4047 based slicer style circuit

[ragingben]

Thanks Jdansti, a guy at work suggested that, which I did try originally but I think I'll retry now I have softened the popping a lot. Great point though

[Jdansti]

Also, sort of FYI, my experience with the 555 was that I could get the ticking down to almost nothing with the pedal going straight to the clean channel of my amp. But if I put a high gain pedal in between, the ticking got much louder. Same when I switched to the dirty channel of the amp.

[ragingben]

Yeah I have noticed that myself, the circuit I have is bareable on a clean channel but on dirty it is awful! This thing is becoming like a steering wheel down my pants - driving me nuts!

[Jdansti]

Based on your last schematic, try the following. (My suggestions are uneducated guesses ).

[~arph]

1000uF ? I never had to use anything over 220u

[PRR]

> I never had to use anything over 220u

IN this circuit, I suspect anything over 50-100uFd isn't gaining much; the real point may be WHERE the "ground" returns.

Certainly for 555, that chip's cap should go RIGHT to the two power pins, not to some arbitrary point that eventually gets back to the chip. A 0.1uFd right-next-to each chip is sorta mandatory in digital work. Total lead length from cap-body to chip-body less than 1/2 inch. In audio you can go a little more, and use more uFd to swallow thump, but still the cap should go right to the chip before it visits anywhere else.

Also 1,000uFd on the Q output pins is probably not a good plan. Even if you wanted to slow it down a LOT, heavy capacitance on an output is like heavy weights on a dancer... there's other ways to slow-down without all that work.

[Jdansti]

^ Thanks for the clarification, Paul. I was going by my trial and error work on the 555. I ended up with a 4700uF cap on the power pins to get the ticking down to almost nothing. Anything less than 1uF turned the ticks into little squeals. There might be a more elegant and efficient way to achieve the same result, but my research didn't turn up anything and my limited knowledge led me to using the big cap.  I was also under a time crunch for the Turkey Day contest.

It reminds me of the numerous times in my career when I've seen people (including myself) solve a problem using a tool that they are familiar with but might not be the best tool for job. For example, someone might use a spreadsheet to track inventory instead of a database because they know spreadsheets and they don't know databases, but a data base might be a better option.

I can see now how the caps on the Q outputs might not be a good idea.

Something that both ragingben (4047) and I (555) have a problem with is that we can get an almost tickless sound through our amps on the clean channel with no high gain effects, but when we switch to the dirty channel or switch on a high gain effect, the ticking becomes very noticeable. Any suggestions?

[~arph]

Put the high gain pedal before the tremolo.   ( I know this is not doable with channel switching unless you have an effects loop and then it might still depend on the amp ). Btw it ticks again because you're amplifying the hell out of the barely audible tick..

[ragingben]

Thanks for the further input guys. I'm investigating using tubescreamer/boss style FET switching instead of the 4066/4053.

Also looking at moving to a voltage controlled amplifier using an IC like the LM13700 or similar if the FET switching fails. I'm only a beginner too, but as far as I can work out the benifit of the FET switching as opposed to the 4066 is that I can slow down the speed at which the FET switches, so the pop can be controlled.