;)
Hey all, monster progress on add on ideas to this thread since last I looked, maybe I'll regret etching and building (stock) from the sad layout?! You guys are mad scientists here , stuff way beyone me. My question is and sorry to break the stride here but you may see that I mentioned early in the thread that I for one had been long looking for a useable pcb layout using an SAD and was more than happy to take off building from the layout moos' hosted, low res and tight traces and all. though mine has many little tweaks (pads added, traces moved,etc... ) thanks to the clean up work of another forum member : ) so It 's all populated and ready to fire up. thing is and my question is since I'm sure I'm not the only who think the ADA is very much OK stock , though It seems noone has/is anyone else decided to attempt building from the existing layout? ( though I can see why those interested in building an ada would be holding for a pcb already done after seeing the optional mod ideas here and charlie's artwork)
I am sure that it's a working layout but It'd just be nice for me to hear if anyone else has/is building it from the existing pcb out there.
apologies if I missed any posts or build reports : ) I just have to say that when the two threads started from Moos' posting the all inclusive ADA file stuff , I really expected quite a bit more "build in progress" chatter sparked from the sad pcb layout.
Good stuff here though!
Just want to catch up here. markus: Thanks for those great LFO sims. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. :icon_smile:
Bounce is amazing. It's like a nuke. I'd rather have it, and use infrequently; than not have it after hearing it. :icon_twisted:
Quote from: puretube on November 04, 2006, 01:58:14 PM
... aren`t bands useless when playing with effects? :icon_razz:
Many bands are useless when possesing musical instruments. :icon_rolleyes:
analog kid: If it's "all populated and ready to fire up"; PLEASE! Fire it up. I'll go out on a limb (no sawing, please...) and say more than a couple of us are VERY interested in your results! Out of curiousity, what technique did you use to put the artwork on the board?
Thanx, Stephen and puretube for those great links and sound files. ;D
And... Thanks again Charlie,for all the obvious reasons!
I sure do appreciate your appreciation, pleased and proud and all that.
Well I used the same method I always use which is tone transfer via the ol' 'magic' photo gloss paper. I am lucky enough to have acquired a commercial Laser printer from a local plant that shut down which is a god send to my pcbing and diy efforts. Also I shrunk this layout down EVEN SMALLER!! (the sad one in charlie's files) not as small as the new board you guys are getting done but if you looked at how tight some of those areas were , and small, you can imagine how tedious the etch and post etch was to eliminate any bridges. :icon_eek:
So though everything looks good to go , you can imagine I am being very diligent about putting the SAD in the socket. making sure all else is hunkydory. I do seem to be having an issue with the reg heating up to a fairly worrisome point. Although I do have a couple of weak Regulators that I've been testing with that put out just over 14v (likely been overheated too many times ,btw does that cause regs to decrease rated output vltg, and get hot faster??) which may more likely be the reason for it more than any current draw problem in the circuit.
I right now using the bridge rectifier uneccesarily with a 20v dc ps. I had it running straight thru the reg first and tried the bridge just to see if it helped at all. I will remove it and try again and maybe with another ps to see if there's an issue with it. but I see that (charlie) has added a diode in series with V+ on input side of the reg. Is that a +15v zener or something? :icon_redface: would adding a diode there help or be a good idea? I obviously just wanna make sure that there's no major issues within the crkt before I pop that IC n and beging setting trims and/or troubleshooting. Bottom line : Hot regulators always worry me ! but I realize sometimes they are just gonna be pretty warm. Its when Vout is dropping ,etc.. that I really hesitate. apolgies for questions here about "just power up" but this is one to be cautious with! agreed?
heatsink?
Are you using a 7815 ( 1amp/TO220 package) or a 78L15 (100ma/TO92 package) for your V reg?
Diode = Polarity protection(in this case)
QuoteAre you using a 7815 ( 1amp/TO220 package) or a 78L15 (100ma/TO92 package) for your V reg?
I often wonder when a 1A may be better than 100ma for a crkt or is the choice better based on the actual PS running into it? I typically use 1A 220 type in ANY situation where I'm having trouble with them getting too warm.
the only new reg I have is a 100ma TO92's and it seems that it's not getting more than warm now and giving me a good 14.95v and not dropping more than a couple tenths , where the couple of old regs that I have (likely overheated too many times) the out vltg is low to start and steadily drops very slowly. Is this something they do once they've been "abused"? Lose ability to hold output voltage up. If so then I probably just have a couple of weak regs as I expected and am good to go on getting the ADA up and running.
QuoteDiode = Polarity protection(in this case)
Far as the layout Charlie is working on and what I was referring to, I don't think so. (?) this looks to me to be a series connect didoe in line with V+ from ps. (apologies if I'm mistaken) I have seen zeners(value of crkt's V+ requirement) use in this manner as 'current limiter' I believe, so I thought maybe that's what he was intending there, rather than polarity protection? I'd like to know regardless as I'm likely going to pull that bridge rectifier in the end and power directly through the regulator. any extra stability or protection is nice in a crkt like this.
Mine IS passing signal but no flanging or pots doing anything yet , BUT I have just now popped in the SAD , first being sure that the crkt was getting good +15v, with No or minimal problems. Now that seems to be the case I am READY.
Just to put my mind at ease can someone tell me if the SAD vltgs I'm starting with look at all in order or no Red Flags at least? not sure they do but I've not really checked them over the schem yet. I'll do that now. Thanks everyone
1- 0 16- 0
2- 4.7 15- 4.7v
3- 7.2 14- .05 ??
4- 0 13- 0
5- 2.6 12- 2.6
6- 0 11- 14.9
7- 14.9 10- 7.2
8- 0 9- 13.9
ok question, It looks like we've located an error in the sad layout ( Gripp actually gets the credit for noticing it I should say) when compared to the sad modded schem. Just to make it known IF incorrect and verify
Pin 10 coming from the 4047 should connect to Pin 7, NOT 6 as it's drawn , on the 4049, correct? that clock signal is going to pins 6, 9, and 11 on 4049 when it should Not if this is the case. I'm going to go ahead and make this change to the pcb and give it a go but i'm sure another opinion is always good. checked against the IC's data sheet it seems it should be pin 7 as well'
thanks
Also on the regulator question. I AM getting stable Vout from a 100ma and no longer getting even very warm HOWEVER I just noticed something strange. I am still getting a reduced vltg at the Vin of the reg from what my ps is supplying! ie; ps outputing 20.5v is turning into 18.5 or so at the regulator. Bear in mind I still have the bridge rectifier arrangement in place running dc to the ac1/2 pads. I haven't pulled the diodes back out yet before noticing this. And I have a 1000uf 25v in for the initial V+ filtering. should this be alarming to me, since the reg is NOT getting warm?
The FWR is responsible for the V drop. The Irwin/Giles schem shows pin 10 of the 4047 feeding pin 7 of the 4049. Pin 6 of the 4049 is an output.
Ok , first off I really didn't mean to take over this post. Honestly but I hope my posts/questions "apply" and hope to give you all my results with the layout.
I think I may be alright w/ the reg issue now, although i believe I'm gonna need to go with 1A (not sure what this thing's gonna draw) because it is still getting near hot after several minutes. so hope all power issues are ok.
QuoteThe Irwin/Giles schem shows pin 10 of the 4047 feeding pin 7 of the 4049. Pin 6 of the 4049 is an output.
yes indeed, and this seems it should be this way looking at the data sheets. But if you take a look at the SAD pcb layout in the ADA files you will notice that Pin 10 is routed to PIN 6 of 4049! I rerouted this trace (siding w/ the schem as correct) and my SAD vltgs obviously changed and seem to be more correct now. they are now as follows:
1- 0 16- 0
2- 9.5 15- 9.6
3- 7.2 14- 7.7v
4- 0 13- 0
5- 7v 12- 7.2
6- 14.9 11- 14.9
7- 14.8 10- 7.2
8- 7.6 9- 13.9
Quote...
Pin 10 coming from the 4047 should connect to Pin 7, NOT 6 as it's drawn , on the 4049, correct?
you`re right, IMHO the current preliminary layout (http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAflangerLYT.gif) is wrong, here.
The voltage at pins 8 & 14 of the SAD1024 should be exactly the same - difficult to measure without 2 meters! I dare say the voltage will fluctuate slightly during the time you move the probe between the 2 pins. A good sign that all is well with the BBD clock is that the voltages on the 2 separate clock lines are near enough the same.
What would happen if say the clock to pins 3 & 10 was modulated through one of the OR gates of a 4030 or 4070 on the way?? Presumably the waveform would not be acceptable to the SAD - has this been considered before I wonder?
thought about that a long time ago, and even made a note to ever check that out...
probably it would decrease the S/N ratio.
Quote from: analog kid on November 06, 2006, 07:35:11 PM
Pin 10 coming from the 4047 should connect to Pin 7, NOT 6 as it's drawn , on the 4049, correct?
Good catch. Thanks!
Quote from: analog kid on November 05, 2006, 03:37:11 PM
I see that (charlie) has added a diode in series with V+ on input side of the reg.
I'm planning to power this from an 18VDC supply (DC Brick or wall wart), so I intended the diode to be for polarity protection.
~ Charlie
While we're talkin here, any opinions on a FET other than (2n4393) that oughtta work fine here?? Lookin at it's function in the circuit it seems to me it's gonna be pretty important and in the way of N-channel I only have more usual suspects in my bin( 545x, 5952, J201 .. ) would one of these choices likely be a good choice for the job? I realize the original used an SDG pinout. I did find ONE fet out of the few I auditioned that gave me a very 'harmonic' distortion ,though no sweep became apparent I did take this to believe this was probably the correct fet choice since it was the only one that gave me anthing othen than a clean signal My sad vltgs are seeemingly good and lfo seems to be functioning based on it's pin 1,3,7 cycling vltgs.
One issue is I notice I am getting some clean signal bleeding through when no power is applied so I am optimistic I have a 'simple' error somewhere in the audio path. : ) I am just hoping that the layout is mistake free aside from the one misrouted IC pin. I worry there could be more :icon_cry:
Well for anyone who care to know I DO have my ADA up and running from the sad layout (with changes mentioned previous) The lfo / clock is functioning normal and it's flanging although i've not got the auto sweep adjusted well enough yet. I have the noise gate disonnected right now for troubleshooting purposes and avoid FET issues but may connect it back now. BBD is biased under 6v , a note to builders, the 10k (R13) resistor being changed to 4.7k going to ground off T1 bias pot seems pretty crucial (might differ with pot but...) as I couldn't voltage to bias into a low enough range til i made that change.
I believe I have a problem within IC1(b) based on the problem described below and vltgs I'll list, I'd love to hear any opinions on this. (Mr Giles, other ADA builders?) ;)
Pins 5,6,7 all bias with T1 and while the vltgs all bias appx the same, when probing here all three react with the Enhance pot rotation, increasing volume/feedback (but to different extents) Pin 7 being the only of the 3 that will pass signal with Enhance pot off The others Pin 5 and 6 WILL NOT pass ANY audio at all unless Enhance is turned up, which reacts as a gain for all these pins. Pin 6 by far the most sensitive to this interaction, going into complete earspltting feedback much sooner in the rotation.
Shouldn't Pin 7 Not show any signal UNTIL signal is present at pin 5,6?
The votages are as follows w/ T1 set for 6.02 bias ( these vltgs are taken at same time not fluctuations) IC1/2 are OPA4131PA quad fet input , TL074 give same vltgs IIRC
1 7.18 14 7.18
2 7.18 13 7.18
3 6.53 12 7.12
4 14.3 11 0
5 5.97v 10 7.18
6 6.02v 9 7.18
7 6.02v 8 7.18
also should pin 3 not be dropped like that
thanks again
OK, I'd better post too as I feel I have something to do with all of this.
Analog kid was given a cleaned up version of the Mike I SAD mod layout (rev3 audio path, mods to accommodate SAD, noise gate still there etc; NOT the same as the Irwin/Giles schem). He then shrunk the layout some more. I just cleaned up the artwork and corrected some errors but being the slow builder that I am, analog kid has been miles ahead in terms of actual building. So we've been troubleshooting a bit, thinking a lot..etc.
Just wanted to point out that the voltages and thinking about IC1 in the post above pertains to a stock rev3 input audio section except for R13 being changed from 10k to 4k7 to make the bias range better for the SAD. The noise gate is completely disabled by lifting J13 and J5, shorting out R34 and removing Q1.
I too still don't exactly get how the feedback loop and diode limiting works in the rev3. Sorry that no schem is linked to. I haven't seen a public rev3 schem so...
If anyone wants my cleaned up artwork just ask. I can't host it and I can't answer a million mails either so if there's great interest maybe someone can help. Moosapotamus seems to be the guardian of all files ADA?
Best!
Pelle G
I have no idea what your problem might be with IC1B apart from an error in the pcb layout. Have you tested "as you build" as I did on my veroboard version - a must in my view for this type of circuit, or did you stuff the whole board first? ;D ;D
analog kid - I don't really have any additional insight on your IC1 questions, either. But, I am really glad that you've taken on the challenge and are posting all your findings. Great stuff. Thanks!
Also... Grip, and anyone else - I'm glad to host any additional ADA stuff that you've created. Send it my way and I'll add it to my ADA Flanger page.
I'm hoping to be able to steal enough time to finish up my layout this weekend. 8)
Thanks!
~ Charlie
More info: It looks like we'll soon have a public schem of the flanger, scroll down to the October 28th update
http://www.adadepot.com/ (http://www.adadepot.com/).
The links don't work now but maybe they will if they're serious about making them free for download.
/Pelle G
Blast, I squandered $2.50 on those circuits :-\ :-\ :-\
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 09, 2006, 10:30:17 AM
Blast, I squandered $2.50 on those circuits :-\ :-\ :-\
Same here. I'm not sure why he's making them free. It was one of the better schematic deals, IMO.
Thanks Gripp for chiming in on this and explaining the Revision combo being used here!
QuoteI have no idea what your problem might be with IC1B apart from an error in the pcb layout. Have you tested "as you build" as I did or did you just stuff the whole board first ?
Nope, I just very carefully poplulated the whole board, then checked it against the layout and schems for errors and bridges from the etching then went to town! Disconnecting the Gate after all was populated is the most sectionalizing I've done and I'm gonna reconnect it now I think. I'd sure hate to work backwards diconnecting section by section now and hope I'm not needing anything too drastic but Is there Anywhere you'd recommend me measuring/probing to check that any section is working optimumly? I'm not using a scope btw.
I have to say ANY advice and help from you is more than appreciated here , and all others for that matter.
Do you believe though that it IS a problem in IC1b based on those voltages or the audio probing results I tried to describe? I'm just not smart enough to know if in fact those pins 5,6,7 ARE supposed to be behaving in such a way when probing signal.
see I am getting good hot flanged signal from it now , seems very close to working right. In fact the only issues I am having seem to be that in Auto the sweep is very abrupt and uneven when at Faster speeds. ( I don't know if some more extensive biasing could be done or some more precise trimming.... Or if it's result of an actual problem) And the problem that I would think is the result IF there's a problem in IC1... a problem with the ENHANCE controls....
Concerning ENHANCE, Regardless of (T2) enhance trim's setting
I can't turn Enhance up past 1/2-3/4 without going into full blown FB!! Shouldn't I be able to calibrate (T2) to allow the Enhance to be turned up without causing this? So long as T1 is within "bias range", Enhance can't be turned up!! I've tried minimizing it by tweaking other (clock) trims but as long as T1 biased , the Enhance can't be turned up regardless of any other settings. Mind you this is something to work around by tapering the pot to the useable range of Feedback but if it's due to a problem elsewehere.....
OT: Can't help but think the reason for those Schems,etc...going to FREE has alot to do with the thread about them awhile back : ) Eeek! $650 , those were some expensive factory doc's but I believe it
Could be an error in the feedback filter.
I never liked un-de-coupled combined biasing of BBDs and surrounding opamp-circuitry...
Care to expand PT?
The way i see it only the preceding opamp stage and the BBD share the adjustable bias in the rev3. The following opamps are all on the buffered 1/2 V+ bias line.
I just don't get the feedback loop and diode limiting in the rev3 schem, the feedback being introduced on the buffered 1/2 V+ bias line and the diodes being ahead of the feedback control.
I do get that this bias line essentially is ground for ac signals so it is a diode to ground clipper, but I don't see how it relates to the feedback line.
Best!
Pelle G
I`m looking @ the schemo in reply#7,
and to me it looks like being passed towards IC2b
Ok. Then we have to wait for the public rev3 schem. The one in reply#7 isn't the one we've been building from.
Thanks anyway!
Oops!
Spoke too soon.
The dry/wet mix (output) opamp (here also IC2B) is indeed getting bias from the bias trim in the rev3 too, passed from opamp in front of BBD (IC1B) along the dry line.
I'm glad we've got these bright minds here thinking about this. I've faith it'll get sorted out for sure now.
Quotejust don't get the feedback loop and diode limiting in the rev3 schem, the feedback being introduced on the buffered 1/2 V+ bias line and the diodes being ahead of the feedback
I don't get the way this setup works either, OR why it's the only version that it's configured this way. It makes me wonder what would happen(surely couldn't hurt) if I was to try and change the diode limitiing/FB loop to the setup used in other versions?
Since it's connected directly to the area of the circuit and IC that I'm having some issues with it does make some sense to consider IMO. but what do I know. I also bring this up because I distinctly remember reading a post ( I can't find it now but think it was older) where it was said that the early Rev and Rev 4 FB/diode setup seemed to work better for some reason. This could stand to reason since it looks like it's the config they started with , attempted to change it in Rev 3 , then went right back to the original setup for Rev 4. :icon_question:
I am really kind of stumped on the problem with T2 not letting me adjust ENHANCE pot control range to let it be turned up high , unless it's being caused by something wierd about this configuration?
Again I am getting flanging and really beautiful flange tones as well as some nice chorused sounds at slow speed settings. But at any substanial speed it's obvious that the Sweep is extemely uneven
(detuned and abrupt ) I also remember reading Steven where you had a problem with very uneven sweep at one point, though I'm aware the cause could come from many areas.
I did try raising the value of C28 connected to Pin 9 LM324 from .0047 to .1uf as suggested in the Irwin schem to see if it smoothed it out but to no avail.
??
I can see rev3 schemo on moose`s site, but I can see no part values...
where do you get them from?
maybe "enhance" is 100k?
or just make "enhance-trim" larger?
Just discovered that Moose has them all up on his website. It's in a zip but anyway.
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA%20Flanger%20Archive.zip (http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA%20Flanger%20Archive.zip)
In here there are both schem and partslists.
The partslist is the HTML file made by Bill B during his tracing of the ADA (is for rev3).
Some errors in the partslist, R32 and 33 changed to 22k, IC3 should be LM324 and Q1 is most likely a 2N4393.
Now in the one we're working with, only the audio path and CV/LFO is from rev3, BBD and clock is from http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ada_MI_1024.jpg (http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ada_MI_1024.jpg)
The problem seems to be somewhere in the audio so.
Thanks for looking PT, it really means alot and is a great opportunity to actually learn something!
if you opened up the zip archive ( ADA Flanger Archive . zip ) scroll down halfway to the ada.html parts list file, this contains part #'s and values for the version I'm working with, just BEFORE changes to incorporate the SAD.so the whole audio path at least should match what you're lookin at Rev 3.
I'm sure it's possible that the Enhance pot could be a different value,as I've not gotten parts values for other ADA REV's.
But just in case I didn't explain the behavior well, the way the Enhance control is working now, It is going into full blown feedback at least 1/2 rotation even if it's trim is down fully ccw. don't know if i"m seeing it right on the schem but larger values for these pots wouldn't give even more avail FB? sorry if I'm confused and misunderstood :icon_redface:
Frustrating thing is the Sweep problem, Feedback can be used at least! just too much too early in rotation and can't trim back, The issue I'm most concerned with is the sweep, I'm so far from a smooth sweep right now , it's sounds more like an ATARI game effect! haha :o There has to be something I can look for in the LFO to tell me what's causing the sweep problem, without a scope. Obviously problems with IC1 wouldn't be causing the sweep issue(would it?) There's a 13.9k that M.Irwin has added with decoupling cap off pin 9 of SAD, that struck me as an awful precise value and I used a 14k, no reason would need be exact is there? just lookin for anything that I may have caused in my build.
IF the sweep would smooth out on this thing I'M THERE !!!! ALSO :
I found the quote about diode limiter configuration (which I mispoke on earlier, this layout is setup like Rev 3 already, Rev 4 is as shown in the Irwin/Giles schem. and I don't know how rev 1 and 2 are , which gets back to this quote FROM Steve Giles btw..)
QuoteI think at Mike's suggestion I replaced the diode network on the input with the simpler limiter network on one of the earlier versions. Good luck.
Stephen
Do you happen to remember what the configuration was (like Rev 3 , 4 or different than either) , or what the intended benefit Mr. Irwin recommended it was? I am very curious about this.
looking at a "revx"-schemo, searching the parts in a "M.I."-mod by "S.G.", looking up the values in a "B.B."-html in a "M"-"zip" makes me mad...
enuff window-hopping :icon_razz:
Totally understandable. Things will get better. :icon_wink:
I'm in a state of madness where "looking at a "revx"-schemo, searching the parts in a "M.I."-mod by "S.G.", looking up the values in a "B.B."-html in a "M"-"zip" actually sounds like a perfectly sane, coherent and understandable statement :icon_lol:
all for a non-obtainable chip... :icon_rolleyes:
Oops :icon_redface: Gripp beat me to directing where you can find the parts list while I was typing forever! And once again, did a much better job explaining the particulars than I could / wink : )
Yes thanks so much for taking a look at this purtube, Steven....etc.. and yeah sorry about directing you to a never ending supply of windows to open and close !! Of course I have all this stuff printed and you couldn't imagine the awful mess and paper juggling I've been performing the last week or two. Aarrghhh
.....and all the while the seasons outside are changing, wives & girlfriends get angry with the amount of attention given to the holy grail of flangers and not to them, bags are forming under eyes......... :-\ :-\ :-\
Funnily enough, I downloaded a 30 minute set of the Jeff Beck Group from 1968 in good quality stereo last night - listening to it in my car this morning I thought why crucify a good guitar sound with effects???Just one future Stone, one future Rod Stewart, a drummer and the man himself - guitar - lead - Marshall stack! But we carry on don't we!
Quote from: puretube on November 10, 2006, 04:10:40 AM
all for a non-obtainable chip... :icon_rolleyes:
Yes, all is not well in flangerland.
I am well aware of the problem here but I for one don't have the knowledge to design a high sweeping good sounding flanger from the ground up using obtainable BBD's...yet.
I could of course buy say the hoax, which is really spectacular sounding too judging from the soundclips, but then I wouldn't learn more about BBD's and flangers. It wouldn't be DIY.
One thing I love about this hobby is that it fuses two of my main interests, music and technology.
Just some Friday thinking.
Best!
Pelle G
So Steven , You don't recall at all what configuration that was you used was , the "simple diode limiter configuration from an early version" that I refered to in reply #234, which you stated that Irwin recommended you to change too? I'd like to find out if there was even yet another configuration of this section of the crkt maybe used in Rev 1/2 that's different from the two used in rev 3 and 4. And if so also what the benefit of employing it instead? though i';m sure it's not affecting the very UNeven sweep
No ideas yet on areas I may look for errors/tweak values that could have an effect on smoothing that out alot? also Is it still AT ALL possible that this could be a trimpot adjusting issue? I remember having some real problems my 9v electric mistress until I got just the precise combo of ajustment between the Bias and Clock trim and BAM came into all of a sudden, I don't know if they could help adjust this kind of problem with the sweep on the ADA since although the bias trim is setup much the same here as on the Mistress, I don't believe the "clock range" trims here work the same as the "Clock trim" on the Mistress because the trims on the ADA adjust Range of the clock I think where there's still flanging thougout the rotation of it. In the EM there's an area of the trim where it comes into flanging and can ajdust for flavors in that small area. sorry if this doesn't apply at , trying to compare differances between two different flanger circuits on means of adjusting to get nice smooth and even sweep. I realize this is an entirely different beast.
I'm just so close it seems
The 2 other diode limiters:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/uncle_boko/diodelimiters.gif)
I used the bottom one. Now this can surely have absolutely no effect on the LFO :-\ :-\
Ok good, for some reason that's the diode config I was thinking it may have been at first thought when you said simpler . and it was. Even though when you said from an older version I thought it may be different than the setup in either 3 or 4. BUT this IS exactly how they're set up in the layout I'm working with here , as they are in Rev 3. And no they would have no effect on lfo for sure BUT they COULD be involved with the trouble I'm having with the Enhance conrtol ( or Trim more likely) in where I can't trim the feedback down. It's always capable of sqealing ,etc.. at 1/2 rotation or more. I don't seem to recognize the diode configuration on top though. It definitely isn't the same as the "other" setup , the 6diode config in Rev 4. hmmmm what's the chance that schem snippet is from Rev1,2 I wonder?
I'm still trying to locate where the cause of the sweep being so all over the place (noticeable at faster speeds) might be. So do we agree that the sweep acting THIS uneven definitely could NOT be just a matter of the trims not being alll properly adjusted with one another?
OK, the kids in bed. The wife's out. I can partake of this madness again :icon_lol: analog kid: First congrats; You're almost there it seems. 2 thoughts. 1: The enhance issue. Is it possible that there is too much gain somewhere due to an incorrect component value somewhere. How does the vol compare to when bypassed. You could always try a larger value for the enhance trimmer, but this approach might be just a way of masking the real problem. Or not... Worth a a shot I guess. 2: The LFO issue. I would personally (though I take no responsability for anyone doing as I do :icon_rolleyes:) build the LFO from a known, verified version (Stephens) on my trusty protoboard; disconnect the existing LFO, and hook up the protob'd LFO. Pain in the cojones? Of course! But the results might be very revealing. Or not...(again ;)) Anyhoo, wife just got back, and divorce is not an option, so, good luck! Till nextime...
Sorry for "cutting in in the middle" but...
Just a couple of questions.
Is the main reason this effect is being so troublesome in its "stock" form is the conversion for IC8 from the MN3010 to the SAD1240? Are all of the other part alterations because of the one change? Were there also some errors to previous layouts/part values?
Ooops.......you mean SAD 1024 - BBD police will be out in force!!! No I don't think that is a problem, because I successfully built this a couple of years ago. It seems to be PCB layout problems in the main - which is why I always build on veroboard and test while I build. That way, I can eliminate problems as I go and not be faced with a mass of soldered components with possible (and from tired eyes probable) errors.
" Are all of the other part alterations because of the one change? Were there also some errors to previous layouts/part values"
we know what you mean, gotta be careful referencing those somewhat mystical devices : ) Anyway , my answer is I don't know if there were possibly any errors in previous or just the one I'm working from most directly . THAT'S what I'm trying to find out everyday. I would have to say NO though, as I would think out of the few very talented folk who have built from an original Rev. , that most any discrepancies would've been caught and posted SOMEWHERE like the redraw or in our fabulous forum.
Oldschool, no the flanged output volume is strong indeed, manual seems to be working very well. Again just the auto sweep is "sick" and the enhance problem which PT also suggested a larger value Pot or trim, I thought I'd explained it wrong and larger value would make it more FB faster. I may try a series resistor before the Trim . BUT as I responded before, my thoughts are like yours. I would hate to make that change...fix the problem, and just be masking the thing that caused it in the first place!!
Thanks guys I'm confident knowing you're all thinking about it.
Still I haven't gotten any thoughts on improper trmpot settings possibly causing a sweep so uneven and detun(ey)? ??? I know I should be able to answer that myself but I don't own a scope and also sometimes don't trust thelittle metal trims I use either.
Quote from: analog kid on November 11, 2006, 03:07:21 PM
Oldschool, no the flanged output volume is strong indeed...
I think oldschool was asking if there is any
difference in volume between bypass and flange. If so, that might point to his idea that there might be too much gain from somewhere causing your enhance control issue.
BTW, Gripp sent me his layout docs to post...
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAflanger.html
... at the bottom of the list. Nice work!
analog kid - That's the layout you are using, right?
~ Charlie
Yes, I was referring to a vol difference. I noticed something curious. The pre emphasis (A/DA schem) has 2K7 & .01u. Stephens scheme uses 4K7 & .01u. This is less pre-emph gain than the A/DA. Maybe this is having some effect w/the enhance issue? Maybe try 4K7 there?
Yes but don't forget the limiter would compensate for any increased gain - or would it? Surely that little circuit hanging from the - input of that opamp is to tell it what range of frequencies to boost and by how much? Mark?
I'm not Mark , but I'm really curious about this too, so Mark?
The way I see it, the two approaches used in the limiting section (diodes in op amp feedback loop, rev4, like the one on top in the schem Stephen just posted, or diodes to Vbias, rev3, the one in the bottom of that schem) are very different in that the rev4 setup includes the global feedback (enhance) and so limits global feedback while the rev3 is more of an interstage limiter but has no effect on global feedback. Is this line of thinking right?
Best!
Pelle G
I was throwing this to Mark Hammer! I have to cook dinner now - my wife has left her sing (sacred harp) to miss the football crowds in London.
+1 for a Hammer intervention. Maybe R.G. could help shed some light on this too.(pretty please w/sugar on top... ;D) Thats what I call "asking for it w/both barrels" ;) ! Thanx guys!
PLEASE don't let me stop the coming together of minds here but since parts values came into discussion I had to put these in the discussion! btw I plan to post my vtgs or partial at least but there are so many that are effected by Range and Manual setttings it'll take time.
because I've found quite a few difference between values I'm using and those found in an ADA operational schem of Rev 3. that I've just looked at. my ref vltgs do match those in the schem at least
as follows if someone can help me figure it any of this could play into problems:
two major cap differences
C 28 (IC3c) and C7 (IC1b) are both listed a whopping .47uf rather than .0047 respectively
I know it's not unheard of for couple wrong values to be planted in a fact.schem though
Resistor values that are different are as follows:
R3 shown as 2.7k rather than 4.7k in my parts list
R10(between diode limiter in series with c7)
is 27k instead of 47k
May be ironic but it seems to me values for c7,r3,r10 could all affect the area around IC1 which I'm having issue with.
R43 (at pin 6/7 output amp) 27k instead of 4.7k ?
these all around max clock range trim
R63/64 are both 10k rather than 20k
these are just in series with each outer max clock trim
C26 as 22uf opposed to 33uf
to ground from LM324 pin 4
Sorry oldschool , that's what I meant when I said " flanged output is strong indeed", Compared WITH BYPASS! Duh, I'm sorry
I notice my flanging is fairly darn nice and useable when set to slower speeds, maybe it's that the eneveness is not as noticeable when "stretched out" but as soon as higher speeds are reached it becomes extremely wide, abrupt and detuned in character. sorry I wish I could sample it.
Ok guys sorry for the back to back posts but while investigating some of these values I came across I believe a big part of my problem due to (what I see) as a layout error of sorts, more specifically error in the layout instructions. I've been scrutinous of the note stating all polarized pt +'s to Left or Down, but until now thought it to be correct. But while trying a lower value from LM324pin 4 to ground I dicsovered that C26 , if placed in the board (+)Left is indeed reversed! So on that cap it's (-)left (+)right. Unless of course I've lost my mind ? :icon_eek:
Upon putting in a 22uf(in place of 33uf) correctly I seem to be able to get much better sweeps at fast speeds but still yet only with the right combo fo Range(very low) and Manual controls. otherwise I still got something like those really annoying type abulance sirens..we-ah-we-ah-we-ah-we-ah. can someone else please look at this cap polarity? I'm very anxious to hear outlook on those prt values as well. I hope I'm getting close to the end result, Hopefully any of my discoveries from troubles will help some of you build this thing easier :icon_smile:
Part values HAVE to be discussed at some point, so consider yourself a pioneer of sorts on this aspect! Here is what I will do if you're interested. I have a 3010 reissue A/DA flanger in my arsenal. Post some control settings (you know, this pot 12:00, that pot 10:00 etc.) so I can get a better idea where the detuning occurs. I will compare them w/the same settings on my A/DA, and maybe we can come up with something. In the mean time try turning down the range(less LFO) and/or enhance pots at faster settings; and see if that helps. Also try turning up the manual pot at faster settings(less delay),and check out what gives. This unit is capable of a vast array of sounds. Some beautiful, some weird, and some downright nasty/ugly. The controls are very interactive, and there is a definite "learning curve" when first experiencing one. This aint no BS2 man! Keep us posted!
Thanks for being willing to break our your 'piece' to help me out! check your PM.
Yes as I said but didn't elabortate on the ugly uneven sweep with "faster" speed settings DOES disappears with the Range pot turned down low. And when I say faster speeds(I'm using a 500kB btw :icon_redface: rather than Revlog/ I'll put one in tonight ) I DO mean speed, but the taper is not what I expect from a linear pot. The rotation where all my mid-fastest speeds are is the last 1/4 turn and also where all of the following begins to become at all aucible. And now to be more descriptive of it w/o samples... With Range pot at FULL CW goes from a staggered 4 note sweep where you can actually hear it's travel across a four 'tone
' wuh
uh
uh' (representing slight pitch drop :)
(this pattern controllable of course by the speed setting, again, in the last quarter turn where all the speed is) Then as the Range pot is rotated CCW as it reaches probably 12:00 this 3 tone pattern begins to sound more like just a Two note wobble back and forth with less "pitch" defintion between the 3 individual tones as turned ccw. Until at min. Range becomes not much more than a mild Vibrato. Which unfortunately is the only place I can get very useable flanging.
I know it sounds a bit funny desribed that way but I think it's a pretty accurate description of the sweep , I'm sure you guys can relate to it and recognize what I'm describing. (fingers crossed)
But that repeatable stagger is maybe something that will point out a problem to a more experienced lfo mind than mine.
Hey Moose, I've lost the plot after 13 pages of posting.
Are we making an ADA flanger with (modern available parts) or are we re-designing the ADA into a SBF-DIY mod project?
(just asking)
Seems at first we were going to do a double sided board, made in a board fab shop, gettin rid of the in-between-the-IC traces and make it work with modern available delay chips, then a bunch of we-should-do-this-n-that came along with LFO mods etc ect ect ...where are we now?
When I threw my hat in the ring buy boards waaaayyyyy back in this thead ...I was wanting an ADA flanger, are we still going there?.
-Brad
I'm still planning to get these boards fabbed from ExpressPCB. For the most part, this is based on Mike Irwin's adaptation of the ADA circuit for use with the SAD1024. But, it also includes the threshold control and some other things to make adding your own mods much easier. Yeah, I know it's taking me a while. But, I think it's damn near ready. 8)
Regarding part values, when I start building mine I'm planning to start with the values shown on Stephen's drawing instead of those shown in the ADA schemes.
Here's the current state of my layout. Overall dimensions are 5.5" x 3.5". I think it's just about done...
ADA Flanger Layout (http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAflangerLYT.gif)
TZF mod - I was planning to just put in an insert (send & return), so that any other circuit or pedal could be used for the second delay line. Looking at Jürgen Haible's Storm Tide flanger, he used buffers on both the send and the return. I guess that's cool if you use another pedal, but maybe something to be aware of if you're going to try putting you own circuit together. So anyway, since I'm not 100% positive of the best places for the send and the return, I added extra pads at the outputs of IC1a and IC1b as potential send outputs, and extra pads at the inverting inputs of IC2c (shown as IC3c on Stephen's scheme) and IC2b as potential return inputs. Any other thoughts or ideas?
True stereo outputs mod - markus posted a drawing of a second output buffer that, I think, was a duplication of the existing mono output buffer. I guess I'm not sure I understand how that would give stereo. Seems like it would be more like dual-mono. For a second true stereo output, wouldn't you need to invert the delayed signal (relative to the main output) before you mix it with the clean signal? Or, am I not thinking about this in the right way?
Vibrato mod - Added pads between R41, R42 and the inverting input of IC2b (output buffer). To build it stock, just put in jumpers. To add a vibrato switch, put a jumper from R42 to IC2b (delayed signal) and a SPST switch between R41 and IC2b (clean signal). To add a wet/dry blend pot, tie one pot leg to the pad at R41, the other pot leg to the pad at R42, and the wiper to one of the pads at the inverting input of IC2b.
LFO speed switch - Notice the two electro caps both labled C24 near the speed pot. There are pads that will allow you to switch one of them in/out of parallel with the other. You'll just need to experiment to find the cap values that give you a range of speeds that you like.
4047 timing cap - As Stephen metioned earlier, this is a good spot for a variable cap, if you can get one. As an alternative to the variable cap, between IC5 and IC6 there are two identical caps both marked 39p... same deal as with the LFO speed caps. There are pads to let you switch one in/out of parallel with the other.
Bounce - Also, as Stephen mentioned earlier, and illustrated with a drawing (thank you, Stephen!), the bounce circuit basically replaces R65, between the range pot and the clock range trim.
Please let me know if there are any other ideas, and especially if anyone finds any mistakes in the layout.
Thanks!
~ Charlie
Nice work Charlie!!! Thanx for all the efforts. LFO defeat switch?
for those who missed it, 2 years ago:
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=25681.msg170884
here`s wondering, though, why the need for a variable capacitor,
when the frequency range of a 4047 with one pot and one fixed cap
can span from <5kHz to >1.6MHz?
the simulated variable pot with the 4007 along with its adjacent limiting resistors
is the place to play with, IMHO... :icon_wink:
QuoteYeah, I know it's taking me a while. But, I think it's damn near ready.
Cool! Thanks a lot again :)
QuoteTrue stereo outputs mod - markus posted a drawing of a second output buffer that, I think, was a duplication of the existing mono output buffer. I guess I'm not sure I understand how that would give stereo. Seems like it would be more like dual-mono. For a second true stereo output, wouldn't you need to invert the delayed signal (relative to the main output) before you mix it with the clean signal? Or, am I not thinking about this in the right way?
With the second output buffer it should be stereo, at least if the connection between IC1c and IC2b is removed. Two separate signals would be send to the two output jacks for in-air mixing. Don't know if regeneration will work though. If the connection ("optional jumper" in my drawing) is there, stereo out still might work to some extent but I' not sure on this. Could be tested with the optional jumper (also if regeneration might work). IMHO at least TZF in mono sounds best w/o regeneration anyway ;).
QuoteTZF mod - I was planning to just put in an insert (send & return), so that any other circuit or pedal could be used for the second delay line. Looking at Jürgen Haible's Storm Tide flanger, he used buffers on both the send and the return. I guess that's cool if you use another pedal, but maybe something to be aware of if you're going to try putting you own circuit together. So anyway, since I'm not 100% positive of the best places for the send and the return, I added extra pads at the outputs of IC1a and IC1b as potential send outputs, and extra pads at the inverting inputs of IC2c (shown as IC3c on Stephen's scheme) and IC2b as potential return inputs. Any other thoughts or ideas?
Had one more look at puretubes "guidelines" on having two separate delay lines in http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=25380.msg166584 (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=25380.msg166584).
Since IC2b acts as a low-pass filter (deemphasis) it probably might be the best to recombine the two delay lines (more or less at the output jack) at the output of IC2b.
The IC2b stage would be duplicated for the second delay line (i.e. the already filtered signals get mixed passively like in the 9V Mistress).
Regarding the best place for tapping off the signal for feeding the second delay line I still think that the output of IC1a would be appropriate.
As far as I understand the IC1a stage does the preemphasis (i.e. it boosts the highs). Low-pass filtering is performed at the 1C1b stage (which would be duplicated for the second delay line). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Don't know what's the frequency cutoff of the 100p in the IC1b feedback loop though.
Any comments on this?? e.g. from puretube ;)
Re analog kid's LFO issue: if I understood it correctly the integrating cap's polarisation is reversed in every second half of the LFO cycle. Maybe the electrolytic cap you're using doesn't like this (or at least doesn't work properly at higher LFO rates when polarised the "wrong way" in every second half of the LFO cycle). You might try to replace the 22µ cap with two 47µ caps soldered tail-to-tail (negative to negative). Don't know if it will help but it doesn't cost much to try ;)
QuotePlease let me know if there are any other ideas, and especially if anyone finds any mistakes in the layout.
Will happily check it :) BTW, does ExpressPCB show air wires (connections that are not done yet)??
Markus
For simple RC filters, f=1/ 2pi RC is your friend. This gives you the point where the f is -3db.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 13, 2006, 07:58:37 AM
For simple RC filters, f=1/ 2pi RC is your friend. This gives you the point where the f is -3db.
Thanks! :)
Basically I know this formula but in this case I don't know which resistor to use for the calculation (is it the 47k in the feedback loop? :icon_redface: Argh, newbie alert ;) )
Yes to 47k, F'back loop. These values give a Hi freq rolloff of -3db @~34kHz. The stability thing, I guess.
anyone read the datasheet thoroughly:
MN3010: insertion loss typ:0, min:-4dB;
SAD1024: gain: 1,2 (depending on load resistance).
IMHO, this does make a difference, when comparing values in
an original "ADA 3010"
with those in
the "Irwin/Giles 1024"...
concerning wrong values... (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=24583.msg159766#msg159766)
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 13, 2006, 08:59:04 AM
Yes to 47k, F'back loop. These values give a Hi freq rolloff of -3db @~34kHz. The stability thing, I guess.
Thanks! :) Learned something today....
Quote from: puretube on November 13, 2006, 09:16:36 AM
anyone read the datasheet thoroughly:
MN3010: insertion loss typ:0, min:-4dB;
SAD1024: gain: 1,2 (depending on load resistance).
read...yes..understand...not always (at least in my case) ;)
however, regarding the insertion loss/gain it's not that hard ;)
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 13, 2006, 12:21:38 AM
LFO defeat switch?
Isn't this achieved by turinig the range control to minimum (fully CCW)?
Quote from: puretube on November 13, 2006, 02:36:54 AM
the simulated variable pot with the 4007 along with its adjacent limiting resistors
is the place to play with, IMHO... :icon_wink:
So, that would be the 47R/2M2 between the 4007 and the 4047, yes?
Quote from: markusw on November 13, 2006, 06:07:27 AM
With the second output buffer it should be stereo, at least if the connection between IC1c and IC2b is removed. Two separate signals would be send to the two output jacks for in-air mixing.
OK. I think I got it, now... straight signal to one output, delayed signal to the other output. In the back of my head I guess I was thinking you could do the same thing by adding a seperate direct output and installing a vibrato switch to eliminate the dry signal from the main output.
Quote from: markusw on November 13, 2006, 06:07:27 AM
Since IC2b acts as a low-pass filter (deemphasis) it probably might be the best to recombine the two delay lines (more or less at the output jack) at the output of IC2b.
The IC2b stage would be duplicated for the second delay line (i.e. the already filtered signals get mixed passively like in the 9V Mistress).
Not sure I'm following... wouldn't that bypass the existing buffer for the SAD output, the even/odd switch and the enhance (regen) controls?
Quote from: markusw on November 13, 2006, 06:07:27 AM
Regarding the best place for tapping off the signal for feeding the second delay line I still think that the output of IC1a would be appropriate.
As far as I understand the IC1a stage does the preemphasis (i.e. it boosts the highs). Low-pass filtering is performed at the 1C1b stage (which would be duplicated for the second delay line).
So, the second delay line would not get the low-pass de-emphasis? I'm not sure about that, but that's why I just put pads at the outputs of both IC1a and IC1b. So, it'll be relatively easy to try it either way and go with whichever seems to work best.
Quote from: markusw on November 13, 2006, 06:07:27 AM
BTW, does ExpressPCB show air wires (connections that are not done yet)??
No. If a connection is not done, it will not be shown. But, all the required on-board connections are done in my layout. The only connections that are not shown are for off-board components like pots, jacks, switches, etc...
Thanks y'all!
~ Charlie
yes:
pins 11&12 of the 4007 represent the (variable) resistor being substituted by it,
[which controls the frequency of the 4047by resembling the frequency-controlling resistor between the pins 2&3 of the latter];
in series with it, the "47R" limits Fmax
when the 4007 is at its smallest value;
and parallel to it,
the "2M2" limits Fmin
when the 4007 is at its largest value.
now I don`t know the minimal value of the 4007,
but I do know, that the resistor between pins 2&3 of the 4047*
varies the frequency from ~10KHz to ~6MHz (on pin13)
when R varies from 1M to 470R...
(with one cap of 50pF).
pins 10&11 of the 4047 put out 5kHz to 3MHz, in above example.
*= measured with equivalent "discrete" inverter based oscillator
I was thinking LFO defeat switch a la EM/DEM. This could be added later w/out much of a problem. Nothing to sweat 8) Getting all these component values sorted out seems to be the order of the day now.
QuoteIsn't this achieved by turinig the range control to minimum (fully CCW)?
That's what I thought too....
QuoteNot sure I'm following... wouldn't that bypass the existing buffer for the SAD output, the even/odd switch and the enhance (regen) controls?
Sure....
Sorry, please forget that crap.... :icon_redface: Better think twice before writing.
I'd go with the input of IC2b as return point.
QuoteSo, the second delay line would not get the low-pass de-emphasis? I'm not sure about that, but that's why I just put pads at the outputs of both IC1a and IC1b. So, it'll be relatively easy to try it either way and go with whichever seems to work best.
The second delay line would also get it's de-emphasis (which is done by stage IC
2b). Just the input of the second delay line would get a separate lp filter (a duplicate of the IC1b stage).
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 13, 2006, 08:59:04 AM
Yes to 47k, F'back loop. These values give a Hi freq rolloff of -3db @~34kHz. The stability thing, I guess.
This is actually quite interesting since in the ADA the BBD is tuned to run in a clock range from 17.4 kHz to 650 kHz. ?
QuoteNo. If a connection is not done, it will not be shown. But, all the required on-board connections are done in my layout. The only connections that are not shown are for off-board components like pots, jacks, switches, etc...
That's a pretty cool feature of Eagle CAD. It shows you all open connections as yellow lines. Also you can check whether you did a wrong connection automatically. Takes some time to get used with Eagle though.
Re analog kid's high ouput level.
QuoteR43 (at pin 6/7 output amp) 27k instead of 4.7k ?
IMHO the 4.7k should give you a much higher output than the 27k... Might be a place to check ;)
Markus
I hate to keep jumping in with my tsing when the brainstorming on layout changes has kicked back in ( which btw reminds me I wonder If I should've took all my questions to a thread separate :icon_redface:) but I hope it all applies!
question:
concerning pin 10/11 from 4047 feeding 5/7 of 4049, I've read over and again these need to be indentical in vltg. I am just wondering how 'identical' they need be. At least using theDMM I have
I am getting 7.43-44 on pin 10 and 7.44-45 on pin11 . Now I know this is very small but Ithought worth asking. It's very repeatable and there's always a difference of .01 between these pins. Non-critical?
Range CCW defeats LFO. And my setting just between say CCW and 1 is the only place I can get fairly even sweeps even at higher speeds. The ugly detuning and abrupt stagger kicks in as it's increased from here.
QuoteR43 (at pin 6/7 output amp) 27k instead of 4.7k ?
IMHO the 4.7k should give you a much higher output than the 27k... Might be a place to check
Ok This is one particular parts difference I have been looking closely at myself but let me point out what i've got going on here. My flanged output volume is significantly DECREASED from the bypassed. And the value I have there is the one in the parts lists , 4.7k , and in the MI/Giles Schem. If 27k is going to cause an even more significant vol drop then it's not an issue.
I planned to half the values of R41 / 42 at the output mixer to see how the vol drop is affected BUT I don't want to mask another problem! maybe at the input IC1 (where my enhance intensity issue also probably dwells btw)
QuoteRange CCW defeats LFO. And my setting just between say CCW and 1 is the only place I can get fairly even sweeps even at higher speeds. The ugly detuning and abrupt stagger kicks in as it's increased from here.
Did you try to replace the 22µ with two 47µ tail-to-tail?
QuoteMy flanged output volume is significantly DECREASED from the bypassed.
Ups, sorry. Should have read your posts more carefully... :icon_redface:
apolgies Markus , I have missed what you refer to by the 22uf ? were you meaning two 47uf instead two 33uf? sorry :icon_redface: I recoginize that same pair a 33 caps betweem Range/Rate I think
it absolutely doesn`t matter "what you get out of the 4047", voltagewise!
it goes into the 4049s,
and almost anything you feed them with,
they will put out whatever is on their RAILS...
With a DMM (digmultmeter), you won`t measure much correctness at these frequencies...
a SCOPE will show what is neccessary to view - otherwise: the ears will have to decide.
The LFO defeat switch as referred to on pg. 7/posts 125 & 126 of this thread.
Quote from: analog kid on November 13, 2006, 03:01:45 PM
apolgies Markus , I have missed what you refer to by the 22uf ? were you meaning two 47uf instead two 33uf? sorry :icon_redface: I recoginize that same pair a 33 caps betweem Range/Rate I think
I thought you were using one 33µ as integrating cap (like in Stephens schem). If you're already using two of them replacing them with 47µ caps shouldn't change anything.
Another communication issue ;)
Markus
Quote from: puretube on November 13, 2006, 12:11:03 PM
yes:
pins 11&12 of the 4007 represent the (variable) resistor being substituted by it,
[which controls the frequency of the 4047by resembling the frequency-controlling resistor between the pins 2&3 of the latter];
Thanks, Ton. 8)
Quote from: analog kid on November 13, 2006, 02:22:40 PM
I hate to keep jumping in with my tsing when the brainstorming on layout changes has kicked back in ( which btw reminds me I wonder If I should've took all my questions to a thread separate :icon_redface:) but I hope it all applies!
It's all good and it definately all applies. And, I'm glad you're posting in this thread. I think the fact that you are sharing the process of working out all your kinks will pay big dividends when we other brave souls are ready to follow in your footsteps.
Thanks!
~ Charlie
well well, there is just one 33uf there stephen's schem draw. I hadn't noticed that. hmmmm. there are a couple 22uf's rather than 33 in a Rev 3 schem(C22/C26) I have which I thought you may be speakin of.
I am assuming then that a difference of as small as 10mv between Pins 10 and 11 from 4047 is not important then?
I wonder if posting my pin vltgs from maybe LM324, 1458, and 4047 at a predetermined common control setting may show someone here waht to point to causing my sweep problem? :icon_wink:
Thanks Moos' that is exactly what I was hoping for really , that It would be 'helpful'
UPDATE : ( This IS an EDIT , apologies to anyone who read this BEFORE I did this)
I thought I had found a problems when I went to put in a larger*(50k )Enhance trimmer, when I pulled the old one I found on leg (leg 3) of the fragile blue bourns had snapped off below where I couldn't see. and upon installing 50k I THOUGHT that Enhance was working perfectly as it should . Trimmed back til able to go full CW before fb is too much. UNTIL!!!!!..... I realized that the odd/even was at the time in the thin and weak volume ODD position. Flipped back to even and AHHHHHH!! Feedback at less than 1/2turn regardless of trimpot settting!! Again Ehance CAN be trimmed properly when in ODD Unfortunately this has NOT helped much if any in solving my problem with the staggered detuned sweep instead of smooth!! I understand this would be unavoidable at some settings (high range,etc..) but I'm not able to dial out this 'stagger' at many if any swept settings.
Progress Indeed
I also decided to mess around some more w/ listening tests while switch in ODD . When I notice that the overall sweep of the flange is much better here. The abrupt staggered detune is hardly offensive until Range is up Very high and Speed set very fast. So unless this all stands to reason due to some freq cancellation or the like which I've yet to comprehend.... THiS discovery seem to mb may be very telling!! ???
Just a thought regarding the uneven sweep - you could try a 470k for the clock range preset in order to reduce the amount of maximum clock modulation. That may help.
On the enhancing side of things, check the voltage on the non feedback side which should be approx 50% of the supply voltage.
thanks Stephen, I tried this and it did seem to help a bit when set to it's exteme and the right range pot settings (and slower speed) allowing for some much more "useable" sounding sweeps, at lower sppeds) However the uneveness is still there no matter how I try to "hide" it. On a scope it''s easier to see obvioulsy but my ears are all I have and even at very slow speeds (where I and many probably love flanging the best) there is still that detuned, staggered abrupt feeling thoughout each cycle .
(Non-feedback side) ?? IC1 pin 1 has 7.1v. My enhance problem I am hoping is hiding within an issue with IC1b pin 5,6,7 area. As 5 connects directly to the Middle/CW side of ENHANCE pot.
ALTHOUGH IC1 pins 5, 6, and 7 adjust equally with T1 Bias Trim , a couple of very strange things happen around here while audio probing:
1) set within Bias range (below 6v all way down to apprx 3v) probing 5-7 shows the Flanged output ,UNLESS the Enhance pot is turned off CCW, in which ALL "AUDIO" signal dissappears from 5/6 BUT not from 7!!, which is left with the dry unmodulated signal. lookin' at the schem it doesn't seem right for anything to be at 7 if not 5,6, ?And since enhance doesn't change the bias vltgs this is freaking me out. also btw pin 7's audio can be cancelled too, but only if bias hits over 13v trim full cw
2) Ok, back to having enhance pot "on" at bit / ie; CW enough for the flanged signal to be at pin 5,6 AS WELL AS pin 7. If BIAS is now trimmed 'out of range' , 6v and above, the same thing happens as in the previous.. No "audio" (follow me here) at 5,6 but still dry signal remaining at 7 again! Reason I say No "Audio", at 5/6... is because if Ehance is turned cw now THERE IS LFO thob controlled by rate coming through on 5/6. and ALSO at 7 but coming through on top of the dry audio signal! IS THE LFO coming in via enhance pot here a red flag?
These interactions are surely what's causing at least one of the problems!? I SHOULD POINT OUT AGAIN, that although it obviously looks to me like the Enhance pot is interacting with the Bias voltage. At no time does Enhance pot rotation cause a change in the actual Bias Vltg. It stays firm whatever it's trimmed to.
QuoteAt no time does Enhance pot rotation cause a change in the actual Bias Vltg...
but the other way `round: does Bias-variation change "enhance"?
the original Rev. 1 & 2, as well as Rev. D got AC-decoupled bias, IIRC...
:icon_question:
Yes PT, if i probe 5,6,7 and get the enhance up cw into that heavy edge of squealing regeneration, The bias trim(rotated still within the working bias range of 3-6v) will change the feedback's character/volume indeed. Of couse with bias over 6v as I said the enhance is killed along with the flanged signal and all audio (on pins 5/6)ipin 7 is some reason left with the dry audio signal.
Ok guys , R38 , I think you can highlight it in your notes!
This part value which is ONLY shown as 10k in the MI parts change schematic and now I see for very good reason! It is shown as 30k everywhere else. I had seen it before but put off trying this change because I didn't realize it would play such a part with Enhance control or the BBD. DuH!!Thanks Puretube for pointing in the right direction with the note about differnce In Gain between the BBD's And thanks Gripp for putting it together with R38!
Well after making this change I have a perfectly working enhance control > in both Odd And Even modes!! trim set for that "edge of shooshing oblivion" at full cw : ) and even better Odd/Even now are at very equal volumes with one another.
These problems being remedied , I believe along with my having put in a much larger trim for clock range which S.Giles suggested, I have now been able to achieve very nice even swept flanging! If I set the clock trim anything much less than full resistance(which is a 470k!) then the sweep does begin to become abrupt and uneven again at some settings. So I don't know if using the large clock trimmer value is covering up a problem. here nor there for now cause it's working.
I believe I will reconnect the noise gate and get a FET working.R34 is jumpered now and J5/14 disconnected to disable it.
it probably has to do with the leaving out (in the MI/SG-version)
of the "threshold"-part of the original.
this sets up different impedances around those mixing-sections,
when compared to the original, IMHO.
You could well be right Ton, but I don't have this problem.
Just to make this clear...maybe.
R38 that was 30k in the original rev3 and is 10k in the MI/SG schem,
is the 10k feedback resistor on IC1C (MI/SG schem; output from here carries wet to mix and to feedback filter, is actually IC1C in the original schem too).
This is the one that seems to matter (value 10k and not 30k).
Doesn't this resistor set gain for entire wet signal out to feedback filter and to output mix?
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 15, 2006, 07:24:26 AM
You could well be right Ton, but I don't have this problem.
I don`t think M.I. did a design-flaw;
therefore, I think when you strictly follow his circuit (like you obviously did)
without squinting at the "original" Revs, it will work out fine as is.
But when playing around with partly adaptions of the various "originals"
into the M.I. circuit,
strange things may happen...
:icon_smile:
Let's not forget that the pcb layout that we're using here came from the hands of M.I too...and it is rev3 but modded for SAD. http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/layout_ADA_new-p.zip (http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/layout_ADA_new-p.zip)
Just no schem to go with it.
The only thing I did was to clean it up graphically and try to get a parts list together.
Let me check back to old emails from MI this evening, I have a feeling that he pointed out R38 as an error on the ADA original circuit. Glad that you now have a good enhance control An. Kid.
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 15, 2006, 11:20:05 AM
Let me check back to old emails from MI this evening, I have a feeling that he pointed out R38 as an error on the ADA original circuit. Glad that you now have a good enhance control An. Kid.
Confirmed, but since forgotten of course.
Oh , thanks gripp , if I didn't explain well enough the value change at r38 (30k to 10k ) etc..
QuoteBut when playing around with partly adaptions of the various "originals"
into the M.I. circuit,
strange things may happen...
BINGO! That's what I think is alot of what's going on here indeed and what has brought on alot of the headaches and confusion at least in my case! looking at what value differences from rev's may apply to or contradict the bbd mod! BUT based on the fact that M.I. has it seems applied his same config. of changes to BOTH Rev 3 and 4 Rev 3 one has to wonder should there be any reason for "strange things to happen"? (what I mean by this is explained below)
This is something that has made me wonder alot about whether certain values used in Rev 3 vs. 4 would affect the way the changes for the SAD work... this is Looking at the schematic redrawn by Stephen incorporating all the SAD changes ,
which is a REV 4 minus the Threshold/Gate section. and THEN looking at the pcb Layout we're working from,which I, as Gripp stated, believe was drawn by M.I. adding in bbd changes BUT BASED FROM the Bergman Layout
which is REV 3, with Gate included This had me wondering why he'd see fit to redraw/add to this existing Rev 3 layout when his original SAD parts changes (the schem Stephen drew) were applied to a Rev 4 UNLESS Mike felt there was nothing to conflict with his SAD changes IN EITHER REV 3 or 4!
ANYWAY considering it was obviously drawn in some form BY M.I. using SAD in both the REV 4 ( in the giles drawn schem) AND Rev 3 ( the 'hybrid' pcb layout collaborated though maybe unwittingly by Bergman and Irwin!) So my point is that I have plenty of faith that the circuit will work with no major issues with the Rev 3 as I'm building or Rev 4 as well which I assume is what Stephen built from. : ) sorry if I thought too much into that :icon_rolleyes:
QuoteLet me check back to old emails from MI this evening, I have a feeling that he pointed out R38 as an error on the ADA original circuit. Glad that you now have a good enhance control An. Kid
Thank stephen yes I have proper enhance , even volumes from odd / even now but I'm just not accustom to how it 'cancels' different frequencies of the flanging. AND making me the most happy.. the ability now to dial in much smoother swept flanging!! Albeit it seems that I have to use every bit of that 470k clock trimmer you suggested to reduce the modulation enough that I'm still be able to turn the Range up a bit without wobble. YES That would be absolutely great to hear what you come across looking though some of those emails. I would definitely bet you'll find notes about r38 specifically but although It's possible Mike may have noted it as an error in the schem from the get go... based on the description of the different gains of both bbd's and what is obviously part of the job r38 does in the circuit, then I'd say it's also very possible that r38 was a change made be Mike Irwin to help the SAD operate better
What MI said was that the Odd/Even circuit is supposed to be a switchable inverting/non-inverting amp with a
gain of one. As far as I know he simply adapted the ADA pcb for his SAD 1024 modifications, and so that his version would work - not so that this forum could lose any sleep over it ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
.....oh, and he doesn't refer to any particular rev either. Anyway, this has surely been a very interesting thread.
QuoteAs far as I know he simply adapted the ADA pcb for his SAD 1024 modifications, and so that his version would work - not so that this forum could lose any sleep over it
No doubt, No doubt. :icon_lol:
though at least one forum member surely has my friend.
thanks
yes the fact that he had used that existing pcb to build his versions had just made a million thought go through my head as to the possibilities of the 'changes' as they are applied to rev 3 vs. rev 4. Thought processes Overkill!
Well my Clone is flanging beautifully now!! I still have some issues of course. Volume drop even when lowering mix resistors to apprx 24k. And most recently after reconnecting the noise gate partway (ie; jumper 5 back in place and R34 unjumpered) I have now only strong flanged output from one side of the Odd/Even switch (the Odd) So this has me wondering if r34's current value of 10k OR it's neccessity at all comes into play when employing the noise gate?
QuoteQuote
R43 (at pin 6/7 output amp) 27k instead of 4.7k ?
IMHO the 4.7k should give you a much higher output than the 27k... Might be a place to check
Markus
Some more crap posted by me :icon_redface:
Obviously, it's the other way round. 27k gives higher gain than 4k7 :icon_redface:
Don't listen to me!
Markus
Analog Kid - I think you need to check the pcb and connections around the odd/even op amp and trace the signal through to see where it disappears in the even setting by listening to it.
By the way, I finally got my first phaser to work at 4am one night around 1976 - my first wife was not pleased!!!
Hmmm, my second wife loves my first phaser.
Nice work, analog kid! Very glad to hear you're getting to the bottom of things. Congrat's!
Quote from: markusw on November 16, 2006, 04:35:12 AM
Some more crap posted by me :icon_redface:
Obviously, it's the other way round. 27k gives higher gain than 4k7 :icon_redface:
I was thinking the same thing... But, you also have that 5K in parallel with the 4k7. So, if you increase the 4k7 to 27k, doesn't the overal feedback resistance for IC2b go down, giving you less gain?
RE: the PCB layout going out to fab...
I'm thinking I should start a new thread just for verifying my final layout (seems to have gotten burried in this awesome mammoth thread). I'm certainly going to comb through it a few more times myself to make sure I didn't botch anything. But, I'd like to enlist the help of some others for the same purpose. If I can get a thumbs-up from a few others, I'll feel a lot better about getting a batch of PCB's fabricated for folks.
Thanks!
~ Charlie
The 5K and .01u are the de-emphasis components. They are there to provide gain reduction at the freqs that were pre-emphasized in IC 1a (4K7 & .01u).
"27k would create higher gain than 4.7k "
DANGIT Markus!! ::) :icon_wink: that's was thinking first too but when you said that I firgured I was wrong and never tried fooling with that one. Figuring I had as much gain as i 'should' from that resistor. LOL!
So maybe I will give that value a try since my unit seems to be working VERY well ( still with the GATE disconnected) except for a very large volume drop! I have already tried fiddling with the mix R's to bring volume up but it's not creating enough IMO.
I found when probing that the signal was dropping(in EVEN) on the threshold side of R34. (a 10k) So I replaced with a 820ohm and flanged output is very close to equal. ODD+EVEN, maybe still just a bit weaker, but this makes me wonder just how much lower it is ok to go with R34 in order to keep Odd/Even at equal volumes without just Jumpering as in the No-Gate verion and STILL not have a negative effect on how well the Threshold control functions?? it seems R34 is only there to put some resistance between IC3C's output and the drain of the FET in the gate. and jumpering it disables the Threshold/gate completely. so I don't know enough to understand Exactly what that R value does for the N.Gate , any outlook here. With the 820ohm in right now I can notice a boost in the Flanged output/ enhance when between the Resistor or Jumping it but ONLY in EVENmode, ODD is same no matter. So I guess it' s just finding the balance of how low adjusting this resistor for strong Even vol. / and still having the noise gate function well. If so I think I about got it so long as the gate's gonna work well still if I drop r34 much more than 800ohms. '
according to Gripp , Threshold Should STILL function and gate not disabled when R34 is Jumpered.
PS: I am very anxious to see you get your final vesion pcb layout finished and ready to have sent off Moos'!! Even though i surely will have my A/DA finished , running as it should and boxed by then, I am very interested in the progress and maybe even having one made!!
Moose wrote:
RE: the PCB layout going out to fab...
I'm thinking I should start a new thread just for verifying my final layout (seems to have gotten burried in this awesome mammoth thread). I'm certainly going to comb through it a few more times myself to make sure I didn't botch anything. But, I'd like to enlist the help of some others for the same purpose. If I can get a thumbs-up from a few others, I'll feel a lot better about getting a batch of PCB's fabricated for folks.
Hey charlie,
How about makeing just a few, say 3 or 5. Then having 3 or 5 folks assemble the proto-pcbs.
U know Murphy's Law?.....well...... :-\
rather than cutting a bunch of traces and running a bunch of jumpers....
If U think it's better to get a larger run of pcbs, to keep the individual pcb piece/price low,
then, i guess, do final de-bugging after...well....you're the ramrod .... 8)
head 'em up; drill 'em out;
...i'm wondering what your "target price" is ???
T
now that the trace going to pin 7 instead of pin 6 of the 4049 was caught allowing Moos' to fix it in his version of the layout , which was the only thing for which I had to modify the pcb, I can't imagine it'll be anything other than VALUES needing to worked out for builders. since charlie is sticking with the basic spirit of this layout, though Of course he is changing the routing around a bit and all those added pads,so maybe that would be a good idea? I don't know just a thought
Quote from: analog kid on November 16, 2006, 02:18:24 PM
"27k would create higher gain than 4.7k "
DANGIT Markus!! ::) :icon_wink: that's was thinking first too but when you said that I firgured I was wrong and never tried fooling with that one. Figuring I had as much gain as i 'should' from that resistor. LOL!
So maybe I will give that value a try since my unit seems to be working VERY well ( still with the GATE disconnected) except for a very large volume drop! I have already tried fiddling with the mix R's to bring volume up but it's not creating enough IMO.
Did you try that 27K??
According to some sims I did, with the 27k the overall frequency response (pre-emphasis/de-emphasis) is pretty flat while with the 4.7k there is quite some loss in bass and mids...
Markus
Wow Interesting indeed. Since this is a symptom I've been noticing in my unit since i got it up and running, along with a vol. well below bypass (even with 27k'sfor 68k mix r's in the output amp, incidentally the same amp where the pre-de emph. is) but had written til now figuring a lack of gain somewhere in the crkt. . I've definitey been concerned with a lack of full frequency response which my ross has (as well as sound samples) and thin sounding even with Neck pos. w/ a strat and settings that should be the fullest. Also some hint of grittiness in the high end.
so , YES , I tried this value in there (finally) and absolutely noticed a fuller, and importantly a probably very close to unity output. Based on this I have decided this is a place to pop a couple sockets in to toy with. But I put the original value back for now because , as I have the noise gate working and troubleshooting now, And this resistor also had an affect on the noise gate( I believe, causing) a bit of gated staticly hiss with the Threshold control even when turned off / CW. When changed to 27k
so I am fixin to do some experimenting here based on the result I got as well as your invaluable simulations to back it up with something!! Also i found another schematic value difference with a 10k across the FET s/d, it's not in the same shem w/ the 27k value in Ic2b BUT it does connect right into that amp, so I wonder If that's an error
BTW , Markus, since you're so good with those sim's. As I said, not coincedentally, the 68k mix r's are in the same opamp (actually connected directly to) the 4.7k/27k resistor. So would you be able to sim *(or IYO) would there be any REASON to change the values of those Mix resistors WITH the 4.7k going up?? Or for me to change them from 27k back to 68k (or any other value ) n my case? I would imagine they'd have some direct affect on each other. Thanks
QuoteBTW , Markus, since you're so good with those sim's.
I'd say LTSpice is good in doing the sims. I just enter the schem ;)
I simulated the dry path only (i.e the pre-emphasis stage IC1a, the lo-pass filter stage IC2a, and the output stage IC2b) and with the 68k plus the 27k for the IC2b stage there is a slight boost with the overall frequ response being pretty flat. Looking at the stages for the delayed path I believe that this will apply for the delayed path too.
Quotewould there be any REASON to change the values of those Mix resistors WITH the 4.7k going up?? Or for me to change them from 27k back to 68k (or any other value ) n my case? I would imagine they'd have some direct affect on each other. Thanks
Personally, when looking at the sims I'd give the 68ks plus the 27k in the feedback loop a try because this should give the flat frequ response plus the higher gain.
Don't know how the threshold side chain influences the gain though.
Markus
Quote from: toneman on November 16, 2006, 09:28:57 PM
How about makeing just a few, say 3 or 5. Then having 3 or 5 folks assemble the proto-pcbs.
If there are willing subjects who can cover the cost of fabrication for a short run like that... I guess that's not a bad idea.
For a cost comparison, ExpressPCB has a deal that they call their ProtoPro Service - 4 boards, 21 square inches (or smaller), with solder mask and silkscreen for $179 ($44.75 each).
But, since the ADA layout is a bit smaller than that (5.5" x 3.5" = 19.25"), I think the cost could be less than that with their Standard Service - double sided PCB with plated through holes, no silkscreen, no solder mask. Maybe under $40 each. I can't get an exact price right now, but I'll check it out later tonight.
Quote from: toneman on November 16, 2006, 09:28:57 PM
...i'm wondering what your "target price" is ???
For a run of at least 10 boards, somewhere between $25 and $30 for a double sided PCB with plated through holes, no silkscreen, no solder mask (ExpressPCB Standard Service). Adding the silkscreen & solder mask adds ~$5 per PCB.
~ Charlie
QuotePersonally, when looking at the sims I'd give the 68ks plus the 27k in the feedback loop a try because this should give the flat frequ response plus the higher gain.
Don't know how the threshold side chain influences the gain though.
Yes that is a big question at hand for me right now! and yes I'd say that's correct way to go since I have the 27k's in for all the above right now and there's a pretty big boost from bypassed :icon_razz: I hae the gate working in both Even / Odd. as long as r34's value is as low as 1k or so they are even volume. I'm afraid to go too low here as it put resistance between IC1c output and Fet drain. I am gonna put the Mix R's back to 68k to see if it impacts the gain to the gate whether the sim will say that or not.
It seems I'm down to getting the right FET for the job. I've found some close but still there's a bit of gate hiss in time with the LFO even when Thresh full CW. Which is why I wondered how the Mix R's on the Inverted input of the output amp may impact on the Gate . can they.
Sounds like you're getting near making a few people happy who don't want to bugger with an etch such as this!! Imagine that I even shrunk the layout another 10% or so (to fit the biggest piece of Clad I had :icon_redface: , talk about impatience!) so if those traces were tight enough in some areas....! ie; under the IC's ,etc.. WHEW!
I have been following this thread and have nothing to add, but if you did a run of 10 boards with screen, I'd buy one and build it.
I'm in awe guys.!! Keep up the work. Maybe soon I'll understand 25% of it. lol
I have a working veroboard unit and don't understand half of it!!!
Group Buy Info for ADA Flanger PCB's (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=51692.new#new)
Thanks!
~ Charlie
Another work of art Charlie! I printed this out over 2 A4 sheets from Excel, joined them together and copied on to an A3 sheet - looks very nice indeed. For some reason I can't get Excel to print to A3 paper.
Beautiful, man! "Techno-Porn" at its finest ;)
Was the R38 question resolved? I wound my ADA Flanger up last night as I had the house to myself ;D ;D, and listened particularly to the odd/even sounds and the regeneration. I have a 10k for R38, as previously mentioned, but there is bags of fat resonance when I turn up the regeneration pot. It seems that all the various ADA versions used 30k for R38, and included R34 as 10k, whereas I do not have R34.
I don't have my orignal ADA Circuit with me but it was the MN 3010 version without part values, and the value given for R34 was 1meg. Mike Irwin pointed out that this was an error, suggested it be omitted altogether and R38 be made 10k in order to provide unity gain in the odd/even amp. I suppose the effect of including R34 will do just that with R38 at 30k. Funnily enough, that MN 3010 version is not on the adadepot site!
But R35 is 1meg so I am mystified now. I'll check when I get home.
This comes both from simulation and what's in Analog Kid's unit right now, R38 30k, R34 10k and R35 1M.
In the sim, this was about the only way to get unity between both inverting and noninverting configs when the noise gate is in place (R35 1M, that is). Seems to be that way in the real world too.
1M for R35 makes the gate work good too. The problem with Analog Kid's unit squeeling when R38 was 30k seems to be gone by now, must have been something else.
If one is omitting the gate, then jumping R34 and making R38 10k is the way to go (not having R35 or the jfet in there at all).
/Pelle
Thanks for that, yes omitting the gate is the reason for jumping R34 - I'm glad someone is awake!
Quote from: moosapotamus on November 20, 2006, 11:24:25 PM
Group Buy Info for ADA Flanger PCB's (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=51692.new#new)
Thanks!
~ Charlie
Fantastic!! :icon_biggrin: :icon_eek:
Some Qs: would it A) make sense and B) be easy to do in ExpressPCB to add a ground plane?
BTW, in the powerpoint layout there are 2 (didn't see more at a first glance) gnd traces that are not terminated. Maybe they are for isolating the adjacent traces. Any ideas?
Would it be possible to add a second C24 cap (tail to tail to the existing one) like in the original vers 3.? This might make it a bit more flexible when tuning the LFO.
I would be happy to beta test the PCB (don't know if it would be better to post this in the other thread?) :)
QuoteThis comes both from simulation and what's in Analog Kid's unit right now, R38 30k, R34 10k and R35 1M.
In the sim, this was about the only way to get unity between both inverting and noninverting configs when the noise gate is in place (R35 1M, that is). Seems to be that way in the real world too.
1M for R35 makes the gate work good too. The problem with Analog Kid's unit squeeling when R38 was 30k seems to be gone by now, must have been something else.
If one is omitting the gate, then jumping R34 and making R38 10k is the way to go (not having R35 or the jfet in there at all).
/Pelle
Thanks!! Makes sense now :)
analogkid,
did you see the note in the power point layout regarding the wiring of jumper 13?
Markus
:icon_mrgreen:
You guys ROCK! Thanks for the props!
Quote from: markusw on November 21, 2006, 01:21:28 PM
Some Qs: would it A) make sense and B) be easy to do in ExpressPCB to add a ground plane?
BTW, in the powerpoint layout there are 2 (didn't see more at a first glance) gnd traces that are not terminated. Maybe they are for isolating the adjacent traces. Any ideas?
I do not fully understand every aspect of designing circuit layouts that could cause noise issues. It would be easy to add a ground plane, but I'm not convinced that it's really necessary. For starters, because of all the closely spaced traces, it wouldn't end up filling very much space, except maybe around the power supply circuitry. I could also be mistaken, but the two non-terminated ground traces don't appear to me to be be isolating anything of any consequence. Plus, Stephen's reports of how his perfboard build is very quiet tell me that there is a low risk of having interference issues with this circuit. But, I am certainly not an expert on the subject. If anyone can explain where and why a gound plane would be beneficial, I am all ears.
Quote from: markusw on November 21, 2006, 01:21:28 PM
Would it be possible to add a second C24 cap (tail to tail to the existing one) like in the original vers 3.? This might make it a bit more flexible when tuning the LFO.
Well, there are already two C24 caps set up for parallel switching. But, I can add another pair of pads that would allow for the two caps to be either in parallel or in series.
Quote from: markusw on November 21, 2006, 01:21:28 PM
I would be happy to beta test the PCB (don't know if it would be better to post this in the other thread?) :)
That's cool, Markus. Thanks. I think everyone who gets in on this first order could probably be considered a "beta tester." ;)
Quote from: Gripp on November 21, 2006, 10:44:20 AM
If one is omitting the gate, then jumping R34 and making R38 10k is the way to go (not having R35 or the jfet in there at all).
Thanks, Pelle! That's a really good note for folks who don't want the gate.
Quote from: markusw on November 21, 2006, 01:21:28 PM
did you see the note in the power point layout regarding the wiring of jumper 13?
You mean, even though it's shown connecting C16 to the node at the output of IC1b, it's really supposed to connect C16 to the node at the output of IC1a?
... kinda curious.
Thanks, y'all!
~ Charlie
- "Plus, Stephen's reports of how his perfboard build is very quiet tell me that there is a low risk of having interference issues with this circuit."
In a band situation, the problem simply doesn't arise. However, in your bedroom, of course you can hear noise, .........but it's good noise........it's SAD 1024 noise :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin:
Cool, Stephen. Thanks for all your help with this. 8)
~ Charlie
I really appreciate that my misguided post (which happened to start this thread) will result in a plated-through board for the effect in question. ;D
Thanks for kicking it off, Dave. Did you get your initial question answered, btw. ;)
~ Charlie
Yes, long ago. Thanks, Charlie. :) And let me join in with everyone else in thanking you for the effort on the A/DA board! Are you considering publishing the artwork by itself at some point?
Not sure exactly what you mean by "publishing." But, I am of course posting/sharing the images.
Thanks
~ Charlie
Does anyone have any sound samples of this new contraption?
Quote from: moosapotamus on November 24, 2006, 06:35:10 PM
Not sure exactly what you mean by "publishing." But, I am of course posting/sharing the images.
Sorry, I've been brainwashed by my employer. At my job ANYTHING that gets sent out to a group of people (memos, powerpoints, etc) is "published." I guess it makes the memos sound more important, even if they're only cracking down on dress code violations. :)
racedriver....check this out
http://www.tonefrenzy.com/effects/ada_flanger.html
and that's without the mods.
Quoteracedriver....check this out
No clips on that page im afraid
http://www.aronnelson.com/DIYFiles/up/ada.mp3
Sample here.
cool
I heard the clip and it sounds okay but can it do flanging like you do with two recorders ?
Here is a small clip:
http://www.esnips.com/doc/685af6ce-a592-4bf4-9251-fa3ea8e5e2e7
Alf
If anyone has built one, how about a clip of distortion into the Tru-Zero version?
quote author=alfafalfa link=topic=49929.msg389863#msg389863 date=1164456100]
I heard the clip and it sounds okay but can it do flanging like you do with two recorders ?
Here is a small clip:
http://www.esnips.com/doc/685af6ce-a592-4bf4-9251-fa3ea8e5e2e7
Alf
[/quote]
Quote from: alfafalfa on November 25, 2006, 07:01:40 AM
I heard the clip and it sounds okay but can it do flanging like you do with two recorders ?
Here is a small clip:
http://www.esnips.com/doc/685af6ce-a592-4bf4-9251-fa3ea8e5e2e7
Alf
I have never played a complete mix through the ADA flanger, perhaps I'll try it later. But it was not designed to do that anyway!
Quote from: alfafalfa on November 25, 2006, 07:01:40 AM
I heard the clip and it sounds okay but can it do flanging like you do with two recorders ?
Alf
reply#1 has the answer... :icon_wink:
Quite right Ton. I just tried it quickly before being dragged out to walk the dog in appalling weather! The sweep is very wide indeed, but just doesn't go over the top. Not easy to listen to with stereo headphones plugged into the mono output socket!! Is TZF really that important? I don't think so, but you could always experiment with a 7th order all pass filter in the dry signal path :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes:
Sorry bout that racedriver....
I posted this over on the board order page but may as well do it here to.
Quote from: jmasciswannabe on November 24, 2006, 09:34:18 AM
Actual value of parts shown in Charlie's schematic. Had some time to blow at the in-laws Thurs. Might help when ordering parts....
c1 - 0.01
c4 - 22uf
c7 - 0.47
c18 - 1500p
c29 - 39p
d1 - 1n914 x 4
d5 - 1n914 x 2
p3 - 10kL
p4 - 50kL
p5 - 500k rev log
r3 - 2.7k
r5 - 1m
r9 - 20k
r11 - 47k
r13 - 10k
r28 - 1.3m
r39 - 22k
r40 - 68k
r43 - 27k
r44 - 5.1k
r51 - 22k
r55 - 47ohm
r60 - 1k
r61 - 2.7k
r63 - 20k
r64 - 20k
r65 - 82k
r68 - 47ohm
r69 - 2.2m
t5 - 100k
Can't wait to get this sucker started!!
Quote from: jmasciswannabe on November 24, 2006, 09:34:18 AM
QuoteDoes anyone have any sound samples of this new contraption?
not so new a contraption I'm afraid , though I'm sure you're aware of this.
As far as clips (of an A/DA Flanger) go to Modzero , they ARE there.
'does it do flanging like using two tape recorders?.... Well, that's what any analog Flange unit Is MEANT TO TRY to emulate for sure! as to how well it does or you prefer the sound of an analog/digital flanging device to that of true old fashioned tape flanging , well I guess that's quite definately a matter of taste and opinion.
Insert Quote
QuoteIf anyone has built one, how about a clip of distortion into the Tru-Zero version?
you are looking to find sound clips of an "a/da" equipped with "thru-zero" huh? Well I'm quite sure it's quite obvious it never produced with such a feature and so few people have built it I am just as sure noone has bothered with attempting to add a board for thruzero. This is just somthing that's been talked about "what IF" and hence pads get added to allow some person so inclined to give this a shot! So soundclips? obviously not gonna find that although I agree with the previous that this is really uneccessary and perhaps just overkill with this effect. to me the most obvious unique-ness of it IS the extreme width of the sweep. Mine really is too wide if not very carefully set up. Still alot of trouble with overall Fr.response but i think it'll be 'smoothed out' real soon as well.
Uh, what's this Parts value list for??
I think Charlie did quite a big help for all y'all by putting up a side by side part #/value list for each of the later Rev's and M.I. suggested. a shame for me, considering the seemingly hours I spent squinting and scrolling over every schem/parts lists/pt layout document I could find to put together over the years to make my own such list awhile back! :icon_wink: guess I coulda waited
I think anyone building this is gonna want or have to pretty much let decide for themselves on quite a few of thse values , I could point out several of which I believe this to be the case with but hey ... what's the fun in that! Now I notice that Moos' is mixing a little bit of Rev 4 stuff with Rev3 in areas so it's even more of a "composite" revision than if just building a straight up Rev3 audio path,etc..with SAD mods (more little bothersome incompatibilities?i hope not) Though I'm sure he wouldn't do it unless he picked up info and advice for it somewhere along the way...I just must've missed it) Also not to confuse but I don't understand where these 2k7' values came from for r47 and r61? though charlie's redraw IS using the setup from Rev 4 around IC4a/b Though I'm sure he wouldn't do it unless he picked up info and advice for it somewhere along the way...I just must've missed it) big difference from the 100k for r47/61 as in rev3 but I still haven't seen 2k7 come up for these even in rev 4 doc's. 2k7 for r3 is however listed as such BUT I find it to be quite to much high pass in the pre emphasis at Input and the 4k7 listed elsewhere will likely end up being the preferred value here.
If anyone can explain to me the r47/r61 detail that I'm obviuosly missing completely, thanks
I see. So the thu-zero option is not going to be added to this device? I was under the impression that it was going to be a main part of it?
The desirable aspect of the A/DA Flanger was that the clocking scheme allowed it to get very close to zero, and probably much closer than other compact floor pedals of that era and all subsequent analog pedals. There IS a certain magic to the through-zero experience, but it has less utility in everyday playing than simply extending the sweep range a little farther. It's like the difference between truffles (the pig-found fungus type) and a decent cup of coffee - sure, the one is more exotic and mind-blowing than the other, but a decent cuppa java is something you probably couldn't face each day without (and say your blessings for with every sleepy sip), where a truffle is something you want to reserve for special occasions.
Absolutely Mark, and a very good morning to you, I'm never sure whether you are 5 or 6 hours behind us! From the samples I have heard of TZF, the volume drops to a level that would be unacceptable in a band situation, but that's not to say it would sound very flash in your home on it's own. Nevertheless, a building block of a circuit would always be welcome in this area, if only for something new to try, and there may well be ICs available which already contain much of the circuitry required, or maybe just require a few extra components to build say the quadrature LFO. Are there chips with built in dome filters I wonder?
Quote from: RaceDriver205 on November 26, 2006, 06:18:29 AM
I see. So the thu-zero option is not going to be added to this device? I was under the impression that it was going to be a main part of it?
Go all the way back to pg. 14, post 260. Your answer awaits you there...
Right... If you go back through this thread, I think you'll find that the consensus was to make it easy to add a number of different mods, including TZF, by incorporating additional pads in the layout. So, I did not spend any time designing the necessary additional circuits (building blocks) for things like additional buffer(s) for stereo outputs and additional delay line(s) for TZF. However, I did include those additional pads in the right places so when folks do come up with ideas for those building blocks, they can build them up on a daughter board and easily tie them in to the main PCB via those additional pads.
Personally, I'm not a big TZF fan, either. To me, it just sounds like the volume drops off. But, I am really interested in trying out the bounce mod. 8)
Quote from: analog kid on November 26, 2006, 04:04:13 AM
Now I notice that Moos' is mixing a little bit of Rev 4 stuff with Rev3 in areas so it's even more of a "composite" revision than if just building a straight up Rev3 audio path,etc..with SAD mods (more little bothersome incompatibilities?i hope not) Though I'm sure he wouldn't do it unless he picked up info and advice for it somewhere along the way...
Pretty much all of the advice I picked up along the way is either in this thread or linked to within this thread... And, a huge portion of it came from Stephen's reports regarding his working build and his excellent schematic. What I put together is basically a mix of the Irwin/Giles SAD1024 adaptation and the ADA Rev4 schematic. Stephen reported that he actually wound up using the diode limiting configuration from Rev 3, based on Mike's recommendation, so I used that in my scheme & layout. Unlike the Irwin/Giles design, I also included the threshold section from Rev4. That's about it, aside from nailing down parts' values in some places.
Quote from: analog kid on November 26, 2006, 04:04:13 AM
I don't understand where these 2k7' values came from for r47 and r61?
Those are the values shown in the copy of the Rev4 scheme that I have. For the LFO section, I went with the Rev4 design because, aside from a few of the parts' values and the inclusion of R47, it's identical to the Irwin/Giles version. So, it's possible to populate the board either way.
Quote from: analog kid on November 26, 2006, 04:04:13 AM
2k7 for r3 is however listed as such BUT I find it to be quite to much high pass in the pre emphasis at Input and the 4k7 listed elsewhere will likely end up being the preferred value here.
analog kid - That's great to know... especially for all the bass players. ;) You've been really providing some great info for tweaking and de-bugging this circuit. There's a wealth of information here that could be compiled into a really useful set of build notes.
Everyone, FYI... I'm now accepting payments for the PCB group order. Info is here...
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=51692.msg389818#msg389818Thanks!
~ Charlie
Yes I see, it is pretty much the LFO section that you went with Rev 4 , it took a few minutes before I realized exactly 'where'' you were using Rev3vs4
"Those are the values shown in the copy of the Rev4 scheme that I have. For the LFO section, I went with the Rev4 design because, aside from a few of the parts' values and the inclusion of R47, it's identical to the Irwin/Giles version. So, it's possible to populate the board either way".
that's interesting. I don't recall having any rev 4 stuff with those values. those parts are setup the same but not the values. I'm gonna have to dig back through all my notes and check that out.
Also as far as being able to poplulate it either way, I don't see how that is( though i'm probably seeing wrong as usual ; ) For instance in this case of r47/r61 , these are set up a bit differently around IC4 , regardless of values.
Quote
I see. So the thu-zero option is not going to be added to this device? I was under the impression that it was going to be a main part of it?
No you were asking about sound clips of TZF, as I said:
Quote" I am just as sure noone has bothered with attempting to add a board for thruzero. This is just somthing that's been talked about "what IF" and hence pads get added to allow some person so inclined to give this a shot !"
So yeah Charlie's obviously sticking xtra pads in every location feasable to allow playing with the ideas of about every mod that has been discussed or even suggested in our big thread. up to a few months ago (and I'm still content )i'd venture to guess myself and maybe anyone else would've been so much more than content to pull off a cloning of this unit STOCK. even stripped down from stock for that matter. Like Stephen's
Tough as a build as it may already be for some , parts placements spelled out on a premade board or not, I am curious to see how much brain meltdown takes place from adding loads of extra features at once. I predict many 'ts' threads.ah well why not, that's how we learn. Hopefully everyone using that board will try to get the stock flanger going first so that artwork is for sure verified.
I am pretty interested in the bounce idea myself Charlie. I may try it out on mine before long. but I've enough on my plate just getting freq response and too much modulation with most of T5 even using a large trim. I CAN still obvioulsy tame down the total modulation for the sweep to be very smooth indeed but WITH a large T5 trimmer. increasing r65 doesn't seem to bring this into more of a useable trim range either (?)
And I still recommend building one section at a time, to ensure that all is well as you build. For an inexperienced builder this project would be quite a challenge, and faced with a fully populated board which doesn't work............. :-\ :-\ :-\
I could not agree more than that, sir!
but we have to face the fact,
that we`re living in the age of:
"if it don`t work, BuyYourOwnClone"
or : "I Did it My E-W Bay"
:icon_rolleyes:
Righto, so I guess if TZF isn't that great I should just buy 1 SAD1024?
I cringe when I hear SAD1024 and TZF board mentioned in the same sentence >:(. Please save these soon to be extinct bbds for more important stuff. An MN/BL3207 should suit TZF just fine. A whole lot lighter on the wallet too!
Quote from: analog kid on November 26, 2006, 05:15:44 PM
I don't recall having any rev 4 stuff with those values. those parts are setup the same but not the values.
Right. That's exactly the point I was trying to make... the configuration is the same. So, you can build it either way by just using different parts' values.
Quote from: analog kid on November 26, 2006, 05:15:44 PM
Also as far as being able to poplulate it either way, I don't see how that is( though i'm probably seeing wrong as usual ; ) For instance in this case of r47/r61 , these are set up a bit differently around IC4 , regardless of values.
The way it looks to me in the documents that I have, if you take R47 out of the Rev4 LFO you get the same configuration as the Irwin/Giles LFO. Again, the only other difference being some of the parts' values.
Quote from: RaceDriver205 on November 26, 2006, 07:32:36 PM
Righto, so I guess if TZF isn't that great I should just buy 1 SAD1024?
I wouldn't say TZF is not that great. I think it's more a matter of individual preferences, likes & dislikes. Some like it a lot. Some like it a little less. But, if you've never heard it or tried playing with it, you'll never know. But yeah, use something other than a SAD1024 for the second delay line. ;)
If you are interested in adding TZF to the A/DA, I'm guessing that Markus is going to go after putting together a second delay line for the TZF mod. So, stay tuned... it can always be added later, after you get the stock circuit working. And BTW, check out the pics and docs for Markus' TZF Electric Mistress, if you havent already.
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=36392.msg369947#msg369947
Pretty damn cool. 8)
~ Charlie
OK, I think ill stick to the standard ADA Flanger. Once Ive built it, my ultraflange is getting harvested and going in the bin!
A "gedanken" experiment...
What would happen if you had two different-capacity BBDs - one longer, one shorter - assigned to the dry and wet channels, and clocked them both identically?
So, say you had an MN3009 (256 stages) and an MN3007 (1024 stages). The (ostensibly) dry signal goes through the 3009 and the wet goes through the 3007. When the 3007 is down to 1ms delay, the 3009 is down to 250us, yielding what is, in effect, a 750us delay. If you clock the 3007 down to 500us, the 3009 is down to 125us, yielding a 375us effective delay. If the "dry" delay is a larger capacity chip (like a 512-stage MN3004), the effect is more robust (i.e., what gets "subtracted" is even greater).
Since the "dry" side is clocked at the exact same rate as the wet side, there is no risk of heterodyning - even at the longest delays, although I suspect one would need buffering of the clock signal if the one clock were driving the combined input capacitances of the two BBDs.
Just seems, on the surface anyways, like a simple way to get delay times that can approach zero more closely without taxing the BBDs themselves too much. The impact on the pitch of the "dry" signal should, in principle, be negligible.
....and if it were possible to unmodulate the clock signal driving the BBD in the dry signal path........ :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin: consider the normal clock output from pins 10 & 11 of the 4047 passed to the buffering 4049, AND to a new circuit which can remove the modulation - an "unmodulator" thus providing a fixed delay from any BBD it drives. I have no idea how to do this of course, and Ton could no doubt find a good reason not to!!
Mark:
for sync-clocked BBD1 (512) & BBD2 (1024), the following goes:
if BBD1= 1ms, & BBD2= 2ms, delta-T = 1ms;
if BBD1= 0.5ms, & BBD2= 1ms, delta-T = 0.5ms;
if BBD1= 0.25ms, & BBD2= 0.125ms, delta-T = 0.125ms;
the differential delaytime won`t get shorter than the shorter one...
the only factional difference* will be, that the change of delaytime (sweep)
can be achieved with a smaller control-voltage (or -current, or -resistor, or cap)
variation.
*to a single (short) delayline using 512 stages
True. I guess the question I'm asking is whether the sorts of minimum delay times that get very very close to zero are obtainable with the kind of clocking we normally do and whether it would be possible to get even closer using a "delta T" approach. I imagine that for some signals, dropping from 250usec to 100usec could be a noticeable change...or would it?
Perhaps the advantage would show up where the capacity-difference is made as small as possible. So, the dry signal goes through an MN3009 and MN3004 (256 plus 512 stages, all driven by the same clock as the MN3007) while the wet side goes through 1024 stages. Under those circumstances, the functional delay of the wet side is always 1/4 that of the dry side, so 500usec from an MN3007 = 125usec "delta T".
Of course all of that might be pissing in the wind. The "psychoacoustic confusion" that results at the through zero point is strongly influenced by the amount of high-frequency content. As I've remarked before, TZF is not that impressive if you were using it to process a single clean guitar or bass, but much MORE impressive when used to process a multi-source wide-bandwidth signal (e.g., a whole band). The corollary is that, depending on what you want to process and what you are going to listen to it through, the very very short delays I'm trying to achieve here may be past the point of diminishing returns. Maybe a Les Paul through a warm-sounding amp and 12" speakers stands to gain very very little from a flanger that sweeps down to less than 500usec or even 1msec because the locus of the added cancellations is simply well out of the range of the signal source and speakers.
BBD1 ( 256) = 2.5ms
BBD2 ( 512) = 5.0ms
BBD3 (1024) = 10ms
BBD1+BBD2 = 7.5ms;
BBD3-(BBD1+2) = 10ms-7.5ms = 2.5ms = delta-T
= time-difference = effective delay = 2.5ms;
BBD1 = 1ms
BBD2 = 2ms
BBD3 = 4ms
BBD1+BBD2 = 3ms;
BBD3- (BBD1+2) = 4ms-3ms = 1ms;
see: you can`t get shorter than the shortest one.
But: your maximum time-difference will decrease (reduced sweep-range).
There is an other possible solution, though,
if you`re willing to carefully watch your clox`
controlvoltages for 2 BBDs not driven by 1 clock. :icon_wink:
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 27, 2006, 10:46:54 AM
....and if it were possible to unmodulate the clock signal driving the BBD in the dry signal path........ :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin: consider the normal clock output from pins 10 & 11 of the 4047 passed to the buffering 4049, AND to a new circuit which can remove the modulation - an "unmodulator" thus providing a fixed delay from any BBD it drives. I have no idea how to do this of course, and Ton could no doubt find a good reason not to!!
You`re back into heterodyning territory, because above scenario is the same as 2 separate clocks.
And for TZF, you want the clock-frequencies like:
F1=F2+/-X
X=0 is the zeropoint = identical clocks
for the "sweet spot", you want X coming from larger positive values
approaching 0, becoming 0,
and then increasing to larger negative values,
and from there again "turning round,
approaching 0, go "through" it
and go larger into positive,
and return again...
Even using just one modulated clock and an unmodulated version of it?
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 26, 2006, 08:50:31 AM
...Nevertheless, a building block of a circuit would always be welcome in this area, if only for something new to try, and there may well be ICs available which already contain much of the circuitry required, or maybe just require a few extra components to build say the quadrature LFO...
there
are... :icon_wink:
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 28, 2006, 04:31:41 AM
Even using just one modulated clock and an unmodulated version of it?
yes: F1 is the unmodulated (fixed) one in above example...
I haven't been part of this entire thread, so maybe I'm just adding noise here. Ton's comments about my suggested dual-BBD/one-clock approach never reaching below the shorter of the two delay times is absolutely spot-on accurate.
That being said, the challenge, as I see it at least, is that some folks want TZF, while others simply want what TZF capability also makes possible, and that is a sweep to near-zero. While buffering the clock (actually, more like buffering the clock inputs on the BBD) will permit much higher clock speeds from any of the Matsushita chips, and consequently shorter minimum delay times, there ARE still limits to how fast you can clock them. What I have attempted to suggest is a way of achieving the "near-zero" capabilities of true TZF units without either a) taxing individual BBDs too much, or b) introducing heterodyning risk by means of two individually-clocked BBDs.
The downside, of course, is that while one can tolerate the needed lowpass filtering of the delay path because the dry path is untampered with, inserting a BBD into the "clean/dry" path obligates one to use some lowpass filtering for noise control and that may erode some of the sparkle. Still, it may be an epxeriment worth trying out.
It would be interesting to know just how long it took to get the Itchycoo Park TZF right on the record back in 67, I might ask Kenny next time I see him.
probably a multiple of 2:52 :icon_biggrin:
Well, it might just be easier to get hold of 2 old reel to reel tape recorders and do it that way ;) ;) ;)
Sure, sir!
but in a live-on-stage-situation you wouldn`t want to let the audience
wait twice the time that the song lasted... :icon_frown:
No.....let the audience wait!!
Couldn't you just make them run around in circles really quickly while the band stood in one spot and played. I mean, ANY way you can get your Doppler fix is legit, right?
Ah, try this - wait for a jet to fly over, crouch down and lift yourself up slowly, good exercise and a good doppler effect too!
Quote from: Mark Hammer on November 28, 2006, 03:01:42 PM
Couldn't you just make them run around in circles really quickly while the band stood in one spot and played. I mean, ANY way you can get your Doppler fix is legit, right?
"rotate yourself around the speaker" ? ...
my favorite
Through Zero (http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1114460) thread...
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/tle2084.html
This quad opamp chip is listed by TI as an alternative to the MC34074 suggested by Mike Irwin - as a better chip to use for the MC3403. Samples are available.
Thanks, Stephen.
Quote
The TLE208x series of JFET-input operational amplifiers more than double the bandwidth and triple the slew rate of the TL07x and TL08x families of BiFET operational amplifiers.
Well, that certainly does sound interesting. 8)
~ Charlie
What news?
Big thanks to oldschoolanalog for proofing my layout...
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=51692.msg392549#msg392549
Planning to make final corrections and send in the PCB order tonight. 8)
If anyone else would like to give the doc's a final check...
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAflanger.html
... please let me know ASAP if you find anything else that could use a tweak.
Thanks!
~ Charlie
Not sure where to ask this, so why not add another post to this huge thread . . .
Populating my board (thanks again, Charlie!) Figuring out what to do w/C24 - C25 - I guess I'm going with two 33uf caps like Rev. 3. From looking at the various schematics - if I went with one cap, does it need to be non-polarized? Looking at [ur=http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ada_MI_1024.jpgl]this[/url] schematic, it appears I can use a polarized cap with the positive facing the range pot and output of IC4b.
The switch connecting to the speed pot between the two caps confuses me though, because it seems like it would break the connection of the feedback loop on one setting. Someone care to explain what I'm missing?
Regardless, if I went with the switch, would I *need* NP caps for both of these caps? Or could I get away with only one NP cap?
Also - I suppose I can sit down and figure out the current draw, but anyone know off the top of their head if a 78L15 would work or this instead of the 7815? Just because, well, I have that here in my parts bin. Looking through the thread, it seems like Analogkid had his working with one, but I may be misreading.
Any recommendations for the FET in this? 2n4393 is the "correct" part, if I understand?
I couldn't find any definitive info about the orientation or size the LFO cap(s) either. I was thinking of just using NP caps, myself, so I wouldn't have to worry about orientation. If you use polarized caps, you might have to orient them opposite to the way they are labled on the PCB.
On the PCB, I set up C24/C25 with pads that will let you use just one cap (Rev4), two caps in series (Rev3) or switch between the two (Rev3 or Rev4) to get a wider range of speed settings.
For one cap, only install C24. Don't install C25. Put a jumper to connect C24's positive lead to the speed pot's lugs 1 & 2.
For two caps, install both C24 & C25. Put a jumper to connect the positive leads of both caps together.
To switch between C24 only and C24/C25 in series, use a SPDT (Single Pole Double Throw) toggle switch. Tie the pole to the positive leg of C24. Tie one throw to the positive leg of C25. Tie the other throw to the speed pot's lugs 1 & 2.
I don't know about the expected current draw. But, I think analog kid settled on a 5485 for the FET in his build.
~ Chalrie
Quote from: moosapotamus on December 22, 2006, 10:48:32 AM
To switch between C24 only and C24/C25 in series, use a SPDT (Single Pole Double Throw) toggle switch. Tie the pole to the positive leg of C24. Tie one throw to the positive leg of C25. Tie the other throw to the speed pot's lugs 1 & 2.
Ah, yeah, that makes more sense and is what I ended up at this morning.
The "ADAflangerPCBrev01notes" file from the site mentions tying the pole to Speed pot lugs and the throws to the two caps and that didn't make sense to me. I was fairly tired and under the weather when I posted the other night, and as such realized that was incorrect, but didn't have the sense to just sit down and figure out how to wire that switch correctly. Sorry for wasting folk's time. Nyquil and the internet apparently don't mix well.
So now that circuits are actually making sense to me, I see that these caps are basically adjusting the range of speeds available via the speed knob, correct? Now I have a better idea what I'm doing. As people start putting these together, I'd be interested to hear what they go with for various values, but at least now I can move forward.
What is going to change with the various values for the two C29s? Won't changing the clock rate again result in just a different range of available speeds, or am I missing something?
I'll just order the LM7815 - I thought I had all the parts I needed for this here, but it turns out the usual trimpots from Smallbear I have in the parts drawer don't really want to fit this board, (now to trawl through the threads and find where Charlie posted a Mouser part # for trimpots . . . ) so I'll need to order some parts before I can finish this anyway.
Thanks for the assistance.
Quote from: sfr on December 22, 2006, 12:42:53 PM
...it turns out the usual trimpots from Smallbear I have in the parts drawer don't really want to fit this board, (now to trawl through the threads and find where Charlie posted a Mouser part # for trimpots . . . ) so I'll need to order some parts before I can finish this anyway.
These fit great...
858-72PR20KLF (http://www.mouser.com/search/productdetail.aspx?R=72PR20KLFvirtualkey57700000virtualkey858-72PR20KLF) ;)
~ Charlie
Do yourself a HUGE favor, and use NP cap(s) for the LFO. ;)
Just populated my board. After checking the LFO and VCO I also added the SAD1024 and thanks to Charlie's fantastic board it fortunately worked immediately! :)
Tommorow I will go into more detail tweaking the pots. Since my DMM's frequency counter works just up to a few 100kHz I thought of adding a 4018 divide-by-10 to check VCO freq more properly.
I can understand now why this thing is so famous. It's really damn close to TZF.
Thanks a lot once more to Charlie for all your work!!!
Markus
Wow Markus! Congrats! That was fast! 8) 2 questions. Did you use all the component values in Charlies circuit diagram, or did you change/tweak anything? And; what was your choice for the quad op amps? Thanks!
Looking at the FET on this build, anyone know which connection is the source and which is the drain? Looking at the schemo, the gate connects to R33 and C17, which would make it the "top" pin on Charlie's boards (looking from the silk-screened side, with the pads for the pot at the top) but I'm not certain which one of the other connections is source and which is drain.
I socketed this position, and threw in a 2N5485 after reading through this thread. This would be oriented backwards from the silk outline on the board; but I just wanted to confirm the source/drain connections - source connects to the 1m resistor (R35) and Vb, and drain connects to R35 and R37?
Mine is 98% populated, just waiting on an order from Mouser. . .
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on December 28, 2006, 06:35:26 PM
Wow Markus! Congrats! That was fast! 8) 2 questions. Did you use all the component values in Charlies circuit diagram, or did you change/tweak anything? And; what was your choice for the quad op amps? Thanks!
I had two days off work more or less entirely dedicated to ADA building. Otherwise it would have taken me at least one week ;)
Re opamps: initially I planned to use MC34074s for IC1 and IC2. Unfortunately, I didn't realise that I ordered SMDs (clever me ;) ). So I used a TL074 for IC1 and a LM324 for IC2 and IC4. IC4 is MC1458. Since I have sockets on all ICs I probably will try swapping the quads for others. On the other hand I don't see any reason at the moment since the thing works and noise isn't really an issue.
The even odd switch works with the values in Charlie's schem. There is a volume drop in odd mode at short delays but I assume that's how the odd mode works (signals simply cancel each other).
For the LFO I went with rev4 using two 4,7µ tantal caps wired +//- -//+ (R60 is 10k). VCO is also more or less rev4.
Otherwise I also mainly went with rev4 values. Some parts changed because I didn't have the exact values but I assume that they are on "not-that-critical" positions:
* C19 470p instead of 510p
* C13 1µ instead of 0.22
* C29 47p plus 1M for R69
* C28 470n instead of 100n (should smooth out the triangle a tad more if I'm correct)
* R65 68k
* C4 and C22 47µ
* C34 not added
* C1 100n instead of 10n
* C17 2,2µ tantal instead of non-pol
* R40 47k
* R13 4k7
* JFET is J201 because I had it at home
* R16/R18 voltage divider was changed to 1070/15k (gives more or less exactly 14V)
* R28 1M2 instead of 1M3
* C12 10µ tantal instead of 1µ non-pol
* C32 22µ tant instead of 1µ (I like overkill ;) )
Otherwise I went with the values in Charlies schem.
Quote from: sfr on December 28, 2006, 06:36:52 PM
Looking at the FET on this build, anyone know which connection is the source and which is the drain? Looking at the schemo, the gate connects to R33 and C17, which would make it the "top" pin on Charlie's boards (looking from the silk-screened side, with the pads for the pot at the top) but I'm not certain which one of the other connections is source and which is drain.
I socketed this position, and threw in a 2N5485 after reading through this thread. This would be oriented backwards from the silk outline on the board; but I just wanted to confirm the source/drain connections - source connects to the 1m resistor (R35) and Vb, and drain connects to R35 and R37?
Mine is 98% populated, just waiting on an order from Mouser. . .
I came to the same conclusion: G is the top pin. So the J201 is orientated backwards from the silk outline.
My assumption was that S and D orientation shouldn't matter since the FET is acting as a switch. Please correct me me if I'm wrong. Anyway, with the J201 the threshold pot works as advertised.
Next will be fine tuning of the trims and then I'll fire up the stereo out stage I added to the prototyping area. :)
Markus
After hooking up the 4018 I found that the VCO works up to 8 MHz (4 MHz at the SAD). The SAD gets a bit warm though :icon_twisted:
Now I settled for a range of about 17KHz to 2,5MHz.
The stereo out option is quite OK btw. The second signal is tapped off R42/D while the D jumper is removed and fed through a second output stage. You have to turn regeneration up a bit but then it gives some nice stereo experience. Don't know yet if it's useful in a band setting though. Nevertheless, I think I'll keep it since it fits nicely on the prototype area.
Markus
Was just exxperimenting with the stereo option. Once you found the sweet spot between the speakers it's really amazing in odd mode. :) :)
Edit: with regeneration turned up a bit it's pretty cool even off axis. Definitely worth a try!
Nice toy...
Markus
Quote from: moosapotamus on December 22, 2006, 01:22:31 PM
Quote from: sfr on December 22, 2006, 12:42:53 PM
...it turns out the usual trimpots from Smallbear I have in the parts drawer don't really want to fit this board, (now to trawl through the threads and find where Charlie posted a Mouser part # for trimpots . . . ) so I'll need to order some parts before I can finish this anyway.
These fit great... 858-72PR20KLF (http://www.mouser.com/search/productdetail.aspx?R=72PR20KLFvirtualkey57700000virtualkey858-72PR20KLF) ;)
~ Charlie
Hrm, I ordered these, they just came in and they don't fit. Dug out the calipers and measured the board and the trimpots I have - according to the measurements in the mouser catalog, those pots *should* fit; it appears the ones I got have the pins spaced like the 858-25PR series, (slightly closer together, like the ones I've gotten from small bear) not like the 858-72PR series should be spaced. The packaging says I've got what I ordered. All three different values I ordered are like this.
Guess I'll see what I can do. I know Mouser is always really cool about fixing mistakes like these, but I really wanted to finish this today! :(
Hi Markus. Thanks for sharing all this R&D info with us. Your efforts will surely add a bit of sanity to this build! BTW, I agree. Overkill is good (within reason; whatever that is... :D) Thanx again, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! :icon_mrgreen:
Well, mine works. Trying to set the trims now.
Trying to follow the procedures in the A/DA calibration document at Mooseapotamus' site for setting T4 and T5. I don't know if I'm measuring frequency wrong or don't understand my meter (Craftsman 82400, says it'll measure up to 4MHz) - I assume you stick the red lead at the test point, and the black one at ground? Move the Range pot full counterclockwise? Anything else I should be doing? I get numbers, sometimes they make sense, but moving the trim pots seems to change the numbers arbitrarily. And sometimes the number disappears. They do seem to be more steady with the SAD chipped pulled. So I set it in the center and it sounds okay. I'll have to swing by my father's and use his stuff and see if I can get this to work.
I have access to a scope, but not a signal generator; any recommendation for setting T1 by ear or a simple way to build a signal generator?
just a mention - be careful with with the CD4047! I wired a lead to the test point leading to pin 13 so I could clip my multimeter to to the wire rather than holding the probe against the pad - it accidently came into contact with the power pin on the chip and I released the blue smoke! Fortunately I pulled the power pretty quick; the other CD chips got rather warm too, but the 4047 was the only thing I fried. Checked for any other shorts in case I was wrong about the cause, re-did a solder joint that looked suspect and popped a new chip in and it's working again.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on December 29, 2006, 09:26:59 PM
Hi Markus. Thanks for sharing all this R&D info with us. Your efforts will surely add a bit of sanity to this build! BTW, I agree. Overkill is good (within reason; whatever that is... :D) Thanx again, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! :icon_mrgreen:
I'm always glad if I can contribute a bit to this forum.
Happy new year!!
Quote from: sfr on December 29, 2006, 10:38:34 PM
Well, mine works. Trying to set the trims now.
Trying to follow the procedures in the A/DA calibration document at Mooseapotamus' site for setting T4 and T5. I don't know if I'm measuring frequency wrong or don't understand my meter (Craftsman 82400, says it'll measure up to 4MHz) - I assume you stick the red lead at the test point, and the black one at ground?
Measuring at the testpoint I got up to 8MHz which means 4MHz at the SAD. However, if I had it running for some time at this high clock frequ the SAD got a bit warm. The 4049 btw too. Sticking the red lead to the test point and the black to gnd was also my assumption how to do it.
QuoteMove the Range pot full counterclockwise? Anything else I should be doing? I get numbers, sometimes they make sense, but moving the trim pots seems to change the numbers arbitrarily. And sometimes the number disappears. They do seem to be more steady with the SAD chipped pulled. So I set it in the center and it sounds okay.
T4 and T5 are pretty interactive on my build. I also had disappearing numbers when measuring at the test point. Measuring at pins10/11 of the 4047 or directly at the SAD I didn't have this issue. Seems like in comparison to pins 10 and 11 at pin13 of the 4047 you don't get a 50/50 duty cycle. My assumption was that my DMMs freq counter doesn't like this. Maybe you can confirm this with your scope? ;)
After I hooked up the 4018 div-by-10 on breadboard (which also should result in 50/50 duty cycle) numbers on the freq counter were stable when measured from the test point.
Quote
I have access to a scope, but not a signal generator; any recommendation for setting T1 by ear or a simple way to build a signal generator?
I also don't have a signal generator. You might want to have a look at the Visual Analyzer Software at http://hacca.altervista.org/ (http://hacca.altervista.org/).
It also has a signal generator with sine, square, white noise,.... works pretty fine in my hands.
BTW, it's also fun feeding white noise into a flanger, running the output back into Visual analyzer and then watching the comb filter moving up and down on the spectrum analyzer.
Markus
Quote from: markusw on December 28, 2006, 05:45:59 PM
Just populated my board. After checking the LFO and VCO I also added the SAD1024 and thanks to Charlie's fantastic board it fortunately worked immediately! :)
Quote from: sfr on December 29, 2006, 10:38:34 PM
Well, mine works. Trying to set the trims now.
AWESOME!!!I'm so glad to hear it's working! Way to go Guys! 8) 8) 8)
Gotta go finish painting the bathroom now... :-\
~ Charlie
WELL WELL, It sounds like a couple other people beside me have got themselves an A/DA Flanger now huh? I would love to hear of your guys experience with some things like the extreme wacky multipitching wobble at higher speeds (with the RANGE set more than 1/2 or so ) and other things like how your Odd/Even is behaving!
I have had mine finished for quite a long time now but have still went back and did some tweaks here and there cause I always think some things can be improved!
BTW , NO NEEd to measure in reference to ground with Frequency counter on your meter IME. just Red lead to test point.
Markus, WOW that's some freq range you've set it to !!! Mine goes plenty far "off the horizon" when set to anything over 1.2Mhz. And also have you noticed that the "ugliness" factor of the detuning effect ( when set at the mentioned high Range/ Faster speeds) is smoothed out a great deal when setting the BoTTOm freq. a bit higher than the Factor spec'd 38khz??
that is one of the most important things to decide on for me! When I do set it that low freq higher to like 80khz I get a much nicer sounding vibrato, leslie, etc.. not so multpitched like a scifi computer going haywire, AND DOESN"T audibly effect that WIDTH of the sweep range really.
anyway I'd love to hear about some of this stuff. and btw I DO wish I'd have just "played along" and got myself a PRO board as well now! Dang my pride ::)
Markus
You said you used the Rev 4 LFO cap values. I don't recall 4.7uf being used in any revision(though I don't have my notes in front of me or a good memory ) Did you mean 47uf there?
I seem to recall the diff in Rev 3/4 here being that 4 only used the ONE single cap there , of the same value as used in Rev3 I thought?
I ask cause I still don't think i've settled on what's best for a good speed range.
my values of 47uf and 22uf (which is very close to combined Stock values of two 33ufs) seem to give a quite FAST at full settings. i don't think the last little bit of rotation has any useable settings there! RAPIDO
If you didn't use the 'stock' values , what has been your experience with the feel and range of the lfo rate control??
Hrm, the numbers are steadier using just one lead to measure frequency- but now they aren't quite making sense - the low end I can dial in about right, but the high end isn't going up to the MHz range - again though, it could just be that it *is* up there and my meter is reading it wrong (perhaps I've gone *too* high) next week my father and I will go play with the scope and his meter and see if we can't get a better measurement on there.
I found a tone generator program for OS X - any problem with generating a 1KHz sine wave (I can also make Triangle, Square, Sawtooth and various colours of noise if one of those would work better) with this, measuring the output on the scope and attenuating the volume out of the computer/CD/iPod/whatever until it's 2V p-p (or whatever it says in the calibration instructions) and using that to follow the rest of the instructions for calibration?
But playing around with a unit that may or may not be 100% and who's trims aren't set at all right now -
The assymetrical sweeps I can get out of this things sound very cool. The manual knob is very fun too - disable the sweep and get some very cool metallic lead sounds. I bypassed jack 3, having jumpered the "S" and "Sw" pads for now, but having the external control for the manual knob is going to be a definite must here when I get to boxing this up.
The threshold knob is the coolest thing too - turn up the enhance to the point where it's out of control, and turn the threshold until it stops making noise. Then you just get cool crazy laser squeals and other insane noise as you hit notes on the guitar, but be totally silent when you aren't playing.
I have some massively slow speeds on this right now - to the point where change is almost imperceptible; and then you realize it's at a totally different timbre than it was originally. Fastest speeds are almost ring-mod-esque in that Trem-Lune style. Last bit of the rotation seems very bunched up. Might want to use a different taper for that 500K speed than "C". But it could just be the settings on T3? (Which I haven't really touched)
All in all, I'm liking it, and I have the feeling I'm *really* going to like it when I get it tweaked.
shouldn't really be any prob with using ANYTHING to generate tones as long as they're right and that you can control the dB level.
I don't know why the Rate is bunched up on yours w/ a rev log? are you sure that it's not just you're getting some Hyper fast speeds in that last little rotation which makes it seems as it it's 'bunched' or a major change in feel in that last bit?
What is your meter's freq counter spec'd for ?? Some of them seem to only like to top at 1Mhz (which ISN'T going to help you completely with this beast) though it is very helpful. AND how are you going about the calibration?
The right way to do it is to kill LFO , set the Manual to the "low" freq and then Trim T5 to get close to the spec'd bottom freq ( say 38k-50k or whatever) THEN rotate the Manual completely , to the high side NOW adjusting High freq for as close to the top freq spec as possible USING T4
You go give and take with this much like setting intontation on a stringed instrument is , if you know what I mean
T3 Really shouldn't give you much problem being set "wrong" , It pretty much is in the basically right area or it killes the sweep. You use it AFTER you get the previous set and then set the Full LFO setting so that it's travelling the entire spectrum of the freq range you just preset manually.
easy as pie. huh By ear I find I'm almost dead on when I set the low frequency (T5 to taste since it doesn't affect a hugh freq range like t4 does) and then in Even mode use T4 to , with Manual sweep set to high side again, achieve that "small" transistor radio effect . I tell you i'm almost on the money every time when I set it by ear that way.
If your freq counter doesn't go hi enough. Just do as described but only set the T4 step Right up to what your meter will read (hopefully like 800khz or more) and then just push it a tad bit more . THEN give the Lo freq adj T5 another small tweak. Make sense?
Also to check your LFO slow sweep, just set full CCW and time the cycle with a second hand (either listening for the sweep to complete a cycle or with freq counter to come back to bottom freq) and it should take something like 25seconds. Yes almost impercievable
My Polyphase has a "glacially" slow sweep almost in comparison to the A/da
I'd love to hear some more Observations, I found comparing my unit's settings to sound samples of the fx settings in the manual , wherever I found those?
Quote from: analog kid on December 30, 2006, 11:12:56 PM
shouldn't really be any prob with using ANYTHING to generate tones as long as they're right and that you can control the dB level.
Okay, good to know. I didn't think there'd be a problem.
Quote
I don't know why the Rate is bunched up on yours w/ a rev log? are you sure that it's not just you're getting some Hyper fast speeds in that last little rotation which makes it seems as it it's 'bunched' or a major change in feel in that last bit?
Yeah, I'm not really sure at this point. I haven't even put knobs on the pots, so it's hard to really judge the "feel" of the thing without something like that. I think it may just be a side effect of having such "glacially slow" speeds at one end and obscenely fast speeds at the other. The actual amount of alteration as I rotate the knob is probably the same, but it's harder to perceive the difference between two incredibly slow sweeps than between two very fast sweeps. Even with the reverse log, I think having such a large range selectable at this point probably hampers things. Perhaps adding the LFO speed switch would be a good thing to do here.
Quote
What is your meter's freq counter spec'd for ?? Some of them seem to only like to top at 1Mhz (which ISN'T going to help you completely with this beast) though it is very helpful. AND how are you going about the calibration?
Manual for my meter says up to 4MHz. I've been measuring it with the red lead (since you mentioned that I don't need the black one) clipped to a wire coming off of the test point (TP on the board, connecting to pin thirteen of the 4047.) Starting out with the "Range" knob fully CCW (this kills the LFO, correct?) I used a 50K pot for the range, like the the schematic at Moosapotamus.net, even though the board says 10K. Set the "Manual" pot CCW and adjust T5 until I get around 34-35 KHz. Numbers are still jumping around, although only over a two or three points. This works fine. Then I set Manual pot CW and adjust T4, shooting for 1.3 MHz, but the numbers I get top out at about 60-80KHz. But they jump around a lot too, sometimes saying only 7 or 8 KHz; occasionally jumping very high, at one point they showed just Hz not KHz or MHz. I haven't even really been able to figure out which way turning the trim pot makes the numbers move.
Considering that the numbers are moving, perhaps I should just pull IC4 to make sure the LFO is killed?
QuoteI would love to hear of your guys experience with some things like the extreme wacky multipitching wobble at higher speeds (with the RANGE set more than 1/2 or so ) and other things like how your Odd/Even is behaving!
I thought that at higher LFO rates (just below audio freq) it's normal to get some vibrato/detuning sounds.
Re odd/even: at lower clock freqs there is no change in volume, at high clock freqs there is a volume drop in odd mode. Suppose, this is normal since at thigh clock freqs the two signals cancel each other. I hear the same with the Hoax, btw. At TZF there is complete cancellation.
QuoteAnd also have you noticed that the "ugliness" factor of the detuning effect ( when set at the mentioned high Range/ Faster speeds) is smoothed out a great deal when setting the BoTTOm freq. a bit higher than the Factor spec'd 38khz??
Thanks for the observation! If you turn back range a bit and set manual to higher clock ranges shouldn't this give about the same effect? I'm not 100% sure how the range and manual pots interact so I'd be glad about explanations :)
QuoteMarkus, WOW that's some freq range you've set it to !!! Mine goes plenty far "off the horizon" when set to anything over 1.2Mhz.
I definitely prefer it when the clock goes up to ~2,5MHz, it's closer to TZF ;)
What do you mean with "off horizon"?
QuoteYou said you used the Rev 4 LFO cap values. I don't recall 4.7uf being used in any revision(though I don't have my notes in front of me or a good memory ) Did you mean 47uf there?
I seem to recall the diff in Rev 3/4 here being that 4 only used the ONE single cap there , of the same value as used in Rev3 I thought?
I ask cause I still don't think i've settled on what's best for a good speed range.
my values of 47uf and 22uf (which is very close to combined Stock values of two 33ufs) seem to give a quite FAST at full settings. i don't think the last little bit of rotation has any useable settings there! RAPIDO
If you didn't use the 'stock' values , what has been your experience with the feel and range of the lfo rate control??
You're right Rev4 calls for a 2,2µ. I didn't have a np 2,2µ so I went with two 4,7µ caps in series, should be close enough. My freq counter doesn't really like low freqs but at fastest rate the LFO is at 12Hz which is pretty close to "specs" (10Hz). On the low end it takes 25-30 sec to complete a cycle. I didn't check the rate pot response that carefully but I too have the feeling that it's somehow bunched up at the top end. Maybe a slightly different taper (30%) would give a smoother feeling?
On the other hand maybe sfr is right in that:
QuoteI think it may just be a side effect of having such "glacially slow" speeds at one end and obscenely fast speeds at the other. The actual amount of alteration as I rotate the knob is probably the same, but it's harder to perceive the difference between two incredibly slow sweeps than between two very fast sweeps.
QuoteConsidering that the numbers are moving, perhaps I should just pull IC4 to make sure the LFO is killed?
Did you try to measure clock at pin10 or 11 of the 4047. With my DMM I have massive problems getting reasonable readings at the test point. Sometimes I don't get any readings at all. At pins 10 and 11 you should have 50% duty which your freq counter also might prefer. At least with my DMM it gives very stable readings. Just my 2c :)
QuoteConsidering that the numbers are moving, perhaps I should just pull IC4 to make sure the LFO is killed?
Just tested freq at pin10 with the range at 0 and it didn't change at all regardless of the LFO rate.
QuoteBut they jump around a lot too, sometimes saying only 7 or 8 KHz; occasionally jumping very high, at one point they showed just Hz not KHz or MHz.
Again, this might have to do with the duty cycle which isn't 50% at pin13.
Markus
BTW, in case some one is interested in a little modding ;) here's a "layout" I did for the stereo option:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v21/markusw/ADAstereoout.jpg)
V+ is tapped off the 7815's out, Vb is taken from R35's top pin. Basically there is no difference if you take the audio signal off pad C and remove the jumper at pads D or the other way round.
Have fun,
Markus
Quote from: markusw on December 31, 2006, 11:08:14 AM
Did you try to measure clock at pin10 or 11 of the 4047. With my DMM I have massive problems getting reasonable readings at the test point. Sometimes I don't get any readings at all. At pins 10 and 11 you should have 50% duty which your freq counter also might prefer. At least with my DMM it gives very stable readings. Just my 2c :)
You know, somewhere between reading your suggestions here and going to the board to make measurements when I was trying this suggestion from you earlier, I made a mental mix-up, and ending measuring at pin 10 and 11 of the SAD, not the 4047. I was wondering what the hell was wrong. I'll give the (correct) suggestion a try here a little later on. Will the numbers still be "double" like the test point, or will I be reading the same frequencys the SAD is seeing?
My father's bring the scope by on Monday or Tuesday, regardless of whether or not I get some of these things set up by then, it'll be interesting to see what all this stuff looks like on it.
I used two 33uF caps (like Version 3, I believe) in mine, for what it's worth, and I've got a huger range speeds than is really needed.
QuoteWill the numbers still be "double" like the test point, or will I be reading the same frequencys the SAD is seeing?
The numbers will same the SAD is seeing. The 4047 has an internal divide by 2 stage. Thus on pins 10 and 11 freq is half the freq of pin13. Also by dividing by 2 non-50% duty cycle should be "converted" to 50%. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
QuoteMy father's bring the scope by on Monday or Tuesday, regardless of whether or not I get some of these things set up by then, it'll be interesting to see what all this stuff looks like on it.
That for sure will be interesting. !! :)
Markus
Hrm, a quick SAD related question - I have two SAD chips, one from Small Bear, one from eBay.
The one from Small Bear says "RETICON, SAD1024A 7903", on the front, and "Philippines" underneath.
The one from eBay has the same "RETICON, SAD1024A" on the front, but underneath has some wierd markings - "23 611", which looks like it's over something I can't really read that is sort of half there, (looks like it might say "FAIL" ?) and then "RE 24A" stamped in a whiter ink than the sort of silver ink used for everything else.
(Took a picture: http://homepage.mac.com/sfjoshua/chip.jpg )
Any clue what any of this means? Just curious.
Quoteused two 33uF caps (like Version 3, I believe) in mine, for what it's worth, and I've got a huger range speeds than is really needed.
THIS Is what I figured. I don't think you have any issues due to your using a Rev Log taper. Just tweak the 'fast' side of the LFO rate control down a tad and you should have really smooth control. I did it with fixed resistor rather than the caps and it worked excellent. whether I'm sacrificing anything doing it this routed I am not really sure.
Have you TRIED that BBD yet? That looks very suspect to me. It does look like a "fail" stamp there. EBAY huh?
Quote
Thanks for the observation! If you turn back range a bit and set manual to higher clock ranges shouldn't this give about the same effect? I'm not 100% sure how the range and manual pots interact so I'd be glad about explanations
I'm not sure about that either. It's all very interactive and yes it would be better if this could be 'helped' w/o sacrificing some of the Gutteral Freq response. Though I haven't notice much difference or negative when going from 40khz to 80khz or so. But it's just nice to be able to use WIDER range sweeps at faster speeds for vibrato's, leslie's and pitchshifting AND NOT have it get so "unusabely" Ugly. It pretty much limits only being able to use Faster (2/3 +) Speeds in combo with lower Range settings, definitely under 1/2.
I think I've tried quelling this with Manual but Obviously it goes hand in hand (we're talking about trying to use HIGHER range settings with faster speeds) that the Manual control becomes Less and less effective the higher Range is set . :icon_cry
I agree w/ what some long time owners have told me :
" it's amusing that there are so many BaD(unusable) sounds in there, it's just that the GOOD ones are, SOOOO Good!!"
Just popped that other chip in - it works - sort of. Seemed like the effect was more subtle, but I had been twiddling trim pots. Tried it again with the chip from Small Bear, and the flange was super deep again immediatly. Seems like if you popped it into an old delay pedal to quickly check it, it would appear to be working. Of course, it could have been something I did - I've put chips in and out of the sockets enough damn times, I'm not sure I've been using the same one, since I put pulled chips back into the foam to keep from losing them. (I stepped on an upside down 4558 barefoot once - no fun at all.)
Anyway -
Measuring at pin 10 and 11 worked perfectly with my meter - numbers jumped around a tiny bit, but just in the last couple of decimal places. Those trim pots (T4 and T5) are *very* interactive, and super touchy, but eventually got the numbers where I needed them.
Still having trouble setting T3 with the meter - when it gets to the top of it's swing, the numbers seem to get "stuck" sometimes. They also appear to be much higher than the numbers when I'm using the Manual control, but setting the enhance into the point where I get "slide whistle" sounds, it seems like the range is the same whether using the LFO or the manual control. Ended up just setting T3 by ear where the effect seemed the most intense.
Any advice on setting the clock null trim? (T6)
Quote(I stepped on an upside down 4558 barefoot once - no fun at all.)
HA! Dude you have no idea!! I've done that more times than I care to count. I have done it to some more valuable IC's too , that's when it REALLY SUcKS To do that. ( luckily I have super tough feet too from being a redneck and going barefoot outside too often)
If you're getting delay with the other bbd I 'd say you don't have a bad one there. Maybe just the differences in characteristics between them requiring some retweaking to get the same delay from . UNLESS you're talking like a HUGE difference in the intensity of the effect! If so there may be something to that strange marking
You say the "numbers get stuck' sometimes when trimming T3. Uh, are you listening to the effect while you're adjusting this by any chance? If not you would probably notice (and as I stated before) that when T3 is out of the 'area of adjustment' the LFO will STALL! yes the frequency will obviously freeze here. HINT: You should set t3 to achieve the LFO sweeping to the same freq range parameters you set Manually.
I'm having some trouble with my a/da for some reason ( I hope I didn't damage an IC possibly the 4047 when I finally got around to mounting the board!) I've had this thing built and sounding butter for a long time now but I got it out to pick some and found that My LFO got "sick" . In Full LFO/full range I am getting a sweep matching the range calibrated manually, BUT now when taking the Freq meas from pin 13 4047, The sweep is going far out of range up to like 3Mhz!!! when it should be stopping at 1.4khz in my case.
anyone have ideas if It sounds like I've possibly damaged an IC after the bbd?? also I did try using a noninsulated jack (wasn't thinking AT ALL!!) when I boxed it and for a brief moment it was grounding V+ before I caught it. you know? the big HUMMM. don't know if this could have done any harm using the rectifier power section?
Thanks
Quote from: sfr on December 31, 2006, 01:17:07 PM
The one from Small Bear says "RETICON, SAD1024A 7903", on the front, and "Philippines" underneath.
The one from eBay has the same "RETICON, SAD1024A" on the front, but underneath has some wierd markings - "23 611", which looks like it's over something I can't really read that is sort of half there, (looks like it might say "FAIL" ?) and then "RE 24A" stamped in a whiter ink than the sort of silver ink used for everything else.
I also have one from Small Bear and one from eBay. We might have got the eBay ones from the same seller, mine has the "23611" but definitely has "PHIL" clearly printed underneath rather than "FAIL", a green fluoro dot and "RE24" something . The Small Bear one just has "PHILLIPINES" . I haven't quite finished populating the board so haven't been able to try them both. The other thing that looks a little dodgy with the eBay one is that it isn't completely smooth (coated ?) on the bottom or top surface like the Small Bear one and has what looks like sanding marks on one bottom edge. The top surface of the eBay one doesn't have the 7903 either.
Maybe the eBay one is a either re-labelled, poorly copied or just plain dodgy chip.......semiconductor piracy (?!) has been known to happen (ie the dodgy imitation Motorola T-03 power transistors with very much smaller semiconductor dies from a few years ago). Either way, I think I'll just stick to buying expensive IC's from a reputable vendor like Small Bear in future.
Resistor'd my board yesterday. It was slow going but I really wanted to make sure everything went where it was supposed to. Before placing an order with Mouser for the parts I don't have, I just wanted verify I few things.
CD4007 (IC5), CD4047 (IC6) and CD4049 (IC9) are unbuffered, yes?
Is the MC34074 the best option for IC1, IC2 and IC3?
I'm having trouble finding a LM7815 in the correct package and Small Bear Doesn't list one. Does anyone have a source for the correct part?
Thanks to Charlie and everyone for their help and input on this project.
QuoteCD4007 (IC5), CD4047 (IC6) and CD4049 (IC9) are unbuffered, yes?
Good question. I didn't take care bout that. Maybe I was just lucky in picking the right ones: I have HCF4007UBE, HEF4047BP and HEF4049BP and it works.
QuoteIs the MC34074 the best option for IC1, IC2 and IC3?
Are the supposed to have lower noise specs or are there other features that make their use favourable compared to e.g. TL074 and LM324?
Markus
Quote from: BMF Effects on January 01, 2007, 12:22:59 PM
CD4007 (IC5), CD4047 (IC6) and CD4049 (IC9) are unbuffered, yes?
I just grabbed what I have - MC14007UBCP, CD4047BCN, HCF4049UBE, and it works fine for me.
Quote
Is the MC34074 the best option for IC1, IC2 and IC3?
I just grabbed some LF347N, the first bag of quad op-amps I had kicking around. It functions.
Sorry that doesn't really answer your question, but at least verifies some things that will function.
Quote
I'm having trouble finding a LM7815 in the correct package and Small Bear Doesn't list one. Does anyone have a source for the correct part?
My local radioshack still had some 15V regulators in stock, but I don't think it's a part they stock anymore.
Mouser part # KA7815ATU is the correct package and works.
Thanks for the replies. Two more questions...
1) The parts list calls for a LM324 for IC 4. All the LM324's I've found are quads, yet the space on the PCB is for a dual. Am I missing something?
2) C25 does not appear on the BOM. Did I overlook it somewhere else in this thread or is it an omission?
Thanks.
Look in the build notes, it explains it (although I think the explanation for jumpering isn't quite right, although Charlie spells it out correctly to me earlier in this thread, I think a page back) C25 is to allow the Revision 3 setup of two caps in series, or for cap switching to set up for different LFO ranges.
I hadn't noticed it mentioned LM324. Yeah, you just need a dual opamp in there. Any old thing should work I believe, I used a 5532 because it's what I had.
Quote from: sfr on January 01, 2007, 02:39:44 PM
Look in the build notes, it explains it (although I think the explanation for jumpering isn't quite right, although Charlie spells it out correctly to me earlier in this thread, I think a page back) C25 is to allow the Revision 3 setup of two caps in series, or for cap switching to set up for different LFO ranges.
Completely missed it and found the build notes about five minutes ago. Sorry. :icon_redface:
Well, my father brought the o'scope over today. It's an older ('65 was the date that I saw on one of the boards) Techtronix he got for free when they were disposing of it here at work. (We both work at IBM in a manufacturing plant) We hadn't actually tried it until today, so we didn't know if it worked - well, it worked decent until after a while the horizontal control died - fine range adjust functions, but the coarse one does nothing - seems like a pot may have gone (most of the pots in the thing where pretty "scratchy") So we didn't get much done.
But of note, before it died, I did get to read the signal off the test point/pin 13. Seems the comments about it not being a 50/50 duty cycle are on the money - the signal out of there basically appears to be high at all times, with short downwards spikes to low that have little to no horizontal to them, as opposed to an up/down swinging square wave sort of thing. I didn't get to see what the frequency coming off pins 10/11 look like before we lost the scope. (Most of the time we spent while it was still co-operating was my father showing me the basics of working the thing.
We had it (the scope) open, and I have to say, the craftsmanship on these things is really nice. They really cram the stuff in there, but make it very servicable considering.
Not much time to play with the flanger today, hopefully the next couple of days.
QuoteI'm having trouble finding a LM7815 in the correct package and Small Bear Doesn't list one. Does anyone have a source for the correct part?
What package do you think you need? are You talking about a '220' 1A package reg? You just need a 15v regulator. Trust me it will function just fine with either a 100ma or 1Amp , the amp may a be nice for the heat sink in case it gets a tad warm.
The 3403 quad thing is really just one of those mystery " is there something that may be a bit better when using them in this circuit?" things. I believe there is NO need for going out of your way to get them OR waiting til you have them. I have used several Quads 074s, FET input Burr browns, ect. .. to absolutely no audible difference in any way on the circuit!
Oh yeah Pin 13 is DEFINITELY not going to put out a 50% duty cycle . and it seems to vary with the clock freq as well.
You need an LM324 for IC3 not IC4. The dual package space you're talking about on your board is for a 1458 IC4
Quote from: moosapotamus on December 22, 2006, 01:22:31 PM
Quote from: sfr on December 22, 2006, 12:42:53 PM
...it turns out the usual trimpots from Smallbear I have in the parts drawer don't really want to fit this board, (now to trawl through the threads and find where Charlie posted a Mouser part # for trimpots . . . ) so I'll need to order some parts before I can finish this anyway.
These fit great... 858-72PR20KLF (http://www.mouser.com/search/productdetail.aspx?R=72PR20KLFvirtualkey57700000virtualkey858-72PR20KLF) ;)
~ Charlie
I just got my Mouser order in with the 858-72PRxxKLF trimpots. According to Mouser, their catalog references the wrong diagram and as a result ordering this part number will give you trimpots with the wrong pin spacing. Spec sheets verify that 858-72PMRxxKLF is the correct trimpot. The Mouser part numbers are 858-72PMR20KLF, 858-72PMR50KLF and 858-72PMR1KLF. Hope this helps.
If there is anyone in AUS building this from the PCB, these PIHER trimpots
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?whichpage=2&pagesize=10&keywords=&CATID=33&SUBCATID=786&form=CAT&ProdCodeOnly=&SPECIAL=&Keyword1=&Keyword2=&pageNumber=&priceMin=&priceMax=
only need the leads filed slightly and fit perfectly.
Damn, BMF... you're right about the correct mouser p/n for the trimmers.
http://www.mouser.com/catalog/628/567.pdf
I looked at the table in the catalog wrong and thought that 858-72PMRxxxLF was only for the range of values from 10ohm to 2K and 858-72PRxxxLF was for values from 5K to 100K. So, I got the right ones for the 1K value. But, the wrong ones for the other values. :P
Thanks for pointing that out. At least I can verify that 858-72PMRxxxLF definately fits great.
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on January 06, 2007, 12:46:47 AM
Damn, BMF... you're right about the correct mouser p/n for the trimmers.
http://www.mouser.com/catalog/628/567.pdf
I looked at the table in the catalog wrong and thought that 858-72PMRxxxLF was only for the range of values from 10ohm to 2K and 858-72PRxxxLF was for values from 5K to 100K. So, I got the right ones for the 1K value. But, the wrong ones for the other values. :P
Thanks for pointing that out. At least I can verify that 858-72PMRxxxLF definately fits great.
~ Charlie
I'm just glad I was able to contribute something. :icon_biggrin:
Well, I've got mine up and running, which should stand as a testament to Charlie's design rather than my own abilities. I had a little fiddle around with the wet-dry pads and the external control pedal socket before it would go, and I've still got to get all the trims set right, but it's flanging. Woo hoo!
POSSIBLE STUPID QUESTION WARNING!
The population of the PCB is going well. I have a question though. C11, C12, C21 and C32 are listed as (and I'm assuming) 1uF caps. 1uF caps are rather large and I noticed that C11 and C12 have "+" markings on one side. Are C11/12 1uF tantalums? What about C21/32? It just seems that normal 1uF poly caps are too big for the board. Thanks for the help.
Well, I went for tants for C11/C12 and metal film boxes for C21/C32. The boxes were a little big but no real problem. Hope that helps.
Chris
Is there going to be a 2nd round of PCB's made anytime?
(I wasn't able to get in on the initial offering)
8) 8) 8) I wish I had time to get started on mine!
BMF - Yeah, I was planning to use tantalums for those.
Red - The first run was 20 PCB's. I'll do a second run if the quantity hits at least the same number.
Thanks!
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on January 09, 2007, 09:31:18 AM
BMF - Yeah, I was planning to use tantalums for those.
Charlie - 1uF tants for C11/12/21/32 or just C11/12?
With 20 boards out there I'm surprised there aren't more build reports. ???
Quote from: BMF Effects on January 09, 2007, 11:20:14 AM
With 20 boards out there I'm surprised there aren't more build reports. ???
I'm still collecting parts for mine...... also only have four months left to finish my doctoral dissertation not much spare time at the moment. I got the board so I could treat myself when purgatory is over.....
Anybody have a source for the MC3403, (other than Mouser), or can I just sub any other quad opamp?
Kevin.
Quote from: KB on January 09, 2007, 12:46:00 PM
Anybody have a source for the MC3403, (other than Mouser), or can I just sub any other quad opamp?
Kevin.
The TLE2804 was listed a few pages back as being a good low-noise substitute for the 3403 and there are
free samples (http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/tle2084.html) available from Texas Instruments. I thought I ordered three but they only shipped one. I re-ordered two more last night but haven't received the confirmation email yet so I'm not sure I'll be able to all three. I suspect if TI is suddenly hit with requests for TLE2084 samples they might do away with the free part.
SCHEMOS FOR NUTTIN` & CHIPS FOR FREE
Quote from: A.S.P. on January 09, 2007, 01:24:49 PM
SCHEMOS FOR NUTTIN` & CHIPS FOR FREE
Schemos for free?! Where?! :icon_mrgreen:
WWW.XXX.COM (http://www.epanorama.net/schematicsforfree/Audio/Musical/Circuits/index.php)
There is nothing particularly mind blowing there, although I saw one of my old ETI Tech Tips which should be ignored at all costs!
http://www.epanorama.net/schematicsforfree/pdf_redirect.php?url=http://www.epanorama.rackhost.net/schematicsforfree/Audio/Musical/Circuits/Sustainer%20for%20Electric%20Guitar.pdf
!!!!!!!STOP ABUSING THE FREE SAMPLES PROCESS!!!!!!!
Try a TL074 first. My A/DA reissue uses all TL07XX op amps (and 1 LM324). It sounds *just fine*.
Quote from: StephenGiles on January 09, 2007, 02:04:34 PM
There is nothing particularly mind blowing there, although I saw one of my old ETI Tech Tips which should be ignored at all costs!
http://www.epanorama.net/schematicsforfree/pdf_redirect.php?url=http://www.epanorama.rackhost.net/schematicsforfree/Audio/Musical/Circuits/Sustainer%20for%20Electric%20Guitar.pdf
OK: ignored! :icon_lol:
Quote from: BMF Effects on January 08, 2007, 11:15:07 PM
I have a question though. C11, C12, C21 and C32 are listed as (and I'm assuming) 1uF caps. 1uF caps are rather large and I noticed that C11 and C12 have "+" markings on one side. Are C11/12 1uF tantalums? What about C21/32? It just seems that normal 1uF poly caps are too big for the board. Thanks for the help.
Finally finished mine 2 days ago. This is an awesome flanger !
I just used 1uF 50V polarised electrolytics for C11, C12 and MKT poly caps for C21, C32 (the MKT's aren't an exact fit, but go in easily if the leads are bent to offset the cap body a little). It worked first go but had a squeal when "Enhance" was wound up. I took it into work yesterday and calibrated it as per the calibration guide, it got rid of the squeal and solved a few other very minor things.
For the op amps, I just used all LM324's and a TL072, I don't think it is too critical what op amps you use so long as common sense is used (eg. pin compatibility etc).
It is very easy to lose hours playing around with the settings and finding all the great sounds from this effect.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on January 09, 2007, 02:45:40 PM
!!!!!!!STOP ABUSING THE FREE SAMPLES PROCESS!!!!!!!
Try a TL074 first. My A/DA reissue uses all TL07XX op amps (and 1 LM324). It sounds *just fine*.
For some chips there is no harm in some samples. Once you start with a small business I agree, but for own experimenting use it's a bless.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on January 09, 2007, 02:45:40 PM
!!!!!!!STOP ABUSING THE FREE SAMPLES PROCESS!!!!!!!
Try a TL074 first. My A/DA reissue uses all TL07XX op amps (and 1 LM324). It sounds *just fine*.
Since I did not have any substitutes lying around and they only sent me one, I hardly think I qualify for the "Free Sample Abuse 12 Step Program".
:icon_rolleyes:
UTSF; free samples. Read the first post. This is the last I will comment on this topic. "This dead horse been beaten enough times." :-X
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on January 09, 2007, 03:29:07 PM
UTSF; free samples. Read the first post. This is the last I will comment on this topic. "This dead horse been beaten enough times." :-X
H.U.A.
I'll send it back. However, the free cheese samples they gave out at the supermarket last night are staying in my belly!
aarrgh - you caught me there, OSA: I had to (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/Themes/classic/images/english/search.gif) for : "UTSF"
Good to know folks had their's fire up without debugging!!! I've been busy finishing other builds, but I think I'm ready to get down to it now. I've got the the TL074's but I'm lacking the 1uf tants, 4007, 15v regulator, 18volt wallwart and a LM324.... guess I still need to make an order with Mouser.
I'll report back with my results... I may need help with tuning the trimmers. By the way, which trimmers would be useful as panel mounted?
Quote from: BMF Effects on January 05, 2007, 06:31:58 PM
Quote from: moosapotamus on December 22, 2006, 01:22:31 PM
Quote from: sfr on December 22, 2006, 12:42:53 PM
...it turns out the usual trimpots from Smallbear I have in the parts drawer don't really want to fit this board, (now to trawl through the threads and find where Charlie posted a Mouser part # for trimpots . . . ) so I'll need to order some parts before I can finish this anyway.
These fit great... 858-72PR20KLF (http://www.mouser.com/search/productdetail.aspx?R=72PR20KLFvirtualkey57700000virtualkey858-72PR20KLF) ;)
~ Charlie
I just got my Mouser order in with the 858-72PRxxKLF trimpots. According to Mouser, their catalog references the wrong diagram and as a result ordering this part number will give you trimpots with the wrong pin spacing. Spec sheets verify that 858-72PMRxxKLF is the correct trimpot. The Mouser part numbers are 858-72PMR20KLF, 858-72PMR50KLF and 858-72PMR1KLF. Hope this helps.
Replacement trimpots came in from Mouser today and I can confirm the following part numbers are correct.
858-72PMR20KLF
858-72PMR50KLF
858-72PMR1KLF
Thanx for the "heads up", BMF :icon_cool:
Can I get away with using a 15 volt wallwart for this instead of 18v? The 18v adapters that I saw were pricey (around $10 from Mouser) but I can order a 15 volt adapter from Electronic Goldmine for only $2.50!!!
Quote from: bluesdevil on January 14, 2007, 09:58:31 PM
Can I get away with using a 15 volt wallwart for this instead of 18v? The 18v adapters that I saw were pricey (around $10 from Mouser) but I can order a 15 volt adapter from Electronic Goldmine for only $2.50!!!
Maybe. You'll need about >17V for the 7815. I use a 18V EH ps which gives me (even under heavy load) 23-25V :icon_eek:.
So if you're lucky the 15V supply might give you enough V to feed the regulator.
Markus
Thanks Markus. I probably should've just spent the extra $$. I already placed my order with Mouser for the rest of the parts I need. I'll test the 15v job when it arrives and hope it goes over a few volts to get that regulator working.
Started to build finally, but I have several questions that I hope won't be a pain to answer :icon_redface::
1) The jack for the external pedal control: Do I wire a switch in it's place if I won't be using it? How exactly?
2) I really want to have a go at the Bounce mod add on circuit, but want to make sure I understand a few things.
"VB" would be the half voltage point of 15 volts? Pin 4 of the LM324 of this mod circuit goes to full +15v source and pin 11 goes to common ground, correct?
It calls for 4 10uf caps, but can I get await with 15uf or 22uf ? Reason being I'm trying to use all tantalum caps for this build and have lots of those on hand!!
Last but not least, do I need to put a switch in to bypass the bounce circuit? Maybe use a DPDT footswitch to stomp between the bounce circircuit and the stock 1M resistor it replaces is my thinking.
I will attempt a layout for this add on and share it here if it's needed.... thanks everybody!!!!!!
Quote from: moosapotamus on January 09, 2007, 09:31:18 AM
....Red - The first run was 20 PCB's. I'll do a second run if the quantity hits at least the same number.
Thanks!
~ Charlie....
Has anyone else asked about a second run? (how many others do we need)
-Brad
Quote from: bluesdevil on January 23, 2007, 09:09:47 PM
1) The jack for the external pedal control: Do I wire a switch in it's place if I won't be using it? How exactly?
If you do not want to install the jack for external manual control, it looks to me like you could leave out R50 and connect the wiper of the manual pot to R53. Does that make sense?
Quote from: bluesdevil on January 23, 2007, 09:09:47 PM
2) I really want to have a go at the Bounce mod add on circuit, but want to make sure I understand a few things.
"VB" would be the half voltage point of 15 volts? Pin 4 of the LM324 of this mod circuit goes to full +15v source and pin 11 goes to common ground, correct?
I believe the bounce circuit that Stephen posted requires +/-15V. I don't know how (or if) it would work with only +15V.
Quote from: bluesdevil on January 23, 2007, 09:09:47 PM
It calls for 4 10uf caps, but can I get await with 15uf or 22uf ? Reason being I'm trying to use all tantalum caps for this build and have lots of those on hand!!
You mean the ones where it says... 4 x 10-22uF? In my book, that indicates that anything in the range of 10uF to 22uF would be OK.
Quote from: bluesdevil on January 23, 2007, 09:09:47 PM
Last but not least, do I need to put a switch in to bypass the bounce circuit? Maybe use a DPDT footswitch to stomp between the bounce circircuit and the stock 1M resistor it replaces is my thinking.
That's entirely up to you. Somewhere in this thread, I believe Stephen posted a versio of his schematic that shows how and where to tie in the bounce circuit. IIRC, it would simply replace R65 which is 82K.
Oh, here it is...
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=49929.msg383211#msg383211
Quote from: RedHouse on January 24, 2007, 09:23:33 AM
Has anyone else asked about a second run? (how many others do we need)
Well, if we could get up to ~20 again, that would certainly do it. 8)
~ Charlie
The bounce circuit is for + & - 15v so it needs converting to single supply.
Ah, thank you Charlie!! I figured out how to bypass the external jack after posting the questions..... I'm glad to know my brain works (maybe just a bit unsure of myself). Ooops, 82k it is for the resistor to be replace by the bounce circuit... went by memory (not good) when posting.
The Bounce Mod schematic threw me because there was a "VB" noted on a rail node, but the bounce circuit for the Electric Mistress had the full voltage for the same node. Thanks for replying, Stephen!! +15v for both it will be.
ALso good to know I can use this pile of 22uf tants on it..... now I just gotta make the layout. :icon_eek:
With those questions answered, I'm quite confident I can whip this thing up without problems. Thanks again for sharing your time and patience. I'll report back with good news soon, I hope.
Quote from: moosapotamus on January 24, 2007, 11:04:24 AM
Quote from: RedHouse on January 24, 2007, 09:23:33 AM
Has anyone else asked about a second run? (how many others do we need)
Well, if we could get up to ~20 again, that would certainly do it. 8)
~ Charlie
So, I'm the only one then .....
Quote from: StephenGiles on January 24, 2007, 01:47:45 PM
The bounce circuit is for + & - 15v so it needs converting to single supply.
Spent some time today getting a PCB layout together for the bounce mod add on circuit:
http://aronnelson.com/gallery/album129/bouncemod
Not verified.... would anybody be willing to double check it for me in case my eyes have turned to jelly?
It's based on this schematic:
http://www.aronnelson.com/DIYFiles/up/ADAflanger_bounce.zip
[/quote]
So, I'm the only one then .....
[/quote]
Not exactly... ;)
.....and I also would definitely buy another of those PCB's in a heartbeat....then.....mod the hell out of it and use it in a rack mount enclosure.
I'd be in for another one.
I'd be in for another two. some guitar buddies will want one for sure ;)
Markus
Quote from: bluesdevil on January 24, 2007, 11:21:28 PM
Quote from: StephenGiles on January 24, 2007, 01:47:45 PM
The bounce circuit is for + & - 15v so it needs converting to single supply.
Spent some time today getting a PCB layout together for the bounce mod add on circuit:
http://aronnelson.com/gallery/album129/bouncemod
Not verified.... would anybody be willing to double check it for me in case my eyes have turned to jelly?
It's based on this schematic:
http://www.aronnelson.com/DIYFiles/up/ADAflanger_bounce.zip
So, how did you rework the schematic to convert it from using a +/-15V bipolar power supply to +15V? From looking at your layout, I can't tell where Vb is coming from. Did you draw a modified schematic?
You realize that by going to +15V you have now effectively cut the voltage in half? With a +/-15V bipolar supply the total voltage swing is 30V. Again, not saying it won't work. I just don't know.
There's lots of schemes for bipolar supplies that you can find out there. Here's one in this scheme that you don't see very often...
http://moosapotamus.net/THINGS/Fat-n-Pretty/Fat-n-PrettySCH.gif
...pretty simple and works well.
RE: Second runI'll start another thread in the
For Sale/Trade Forum (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?board=7.0). If there's enough interest to get up to at least ~20 boards again, I'll start collecting payment and go for another run.
Thanks
~ Charlie
PS: I still haven't had time to start building my own yet! :'( 8)
"So, how did you rework the schematic to convert it from using a +/-15V bipolar power supply to +15V? From looking at your layout, I can't tell where Vb is coming from. Did you draw a modified schematic?"
I didn't, the schematic is just a drawing for development.Please feel free to move it forward - as they say in offices!!
Thanks, Stephen. :) Actually, I was trying to direct that question back to bluesdevil. Sorry if I confused. I was just trying to point out that powering a circuit that's expecting to see +/-15V with only +15V might not give you the results you'd expect or like... of course, it might... but then again, it might not.
A closer look at the bounce scheme... one 324 is showing connections to V+ and ground, the other 324 is showing connections to V+ and V-. Is that correct, or should they be the same?
Thanks
~ Charlie
I would try the circuit as is to start with, using the single 15v supply taking all points connected to Vb to half voltage. If this doesn't work, try connecting one or more points to 0v until it does work - not very scientific but it's how I get stuff working!
Thanks for looking it over before I built it!! Okay I fukkked up good. I was quite confused when I got my answer for the question about the "VB" node and thought Stephen meant that I should make all +volts the full +15. I had no clue this was a bi-polar power circuit either and still can't tell how it is. It wouldn't be too hard to convert my layout to seperate the "vb" from the +15v, but to do it bipolar..... I'm not bi-polar curious so I might say to hell with it all and let someone else give it a shot.
I'm sure I'm way over my head in all of this, but it's a learning experience for me success or not and was really wanting to contribute something.
Okay, I seperated the "VB" points from the +15v on my layout. This should now reflect the single voltage version of the schematic correctly?
Stephen: Where is the "0v" point you mentioned?
Not giving up yet!!!!
Right on, bluesdevil. 8) I was going to say, you might be closer than you think. So then, your resistor divider (two resistors and a big cap) for getting Vbias is not in your layout? Were you planning to use the open perf area on the flanger board for that?
BTW, for your +15V supply, 0V = ground.
~ Charlie
Hey Charlie, thanks again for keeping me on track. I was thinking of just tapping the half voltage point somewhere off the main motherboard. Would that be fine? If not, fill me in on the 2 resistor and cap values I should use and I'll add it directly to my layout.
Yeah, I guess that might work fine. Vbias on the main board is buffered, too (that's a good thing).
Otherwise, here's info on creating a separate Vbias...
http://www.diystompboxes.com/wiki/index.php?title=DIY_FAQ#POWER_SUPPLY
http://www.geofex.com/circuits/Biasnet.htm
~ Charlie
It may be sensible to create a Vb from the buffered power line going to the LFO ICs, to minimise the effect of any "nasties" coming from the damped oscillator in the bounce circuit, travelling to the audio path.
Thanks for the info and tips, Charlie and Stephen. I'll get back on it once I have the stock flanger finished and working so I can test it properly.
HEY! I just realized something...
A number of folks have gotten this built up, but nobody's posted any sound clips. What's up with that?
Come on guys... let's hear it!! :icon_razz: :icon_cool:
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on January 27, 2007, 05:37:47 PM
HEY! I just realized something...
A number of folks have gotten this built up, but nobody's posted any sound clips. What's up with that?
Come on guys... let's hear it!! :icon_razz: :icon_cool:
~ Charlie
Yeah baby, lets hear 'em rip! :icon_razz:
Yeah, let's hear some 'cause I need some motivation!!! I'm bummed out right now..... I just finished my build and doesn'r even pass signal. Not even the clean signal from pad "A"!! I used a polarized tant for C32, maybe that mucked it up?
I'm really surprised liike hell it didn't fire up right away.... hard to make bad solder connections with the through hole pads, SHEEEEESH!!!!
I fixed it!!! The solder came loose from the input/output jacks AND I needed to twist one of the trims a bit...... WHEEEEEEEEEEEW WEEEEEEEE, I wasn't looking forward to the debugging. :icon_eek:
Lesson learned: don't use ultra thin needle tips to solder hardware.
I will experiment with mods once I get it calibrated properly. Markusw has a link a few posts back for software to help with it I'm gonna use, but my ears seem to have done a good job setting it up already. Sorry for stinkin' up this brilliant thread with my posts. :icon_redface:
Still want to hear a soundclip of some jets taking off... ;D
Way to go, bluesdevil! Congrats on getting yours working! 8)
I still gotta clear some space on my bench and find time to start putting mine together. :P
~ Charlie
My ADA Flanger Sample (http://www.therecordist.com/assets/sound/mp3/Jet_777_takeoff.mp3)
Your right, it does sound like a jet plane!
^ Doh, you had me for a second! 8) I got excited to actually hear another clip besides the one on moosapotamus
Yeah sorry, I just had to ;D
Okay Joelap, hold on to your hat!!!
http://aronnelson.com/gallery/album129/flanger_swoosh
Chain:
Les Paul neck pickup > ROG Whisker Biscuit (distortion) > Flanger clone> Joe Davisson Simple Cab Sim > soundcard
There's a bit more distortion added from using the Simple Cab Sim.... easy to overload input. Also I tweaked all the trimpots by ear so maybe it could still be better?
Nice! Would it be too much trouble for a clean sample? If you've got time. Just to emphasize the Flanger alone?
Holy frigging s#!+, bluesdevil! :icon_eek: Nice clip! :icon_twisted:
Thanks
~ Charlie
That's the one - wonderful!
The other day, I was walking home from the bus stop, and a plane passed over head. Must have been the cold air or something, but it was the single most striking doppler effect I've ever heard. Rich, chock full of harmonics and deep deep comb filtering. Ironically, my first thought, was "Man, that sounds as good as a pedal!". Life imitates art, eh? :icon_wink:
Bluesdevil, that clip is real sweet. The most striking aspect of it, and characteristic of the A/DA, is that you find yourself thinking "Okay, it's over now, and moment, right?", and it just keeps going and going...and going. That sweep is amazing.
Quote from: Mark Hammer on January 29, 2007, 02:32:26 PM
The other day, I was walking home from the bus stop, and a plane passed over head. Must have been the cold air or something, but it was the single most striking doppler effect I've ever heard. Rich, chock full of harmonics and deep deep comb filtering. Ironically, my first thought, was "Man, that sounds as good as a pedal!". Life imitates art, eh? :icon_wink:
Bluesdevil, that clip is real sweet. The most striking aspect of it, and characteristic of the A/DA, is that you find yourself thinking "Okay, it's over now, and moment, right?", and it just keeps going and going...and going. That sweep is amazing.
Mark, if you crouch down and stand up a few times whilst the plane is passing overhead, assuming you havn't passed out with the blood rushing to your head, the doppler effect is quiet extraordinary! - I just dug out my old AMS 100 Flanger to see if it still works, and sadly it no longer does. It has a bounce circuit which was quite good I remember. I'm hoping it's just the 4739s and not the SAD 1024.
You're assuming I can bend my knees as well as I bend my notes, brother! :icon_lol:
I'll be going outside soon and there's bound to be a plane or 2 passing over as we live under the stacking path for both London Gatwick and London Heathrow!
Not even a murmour of a plane outside! I tested the SA 1024 from my defective AMS 100 in the ADA Flanger and mercifully it works. Of course the bias trim was not correctly set and was just in the distortion range, but it still flanged, and my ears heard almost TZF. I don't like changing over SAD 1024s, too much chance of the pins being bent, especially if the IC sockets are different which in this case they were, one being 25 years older than the other.
I noticed that the A/DA manual uses a scope for final calibration. What if you don't have one? Can the trimpots be tuned "by ear" or do I jeopardize damaging something? Sorry if the question seems foolish, but I really don't know the answer and I'd hate to fry something after all the work I've put into this.
Quote from: StephenGiles on January 29, 2007, 05:22:35 PM
Not even a murmour of a plane outside! ... but it still flanged, and my ears heard almost TZF.
that little fuzz-box
over there (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=53452)
does the "TZV" (@ ~ 00:16) (1st clip in 1st post) with 1 clock...
Quote from: joelap on January 28, 2007, 11:03:55 PM
Nice! Would it be too much trouble for a clean sample? If you've got time. Just to emphasize the Flanger alone?
You really need the distortion on the guitar for the big jet swoosh..... not too impressive without it. I can't record quality "clean" clips yet, maybe later when I build the ROG Condor I'll throw some things up demonstrating the nicer phase/chorus type sounds you can get with it.
Quote from: moosapotamus on January 28, 2007, 11:13:03 PM
Holy frigging s#!+, bluesdevil! :icon_eek: Nice clip! :icon_twisted:
Quote from: StephenGiles on January 29, 2007, 02:23:32 PM
That's the one - wonderful!
Quote from: Mark Hammer on January 29, 2007, 02:32:26 PM
Bluesdevil, that clip is real sweet. The most striking aspect of it, and characteristic of the A/DA, is that you find yourself thinking "Okay, it's over now, and moment, right?", and it just keeps going and going...and going. That sweep is amazing.
Thanks guys!! With those responses I know I must've done something right!!! I have to clear off my breadboard to start messing with the Bounce circuit. I'll check back in later with results and probably pleas for help.
...but I've got some duff 4739s....heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp!!
Hey guys, just sharing a problem I ran into. Last night was going to be the initial sound test, but before I plugged the sad1024 in I checked voltages one last time. To my surprise it read 3.7 at the in and out of the regulator. WTF!!!! Just that morning it read 118 on the in and 15 on the out. I was using a dc brick 18v out to power it. Anyway, after going on an insane rampage I sat down and started debugging. I was REALLY worried a component went out somewhere on the board. I fist pulled up one end of the diode and was getting 18v readings on both sides, but when connected back to the circuit went back down to 3.7. I lifted the 220cap. Didn't fix it. Finally, the voltage regulator. I ended up cutting the legs cause i didn't want to damage the traces on the board. Luckily there was plenty ofleg room. Anyway, tested it out on its own, and it seems to have bit the dust. It was only outputting 3.7. So, I am assuming it was just a faulty regulator, but could there be any reason for its early demise that you all could think of?
Thanks,
ian
off to radio shack.....
Maybe the reg was bad to begin with; maybe it got overheated while soldering(?). Either way, you diagnosed the problem :icon_cool:.
off to RS... Sometimes a necessary evil...
well, it wasn't bad to begin with cause I got the right readings before hand and hadn't soldered it anymore. I am hoping for a random failure.
RS doesn't carry the 15v regulators. DOH!!! They do, however, have the lm317 adjustable regulator. It looks like I could use a 100/1100 resistor combo to get 15v.......I am going to have to make a separate board cause I don't want to run the risk of screwing up the traces. Anybody have anything to comment on using the lm317?
Thanks,
Ian
2 used PP3 batteries are good for me!
Ian, Why not make a small adjustable Vreg with the 317 on a piece of perf (trimpot adjustable). You can then tack/clip it on to the PCB, and get the flanger up and running. When you get the right part, disconnect the board, and you will have a nice adjustable Vreg that can be used for testing future projects. Just a thought...
Build report: Finally got in loaded up, offboard parts in place, R check, V check, continuity check, SAD installed, bias "tweaked"(whew!), and... It fired right up! I don't have an freq counter, so I calibrated it by ear, doing the a/b thing w/my 3010 reissue. It sounds *sublime*, a sonic "dead heat" compared to the A/DA. It has the potential to sound even better. Once I get it over to my friends scope and freq counter (cost: one 6 pk of beer ;D), I'll really get to see whats going on. Till then, it sounds just fine. Now, I need a favor. Can anyone who used a freq counter, and the timing components R68-47R, R69-2M2, C29-39pf take two V readings for me? Heres what I am looking for. Both readings taken w/range full CCW (LFO off), taken at IC3c/Pin 8, relative to true gnd. What V reading do you get with Manual fully CW, and with Manual fully CCW? Oh, and what hi/lo f's did you set the clock to? I'm interested in these 'cause I'm curious to know how close my ears came. Thanks to anybody who is willing to help!
I changed a few component values, nothing "earth moving", but, if you're interested...
C1-.22u C2-1uNP C4-33u C7-.22 C28-.47u R5-475k R13-4K7 R40-51k P5-250kC
Now its mods time. But, I think I'll take the day off and and play some guitar...
As I have said before, in a band situation, I doubt whether it would sound any better than a Standard Electric Mistress when used from the floor on stage. My reason for saying that is, once again, the really flash almost TZF bit of the flange sweep is at such a reduced volume that it wouldn't be heard above the other instruments. If however it was used at the mixing desk, well - that could be something else because the sound man could compensate for the reduced volume.
Does anyone have an updated bill of materials that includes Mouser part numbers? (Other than a few specialty items from Small Bear, I'll go the Mouser route just because I want metal film resistors in addition to some of the items that Steve may not stock.) I've seen Charlie's b.o.m. revisions at www.moosapotamus.net, but have not seen a complete list with part numbers other than the scant suggestions that are scattered throughout this thread.
If there isn't one floating around I may try to compile one. In the meantime, if anyone is willing to copy and paste their Mouser project list even if it is a partial order, I would be greatful. I probably can't contribute too much technically to this thread but will be glad to provide legwork to get together a list with part numbers if others are willing to verify.
Thanks,
Jason
Quote from: StephenGiles on January 31, 2007, 11:53:51 AM
If however it was used at the mixing desk, well - that could be something else because the sound man could compensate for the reduced volume.
I couldnt think of a better reason (excuse to Wife ;)) to make a second one. Thanx Stephen!
Quote from: StephenGiles on January 31, 2007, 11:53:51 AM
As I have said before, in a band situation, I doubt whether it would sound any better than a Standard Electric Mistress when used from the floor on stage. My reason for saying that is, once again, the really flash almost TZF bit of the flange sweep is at such a reduced volume that it wouldn't be heard above the other instruments. If however it was used at the mixing desk, well - that could be something else because the sound man could compensate for the reduced volume.
(some-)one could arrange a VCA after the clone,
synched to the LFO...
I know Ton, I have suggested just that in the past ;) ;)
Upward compression? Somewhere?
http://www.bandboston.com/flash17.html
Click on the spaceships to the right of the screen for some very nice doppler!
:icon_razz:
Could we perhaps use one of the unused sections of the 4007, voltage controlled by the LFO, to vary the wet signal's series mixing resistor? What about including a small signal detector so that it only kicks in
a) when the sweep approaches the near TZF point and therefore the level is considerably reduced or
b) some other point which could be preset
Pmos or Nmos?
I`d implement something more predictable, like an OTA...
<noob mode>Uhhh... yeah I feel like a bit of an outsider here... I know the flanger is great and has a very wide sweep and thats my reason for building it... but what is exactly TZF? </noob mode>
OK, you're about to build this thing, so... Make a big pot of coffee, and go to pg. 1 of this thread. Go through the whole thing. It's all in there, and then some.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on February 01, 2007, 12:15:23 AM
OK, you're about to build this thing, so... Make a big pot of coffee, and go to pg. 1 of this thread. Go through the whole thing. It's all in there, and then some.
That's what I was afraid of :icon_eek:
Quote from: puretube on January 31, 2007, 05:54:25 PM
I`d implement something more predictable, like an OTA...
That makes sense, but the CV would need to be held at a point that provides 1:1 gain in the OTA until the audio signal drops to the level below which gain is to be applied to the VCA - then that level would be detected and allow a portion of the LFO voltage (converted into a current I think for the OTA) to make the required gain.
I don't have the circuit of the noise reduction section of the ADA with me, but part of the circuitry required may already be there because that is effectively a small signal detector is it not?
On the other hand, it would probably make the flanger sound quite unnatural - but still a good excercise in electronics!
Sorry, double post!
What about a VCA on the output driven by a pluck follower in the control circuitry, as designed by Craig Anderton in the AMS 100, on which the voltage increased with the speed of plucking the strings. Again this might be configured to only increase the VCA output once it approaches or drops below a certain level?
OK folks. Rev 01 was for 20+ boards. I only count ~5 build reports. What is everybody waiting for? Anybody else have anything to report?
:icon_question:
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on February 05, 2007, 02:07:22 PM
OK folks. Rev 01 was for 20+ boards. I only count ~5 build reports. What is everybody waiting for? Anybody else have anything to report?
:icon_question:
I'm ordering the last of the parts I need while trying not to ask stupid questions. There are a few things that have me stumped but I'm trying to work through the answers myself. The other thing is I'm a little afraid to fire this thing up because if it fails (and I was very careful with the build so I don't think it will), trouble shooting will be a nightmare.
But I have suggested time and time again that one section is built at a time and tested to make sure that it works before moving on to the next section. Just stuffing the board like there's no tomorrow (ring any bells?) is likely to result in disaster, unless you are working in an electronics sweatshop, and the nice gentleman in the next room tests the beast on a nice scope! :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes:
Please feel free to ask any questions about this circuit/build. Thats what this forum is all about (That was my impression, at least...). Some of us who have successfully completed this build would be happy to answer to the best of our abilities. OK?
Quote from: StephenGiles on February 05, 2007, 02:51:52 PM
But I have suggested time and time again that one section is built at a time and tested to make sure that it works before moving on to the next section. Just stuffing the board like there's no tomorrow (ring any bells?) is likely to result in disaster, unless you are working in an electronics sweatshop, and the nice gentleman in the next room tests the beast on a nice scope! :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes:
You're right, you did. So if it doesn't work I have myself to blame. I did take my time though and I'm fairly confident. If all should go wrong, I promise not to whine and complain about it.
:icon_mrgreen:
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on February 05, 2007, 02:57:59 PM
Please feel free to ask any questions about this circuit/build. Thats what this forum is all about (That was my impression, at least...). Some of us who have successfully completed this build would be happy to answer to the best of our abilities. OK?
Okay...
C17 is listed as a 2.2uF. The legend on the board denotes a normal film cap. Is that correct? A 2.2uF film cap would be rather large, so am I correct in assuming it's a 2.2uF tantalum?
C29 is a 51pF and is screened twice on the PCB. Is this installed twice, one or the other...?
From Charlie's notes -
"Pads at E - Timing capacitor(s) for LFO. For the ADA Rev4 configuration, install only C24 and install a jumper to tie the positive terminal of C24 to the junction of the Speed pot lugs 2 & 3. Experiment with the cap's value, orientation and/or using a non-polarized capacitor in this configuration."I do not have the board in front of me right now but I think I remember reading through this thoroughly, comparing the board to the notes and seeing that there was no junction between the cap and lugs 2 and 3. I'll have to go back and check it when I get home.
Also, if anyone would be willing to post pics of their completed boards I'm sure people would be most appreciative.
I've got a helluva toothache/jaw infection right now, but I'll try to make sense and help:
For C17 I made a non-polar cap by using 2 tantalum caps wired in series with their negative leads connected... see the FAQ for more info. I used two 4.7uf's in series and it worked.
Just use the lower "C29" spot for one 51pf. The extra "C29" and the two pads are for another cap to be switched in parallel, if you want to experiment with a selection of timing speeds.
The LFO caps choice can be confusing!!! I went with using two 4.7uf tants in the two spots with their negative leads connected by placing a jumper from pad "E" to the pad between 'em.
I basically went with revision 4 parts and used Charlie's additional parts add ons.
Hope that helps and good luck.... now I'm going to have to find the courage to try DIY dentistry, haha!!!!
Oh yeah, make sure to print out the layout and schematic to study together....... blowing up the layout to full page size really helps you to see what's going on with the board and will make more sense along with the help of the schematic.
Quote from: BMF Effects on February 05, 2007, 03:29:59 PM
Quote from: StephenGiles on February 05, 2007, 02:51:52 PM
But I have suggested time and time again that one section is built at a time and tested to make sure that it works before moving on to the next section. Just stuffing the board like there's no tomorrow (ring any bells?) is likely to result in disaster, unless you are working in an electronics sweatshop, and the nice gentleman in the next room tests the beast on a nice scope! :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes:
You're right, you did. So if it doesn't work I have myself to blame. I did take my time though and I'm fairly confident. If all should go wrong, I promise not to whine and complain about it.
:icon_mrgreen:
Please don't think I'm being fierce, I'm really trying to help! The reason I make my suggestion is that my first attempt at this flanger which was on breadboard was not done as I now suggest, and I wasted many hours trouble shooting. In the end, I ripped out all the components in a rage and started again - having dropped the SAD 1024 on the floor and stepped on it making all the pins flat. I found it 30 minutes before our cleaning lady arrived!
Quote from: BMF Effects on February 05, 2007, 03:42:45 PM
I do not have the board in front of me right now but I think I remember reading through this thoroughly, comparing the board to the notes and seeing that there was no junction between the cap and lugs 2 and 3. I'll have to go back and check it when I get home.
That is correct... there is no junction between C24 and lugs 2 & 3 of the Speed pot. That's why the notes say, "
install a jumper to tie the positive terminal of C24 to the junction of the Speed pot lugs 2 & 3." 8)
~ Charlie
Quote from: bluesdevil on February 05, 2007, 04:54:48 PM
Oh yeah, make sure to print out the layout and schematic to study together....... blowing up the layout to full page size really helps you to see what's going on with the board and will make more sense along with the help of the schematic.
Wise advice. Also fill in your component values on the BOM as you install them. For EZ future reference/comparison.
Another good idea is to make note of the control & trimpot direction of travel on the circuit diagram. eg: arrow & direction. This is really useful when using multiturn trimpots, as I have done. You will thank me for this later... ::) :D
Quote from: StephenGiles on February 05, 2007, 05:26:45 PM
Quote from: BMF Effects on February 05, 2007, 03:29:59 PM
Quote from: StephenGiles on February 05, 2007, 02:51:52 PM
But I have suggested time and time again that one section is built at a time and tested to make sure that it works before moving on to the next section. Just stuffing the board like there's no tomorrow (ring any bells?) is likely to result in disaster, unless you are working in an electronics sweatshop, and the nice gentleman in the next room tests the beast on a nice scope! :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes:
You're right, you did. So if it doesn't work I have myself to blame. I did take my time though and I'm fairly confident. If all should go wrong, I promise not to whine and complain about it.
:icon_mrgreen:
Please don't think I'm being fierce, I'm really trying to help! The reason I make my suggestion is that my first attempt at this flanger which was on breadboard was not done as I now suggest, and I wasted many hours trouble shooting. In the end, I ripped out all the components in a rage and started again - having dropped the SAD 1024 on the floor and stepped on it making all the pins flat. I found it 30 minutes before our cleaning lady arrived!
The thought never crossed my mind and no offense taken. I probably should have built and tested each section individiually but the wife was out for the afternoon, the tunes were playing on the Bose, the solder was flowing...you know how it goes.
I tried to make the bounce circuit work on single supply last night and failed miserably, I must be missing something but tired eyes couldn't figure it out!
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v317/StephenGiles/?action=view¤t=Etide_contrl.jpg
Well lookee here - there is a 47k resistor from pin 2 of the last 741 to -ve which I omitted from my bounce drawing which could be the reason why I couldn't get it to work. But surely it is only a level shifting resistor?
What is that little network around IC 15 & 16 doing? Is it making sure that only positive voltages get through?
ICs 15 & 16 look like a FWR to me.
Yes, that's what I was thinking, but why FWR a DC voltage?
Quote from: StephenGiles on February 06, 2007, 11:46:16 AM
Yes, that's what I was thinking, but why FWR a DC voltage?
That is curious. I had all sorts of half baked thoughts about this. Stability?
Methinks we have a *puretube moment* on our hands here... Ton?
I have the answer now I am back home, IC 15/16 buffer the output of the bounce control and prevent the possibility of any negative excursion (I knew it to do with a trip to the seaside!!) getting to the VCO by rectifying any negative signal output generated by the damped oscillation of the active filter - it says in the manual. I was right about the level shifting.
Wow, TZF thread posters have been doing alot of work, I'm trying to play catch up...an 'available' [thick/convincing] TZF method certainly would be cool to try out.
I have some reading to do ! Kudos !
Quote from: StephenGiles on February 06, 2007, 02:03:02 PM
I have the answer now I am back home, IC 15/16 buffer the output of the bounce control and prevent the possibility of any negative excursion (I knew it to do with a trip to the seaside!!) getting to the VCO by rectifying any negative signal output generated by the damped oscillation of the active filter - it says in the manual. I was right about the level shifting.
Thanks for clearing that up :icon_cool:.
I lurched over to Semiconductor Supplies International near Sutton yesterday in the sunshine before today's snow, to stock up with capacitors. In particular, I needed some 22uf electrolytics for the bounce circuit currently on breadboard. Would you believe they no longer stock them, something to do with being made of the wrong metal??? Apparently their entire stock was returned to the supplier. Is this some new crazed EC directive from Brussels??
Quote from: StephenGiles on February 06, 2007, 02:03:02 PM
I have the answer now I am back home, IC 15/16 buffer the output of the bounce control and prevent the possibility of any negative excursion (I knew it to do with a trip to the seaside!!) getting to the VCO by rectifying any negative signal output generated by the damped oscillation of the active filter - it says in the manual. I was right about the level shifting.
I would have guessed the same...
about that capacitor : "
RoHS"...
Quote from: puretube on February 08, 2007, 07:35:24 AM
about that capacitor : "RoHS"...
RoHS strikes again! :icon_evil:
Ah, I'm forgetting - hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl - I suppose we have all been exposed to this stuff for years!!
Quote from: StephenGiles on February 08, 2007, 08:44:38 AM
Ah, I'm forgetting - hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl - I suppose we have all been exposed to this stuff for years!!
And will continue to be exposed for years to come. :(
Good heavens, I can't believe I read through all 27 pages. 3:30 in the a.m. and I am beat. :P
This looks like an awesome project but it's far beyond my ability. Which of you kind souls would want to build one for me? ;)
Tried what I hoped would be an interesting mod today. (Although I probably should finish calibrating the whole thing first, but well) But I had a little problem.
I wanted a momentary switch, as I have songs where I want the flanger sound for just a bar or two. I was also intrigued with having the vibrato function.
I figured with all the pads on the board I could sort integrate this into one footswitch if I used an extra toggle.
I pulled the jumpers at C and D. If I understand correctly, breaking C removes the clean signal (resulting in vibrato) and breaking D removes the flanged signal?
I wired up the connections of C to the NC side of a momentary switch, and the connections of D to the NO side of the switch. I also wired them to each to a 3PDT toggle switch, (center off) so that one direction C is broken, in the other direction, D is broken. (Obviously, both are broken in the middle switch position). Used the extra set of poles for LEDs.
The idea was that with toggle switch in the center, the momentary switch would break C and close D (go from clean to vibrato).
With the toggle in the left, D is always closed, and the momentary footswitch opens C. (go from flange to vibrato)
With the toggle to the right, C is always closed, and the momentary footswitch opens D. (go from clean to vibrato, what prompted this whole mess.)
Well, I wired it up, and tested with my multimeter - the connections all make and break as I expect, so I figure it should all work. Thing is, it only sort of does - anytime C is broken and D is closed, I get vibrato, like I expect. Anytime both are closed, I get flanging, like I expect. But the thing is, breaking D doesn't get me clean signal - I still get flange, just not as intense a flange. It's like the effected signal is still being mixed in, but not as much.
I suspect it's either a wiring thing I'm missing, or possibly my flakey switch - it's the only momentary I've got in the bin right now, an old X-wing I pulled out of an old project a while back that looks like it's been heated up too much - one of the legs is starting to come out. I'll be checking both of those things here shortly.
Thing, testing with my continuity meter, everything checks out okay. So does breaking D not kill the effected signal entirely? Or am I likely just getting crosstalk or something because I've got wires running every freaking which way here? Should I be grounding one side of those connections rather than just breaking them?
Look at the circuit diagram (schematic). IC1b has several functions. Among other things, it: Creates the bias for the bbd. "Feeds" the bbd. "Feeds" the dry signal to the mixer, and, (now heres the rub) is part of the regen path. Look it over. As long as the regen is at minimum ("off"), with the switching arrangement you mentioned, you should get only dry signal, the way you want. The moment the regen is turned up, look what happens. You get dry plus wet signal at IC1b's output, which ,as previously mentioned, "feeds" the mixer. Manifested as the "weak" flange you mention. The wet and dry signals do not follow separate paths to the mixer (Think MXR, Boss, etc...) They are interactive. Maybe this is another reason the A/DA sounds so unique. Maybe try somehow tapping the output of IC1a for your dry signal. Hope I didn't create more confusion :P. Take a step back, and reassess things.
Keep on Rockin!
Ah - looking through it, I see what you're talking about. I just read "use pad C to tap the clean signal" in the build notes that explain all the pads, and didn't actually look at the schematic. (Dumb mistake) So yeah, I'll have to tap the clean signal somewhere else - how to work it into this big switching fiasco, I don't know. But the big thing for me is to have momentary switching, so losing vibrato (or losing foot-switchable vibrato) isn't a deal breaker.
But thanks - I don't think I would have caught that looking things over myself; you saved me some pointless troubleshooting over my switching job.
oldschoolanalog to the rescue... again. 8)
Right, Pad A should always give you a clean uneffected signal.
You know, that's probably worth another edit to those build notes. ;)
Thanks
~ Charlie
Could someone tell me where the PCB is for this? I.e. the one everyone is now using for it. Ill never find it in 28 pages. ;) Thanks
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=51692.0
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=53679.0
Quote from: StephenGiles on January 31, 2007, 05:29:18 PM
Could we perhaps use one of the unused sections of the 4007, voltage controlled by the LFO, to vary the wet signal's series mixing resistor? What about including a small signal detector so that it only kicks in
a) when the sweep approaches the near TZF point and therefore the level is considerably reduced or
b) some other point which could be preset
Pmos or Nmos?
no need for the level to go down near zero;
nice doppler here, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3hBJSX692I
in case clip won`t wanna work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ54NObbDKQ
ongelofelijk!
MAN ALIVE ! This old thread of ours really is a survivor isn't it? I had no idea it kept going past 12pgs or so. May be some interesting stuff in here I'll have to check out what I may have missed.
Racecardriver, there's a ton of info (which I'd been collecting for years myself too) most all of which Charlie has so graciously posted on his site. the people who may be talking about building it here Charlie while I assume getting ready to build one himself decided a pro pcb might be more convenient went ahead and had a 'few' fabricated up for himself and several others. That may be what you're seeing here. HOWEVER There is a layout on there that's mostly complete from the Rev 3 powerpoint by B.B. and a partial with all the changes for SAD. I created my board from the composite of these. And must say it wasn't so difficult so give it a shot if you are really wanting to take on the A/DA. Heed my words that though it may fire up , this is NOT a populate and play circuit. There are many sections that it pays to build and tweak section by section. I learned this the hard way but in the end made many improvements to the functioning of the circuit and have an amazing device!!!
the point , don't feel left out or discouraged cause you don't have a fabricated pcb to 'paint by number' on ; )
PLUS( you'll get alot more gratification "building" it ) :icon_wink:
I admit though , even with having mine in use for awhile now, i did too thow in for a pro board :icon_redface: couldn't take the thought of after all the sweat I poured into the project that others who got to do it a bit "easier" may have a unit that could stand the test of time a bit better due to the superior pcb compared to copper clad etch.
Good luck
Quote from: RaceDriver205 on February 10, 2007, 05:58:10 AM
Could someone tell me where the PCB is for this? I.e. the one everyone is now using for it. Ill never find it in 28 pages. ;) Thanks
I just made some updates to my ADA clone page... Rev01 and Rev02 overlay images, as well as top, bottom and layout images for the Rev02 PCB. I also edited the build notes to include a couple of minor changes made to the Rev02 PCB (pads to tap into the regen path and extra pads for V+, Vb and GND), and corrected the description of how to wire a hi/low LFO speed switch.
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAflanger.html
~ Charlie
Rev. 2! Man, this sure has come a long way. BTW, you can very easily populate this board from either side. Enclosure depth permitting. ie: Installing IC7, D7, C31, & R67 on the other side (bottom) frees up a real nice sized piece of real estate for a daughter board . Top side, lower left hand corner. Just some "food for thought". Nothing like throwing more ideas out there, before the previous ones have been totally digested :icon_rolleyes:!
Keepin' it real...
Speaking of daughter boards... depending on what you are doing, you may need to supply an external circuit (mod) fragment with a bias voltage as well as V+ and GND from the main PCB. I added a Vb pad the the Rev02 PCB, but if you have a Rev01 PCB, you can use the vias (that connect the bottom traces to the top traces) along the Vb trace as pads to solder wires to. For example, that short vertical top trace just above pin 3 of the threshold pot (not the one that connects to SW1) is the Vb trace. A wire can be inserted and soldered to either of those vias. Over on the other side of the board just below pin 3 of the enhance pot is another (Vb) top trace just to the right of TR2 with vias that can be use to attach wires for feeding Vb to an external circuit or daughter board. Just a tip... ;)
~ Charlie
I swear to god, Ive been reading over the documentation on this thing, and it strikes me as the most seriously complicated piece of effect gear ever. Is there, like, a big manual thing on the calibration of it? There were so many trimmers...
Well, there's this...
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAcalibration.jpg
Hope that helps.
~ Charlie
It looks like it was scanned from a friend who scanned it from a friend ;D
Cheers
Well there you go, probably 10th generation photocopy!
Aye, the original was probably printed on an 'old-school' press!
But you see, photocopying is how circuits were traded, borrowed or acquired in some other dubious manner 20 or 30 years ago, so it is little surprising that some of the scans appearing on the net look pretty grim!
Quote from: StephenGiles on February 11, 2007, 11:58:03 AM
... so it is little surprising that some of the scans appearing on the net look pretty grim!
I will take grim over nothing every time ;).
I think we can all agree on that!
this thread (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=54299.new#new)
is associated with this thread...
It's enough to take you through zero!!
Hey, Rev 01 board folks! Any news/build reports? >20 boards; <10 build reports. Hmm...
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on February 14, 2007, 01:32:32 PM
Hey, Rev 01 board folks! Any news/build reports? >20 boards; <10 build reports. Hmm...
Still a slave to my fear of firing it up. :icon_mrgreen:
Things have been hellacious lately and free time very rare. I'm going on vacation starting tomorrow and plan on placing a parts order for all the little stuff I need to complete various project, this being one of them.
Well I fired this one up last night!!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/uncle_boko/ADA.jpg)
Jesus, he just up and perfs one like it's an LPB or something... and here I am worrying about filling in a PCB... kinda puts things in perspective.
This dragon suddenly looks a bit easier to slay...
Cool, Stephen :icon_cool:! Did you try the gate w/ this one?
Quote from: StephenGiles on February 14, 2007, 05:35:03 PM
Well I fired this one up last night!!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/uncle_boko/ADA.jpg)
Im scared now :icon_eek:
That was my first veroboard version, with everything spread out nicely, but it took me a while to work out where everything is just to refresh my memory and to further test the SAD 1024 taken from an old AMS100 flanger. I think the 4049 is one from the far right at the bottom.
I am looking forward to sun lit evenings which are kinder to the eyes for reading component values!
Quote from: RaceDriver205 on February 14, 2007, 11:24:13 PM
Im scared now :icon_eek:
Be afraid. Be very afraid... :icon_lol:
Quote from: StephenGiles on February 15, 2007, 07:12:27 AM
I am looking forward to sun lit evenings which are kinder to the eyes for reading component values!
Amen to that! These short winter days are killing my eyes!
Just a thought, any mileage in converting the ADA Flanger to +15v & -15v? More headroom?
Finally boxed it up!! Charlie's board fits pefectly in a 1790 enclosure if you place the pots under it and put the footswitch at the very edge. Gotta give Charlie a million thanks for the effort and the offer, because I would have never even attempted this beast without that PCB...... holy smokes it sounds f*ck'n' killer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's a guts shot:
http://aronnelson.com/gallery/album129/flangerinside
Didn't ever iron out the bounce mod circuit because I was pressed for space and patience... damn.
Mods I did use were the "vibrato" switch, timing cap switch and I moved the max clock trimpot to a panel mount control. Wanted to mount the high range trimpot also but ran outta room. Also I drilled out a hole for the CV jack, but didn't have the correct jack on hand so I just hardwired to manual mode on the board for now. Will probably do up some sound clips later.
Well, yeah... I suppose the footprints for those poly caps could have been a tad bigger. :icon_redface: Not too tough to squeeze 'em in, tho. Anyway...
Looking great, bluesdevil! Can't wait to hear those clips. 8)
Thanks
~ Charlie
That looks great bluesdevil. Something I thought of driving to work just now, it would be interesting to have an option where the LFO is generally disabled but trigger started by playing a note hard, and starts from either the bottom or top of the sweep rather than where it just happens to be when the on/off switch is engaged, then continuing as normal for a preset amount of time. For instance it could be useful part way through a solo. I'm sure I've seen something like this somewhere, was it in an old ETI article using a TDA 1022 perhaps?
It must have been for the TDA 1022, ETI was too mean to pay someone to design anything decent for the SAD 1024 :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin:
Got the Condor cab sim built so I can now record clean signals nicely. Actually changed the caps around a bit so it almost sounds like I'm just running direct anyway 'cause I didn't like that thin notched sound too much.
Well okay let's get on with it!! This sample shows off the timing cap switch mod (running a 100pf cap in parallel with the stock 51pf). First sound is bypassed with no effect, then flanger with normal timing cap and then played again with the 100pf switched in parallel...... the mod gives a cool chorus/short delay sound. Also all apologies to Keef Riffhard for being out of tune on his great number!!!!
http://aronnelson.com/gallery/albums/album129/cleanflange2.mp3
Next clip is longer...... it shows a more lopsided effect with the manual and range knobs turned up more. Mainly wanted to show what putting the max clock trimpot on the panel can do and show the difference in the even/odd harmonic switch.
First is bypassed sound, then with harmonic switch set on "even", max clock control at 11 o'clock and then turned to about 1 0'clock (notiice the tubular kinda short delay?). I switch to the "odd" harmonics for reggae part at the end. The reggae thing would have sounded better if I would've backed down on the manual and range controls.
http://aronnelson.com/gallery/albums/album129/cleanflange.mp3
This pedal can do a hell of a lot more than this!!! Just a quick and pretty effortless sample for you guys. Nothing as dramatic as the "jet swoosh" sample I did....... adding distortion in front of this pedal really makes it come alive!!!!! Thanks again for making this dream build a reality.
Trying to work momentary switching into my ADA, (after the mistake I made last time, not realizing how the enhance control worked - mentioned earlier in this thread) Set up a toggle to switch to using the momentary switch, which simply switches the output jack between being connected to point "A" on the board (the output of the first buffer) and the normal output point from the board. Works great, but I get some popping. This in part because there is no DC blocking cap between the output of IC1A and point "A", and I'm jumping between different DC levels when I switch? A cap and a pulldown resistor on my switch should fix this? Or am I way off base here?
All in all I love this unit. I've been meaning to make soundbites, but I want to get it "perfect" - hopefully we get the scope working again. Anyone have any comments on setting T1 and T6 w/o a scope?
Still finding my way around the "Threshold" control - when I originally got the thing running, I got some cool effects out of it, now it seems to be a little less effective. It must be my settings, I don't know. I also haven't played with the thing into a dirty amp very much, where is where it seems to shine.
I have a weird issue in that I do get some clock noise, or breathing or something, even with input grounded - but only on certain speed settings. If I dial it further up or down, it goes away. And then if I powered down the unit, and then powered it back on, the noise was gone at that same setting. It was kind of wierd. I only noticed it the other day, I haven't experimented with it since. Of course, my unit is not shielded at all right now, and power connections are still running through the breadboard.
All in all, I know this thing looks daunting, but with the pre-made boards that Charlie's got here, it's a no-brainer. These things with the through-plated holes and everything are a joy to solder. Honestly, I just jumped in, wired everything up, checked for shorts, checked for decent voltages before I popped in the SAD, and fired it up. I got some pretty good flanging right from the get go. Dialing it in has certainly helped, but I haven't had a work scope for any of the trimpot setting I've done so far, and I'm getting great sounds.
I think I want to hook the "manual" control up to an envelope control - I think that would be ace. (Although I've been hooking up envelope followers to everything I can lately - I'm a bit nuts) Shold be easy enough with the expression control input, actually.
Hi SFR - The threshold control gets rid of the noise when I'm not playing on my build. Turn it all the way up and then start turning counter clockwise until the noise disappears.
About calibration: I think you can get this unit working decently without meters/scopes if you trust your ears a bit and spend some time tinkering with it...... you might even get it sounding better that way.
The only trimpot adjustment I think I would like to get tested on mine is the 1024's bias.... curious to see if I'm close, since I had a hard time deciding where I liked it!!! Also panel mounting the high range and max clock trimmers isn't a bad idea. I hope builders don't get too hung up on not being able to calibrate this thing properly without scopes/meters because you ultimately want to please your ears not a piece of testing equipment telling you otherwise!!
Quote from: bluesdevil on February 23, 2007, 03:27:42 PM
I hope builders don't get too hung up on not being able to calibrate this thing properly without scopes/meters because you ultimately want to please your ears not a piece of testing equipment telling you otherwise!!
+1
I dont think thats the point.
Quite honestly, the BBD bias is the most important trim adjustment, which can be easily done by ear because turning the trimfrom one end will produce in sequence: no flanging/distortion/flanging/distortion/no flanging, and it's fairly obvious where the correct setting is. Thereafter adjustments are to one's individual taste, I'd wager.
Quote from: RaceDriver205 on February 24, 2007, 12:32:59 AM
I don't think thats the point.
Then the point would be...
Please elaborate.
Thank You.
Dunno, coz u can or something
im so glad im not building FX for anyone anymore...
cause im building this ASAP!!!!!!!!
Oh no....not more pictures :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:
I was one of the buyers of the v1 board, but I've not had time to start looking at the build yet. I'm just a hobby builder with a hectic day job (and a great wife), so it can sometimes go weeks between the time slots I can dedicate to building. But at least I have all the parts, and I plan to post a report here soon as I get it done, which should be... sometime this spring.
I thought I'd just offer some notes on the control pedal to the group, since I haven't seen this mentioned yet. I have both the original A/DA Flanger and Final Phase, and both are really ony half a pedal without the control pedal. You really do get the full sweep range under your foot, and playing one of these is one of the most satisfying things I know of.
Both the original and the rerelease Control Pedal A are very solid metal constructs with a 50k wah type pot (of Mexican origin) wired as a voltage divider. So any wah shell and pot can be used here. If anyone needs an actual wiring diagram I can see if I get time to draw it during the weekend.
My big thanks to Moos for this project, you are the man, man. The board is wonderful, I'm really looking forward to working on it! May I suggest that you/we try the Final Phase next...? It really is the thickest, richest, most wonderful phaser I know of. With the control pedal, it just takes off into space. Plus, the screamerish drive part of it is pure novelty and really ripe for mods!
K
Whoa! Thanks kahel, I just happen to have a couple wah shells(Dunlop "highgain" [yeah, right, they're passive] volume pedals, don't use em).
Briefly connecting the inverting input of IC4b in the LFO to Vb or ground may provide a useful function by forcing the sweep to restart from it's low or high end. Just touching with a wire produced this but with a noise. It maybe that if a cmos switch is used it would provide a silent transition - that's a nice jargonny phrase!! From the idea I had recently, perhaps a control signal for such a switch could be extracted from the noise reduction circuitry. This is homework for someone!!
Great idea, especially for slow sweeps!
Do ya think maybe make-before-break could kill the pop/thump/whatever? I know, I know, I'm looking for a shortcut, just a thought...
Thump was the word I was looking for.
I mght see if I can blow a 4016 on for a switch this evening.
Just to remind newcomers about this related thread :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=25168.0
Cool! Thats one to bookmark. Thanks!
thanks for reminding folks of the control pedal , my build from last year Rev 3 A/DA flanger I did my enclosure as near to the original as possible and the control a jack was unused until recently when I wired up the manual control pot in an enclosure to test the jack. Unfortunately I just didn't have a shell to devote to the a/da sweep permanently yet, but you're right it is a whole other dimension being able to have that beautiful, wide 23+ sec sweep under foot ; )
QuoteThe board is wonderful, I'm really looking forward to working on it! May I suggest that you/we try the Final Phase next...?
YES YES, no doubt man. I didn't need the a/da thing to be done to build it but man I have been over that Final Phase schematic planning out a build strategy and I just get discouraged, don't know why? but I'm glad to hear one other person second my desire to pull off a build of that one.
Quote from: StephenGiles on March 04, 2007, 02:08:34 PM
Briefly connecting the inverting input of IC4b in the LFO to Vb or ground may provide a useful function by forcing the sweep to restart from it's low or high end. Just touching with a wire produced this but with a noise. It maybe that if a cmos switch is used it would provide a silent transition - that's a nice jargonny phrase!! From the idea I had recently, perhaps a control signal for such a switch could be extracted from the noise reduction circuitry. This is homework for someone!!
Very nice! I'll try and do this when I get around to stuffing mine sometime next year. There's this Blur song where Graham Coxon's part just flanges the last couple notes of the measure, and its always the same direction, I read a thing on how he does it, and he just said it took him a long time to get good at setting the speed right and plus you have to start the song at the right time! So sad.
My next build? 2 words.
Storm Tide. ;D
Before you do that, take a peek at this little nugget from Japan from Colin's Experimentalist Anonymous site: http://experimentalistsanonymous.com/diy/Schematics/OOP%20Japanese%20Electronics%20Book/multi-flanger.gif
Here is the PCB layout: http://experimentalistsanonymous.com/diy/Schematics/OOP%20Japanese%20Electronics%20Book/multi-flanger-pcb.gif
This thing has multiple sources of modulation, including envelope, LFO waveshaping, and what I think might be "bounce", and looks very interesting. The schematic calls for an MN3009, but you could also use a 3007 if you pump up the clock frequency a bit. Best of all, the board layout is already provided.
Cool Mark! Interesting indeed. I don't want to digress from the A/DA theme of this thread, so I'll have a good look/see, then post "stupid human questions" in a new thread. Thanks!
Quote from: StephenGiles on March 04, 2007, 02:08:34 PM
Briefly connecting the inverting input of IC4b in the LFO to Vb or ground may provide a useful function by forcing the sweep to restart from it's low or high end. Just touching with a wire produced this but with a noise. It maybe that if a cmos switch is used it would provide a silent transition - that's a nice jargonny phrase!! From the idea I had recently, perhaps a control signal for such a switch could be extracted from the noise reduction circuitry. This is homework for someone!!
Any developments on this? Suggestions on where to inject a pulse in the LFO in order to reset it would be most welcome. There is practically nothing on the net about this - or is it going to be the inverting input of the integrator IC?
Quote from: StephenGiles on March 09, 2007, 09:28:09 AM
Quote from: StephenGiles on March 04, 2007, 02:08:34 PM
Briefly connecting the inverting input of IC4b in the LFO to Vb or ground may provide a useful function by forcing the sweep to restart from it's low or high end. Just touching with a wire produced this but with a noise. It maybe that if a cmos switch is used it would provide a silent transition - that's a nice jargonny phrase!! From the idea I had recently, perhaps a control signal for such a switch could be extracted from the noise reduction circuitry. This is homework for someone!!
Any developments on this? Suggestions on where to inject a pulse in the LFO in order to reset it would be most welcome. There is practically nothing on the net about this - or is it going to be the inverting input of the integrator IC?
Hey Stephen,
you may want to have a look at the Wobulator schem. One LFO has a trigger for connecting an external pedal.
It requires a couple of parts though.
Regards,
Markus
Thanks Markus, I'd forgotten about that one.
For those of you not doing custom enclosures, what size did you use? The 1790NS (5 5/8 x 4 5/8 x 1 9/16 inches) looks like it may barely fit the bill.
http://pedalpartsplus.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=PPP&Product_Code=1700&Category_Code=ENC17 (http://pedalpartsplus.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=PPP&Product_Code=1700&Category_Code=ENC17)
Looks like that enclosure should work.(Note: I did not say will work.) My one concern is the board is 5 1/2" wide. Is the INSIDE of the box going to accomodate it? I'd first do a bit of research on this. If so...Things might be a little tight, so a bit of time/thought/planning will probably be needed to get things *just right*. I put my rev 1 in an LMB sloped front enclosure. 6" w X 8" d. I'm not putting it on the floor (love ez tweaking on the fly!), but at desk top/waist level; so the large size is not an issue.
Any progress with the build?
Anybody?
The oscillator output of the 4047 (pin 13) goes to a pad marked TP - I'm sorry if I'm just showing off my ignorance here, but what exactly is TP?
K
Quote from: powerplayj on March 14, 2007, 01:21:26 PM
For those of you not doing custom enclosures, what size did you use? The 1790NS (5 5/8 x 4 5/8 x 1 9/16 inches) looks like it may barely fit the bill.
http://pedalpartsplus.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=PPP&Product_Code=1700&Category_Code=ENC17 (http://pedalpartsplus.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=PPP&Product_Code=1700&Category_Code=ENC17)
Here's an inside pic of mine in a 1790NS:
http://aronnelson.com/gallery/album129/flangerinside
Sorry, the switches aren't straight ;)
Quote from: kahel on March 15, 2007, 03:46:31 PM
The oscillator output of the 4047 (pin 13) goes to a pad marked TP - I'm sorry if I'm just showing off my ignorance here, but what exactly is TP?
K
test point?
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 26, 2006, 05:37:08 PM
And I still recommend building one section at a time, to ensure that all is well as you build. For an inexperienced builder this project would be quite a challenge, and faced with a fully populated board which doesn't work............. :-\ :-\ :-\
Stephen (or anyone), when you say build a section at a time, how would I go about this? Are you saying that I should build a section and then bypass the rest of the circuit to the output for sonic confirmation or should I build up to a certain point and check some key voltages along the way? I'm not inexperienced as far as number of builds but, I am green when it comes to some of the troubleshooting as it relates to certain functions of a circuit and the calculations of expected voltages, etc. I'm in the progress of populating my board now and am at the point of having all reisitors in place as well as sockets for all my ICs.
Any guidance as to what sections to complete first and where to check my progress (via voltages, etc.) would be much appreciated.
What I am saying is more from the veroboard construction angle, because I never use a layout, I just solder as I go but it can still apply to a pcb. So, if I were to "populate" as seems the jargon an ADA Flanger pcb I would go about it like this:
1. input / output amps and Vb generator, test that all opamps have good signal at outputs, test that the Vb generator is giving 1/2 +ve voltage otherwise nothing will work!
2. LFO and manual CV generator test for changing voltage at Range wiper
3. Do all components from Range pot to 4049 and check that clock signals are each around 7v
4. Do components around SAD1024, set up bias and you should have flanging of sorts. I set up the rest by ear using the clock range and max clock trims.
This route would be more beneficial to a novice because it is possible to see each separate building block working on its own and makes it easy to remember where everything is in the board - good for troubleshooting. I would even draw round the various sections with a felt tipped pen as a guide.
BOM and layout Rev02 questions............
....just going off of Charlies BOM as a template I have a few questions...
C21 is listed as a tantalum. Based on the schem it appears to be in the signal path. Do I need a non-polar cap here?
C6, C17 - I assume the 2.2uf are not electros?
C8, C14, C19 - (100, 500pf) ceramics are referenced. Should I upgrade to better quality or are these not critical as they relate to the circuit?
I took his excel BOM spreadsheet and created links for most of the parts. PM me if you are interested...maybe I can host and post a link as well.
Quote from: powerplayj on March 29, 2007, 10:23:37 PM
BOM and layout Rev02 questions............
....just going off of Charlies BOM as a template I have a few questions...
C21 is listed as a tantalum. Based on the schem it appears to be in the signal path. Do I need a non-polar cap here?
>>>>>>>Yes, it's in the signal path. I used a 1uf poly film cap (NP) here. Tant/electro will work too. Just watch out for proper orientation.<<<<<<<
C6, C17 - I assume the 2.2uf are not electros?
>>>>>>>C6: I used 2.2uf NP electro. Works fine. C17: Used a 2.2uf electro. Note polarity printed on board.<<<<<<<
C8, C14, C19 - (100, 500pf) ceramics are referenced. Should I upgrade to better quality or are these not critical as they relate to the circuit?
>>>>>>>C8 & 14: Ceramic should be OK here. I used Mica because thats all I had on hand. C19 is a part of a filter. I used Mica here as well, this is just a personal choice. I prefer higher quality parts for filter construction. Ceramic should work just fine.<<<<<<<
I took his excel BOM spreadsheet and created links for most of the parts. PM me if you are interested...maybe I can host and post a link as well.
Note replies in box above this. I'm a bit burned out from work. I don't know WTF I did. Sorry. :icon_redface:
Howzit goin' powerplayj?
osa
I used whatever capacitors I had for the 2 I built and they sound exactly the same.
[/quote]
Note replies in box above this. I'm a bit burned out from work. I don't know WTF I did. Sorry. :icon_redface:
Howzit goin' powerplayj?
osa
[/quote]
Going well..... I ordered from three separate vendors (Mouser, SB, Effects Connection) due to price difference and availability of certain components so as soon as the last bit of components arrive I'll be ready to start firing up a few sections of the board. It's hard getting the parts order completely correct the first time unless you look carefully at the board and schematic together beforehand (this goes for any project with a high part count). The fact that this is a "group" project certainly makes it easier though.
I can't wait to get it working in stock form.............haven't even looked into the mods yet and not sure what exactly they do. I'll have to look at the mix/stereo outs, etc. to see if I can tie them into my delay. Question... do most people use flange in the effects loop or at the end of their pre-amp chain? I would assume the loop for those who have one...........
Quote from: powerplayj on March 30, 2007, 07:14:59 AM
Question... do most people use flange in the effects loop or at the end of their pre-amp chain? I would assume the loop for those who have one...........
This is truly a matter of trying out various options, then deciding what works best for your sound.
This is the real fun part too ;D .
osa
Quote from: powerplayj on March 14, 2007, 01:21:26 PM
For those of you not doing custom enclosures, what size did you use? The 1790NS (5 5/8 x 4 5/8 x 1 9/16 inches) looks like it may barely fit the bill.
http://pedalpartsplus.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=PPP&Product_Code=1700&Category_Code=ENC17 (http://pedalpartsplus.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=PPP&Product_Code=1700&Category_Code=ENC17)
I have a spare 1590 DD that I was going to use. Do you think that will fit? Or will I need the extra height of a 1790 NS?
Quote from: Giglawyer on March 31, 2007, 11:27:21 AM
Quote from: powerplayj on March 14, 2007, 01:21:26 PM
For those of you not doing custom enclosures, what size did you use? The 1790NS (5 5/8 x 4 5/8 x 1 9/16 inches) looks like it may barely fit the bill.
http://pedalpartsplus.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=PPP&Product_Code=1700&Category_Code=ENC17 (http://pedalpartsplus.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=PPP&Product_Code=1700&Category_Code=ENC17)
I have a spare 1590 DD that I was going to use. Do you think that will fit? Or will I need the extra height of a 1790 NS?
It depends on a few things...mainly if you are going to position your 3PDT over the board (and possibly the same for your pots.) Also, the 470uf electro is quite tall although you can bend it over if you don't solder it down to the level of the board. Personally I think it can be done but you may not have much freedom in the placement of a few components that I mentioned above. I'll try to measure the depth of my board (W/ components mounted) taking into account the switch depth and then let you know the actual depth.
What is the current draw???
......cannot seem to find it in the old A/DA manual, specs, etc. I need to buy an 18V adapter and assume a 150mA is more than sufficient.
~38 mA @ 18V. Measured externally. "Individual performance may vary", due to op amp choices. But not enough to really worry about.
So, yes 18V/150 mA is plenty. :icon_cool:
osa
Finally got one board built and wired up, and am attempting to "tune" it by ear, which is feeling like an excercise in controlled restraint. This thing is wild! It's got to be one of the most freaked out sounding effects I've ever built, or probably ever even heard. It's taking me a while to get my head around what all the trimmers do and how they interact. But, I'm having a blast getting there... 8)
BTW, all the parts' values I used are exactly what is shown on my schematic, except for the output mixing resistors (R41 & R42). I used 27K instead of 68K. But, I think replacing them with a wet/dry blend pot might be a very worthwile mod. ;)
~ Charlie
Way to go, Charlie! ;D
Just a reminder; the "dry" signal at the output mixing resistors is only completely "dry" when the regen is "off".
Go to pg. 27, reply #539 of this thread for an explanation of this...
Keep on Rockin' !
osa
Charlie:
Did you build a version 2, or did you do additional mods?
Charlie, any thoughts as to which trims would be best as multi-turn and which ones are fine as single turn?
About ready to fire mine up............
LFO section: Based on the info I have for Rev 04, a 2.2uf is needed for C24 and I can jumper to the speed pot bypassing C25 (unpopulated). Correct???
Should be fine.
Good luck with firing up! :)
Markus
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on April 04, 2007, 06:05:56 PM
Just a reminder; the "dry" signal at the output mixing resistors is only completely "dry" when the regen is "off".
Right. I realized that after I posted. Need to get the dry signal from either pad A or B. ;)
Quote from: Giglawyer on April 04, 2007, 08:27:22 PM
Did you build a version 2, or did you do additional mods?
I built it stock on a Ver.1 board. But, I plan to build a few more, possibly with some of the mods.
Quote from: Dan N on April 06, 2007, 03:32:02 AM
Charlie, any thoughts as to which trims would be best as multi-turn and which ones are fine as single turn?
T4 and T5 could be mult-turn, but it's not really a big deal. Single-turns are fine.
BTW, here's a little info on setting up the trimmers, based on my experience...
I used the frequency counter on my DMM, positive lead on the test point (TP) and common lead to ground. But, I think you could definately do this by ear, too.
Threshold 100%, Manual 0%, Range 100%, Speed 50%, Enhance 50%, all trimmers at 50%.
Plug in a noise maker, theremin, looper/sampler, keyboard, whatever... Something that makes a continuous sound, as opposed to having to keep strumming your guitar, for example. If you use a theremin or keyboard or something that doesn't have a lot of harmonics, try putting it through some kind of fuzz/dist/od pedal so you'll be able to hear the sweep more prominently.
Adjust TR1 bias until you hear the effect sweeping. Then turn Range to 0%. You should now be able to sweep the effect manually by twisting the Manual knob.
Now, set the low and high points of the sweep, keeping Range at 0%...
With Manual at 0%, adjust TR4 to set the low point, ~35kHz. Turn Manual up to 100% and adjust TR5 to set the high point of the sweep, ~1.3MHz. TR4 and TR5 interact with each other, so you need to go back and forth (set Manual 0% adj TR4, set Manual 100% adj TR5, repeat) until you get the low and high sweep points set where you want.
I left TR3 set at 50%. It does seem to alter the range, but I couldn't hear it doing much of anything else.
I also left TR6 at 50%. I'm not hearing any appreciable bad noise. It quiets down very nicely when not playing.
I'm still deciding where I want to leave TR2... to self-oscillate or not to self-oscillate... that is the question. :)
Actually, here's the question I have...
Is it possible to tweak the symmetry of the LFO?
To my ears, it seems to sweep much more slowly through the low end than it does through the high point. I'd like to try to make the sweep more "even" if possible.
Thanks!
~ Charlie
Hey Charlie,
About the LFO symmetry: seems like lots of flangers suffer from a lop-sided sounding sweep. One solution to that is to use a hypertriangular wave form--half the wave is sine-shaped, the other half is triangle-shaped. The asymmetry of the actual waveform makes the sweep sound symmetrical. Here's one approach--about midway down the page, there's a schemo and an o-scope shot (with thanks to Scott Stites):
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/scottnoanh/birthofasynth/id19.html
There is another sine-shaper out there that uses an FET and a pair of diodes, and gives you a hyper wave if you omit one of the diodes. I can't seem to find it right now, but it was in an issue of Polyphony magazine.
BTW, hope you are going to be making some more A/DA PCBs someday. I seem to have missed the boat on the first go round. . . .
Regards,
Joe
Quote from: markusw on April 12, 2007, 02:08:02 PM
Should be fine.
Good luck with firing up! :)
Markus
Checked a few voltages, inserted IC's except for the $AD and played through it with guitar to make sure I had a clean signal, added SAD and I now have a flanger! Charlies "scopeless" tutorial above is right on time until I get access to a scope and signal generator. What LFO cap values and polarities is everyone else using? I started with a single 33uf polar I had on hand and will try a few others once I tune. Seems like oldschoolanalog recommended non-polars here.....
Quote from: powerplayj on April 12, 2007, 07:27:04 PM
What LFO cap values and polarities is everyone else using? I started with a single 33uf polar I had on hand and will try a few others once I tune.
I'm using a 33uF polar, too... positive leg toward IC4b pin 7. The speed range seems pretty good to me.
Quote from: Joe Kramer on April 12, 2007, 06:10:28 PM
About the LFO symmetry...
(http://mypeoplepc.com/members/scottnoanh//sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/hypertri_sm.jpg)
Yeah, that's exactly how the sweep sounds to me, only more so. Like this...
(http://www.maa.org/mathland/CAT.JPG)
...so, I think the LFO is already more "hyper" than it needs to be. Making it more hyper-triangular would make it sound like it was moving even more slowly through the low point, right? But, the way I hear it now, I think it needs to go faster through the low point. And I guess, rather than grafting in an entirely different LFO circuit, I thought there might be some part of the existing LFO section that could be tweaked to change the duty cycle such that the sweep was less hyper-triangular and more triangular... maybe?
Thanks
~ Charlie
Yes, I recommended NP caps here for 2 reasons. Both of the "personal choice" nature.
1: Its easier. (I'm lazy)
2: I had a wide variety of NPs to play around with. (The "use what ya' got" thing...)
I settled on 33uf (C24) and C250k (P5). I found C500k a bit too slow for my taste. Also the response of the 500k got a bit too "bunched up" (too sensitive) at the fast (cw) part of the rotation.
Play around until your ears are happy ;D.
Oh. BTW, the Polyphony article on hypertriangular LFOs are at Mark Hammers wonderful ( :-* :icon_lol:) site.
osa
Hey Charlie,
I could be mistaken about this, but it may be that the o-scope shot is showing what you want, but upside down. In the case of the A/DA, I assume the LFO puts out a sine wave, which sounds fine during the up-sweep (shorter delay region), but warpy or lop-sided on the down-sweep (longer delay region). In that case, you would want the sharp side of the hyper wave to point south, which is a simple matter as far as tweaking the sine-shaper is concerned. Anyway, regardless whether it points up or down visually, the idea is to have the triangular half of the wave affecting the longer delay, down-sweep region. . . .
As far as ideas for tweaking the symmetry of the stock A/DA LFO, I have a Ross flanger that has the same lop-sided problem and have been considering adding an external modulation input to override the internal LFO with a hyper wave. Besides that, I don't know of any way to tweak the existing symmetry enough to make a difference. . .
Thank OSA for pointing to that Polyphony article on Hammer's site. . . .
Joe
A/DA LFO = Triangle wave. UTSF, "LFO tutorial". 3rd post down. RG does a real nice job of explaining this.
Hey OSA,
Thanks for the UTSF advice, but I didn't really need it this time, since I've been posting to that "LFO Tutorial" thread all week. :icon_wink:
I don't see where RG says the A/DA LFO outputs a triangle wave. I assumed it was a sine because the circuit looks very similar to my Ross flanger LFO. I just looked at the output of its LFO on a scope last week, and it's a sine wave, so there's not much that can be done to tweak it. But with the A/DA being a triangle, it would be all the easier to add that sine-shaper and get a hyper wave.
Joe
rectified sine looks a lot like hyperbolic... (see octave-doublers)
just a matter of correct mirror-axis (DC)...
:icon_wink:
Now that's making lemons into lemonade! All you'd need a xstr phase-splitter, a pair of diodes, and an LFO that runs verrry ssslowly. . . . :icon_wink:
worx with xformer, tube, (opamp-)inverter..., too
BUT: like said: watch the mirror-axis (DC-base-line)
nuff said... :icon_wink:
Quote from: Joe Kramer on April 12, 2007, 11:46:18 PM
Hey OSA,
Thanks for the UTSF advice, but I didn't really need it this time, since I've been posting to that "LFO Tutorial" thread all week. :icon_wink:
I don't see where RG says the A/DA LFO outputs a triangle wave. I assumed it was a sine because the circuit looks very similar to my Ross flanger LFO. I just looked at the output of its LFO on a scope last week, and it's a sine wave, so there's not much that can be done to tweak it. But with the A/DA being a triangle, it would be all the easier to add that sine-shaper and get a hyper wave.
Joe
Sorry about that Joe :icon_redface:.
RG didn't mention the A/DA in that thread. I was referring to his explanation of the Schmitt Trigger/Integrator LFO. I thought it was mentioned much earlier in this thread that was the type of LFO used. I just assumed (bad idea) that was a foregone conclusion. My bad. Apologies to all if I created any confusion :icon_redface:.
osa
Quote from: puretube on April 13, 2007, 02:10:40 AM
rectified sine looks a lot like hyperbolic... (see octave-doublers)
just a matter of correct mirror-axis (DC)...
:icon_wink:
Thanks to Mark Hammer for preserving this: http://hammer.ampage.org/files/hypertriangleclock.gif (http://hammer.ampage.org/files/hypertriangleclock.gif)
A few component / mod questions....
LFO caps: do these have any affect on tone or are they primarily related to oscillation/speed. Differences with higher vs. lower values? My optimal speed range is bunched up at 3/4 turn of the pot. I might try a few resistors across the pot to spread out the range and lower the max speed.
1458 Dual Opamp: Is this used in the circuit in such fashion that substitutions here will change the tone or is the goal here just to get one that has the lowest noise? I have quite a few on hand which is why I ask....
Anyone modded theirs for use with a voltage control pedal (Manual override)
Hey OSA,
It's all good, friend. :icon_cool: Analog rules!
Joe
I've been playing mine for a while, at some point I'll open it back up again and get it tweaked now that I have a scope again - I've noticed the same thing that others have posted, about the speed control being bunched up in one end - for me it seems to be an artifact of the slow speeds being so glacially slow - it's harder to notice the difference between "slow" and "slower" than between "fast" and "faster".
But I'm just wondering - we timed my unit on the slowest speeds the other day at band practice - with the manual knob fully off, running feedback into the flange at it's slowest speed, we counted 15 seconds up and 15 seconds down. A 30 second sweep. Anyone elses going this long? I've had bands where I could finish a song in that time! Full speed is into pitch-bending madness.
Quote from: sfr on April 14, 2007, 07:06:14 PM...with the manual knob fully off, ... we counted 15 seconds up and 15 seconds down. A 30 second sweep. Anyone elses going this long?
According to one of A/DA's advertisements, the unit features "An automatic sweep that varies between 0.1 to 25 seconds for a complete sweep cycle." So yours sounds about right.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on April 12, 2007, 08:18:24 PM
I settled on 33uf (C24) and C250k (P5). I found C500k a bit too slow for my taste. Also the response of the 500k got a bit too "bunched up" (too sensitive) at the fast (cw) part of the rotation.
Play around until your ears are happy ;D.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on April 14, 2007, 10:42:55 PM
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on April 12, 2007, 08:18:24 PM
I settled on 33uf (C24) and C250k (P5). I found C500k a bit too slow for my taste. Also the response of the 500k got a bit too "bunched up" (too sensitive) at the fast (cw) part of the rotation.
Play around until your ears are happy ;D.
OSA,
Yeah, I remember you saying that earlier and my experience was identical. I might try your 250C pot suggestion or just lower the speed range via a resistor. .....also thought of putting a resistor in front and replacing the 500C with an even smaller value assuming I can tie down what my usable speed range (resistances) will be.
All,
Anyone have trouble tuning this due to 60Hz interference? My meter only picks up 60Hz (I need to verify the range)
A friend of mine who also built this says he gets "duty" interference when using a signal generator and scope to tune. I think he also tried using the 4049 output as a test point like OSA suggested but I don't think that worked either. Ted, if you are watching maybe you can comment about how you set up your tuning with the generator and scope.
I think we can probably get in the ball park tuning by ear but I really need to get some knobs or else index the pot shafts because it gets complicated remembering where I have them all set and they seem to have quite an effect on each other. Having the original ADA manual helps immensely though ( the chorus effect was stunning!).
There is a way of changing the pot law using one or two transistors, I forget how, but when I get home from Argentina I'll post the circuit which is part of the Dual Gate/panner from Home & Studio Recording in 1988. It basically allows the use of the full turn of the pot where the control would otherwise be within 1/10 of the turn
http://www.interq.or.jp/japan/se-inoue/e_ckt16.htm//
A good quickie explanation.
Quote from: StephenGiles on April 15, 2007, 11:40:26 AM
There is a way of changing the pot law using one or two transistors, I forget how, but when I get home from Argentina I'll post the circuit which is part of the Dual Gate/panner from Home & Studio Recording in 1988. It basically allows the use of the full turn of the pot where the control would otherwise be within 1/10 of the turn
I think this is the circuit, I'm on a duff PC in an internet place in Lavalle, B Aires.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/uncle_boko/potlaw.jpg
[/quote]
A friend of mine who also built this says he gets "duty" interference when using a signal generator and scope to tune.
[/quote]
OK, we got together and tuned. We used pin 10 of IC 6 for the min / max frequencies. The min would only go as high as ~25 Hz which I like anyway. For the threshold and speed oscillation tuning we used pin 2 of IC 2. It sounds quite incredible now as I am noting some knob positions for various songs I'm trying to emulate the flange......."Unchained", "Run Like Hell", etc.... by the way, if you are a Rush fan, you will be in heaven!!! I'm still debating placement but right now I like it at the end of my chain rather than in the loop. Time to work on the enclosure.... (I hate this!!! You get no 2nd chances at drilling!!!) Thanks to Charlie, Stephen, OSA and all the others who have helped.....
Way to go, powerplayj !
It's great to hear when when a build is a success...
;D
BTW, did you notice any "lag" at the bottom of the sweep that was mentioned earlier?
osa
How many working units are there now¿ Or is everyone still buggering around with mods ¿
Hey OSA and All,
Now it's my turn to post an apology. In case anyone was paying attention, I said the Ross flanger outputs a sine wave. Turns out that's only partly true. It's a sine wave when the speed control is cranked up all the way, due to a hefty cap across the LFO output. But at slower speeds, it's a rounded triangle with an odd glitch on the positive swing. I made this mistake for two reasons: one, I scoped the waveform at fast speed only (to get a reasonable display on my lousy scope); and two, a slight difference in the Schmitt Trigger part of the circuit threw me into thinking it was substantially different from my fave LFO in the CE-2 here:
http://home.hetnet.nl/~chrisdus/download/ce2.gif
The difference in the above circuit is that the ground/reference voltage goes to the noninv input and the "feedback" is built around the inv input. In the A/DA and Ross LFO, the ground/reference voltage feeds inv input with "feedback" around the noniv input, plus there's that .01 cap from output to inv input of the Schmitt trigger. From what I can gather looking on the scope, that extra cap turns the Schmitt's squarewave into more of a trapezoidal wave.
Sorry to all for any confusion I may have caused! :icon_redface:
Regards,
Joe
i just got a board and one of those rad sloped enclosures from joelap! can't wait to wire this monster up...
one question though: as there is quite a bit of reading on here, is there a list of mods that people have been doing? i have the list that moosapotamus shared on his build notes, but i'm wondering if there are any others that are unique...
Quote from: StephenGiles on April 16, 2007, 11:52:37 AM
How many working units are there now¿ Or is everyone still buggering around with mods ¿
I would like to report another finnished build.
I used the pcb from the firts batch from Charlie.
It is working but I still have to calibrate the unit. Haven't had the time doing that properly. let alone play with it......
Thanks to Charlie and the rest.
Marc
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on April 16, 2007, 12:29:35 AM
Way to go, powerplayj !
It's great to hear when when a build is a success...
;D
BTW, did you notice any "lag" at the bottom of the sweep that was mentioned earlier?
osa
I haven't put it through the paces to really pay much attention if lag exists. I'm so ecstatic about the way it sounds and how versatile it is, that I have just been trying out all the potential sounds it can make. I still want to play with the LFO caps. Was there any particular setting where the lag was most apparent?
Sorry to not answer your question and then pose one myself but what affect does the cap value have on the speed?
Quote from: powerplayj on April 17, 2007, 02:43:12 PM
... what affect does the cap value have on the speed?
In this thread. Pg 9/Reply178; Pg 10/Reply188. Thanks again markus, for those nice sims!
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on April 15, 2007, 03:53:40 PM
http://www.interq.or.jp/japan/se-inoue/e_ckt16.htm//
A good quickie explanation.
Hey Joe, as somebody mentioned earlier; it's all good ;). Test equipment sure acts funny sometimes...
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on April 16, 2007, 12:29:35 AM
BTW, did you notice any "lag" at the bottom of the sweep that was mentioned earlier?
osa
I can't tell if its lag or my inability to perceive the difference in sounds at lower frequencies....mine goes to ~ 25-28Hz.
Thanks for turning me on to my favorite build yet!!! I never was a flange guy until now! I now realize flange/chorus are in many songs where I never gave it much thought....... for instance I heard Loverboy's "When It's Over" and "Turn Me Loose" (I know, a blast from the 80's past...there's a Paul Dean fan among us somewhere I know!)
Quote from: StephenGiles on April 15, 2007, 05:21:42 PM
Quote from: StephenGiles on April 15, 2007, 11:40:26 AM
There is a way of changing the pot law using one or two transistors, I forget how, but when I get home from Argentina I'll post the circuit which is part of the Dual Gate/panner from Home & Studio Recording in 1988. It basically allows the use of the full turn of the pot where the control would otherwise be within 1/10 of the turn
I think this is the circuit, I'm on a duff PC in an internet place in Lavalle, B Aires.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/uncle_boko/potlaw.jpg
No, forget this because it turns a log pot into a "super log" with 2% of max resistance at mid position!
Well, this is my first post on DIY. My buddy powerplayj turned me on to the ADA Flanger clone and I'm glad he did! I owned one in the 80's and thought, could this sound as good as an original? And the answer is yes! This thing sounds fantastic!
Here's some info on how I went through the setup procedure.
1. Of course verify power (all IC's etc.).
2. Clock frequency adjustment. I don't want to spell out the bench test procedure so here's my easy calibration. Measure frequency with a scope at IC6 (CD4047) Pin 10 (pin 11 will also work). Adjust Threshold, Manual, Range, Speed and Enhance pots fully CCW. Adjust TR5 fully CW, Adjust Manual pot fully CW, Adjust TR4 to 1.3MHz. Adjust Manual pot fully CCW and verify min frequency (mine was around 21.7KHz). Bench spec states min 34.8KHz, max 1.3MHz (I could not adjust TR4 and TR5 to get both setpoints). You can adjust the low end up but this also raises the high end of the sweep range. I chose to keep the low end at 21.7KHz (you can compromise in either direction).
3. BBD Bias and Regeneration. This is where I didn't have any luck with the bench test procedure. When I thought I had everything setup I hooked it to my amp and nothing. So here's my easy setup procedure. With the output connected to your amp (keep amp volume VERY low), Adjust Threshold, Manual, Range, Speed and Enhance pots fully CW. Set TR1 fully CW and TR2 fully CCW. Adjust TR1 CCW just until you hear the full sweep next; adjust TR2 until the sweep is almost fully attenuated. Adjusting the Enhance pot will fully attenuate the sweep. If you don't want to hear the sweep at all with the Enhance pot fully CW then just adjust TR2 until the sweep is fully attenuated (I chose to hear the sweep so I know where the attenuation threshold is when setting the Enhance pot).
I kept both TR3 and TR6 at 50%, didn't really see much change with either of them.
That's it! this has worked great for both powerplayj and myself.
Also, I did not see anything on the scope or hear anything abnormal with the low end of the sweep.
I do have one question on the Harmonics switch...which positions on the schematic are even and odd?
I hope this info is of some use? It's been a lot of fun building it and even more playing it!
Nice report, TR. Thanks and welcome.
Quote from: TR in NC on April 22, 2007, 08:32:22 PM
I do have one question on the Harmonics switch...which positions on the schematic are even and odd?
Odd/even is shown on the scheme... Even is with the switch making the connection to Vb, odd is with the connection to Vb broken.
~ Charlie
Quote from: TR in NC on April 22, 2007, 08:32:22 PM
Well, this is my first post on DIY. My buddy powerplayj turned me on to the ADA Flanger clone and I'm glad he did! I owned one in the 80's and thought, could this sound as good as an original? And the answer is yes! This thing sounds fantastic!
Here's some info on how I went through the setup procedure.
1. Of course verify power (all IC's etc.).
2. Clock frequency adjustment. I don't want to spell out the bench test procedure so here's my easy calibration. Measure frequency with a scope at IC6 (CD4047) Pin 10 (pin 11 will also work). Adjust Threshold, Manual, Range, Speed and Enhance pots fully CCW. Adjust TR5 fully CW, Adjust Manual pot fully CW, Adjust TR4 to 1.3MHz. Adjust Manual pot fully CCW and verify min frequency (mine was around 21.7KHz). Bench spec states min 34.8KHz, max 1.3MHz (I could not adjust TR4 and TR5 to get both setpoints). You can adjust the low end up but this also raises the high end of the sweep range. I chose to keep the low end at 21.7KHz (you can compromise in either direction).
3. BBD Bias and Regeneration. This is where I didn't have any luck with the bench test procedure. When I thought I had everything setup I hooked it to my amp and nothing. So here's my easy setup procedure. With the output connected to your amp (keep amp volume VERY low), Adjust Threshold, Manual, Range, Speed and Enhance pots fully CW. Set TR1 fully CW and TR2 fully CCW. Adjust TR1 CCW just until you hear the full sweep next; adjust TR2 until the sweep is almost fully attenuated. Adjusting the Enhance pot will fully attenuate the sweep. If you don't want to hear the sweep at all with the Enhance pot fully CW then just adjust TR2 until the sweep is fully attenuated (I chose to hear the sweep so I know where the attenuation threshold is when setting the Enhance pot).
I kept both TR3 and TR6 at 50%, didn't really see much change with either of them.
That's it! this has worked great for both powerplayj and myself.
Also, I did not see anything on the scope or hear anything abnormal with the low end of the sweep.
I do have one question on the Harmonics switch...which positions on the schematic are even and odd?
I hope this info is of some use? It's been a lot of fun building it and even more playing it!
Thanks Ted! First post and you're shelling out a tuning guide for the A/DA? Where were you to help with my vibe? BTW...I found trimmer 3 tuned clockwise attenuates the upper frequencies of the range such that you don't get those high freq acoustic sounds that seem to be above audible detection of the sweep. Move your switch to "odd", set the range at 1/2 to 3/4 full and manual at 1/2 or so and you can here this a little better...IMO
Thanks guys, I may scope the board out some more just to get a better idea on how things look. Powerplayj, I'll try to find out what TR3 is actually doing (may be acting as a high freq rolloff?).
Ted
A follow-up to my calibration post. I had some time today to look at some datasheets and learn a little more about the circuit. I was able to set TR6 to balance the 2 outputs from the delay chip (sad1024) I did this by looking at the output of the trim pot (r17 or pad G) and set TR6 to get the lowest Peak to Peak signal (null). I also found that adjusting TR2 a little highter (a little more attenuation on the sweep) I was able to get a better clean signal with the Enhance pot fully CCW which made for a better clean signal (with the Enhance pot fully CCW you can achieve an awesome clean chorus!) which this circuit does great! I don't know if I want to mess with it anymore....this thing sounds...well...GREAT! :icon_mrgreen:
Ted
Can anyone who has performed the Vibrato mod explain the results? If it is anything like the Vibrato mode on the Neovibe I really have no use for it but, on th off chance that it dazzles, I would be interested.
Thanks,
Jason
My completed build....
Added a switch for LFO caps but opted not to use it in leiu of a single 10uf cap. Kept the switch for a future mod. Used an RGB LED hoping that the various current draws want surge the voltage (I tapped off the addition 15V pads instead of the DC 18V input).
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h307/powerplayj/DIY%20Effects/IMG_5553.jpg)
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h307/powerplayj/DIY%20Effects/IMG_5566.jpg)
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h307/powerplayj/DIY%20Effects/IMG_5570.jpg)
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h307/powerplayj/DIY%20Effects/IMG_5571.jpg)
Oh yeah, it's extremely quiet unlike the complaints for many flangers. This is by far my favorite build!!!
Dig that hammertone box. Is that spray paint or powdercoat?
I still have to get some free time to make mine up. Too many projects!!
John
Quote from: Basicaudio on April 26, 2007, 12:18:48 AM
Dig that hammertone box. Is that spray paint or powdercoat?
I still have to get some free time to make mine up. Too many projects!!
John
Thanks! It's just "Hammered" spray paint. To me it's the easiest stuff to work with and surprisingly it takes decals very well as it does not show imperfections as much as the untextured paints.
I have had good experiences with the hammerd spraypaints as well. They do work well with decals because of the texture.
The overall apearance has a lot more depth because of the 3-D surface.
John
Here's a few pic's of my build. Almost completed solder side, ready to close and "low tech" graphics (My 9 year old daughter did all the graphics). Enjoy! :icon_biggrin:
(http://s153.photobucket.com/albums/s239/n1uj/?action-view¤t=P1010188.jpg)
(http://s153.photobucket.com/albums/s239/n1uj/?action-view¤t=P1010194.jpg)
(http://s153.photobucket.com/albums/s239/n1uj/?action-view¤t=P1010192.jpg)
(http://s153.photobucket.com/albums/s239/n1uj/?action-view¤t=P1010196.jpg)
Ted
Let me try that again...
Here's a few pic's of my build. Almost completed solder side, ready to close and "low tech" graphics (My 9 year old daughter did all the graphics). Enjoy!
(http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s239/n1uj/P1010188.jpg)
(http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s239/n1uj/P1010194.jpg)
(http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s239/n1uj/P1010192.jpg)
(http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s239/n1uj/P1010196.jpg)
Ted
Man, I gotta say, as someone had promised, this thing takes solder like a dream! Got most of it populated now... still need to order a few parts for it... again... especially that LM7815. The L78L15 smallbear has ain't it... found out the hard way. My fault for not doing my homework. ::)
Hey, TR. I love your kids graphics ;D! I have a 7 yr. young daughter who has asked me if she could "decorate" some of my fx. So, she gets the "honors" on my next build. She has also expressed the desire to learn how to solder (Daddy, can I solder? Puleeese! It looks like fun!) :icon_eek:. Uh, not quite yet I had to tell her. In a couple of years maybe... I think it's great to get the little ones involved. BTW, nice build/report.
All the best!
osa
Thank's osa,
This build has been a lot of fun. My daughter really enjoyed being part of my project, she say's it works better because of her artwork :icon_rolleyes: I've been involved in electronics now for over 20 years...geesh I feel old :icon_neutral:, but never got in involved in building effects until now (thanks to my buddy powerplayj), been mainly building amateur radio projects over the years. Now, I'm already looking for my next effect project...does this mean I'm hooked?
Ted
Quote from: TR in NC on April 29, 2007, 09:00:37 AM
...does this mean I'm hooked?
Ted
You've been hooked for 20+ years!
Admit it;"I am a stompboxaholic".
Feels good, don't it?
Where are you guys running your flanger in your chain when using some gain? I like it best as the last effect before my amp although my main source of gain is my Crunch Box which I run before the A/DA. Seems like the effect is more pronounced here, however, I only seem to be able to get those EVH tones when running the Crunch Box after the flanger (the flange is less apparent when doing this). I can foresee building another multi- loop box for this reason alone!
Thead's still Alive!? WOW I am starting to wonder how many of these a/da boards got out there. I guess It is nice to finally see some of them getting built and people able to enjoy this wonderful flanger w/o tracking one down Also it's nice to hear feedback on more simple things that I never let myself get to play around with such as LFO range caps! I think I stuck a 47uf and 22uf tant in mine.
I've actually been struggling with whether or not to replace the 'heart' of my A/DA clone's that I built last year from my own board , with this fabbed pcb ! it's a hard decision. (no doubt the fab'd pcb'll stand up to time better and curiousity that the thoughtful layout itself ie; ground planes etc.. might lead to greater fidelity) However The satisfaction is so much higher knowing you tackled as complex a circuit as this with your own board and researched/experimented with all the various Rev's , And Beyond, for the "right" values in certain sections of the circuit (which I assure you all , there are a couple of parts values that you need to mess with for optimum performance amd best interaction with the SAD.
No doubt M.I. made the changes neccessary for the circuit to WORK with an SAD , he prob didn't want to bother with less crucial details...for instance the clipping/headroom of the SAD compared to the MN3010 which the Rev's were all working from were designed for.
Don't get me wrong, you have more than an excellent flanger as is , ignoring any other small revisional details. Just thinking of some of the stuff I went though when I built my a/da back then. HINT: the diode comp./limiting configuration of Rev 4 alone WON"T make the difference for the clipping point of the SAD , although it IS better suited to the sad than the Rev 3 config. (used in this pcb layout)
And PS: PowerplayJ you pretty much have the same exact box layout and control fonts as mine! :o except my bypass is dead center (like original) even the "rustoleum" silver Hammertone! Looks like the knobs I chose for mine have become a popular choice too ; ) though I chose them for orig a/da look. I wish I'd have posted a pic last year now.
sorry so long a post , but also btw if you're bothering to build this beast, please align the lfo and manual sweep. ; ) that's what that "level" trimmer is there for! You might not think it makes much difference but It DOES escpecially if you are using a Manual pedal Sweep alot like me and then kicking back in LFO sweep.
Stock build except for the output volume knob on the side of the 1590DD box...
(http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/flangerclone01.gif)
(http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/flangerclone02.gif)
~ Charlie
I'm half way through my Irwin/Giles version. There are a few things that I need to go back and jumper (not called out in the BOM, unless I'm missing something). I can't wait to hear how it turns out!
Wow, the effort we all go to for a single guitar effect ;D
FWIW; The other day, I tapped the LFO from my Tremulus Lune (right next to the A/DA in the multi-FX box) and ran it into the control input on the A/DA. A little hotter than the 5V the manual says it expects for a control signal, but it works really well. The Trem Lune has 3 LFOs in it, (main, one to add to the main, and one to modulate the speed on the main one) but I accidently tapped the CV before the additional LFO comes into play, so I only get the main LFO with speed modulation. Mixed in with the A/DA LFO, cool sounds are available. It takes a lot of tweaking to get "right" though. I think I'd want to build a different LFO box with the same amount of options but more limited settings, to avoid all the settings with crazy whooping from a too-fast sweep.
In general, the LFO settings that sound really cool on a trem are not the same ones that sound really cool on a flanger.
Slowish square waves with varying speed can sound very cool - it makes me want to try out some of the stair-stepped LFOs in that Geofex article with the digital LFOs.
Barberpole ADAs
Nice ones, guys! Here's mine:
(http://users.rio.com/senorris/junk/adatop1sr.jpg) (http://users.rio.com/senorris/junk/adagutz2r.jpg)
That's an old train transformer box. So far it's the most elaborate and sick fuzz ever. I have not had the heart to troubleshoot yet.
(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/ada7.jpg)
(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/ada3.jpg)
anyone going to build the BYOC flanger coming out this Fall?
No, but welcome back this thread.
ANybody post any soundclips of this yet?
Here you go:
http://www.4shared.com/file/16577146/d77c8cd/ada.html
Anybody do any mods other than a vibrato switch?
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on July 28, 2007, 09:34:05 PM
Anybody do any mods other than a vibrato switch?
I 'll keep the stereo mod.
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=49929.msg400357#msg400357 (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=49929.msg400357#msg400357)
Think it might be useful.
Thanks Markus! I forgot that was there. :icon_redface:
Nice little layout!
Any tales of TZF w/fixed or swept delay?
QuoteAny tales of TZF w/fixed or swept delay?
Not really. I think it's already very close to TZF (I run the clock up to about 2,5MHz). So I'm pretty happy with it as it is.
Also, I'm distracted by other projects ;)
Juergen Haible's Tau Pipe PCB is waiting for getting populated. Also I'm still planning a Bissell-Follower/Moog LP combination.
Anyway, I think I will porbably add a jack to the ADA for insertion of an external second delay. I'm a bit scared of messing up the thing with heterodyning issues. It's so estoninglishly quiet. On the other hand I'd love to hear a TZF ADA :)
BTW, has anyone tried to feed an envelope follower into the ADA's CV input?
You see..I'm easily distracted :icon_lol:
2.5 MHz? :icon_eek:
+1 on the jacks for an external feed. That's been on the to-do list for a while. Added flexability. That way it doesn't have to be a delay...
No rules; just fun!
osa
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on July 29, 2007, 07:35:47 PM
2.5 MHz? :icon_eek:
+1 on the jacks for an external feed. That's been on the to-do list for a while. Added flexability. That way it doesn't have to be a delay...
No rules; just fun!
osa
Definitely, just fun! :)
I tried to run the clock even higher (IIRC up to 4-5 MHz). :icon_evil: ;)
Problem was, it stayed too long at the high point of the sweep....
Quote from: markusw on July 29, 2007, 04:39:29 PMJuergen Haible's Tau Pipe PCB is waiting for getting populated.
It appears quite a few of us got in on that one. ;D
hi !!!
i just finished this project. I made the PCB my self for rev. 02 ...it was not very easy, i had to do some Photoshop to make it right and after 3 attempts i made it !
I don't have an oscilloscope and i don't even know how to use one :icon_redface:, so i had to tune the trims by ear. To my surprise, it works and actually it sounds very close to the sound samples i heard...(I'm proud of me :icon_mrgreen:). I just noticed one thing that's bothering me : as i did not know the correct orientation of cap 6 (2.2µF) i socket it and i realized that it sound exactly the same in both senses, even more, sound doesn't change at all without this cap...is it me..? did i do something wrong (as usual..? or this cap is not that important...?
Anyway, I'm glad it works, jet flanging and everything !!!
I want to thank all of you for this tread, i learned a lot from it !!!
Pierre
Congrats, Pierre!
If I recall some of the previous discussions in this thread, that diode bridge that C6 pulls down to ground acts as a limiter that tames high regeneration settings. (Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.) I would also guess that if you remove C6, you would eliminate any limiting effect. So, maybe try to see if you hear any difference with/without C6 when you have the regen set very high. I think I would definately only try it with the negative leg of C6 going to ground, but you never know... I'd be curious to know what you find.
~ Charlie
well, i spend some time adjusting the trim pots, not easy by ear :icon_confused:...I think now I'm getting the better from this flanger...Anyway trim pot 6 (null trim) doesn't seem to do anything...
I change cap 6 for a N.P. 2.2µF...but still don't ear any difference, with or without this cap...or maybe my ears are burned !
Thankx again ! :icon_wink:
Your ears are not burned. The limiter won't come into play until the signal coming off the input op amp exceeds ~2.8 V peak to peak. That's the threshold where the diode array conducts. I pre set TP6 dead center, and it worked great from the start. Haven't touched it since. If you checked the output of TP6 on a scope, I would guess you would see a difference. But if it sounds OK, don't sweat it.
Happy adjusting/tuning!
osa
Kind of off topic from the original thread, but I am looking at the Moosapotamus's BOM for the ADA Flanger, trying to figure out what I have in stock vs what I have to order from SBE.
Any known problems with subbing;
- a TLO72, 4558 or 4559 for the LM1458 (IC4)?
- a TLO74 for the LM324's (IC's 1,2, & 3)?
- any N-Channel Jfet with the same pinout for Q1 (currently a 2N4393)?
All these seem to make sense. Any known problems based on your experience?
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Craig
...I'm putting together a second A/DA clone...the first sounds so good that I'm afraid to do any mod...
Now i would like to have a control pedal...does anybody knows how to do one...?
QuoteKind of off topic from the original thread, but I am looking at the Moosapotamus's BOM for the ADA Flanger, trying to figure out what I have in stock vs what I have to order from SBE.
Any known problems with subbing;
- a TLO72, 4558 or 4559 for the LM1458 (IC4)?
- a TLO74 for the LM324's (IC's 1,2, & 3)?
- any N-Channel Jfet with the same pinout for Q1 (currently a 2N4393)?
All these seem to make sense. Any known problems based on your experience?
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Craig
I used TL074 for IC's 1-2-3 and a J201 for Q1, i think it has the same pinout...
I'm not sure for IC 4, i used a MC1458...
Quote
...I'm putting together a second A/DA clone...the first sounds so good that I'm afraid to do any mod...
Now i would like to have a control pedal...does anybody knows how to do one...?
There is a jack for adding an expression pedal (JK3 in Charlie's schem). You don't need to mod the circuit. :)
actually what I meant was that I wanted to build the expression pedal, but I dint know to do it...
Thank you ;)
Quote from: Pierre on September 02, 2007, 04:58:27 AM
actually what I meant was that I wanted to build the expression pedal, but I dint know to do it...
Thank you ;)
I think it's cheaper to buy an expression pedal (e.g. a Bespeco).
Sorry to pull this thread back up again . . .
Pulled apart my A/DA to do some mods I've been mean meaning to do (mostly relay based stuff to enact some momentary switching, and to wire up a foot pedal for the expression input with another offboard on/off footswitch, yadda yadda . . . )
Anyway, figure I've actually got a working, proper scope and frequency generator now (yay!) I'd go through the calibration process for reals this time. Not too much change in overall sound (confirming that yes, you *can* set this by ear hon')
A couple of questions arise out of my tinkering with this thing today though:
1) How do I set the Clock Null (T6) trim? I've tried pawing through this thread again (it's been a while) and haven't found anything - search is turning me up empty handed as well. It looks like it's balancing two outputs (I'm assuming out of phase to cancel clock noise that makes it into the signal) Should I just probe the output on the scope, and try and set the thing so I get the least extraneous noise? I can't hear much (if any) difference as I twist this trim, and I'm getting nervous because I used one of those junky Radio Shack trims that have a tendency to go bad on you if you mess with 'em too much. I just set it at the center and left it.
2) Threshold seems to do very little for me - it's definetly doing something - but I've got a noisy rig in general - seems I can up the amount of attenuation (or however you word this) at the lower settings on the Threshold pot by decreasing the value for R27? (I'm just looking briefly at the schematic - I haven't figured out which way that pot is turning yet) I'll play around, but if anyone wants to point me in the right direction here, it'd be helpful.
Also - brief experiments in envelope control are revealing some cool sounds - I can't remember if that was brought up in this thread or not, but just plugging a quick and dirty envelope control on the breadboard into the footpedal input is resulting in fun.
Thanks,
-J.
Can't help you much there as I set mine up by ear, but don't you see 2 waveforms on the wiper of the clock null trim, then adjust the trim until they converge - just guessing.
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 21, 2007, 08:00:09 AM
Can't help you much there as I set mine up by ear, but don't you see 2 waveforms on the wiper of the clock null trim, then adjust the trim until they converge - just guessing.
Yep, that's exactly it. A little difficult to set the scope up to see it well, but that's spot on. (And, yeah, it was pretty much where I had set it by ear - i.e. - the middle.)
Haven't gotten a chance to play with the threshold controls yet (hopefully tonight), nor sit down and look at the schematic in more detail, but anyone got any insight on that front before I start plugging away at it?
I just finished my build and... OMG THIS THING IS AMAZING! The amount of incredible and different sounds you can get out of this thing are astounding. Thanks for the board Charlie! :)
The board I got was marked Rev 03. I had no serious issues at all in my build. I just went down the BOM and bought all the odd caps and resistors I didn't have on hand, soldered them in and it worked right off. Then I went through the calibration docs and I was all set. The only two things I have questions about:
1) What the heck does TR1 do? I have it maxed CCW. If I turn it even a smidge CW it starts to distort the tone (sounds like massive clipping) and then about halfway the distortion goes away suddenly and the tone becomes crystal clear without any flange at all. Then about 3/4 turn from the end it mutes the sound completely until the end of the range of the pot.
2) For TR2 I had no idea how to induce "self oscillation" so I just turn it up until the threshold knob at minimum gave me heavy flange and when I turn the threshold up it slowly reduces the flange effect. I'm assuming thats right.
If you haven't built this yet, you should. :)
Quote from: scottso on October 24, 2007, 07:46:06 PM
1) What the heck does TR1 do? I have it maxed CCW. If I turn it even a smidge CW it starts to distort the tone (sounds like massive clipping) and then about halfway the distortion goes away suddenly and the tone becomes crystal clear without any flange at all. Then about 3/4 turn from the end it mutes the sound completely until the end of the range of the pot.
TR1 is a bias control - set it until it things sound the most "flangy" and you should be set. Although your description of what the sweep of that pot does sounds a bit off from mine - my "sweet spot" is more in the middle, and sweeping to either side results distortion or no flange.
Quote
2) For TR2 I had no idea how to induce "self oscillation" so I just turn it up until the threshold knob at minimum gave me heavy flange and when I turn the threshold up it slowly reduces the flange effect. I'm assuming thats right.
Do you mean threshold (which is sort of like a noise gate) or the "enhance" control, (which is more like the "regeneration" or "color" controls on other flangers) TR2 should ideally be interacting the most with the Enhance control - more enhance equals a more "flangy" sound, and that trimmer is basically setting the range of that pot - the setup instructions are basically turning all the controls (particularly the enhance control) all the way up, and setting that trim until they get out of control, and then turning it back to sane levels. If you have that trim too high, with the enhance up all the way, hitting a note will basically start the thing making laser or whistle noises that continue even after you ground or remove the input. So yeah, can't really go wrong with setting up that trim - it will just affect the usefulness of that pot. (which looking at that schematic makes sense - it's simply a series resistance with the Enhance potentiometer)
Quote from: sfr on October 24, 2007, 11:00:47 PM
Quote from: scottso on October 24, 2007, 07:46:06 PM
1) What the heck does TR1 do? I have it maxed CCW. If I turn it even a smidge CW it starts to distort the tone (sounds like massive clipping) and then about halfway the distortion goes away suddenly and the tone becomes crystal clear without any flange at all. Then about 3/4 turn from the end it mutes the sound completely until the end of the range of the pot.
TR1 is a bias control - set it until it things sound the most "flangy" and you should be set. Although your description of what the sweep of that pot does sounds a bit off from mine - my "sweet spot" is more in the middle, and sweeping to either side results distortion or no flange.
Hrm you are making me think something is perhaps wrong on mine. It only sounds "flangy" at all if I have it turn all the way down. If I turn it up even the smallest bit I lose the flange.
Quote
Quote
2) For TR2 I had no idea how to induce "self oscillation" so I just turn it up until the threshold knob at minimum gave me heavy flange and when I turn the threshold up it slowly reduces the flange effect. I'm assuming thats right.
Do you mean threshold (which is sort of like a noise gate) or the "enhance" control, (which is more like the "regeneration" or "color" controls on other flangers) TR2 should ideally be interacting the most with the Enhance control - more enhance equals a more "flangy" sound, and that trimmer is basically setting the range of that pot - the setup instructions are basically turning all the controls (particularly the enhance control) all the way up, and setting that trim until they get out of control, and then turning it back to sane levels. If you have that trim too high, with the enhance up all the way, hitting a note will basically start the thing making laser or whistle noises that continue even after you ground or remove the input. So yeah, can't really go wrong with setting up that trim - it will just affect the usefulness of that pot. (which looking at that schematic makes sense - it's simply a series resistance with the Enhance potentiometer)
Sorry I meant enhance. Through the range of that pot I can't make it hit that whistling noise you speak of. It goes from heavy flange to almost no flange as I turn it up. I guess its time to start debugging?
I might not be describing the noise quiet properly - basically, if you have TR2 too high, the effect is out of control with enhance all the way up - and high enough, and you it will continue to flange with no input. There is a point on mine where scope shows oscillation, but it's not audible. Like I said - TR2 is just setting the useful range of the Enhance pot. If threshold is down, it should cut out a lot of the extraneous noise. You want to set that control like the manual says, with all knobs full on. But basically, if it sounds right to you, this trim is set.
I may be mis-remembering my experience setting TR1 - I do know that changing chips changed where that pot needed to be set, so things could very well be fine with your unit, even though you have to have that pot cranked all the way in one direction. I also built Rev 1 to your Rev 3 Couldn't hurt to check solder joints and values around that pot, but I'm tempted to say if it's working, leave well enough alone. Who knows - the problem could be *my* unit!
I'm just relating *my* experiences - I'm not the most techie oriented person here. Someone else is probably better versed to chime in with answers here than myself.
Change R13 to 4k7 (instead of 10k). This will make TR1 behave the you want it to.
Thanks for that tip. I'll give it a go tomorrow and see what happens. :)
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on October 25, 2007, 05:19:49 PM
Change R13 to 4k7 (instead of 10k). This will make TR1 behave the you want it to.
If it's the one I'm thinking of, I had to do that.
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 26, 2007, 07:14:02 AM
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on October 25, 2007, 05:19:49 PM
Change R13 to 4k7 (instead of 10k). This will make TR1 behave the you want it to.
If it's the one I'm thinking of, I had to do that.
Got that one from your nice circuit diagram Stephen! :icon_cool:
Just want to give credit where it's due and all that...
Thanks BTW!
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on October 26, 2007, 09:43:08 PM
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 26, 2007, 07:14:02 AM
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on October 25, 2007, 05:19:49 PM
Change R13 to 4k7 (instead of 10k). This will make TR1 behave the you want it to.
If it's the one I'm thinking of, I had to do that.
Got that one from your nice circuit diagram Stephen! :icon_cool:
Just want to give credit where it's due and all that...
Thanks BTW!
And it may have been Mike Irwin who suggested that to me - where are you Mike???
I finally finished putting my rev 3 board together today and my TR1 behaves the same as Scott's. It biases up right at one end of the pot, I don't think this is a problem though so long as it works that's all that matters isn't it?
The only real issue I had with mine was that I couldn't set the sweep properly. Following Charlie's method from a few pages back I could set the lower end to 35Khz using TR4 but when I tried do do the upper end the lowest I could get was about 3.3Mhz no matter how much I adjusted TR4 and TR5. To get the upper end anywhere near 1.3Mhz I had to reduce the low end so far that it went into audio frequencies which resulted in noticeable clock bleedthrough.
In the end I replaced TR5 with a 500k trim and then I was able to set it correctly. I had subbed a few resistors in a couple of places so that could have caused the problem but I thought it was worth mentioning in case anyone else has a similar problem.
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 27, 2007, 08:56:18 AM
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on October 26, 2007, 09:43:08 PM
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 26, 2007, 07:14:02 AM
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on October 25, 2007, 05:19:49 PM
Change R13 to 4k7 (instead of 10k). This will make TR1 behave the you want it to.
Look at my drawing linked in post 7. The resistor is marked as 4k7 - was 10k!!!!!
If it's the one I'm thinking of, I had to do that.
Got that one from your nice circuit diagram Stephen! :icon_cool:
Just want to give credit where it's due and all that...
Thanks BTW!
And it may have been Mike Irwin who suggested that to me - where are you Mike???
Just finished this one last night.
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/DSC00380.jpg
NICE WORK! :icon_cool: :icon_cool: :icon_cool:
Sorry, I won't tolerate any competition :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin: (said in John Cleese tone!)
Quote from: Joe Kramer on October 28, 2007, 12:47:43 PM
NICE WORK! :icon_cool: :icon_cool: :icon_cool:
Thanks Joe!
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 28, 2007, 01:17:02 PM
Sorry, I won't tolerate any competition :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin: (said in John Cleese tone!)
:D :D :D
Actually, the use of dual op amps (TL072 DIPs & 2904 SIPs) greatly simplified things. I made layouts for the individual "blocks" (audio, LFO, CV, gate, etc, first. Then I tied them together and came up w/what you see. Testing each section as it was built (Thanks Stephen!) resulted in it working right away (after calibration).
And yes, I did have fun doing this!osa
Quote from: StephenGiles on October 28, 2007, 01:17:02 PM
Sorry, I won't tolerate any competition :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin: :icon_biggrin: (said in John Cleese tone!)
Hey, there's plenty of love to go around, especially for you Stephen, one of the original ganstsas of the DIY A/DA flanger! :icon_wink:
BTW, my A/DA PCB still awaits attention, but JH's Tau phaser comes first. . . .
Changing R13 from a 10k to 4.7k did the trick. The pedal sounds even better now that I could adjust TR1! Thanks for the help!
Now my question is.. what do we do when you can't find the SAD1024 anymore? :)
Quote from: scottso on October 28, 2007, 05:44:56 PM
Changing R13 from a 10k to 4.7k did the trick. The pedal sounds even better now that I could adjust TR1! Thanks for the help!
Now my question is.. what do we do when you can't find the SAD1024 anymore? :)
Thats why Im trying to get a second board and another SAD1024 just to be sure.
Does anyone know what the 2 extra 27k resistors in the BOM are for?
Quote from: scottso on October 28, 2007, 05:44:56 PM
Changing R13 from a 10k to 4.7k did the trick. The pedal sounds even better now that I could adjust TR1! Thanks for the help!
Now my question is.. what do we do when you can't find the SAD1024 anymore? :)
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=49929.msg385202#msg385202
or:
http://www.smallbearelec.com/Detail.bok?no=245
Quote from: Joe Kramer on October 28, 2007, 02:28:31 PM
Hey, there's plenty of love to go around, especially for you Stephen, one of the original ganstsas of the DIY A/DA flanger! :icon_wink:
You got that right. If not for Mr. Giles' willingness to share his expertise and experience with these flanger ideas, a hack job artist like myself would be still be shaking his head with a dazed and confused look (I still do, but that's another story altogether :icon_lol:)
StephenGiles: Godfather of things that go
wooosh and
swoosh ;D. Thanks again Stephen!
Quote from: scottso on October 28, 2007, 05:44:56 PM
Changing R13 from a 10k to 4.7k did the trick. The pedal sounds even better now that I could adjust TR1! Thanks for the help!
Now my question is.. what do we do when you can't find the SAD1024 anymore? :)
Glad you got that issue solved. Great pedal, eh?
No more SAD1024s will happen someday. Guess somebody will have to do another re-design, like when the MN3010 went (pretty much) extinct. Any volunteers? :icon_lol:
Rock On!
osa
Yeah this pedal is awesome. I feel fortunate that I had just stumbled upon the thread. My next project wasn't even going to be a flanger. :)
What cases do you guys use for these? I'm hesitant to lay out the bucks on a 1790 if its not going fit... I'd prefer something with a little more room (I have fat fingers! :D)
Quote from: scottso on October 28, 2007, 07:43:32 PM
Yeah this pedal is awesome. I feel fortunate that I had just stumbled upon the thread. My next project wasn't even going to be a flanger. :)
What cases do you guys use for these? I'm hesitant to lay out the bucks on a 1790 if its not going fit... I'd prefer something with a little more room (I have fat fingers! :D)
I was planning on a 1790 and have one drilled if someone wants to give it a shot but one of the caps hangs over the edge of the PCB on mineso it didn't fit once I populated the board. Im thinking about using a hammond sloped enclosure right now.
Just finished mine and it rules. I need some help with the functions of the individual trims though. Im very close but the sweep seems a little off axis. I also have a slight distortion problem but its very minor. I'm pretty sure both of those are trim issues. Can anyone tell me what the functions of the individual trims are?
Quote from: scottso on October 28, 2007, 07:43:32 PM
Yeah this pedal is awesome. I feel fortunate that I had just stumbled upon the thread. My next project wasn't even going to be a flanger. :)
What cases do you guys use for these? I'm hesitant to lay out the bucks on a 1790 if its not going fit... I'd prefer something with a little more room (I have fat fingers! :D)
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=61368.0
looks like this:
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/3381/img12200mo1.jpg
A couple weird issues after some tweaking.
1. There seems to be a bit of background distortion when playing clean and I dont know where its coming from. Anyone else notice background distortion in their build.
2. The completed pedal runs fine on 9 volts... dont know what to make of that at all. Im not sure that the 18v supply I was using was actually putting out 18v though so I might need to go somewhere and get an 18v supply tomorrow. It doesn't sound excessively thin or lose headroom although the background distortion may be because I haven't used it at 18v yet. Still, I could easily use this pedal with a 9v supply which is weirding me out.
Distortion as in the signal being distorted; or; distortion as in background noise? If it's the signal, I'd re-check the bias trimpot. If it's background noise, the gate should resolve it without issue. First get it the proper supply V and take it from there.
All the Best
osa
The SAD1024 will run perfectly well on 9v if properly biased - run probably isn't the right word, but you won't have as much headroom.
I recalibrated it after making an 18V y cable for my PPII and it sounds much better and the distortion is gone. Here is the retweaked and finished pedal:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/nitefly182/DSCN1357.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/nitefly182/DSCN1358.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/nitefly182/DSCN1362.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/nitefly182/DSCN1365.jpg)
Nice job! I really like the use of the term "activate"! :icon_cool:
osa
Thanks. For such a complicated pedal this wasn't all that hard really. I had the one issue with power but otherwise it worked right off that bat.
Here is a short crappy video:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=21177691
No, it's not crappy at all, it sounds brilliant. I next have the house to myself next Monday so ........amp up to 11 and full ADA sweep!!! :icon_biggrin:
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 01, 2007, 02:33:40 PM
No, it's not crappy at all, it sounds brilliant. I next have the house to myself next Monday so ........amp up to 11 and full ADA sweep!!! :icon_biggrin:
Don't forget to use an "octave doubling" distortion in front of it! :icon_twisted:
osa
Ive used in my rectifier's loop and it sounded great. A modded screamer clone also produced great results but I think a muff may be the trick for massive jet flybys.
I'm finally working on my Rev01 board. For C6 should I use a 2.2u polarized electro or 2 1u tants? If I use the electro, which side is which? With the tants, I believe I should wire (-) to (-). Is that correct?
Thanks
A 2.2u electro will be fine the positive side goes towards the diodes (D2 and D4).
Thanks ;)!
So....almost a year after I started building this - it's almost done. It works!!! ;D Haven't dialed it in yet - been ignoring the wife all day so have to stop for now.
Does the jack for the expression pedal need to be isolated from the box/ground? It looks like it should be. Unfortunately I wasn't thinking about that when I drilled the box :(
Started my build of this today, got a working flange and it sounds epic. Dont have a scope so im doing it all by ear, and im happy even with that :)
Cant wait to box this mother hubbard!
Followed the videos, thanks Moosapotamus :)
Could for the life of me get a decent frequency adjustment with the stock Clock Capacitor.
Only changing it to a 22pF cap could I get very close to the required values.
Glad to hear you got her working! 8)
~ Charlie
Hahaha, I just realized that I still have my working board sitting on a shelf. I was so overwhelmed by the possible mods that I never could decide which ones to implement and, thus, never put it in it's awesome enclosure.
:icon_redface:
I need to finish this project.
Quote from: Ry on July 23, 2012, 09:25:01 PM
Hahaha, I just realized that I still have my working board sitting on a shelf. I was so overwhelmed by the possible mods that I never could decide which ones to implement and, thus, never put it in it's awesome enclosure.
:icon_redface: I need to finish this project.
Build it stock. Sounds great just like that, IMHO.
Quote from: moosapotamus on July 23, 2012, 08:48:20 PM
Glad to hear you got her working! 8)
~ Charlie
Cheers, any thoughts on the clock cap swap?
Such small capacitor value may be influenced by track width, tin amount, pins lenght, rosin residuals...
You should try and measure it on PCB (switched off BTW :icon_mrgreen: )
Quote from: Dave W on July 23, 2012, 09:34:21 PM
Build it stock. Sounds great just like that, IMHO.
Ditto ;)
Quote from: LaceSensor on July 24, 2012, 05:16:27 AM
Cheers, any thoughts on the clock cap swap?
Another thought... Since recently getting some bad 4047 chips, I've noticed that swapping out one 4047 for another in a previously calibrated circuit can really mess up the calibration. Perhaps you happened to get a 4047 that's on the edge of the manufacturing specs, and so it required a smaller cap, maybe?
~ Charlie
Hmmm, I think I have another chip but its working ok now...hmmm. fact is I didnt actually have a 39pF cap so started with a 47pF...
Heres a couple shots of mine. Need to decide how to decorate it.
(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x374/LaceSensor1/ADA%20Flanger/P1030213.jpg)
(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x374/LaceSensor1/ADA%20Flanger/P1030222.jpg)
The on off (right ftsw) is a red diffuse under a clear bezel, blinks in time with the LFO
The left ftsw is for the polarity of the harmonics. Bi-color common cathode, yellow = odd, green = even.
Wasnt sure how to build this into the case, ended up dremeling near the top of the PCB to allow a bit more clearance for the footswitches.
Then I figured it just work out fine to have the jacks on the side. Made putting it together a breeze.
This was a super enjoyable build. before boxing I switched the threshold pot for a 100kb and it works much better now.
I used a 2n5457 FET for the transistor. Seemed the same as J201. 2SK30 which Ive also seen mentioned didnt work well...
I now am waiting for a C pot for the rate. With a 500kB, it really sucks ;)
Any word on what a 1MC would be like? I have a couple of those in my stocks...Would this offer faster sweeps, or just even more slow ones?
I saw someone mentioned using a 250kC, but I couldnt get one (only a 200kC, and a 500kC, both in the mail now)
Cheers for all the work on the boards and the information on these pages.
Nice and clean build .
You have a similar setting with mine lfo bi-color led for odd, even switch
But I have a cheap plastic case for the cheap vero board layout,
But the sound is amazing jet plane .
Quote from: LaceSensor on July 24, 2012, 06:30:06 PM
I now am waiting for a C pot for the rate. With a 500kB, it really sucks ;)
Any word on what a 1MC would be like? I have a couple of those in my stocks...Would this offer faster sweeps, or just even more slow ones?
I saw someone mentioned using a 250kC, but I couldnt get one (only a 200kC, and a 500kC, both in the mail now)
A 1Mc pot should work okay for the speed control. I don't think it will affect the max speed, but will enable slower min speed. If it's too slow for you, just put a 1M resistor in parallel to drop the overall value of the 1Mc pot to 500K.
Also, if you like the slower speed, keep in mind that blinking LED could remain dark for around 15 to 20 seconds each cycle.
Nice looking build. 8)
~ Charlie
Strangely, my LED never goes completely out, so its cool.
Thanks for the tip on the 1MC
Think I might as well just wait for the proper one to come in the mail tho :)
Zombie Thread Revival! I finally finished this build...14 years later. It sounds great! I was thrilled to find all the information I needed still here.
It only took a pandemic and lots of time on my hands to get around to it, but I completed this and 49 other builds in 2020...
Hi friends, i just built this pedal (with mn3007) but it is a little bit noisy, i put 10K pots for each knob, i think if i change the amout of pots the problem will solve , so i want to know what is the best volume pots for this pedal for each knob?
Quote from: ali1111 on February 27, 2023, 01:21:28 PM
Hi friends, i just built this pedal (with mn3007) but it is a little bit noisy, i put 10K pots for each knob, i think if i change the amout of pots the problem will solve , so i want to know what is the best volume pots for this pedal for each knob?
Which version did you build ?
I built Lectric-Fx Flintlock and it is noisy when I am running it at 9V, with IC11 LT1054 installed.
However, the circuit is perfectly silent when IC11 is empty, using a 18V power supply, instead of the charge pump.
https://lectric-fx.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Flintlock-V.1.3.pdf
I made this layout
(https://i.postimg.cc/py7Kw79V/IMG-20230228-WA0000.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/py7Kw79V)
Any suggestion for modding this pedal
for better tones ? Please share your ideas, thanks
Quote from: eh la bas ma on February 27, 2023, 05:03:22 PM
Quote from: ali1111 on February 27, 2023, 01:21:28 PM
Hi friends, i just built this pedal (with mn3007) but it is a little bit noisy, i put 10K pots for each knob, i think if i change the amout of pots the problem will solve , so i want to know what is the best volume pots for this pedal for each knob?
Which version did you build ?
I built Lectric-Fx Flintlock and it is noisy when I am running it at 9V, with IC11 LT1054 installed.
However, the circuit is perfectly silent when IC11 is empty, using a 18V power supply, instead of the charge pump.
https://lectric-fx.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Flintlock-V.1.3.pdf
I agree.
The best thing you can do is have a separate 18v power supply to power this.
I'm already use 18v adapter but still has a little bit noise, specially when i'm twaeking the knobs.
Quote from: ali1111 on March 01, 2023, 02:50:48 AM
I'm already use 18v adapter but still has a little bit noise, specially when i'm twaeking the knobs.
the flanger sweep should be calibrated to work between 69.6 KHz and 2.6 MHz.
You could try to lower it to 2.4 or 2.2 MHz if the noise appears at the top of the sweep. You can try to increase the lowest end up to 80 or 90 KHz, if the noise appears at the lowest point of the sweep.
I remember reading something about parts locations on the pcb : It could get noisy if some of its components are too close. One section of the circuit might be picking noises from an other part of the circuit. Power section near the clock section, for exemple, but I can't say anything for sure.
Thank you so much for your detailed information