Buffered splitter spill-over

[duck_arse]

lars - yes and again, no. I followed yer modded instruction, except "open in new background tab" instead. and, as before, it opens and shows magnifying glass, but then clicking doesn't enlarge to scrolling hugeness natural resolutions, on my screen, in my browser, it simply jumps and adds scroll bars, which are "full". in fact, reduces the available image displaying area.

carry on posting as you see fit, I'll manage, what with all antonis's ciders coming my way. cheers.

picnic - problem in chair, not in computer.

[lars-musik]

picnic - problem in chair, not in computer.

I didn't know that one but can strongly relate. And that brings me right back on course.

After thinking (and drinking - no cider here, just beer) I wondered how the original builder solved the problem of having a secondary output and yet stating on the homepage that the pedal is true bypass. Of course, elaborate switching schemes with relays an whatnot came to mind. But hey, the internet brought me the original schematic back (that obviously I had seen at some point in the far past) and this is how it is done there. Is this good? If yes, why do we bother with 3PDT switches?





And what is going on with the indicator LED? Why not just a CLR, switch to ground to activate and let the other pole hang free?

[idy]

This kind of bypass is "60s style." Not "true bypass."

The circuit is always attached to the input, thus always loading it (your guitar.) This case looks like its just 220k input impedence, not very high, not terribly low. Higher brows will correct me...

In the old days 3pdt switches were expensive, so one pole was enough to switch this way, just selecting output. With a double pole you got an LED. Or true bypass. With 3 poles you get both. And then there is "millenium" bypass that, like the old "Rat" gives true bypass and an LED with two poles.

Old fashioned effects like the trio of fuzzface, wah, univibe, had lower (below 100k) impedence, and the impedences each take a "cut" of your signal....r1 x r2 x r3/ r1 + r2 +r3.

[lars-musik]

So it's not really perfekt if you don't want ANY loading on your instrument (it's a designated bass pedal, so that might say something about impedance mismatch and tonal ramifications) but 200K input impedance is probably high enough not to have any impact, right?
So I could have just gone with this and wouldn't had to have worried about all this true bypass stuff...

[Rob Strand]

I know how to save loss-less images: GIF!

I'm saying that when PostImg stashes my image it messes with it.

I know sites have done this in the past but I haven't checked PostImg and I haven't noticed since I usually post PNG.
The size of the image is a very good measure of the compression level.  So if the downloaded images is smaller than the uploaded image it has been compressed with a lower quality setting.

I remember working out if you download an image then *resave* it at different quality settings the quality setting produces a file that is a little smaller than the downloaded file is a good indication of the quality setting used for the downloaded image.  Basically saying this technique lets you estimate the quality setting of the downloaded image for images you didn't save yourself.  It also lets you know how much a site has messed with your image for images you did save/upload yourself.

As that first link shows, if you feel you must save as JPG, PhotoShop (and apparently PaintShop Pro) set CSS according to the 1-100 number on the Quality slider. I've always used about 14 for general girlie-pix and that's OK, when I need to transmit an image with NO loss I've used 1 (but the result may be large).

One thing is no matter how high you set the quality, if Chroma sub-sampling is the 2x2 default it will still stuff-up the thin lines.

PNG has aspects of both. It can do wonderful lossless, and if you pick a proper process it can be economical. Smaller than GIF due to 2-D action and better compression. Apparently implementations vary a lot.

The fine details in graphics implementations is a real nightmare. 

What I've found is PNG gives quite reasonably sized images for computer generated drawings, ones where the background "white" is constant and has no fuzzyness.   If you have background fuzzyness. like from a scanned (which has not been clean-up using thresholding), the PNG size can grow and this is where JPG  produces somewhat smaller files.   The problem then is the chroma sub-sampling.

Compared to PNG, JPG is a poor choice images with clean backgrounds.

[OH, I have noticed some sites will save a smaller (ie resized) image unless you click on the image again to get to the original]