when flanger sound like a chorus!?!

[HrD]

i've finisched the ibanez 301 flanger from tonepad...i find hard to adjust pot (3) with trim (other 3)...
the problem is that this efx sound like a mix between a phaser, a chorus and a vibrato......is not bad...but it isn't a Flanger.
do you think that this is possible because i've substitued a 51 pF with a 56 pF capacitor and TL022 with LM358?

i'm listening a sample from tonepad and the sound seems to be quite similar....already in this sample it doesn't sound like a flanger  :cry:

any idea?!?!?!

[Mark Hammer]

The change of LFO op-amps should not make a difference in this case.  TL022's are quite frequently used for LFO's (which is where I guess you got the idea for the substitution).  Even if it did, changes to the LFO would basically only affect the nature of the sweep, not the tone produced by the sweep.

The 51pf cap you exchanged for 56pf sets the clock-frequency range.  Larger capacitance values move it more in the direction of chorussing by slowing down the clock and producing longer time delays.  What amounts to roughly a 10% difference in capacitance/frequency, though, should not make a huge impact on the category of effect produced, just the character/tone of them.

All of that being said, differences in tone quality between various commercial chorusses and between different commercial flangers can often be traced to the HF clock range selected by the manufacturer.  The longest delay time that can "count" as part of a flanger's sweep overlaps with the shortest delay time that "counts" as part of a chorus's sweep.  Most flanging takes place in the time-delay range under 12-15msec or so (whether it goes down below 1msec or not depends on the type of delay chip employed, and the sophistication of the clock circuitry and any buffers used).  Commercial flangers vary in how much or what end of that range they cover.  Most chorussing will take place in the range between about 8msec and 20msec, with a great many chorus pedals covering much less than that, because excessive sweep is a little too jarring when it comes to chorus effects.  So, as you can imagine, many commercial or DIY flangers that come equipped with a variable initial delay (often called "Manual") can be tweaked to mimic chorus effects by simply restricting the amount of sweep and tuning the initial delay to very near the longest delay time in the flanger's capabilities.

What this also implies is that because chorusses have much less sweep to them, flangers that also have little sweep sound more chorus-like than others.  It also corresponds that flangers with MORE sweep range (and the A/DA flanger is one of the very best examples of that) will sound much more like flangers to users.  Note that the extension of sweep range needs to be at the short end, not the long end.  That is, a flanger that sweeps from .25msec to 10msec will sound more flanger-like than one which sweeps from .5msec to 20msec, even though both have a 40:1 sweep ratio.

If I was able to get my own Tonepad Ibanez clone up and running, I'd have more to say but there is obviously a solderbridge or cold joint or crack in the board or something which is currently preventing it from working, so I can't offer any comments specific to the FL-301.  What I *will* say, though, is that moving the delay time towards the upper range by use of a 56pf timing cap will provide MORE overlap between chorus and flanger function in your unit, rather than making it sound distinctively and uniquely flanger-like.  If you have 47pf lying around, use that value and see if it makes a desirable difference.  Finally, there are other BBDs that are pin for pin subs for the MN3007, but with fewer stages.  Clocking such chips at the same frequency produces time delays decreased by whatever the proportional difference is between storage capacity.  For example, the MN3009 has 256 stages.  Sticking one of these in place of an MN3007 chops the delay time down to 1/4 of what it was with the MN3007.  Works the other way too.  The Washburn SC-7 chorus I picked up a few years ago came equipped with an MN3009.  I popped it out and stuck in an MN3007 for a thicker chorus sound.  Because the clock frequency goes unchanged in such instances, no further adjustments to the lowpass filtering is required.

[HrD]

thx!

[TheBigMan]

Ibanez Flangers in general (I have an FL-9 and an FL-301) are very subtle and chorusy.  There's not much woosh to them like some other flangers, and they don't really do jetplane sounds very well.

[Mark Hammer]

In the absence of buffered clock lines, MN3007's in general don't do jet plane swoosh very well, although buffering the clock lines helps.  But, as noted, with so many flangers out there, conceivably Ibanez made it a point to situate the delay range where it straddled both flanging and chorus type sounds.  After all, some players really only use their flangers for slow Leslie type sounds, and don't go for the big swoosh, given the style of music they play.  I guess it would be naive of us to think that any company would lunge after the exact same tone and market as another company did.

[puretube]

sorry, Mark: but that last sentence is currently being upset by B*hr*inger.

(no flaming intended, here...).

[Mark Hammer]

Then let me be more precise and add a few words...

"I guess it would be naive of us to think that any company would lunge after the exact same tone and market as another company did....unless they were doing so in a predatory manner"

There.  NOW I think we are in agreement.  :wink:

Outside of those parameters, though, many companies DO try to produce a *slightly* different product by tackling a slightly different time delay range.  I wouldn't doubt for a moment that sometimes this is a result of designs aspects intended to cut parts count or objectionable noise (which can indirectly reduce parts count by reducing noise-reduction needs), or reduce current consumption.  Occasionally, a different choice in clock circuit/driver can change the range of clock rates available/feasible.

Note that once you pick a different delay range, as well, the lowpass filtering needed to keep clock signal inaudible or unobjectionable can be subject to change.  If I attempted to cover the same time delay range, using a 512-stage device, that another company/product covers with a 2048 or 4096-stage device, I would need to clock the chip much slower.  This would also require me to push the corner frequency of the filtering down lower in the audio spectrum to keep clock noise down.  So, even with the same absolute delay time, depending on how you try to achieve it, it can end up sounding different too.