MN3011 - Where can I get one?

[stm]

Just want to try a simple solid-state reverb circuit.

[Mark Hammer]

Should you be able to find one, expect to pay in excess of $50US for a single chip.  Digikey used to have them, as did Dalbani, but I suspect those stocks are long since gone.

The MN3214, which only has 5 taps (instead of 6), and fewer stages overall, should probably be cheaper, but I've never seen those for sale anywhere either.

Ultimately, it may be much cheaper, though obviously more complicated, to make a SS reverb using several short-delay BBDs, like 3 or 4 3207's.

[Paul Perry (Frostwave)]

...make a SS reverb using several short-delay BBDs, like 3 or 4 3207's.

If anyone does this, maybe try independent clocks on each :roll:
(edit) whoops :oops: no, the aliasing would be humonguous..

[stm]

Paul:

There should be no problems with aliasing if you do it "right". In fact, Boss Dimension C (DC-2) uses two MN3007 with different frequency clocks.

In order to keep aliasing under control you need to filter independently the supply pins of each MN3007 plus MN3101 pair (like 100 ohms series and 10uF tantalum+0.1uF ceramic caps to ground).  In addition, you need independent input and output lowpass filters for each delay chain. Input filters can be 3rd order (requiring a single op-amp or trannie).  Output filters should be 4th or 5th order preferrably, and you shouldn't omit the 5k clock null pot at the outputs of each MN3007.

It gets more complicated, but it is still possible  :twisted:

[puretube]

information lost...  :lol:

[Mark Hammer]

My own inclination would be to do something like what gets done with a top octave generator.  Have one ultra-HF clock, and divide that down in a manner that creates non-harmonic relationships between BBDs.  So, if you had 3 BBDs in series, one might get the master clock divided by 3, another might get the same clock divided by 5 and another might get it divided by 7.  Assuming all these clocks are synced to the same master clock, wouldn't that make anti-aliasing a little easier, or am I missing something?

Of course, if the idea is to have multiple *parallel* paths with independently tunable clocks, then I suspect Paul's caveat is extremely wise.

[Mark Hammer]

My own inclination would be to do something like what gets done with a top octave generator.  Have one ultra-HF clock, and divide that down in a manner that creates non-harmonic relationships between BBDs.  So, if you had 3 BBDs in series, one might get the master clock divided by 3, another might get the same clock divided by 5 and another might get it divided by 7.  Assuming all these clocks are synced to the same master clock, wouldn't that make anti-aliasing a little easier, or am I missing something?

Of course, if the idea is to have multiple *parallel* paths with independently tunable clocks, then I suspect Paul's caveat is extremely wise.

[puretube]

information lost...

[Mark Hammer]

See, I *knew* there would be more to it! :lol:

Would the beating occur in the sub-audio, audio, or ultra-sonic range?  What sort of strategy would be most effective against such beating?

[puretube]

information lost...