Try to layout Mark Harmmer's Woody Pedal. Can Someone please verify schematic?

[nguitar12]

Here is the original project by Mark Harmmer.
http://hammer.ampage.org/files/Woody.zip

I am going to layout it again with LM324 and make it fit inside a 1509a enclosure.
So far I have drawn a schematic however I am not sure where the +9v out  and -9v out should go exactly.
There are no indication is made on Mark's schematic.

Anyway this is my schematic.


I carefully analyzed layout by other people and concluded that +9v out should go to pin8 of LM353 and pin 4 of LM324,
while -9v out should go to pin 4 of LM353 and pin 11 of LM324.
Can someone please carefully proofread any mistakes on my schematic? Specially the pin out of LM324 ( ie, I use three pad for each pot )
I am just a beginner on electronic.

Many thanks.

[duck_arse]

I can see you are missing component values at R17, 19 and 23. other than that, nothing is glaringly obvious. your "A2" is grounded, which doesn't seem to fit with the rest of your pot-lug numbering.

go over to the TI website, search their datasheets for the LM324 and the LF353 or TL072. save yourself a copy of each, and you need never be un-sure of opamp pinouts again.

[Mark Hammer]

Hold up at 2nd base.  I was sent a schematic of the circuit modded for +9v function, slightly lower noise, and higher input impedance.  Do your layout for this version.

[nguitar12]

I can see you are missing component values at R17, 19 and 23. other than that, nothing is glaringly obvious. your "A2" is grounded, which doesn't seem to fit with the rest of your pot-lug numbering.

go over to the TI website, search their datasheets for the LM324 and the LF353 or TL072. save yourself a copy of each, and you need never be un-sure of opamp pinouts again.

Thanks so much. Values of R17, 19 and 23 is added upon your checking. "A3" and "A2" is reversed actually, as I am use a I am not going to layout the pot pad in order so I don't think it does matter. Thanks aging for your help.

[nguitar12]

Hold up at 2nd base.  I was sent a schematic of the circuit modded for +9v function, slightly lower noise, and higher input impedance.  Do your layout for this version.

I am so sad to say that I have done the layout yesterday night according to my schematic ...(I thought no one is going to reply my post)
Also it is the best layout that I have ever created....I am going to add a small bipolar supply broad to make it work for single 9v supply.

btw. I am interested to do another layout for this modified version.  However I have some question about that:

1. I saw all op-amp is not indicated for certain IC. Does this mean that I can arrange them to whatever IC? Even using two TL074 instead of TL074+ 2 x NE5532?
2. Is it +9v pin of all IC directly hook to DC +9v While -9v pin hook to GND ( or VR ) ?

Thanks again for awesome circuit.

[noisette]

In this case you could use Tl074 only (but not always everywhere!).

In a nutshell the NE5532 is thought to be somewhat better sounding in some applications and has better drive capability (for driving rectifiers, leds or outputs into low-z) but tl72/74 have higher input-z possibility and are better suited for input stages for guitar/bass. There´s lot of reading about that stuff, you could start here:
www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1278805

The negative supply pin of the op amp goes to the most negative potential, here 0V, not VR. The terminology is somewhat misleading as

+V-> +9V
V(oltage)R(eference) -> +4.5V
-V-> 0V

is electrically the same as calling

+V-> +4.5V
VR-> 0V
-V-> -4.5V

[nguitar12]

In this case you could use Tl074 only (but not always everywhere!).

In a nutshell the NE5532 is thought to be somewhat better sounding in some applications and has better drive capability (for driving rectifiers, leds or outputs into low-z) but tl72/74 have higher input-z possibility and are better suited for input stages for guitar/bass. There´s lot of reading about that stuff, you could start here:
www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1278805

The negative supply pin of the op amp goes to the most negative potential, here 0V, not VR. The terminology is somewhat misleading as

+V-> +9V
V(oltage)R(eference) -> +4.5V
-V-> 0V

is electrically the same as calling

+V-> +4.5V
VR-> 0V
-V-> -4.5V

Thanks. I will carefully read the page you have mentioned.
So I have done another sch as shown below using two quad op-amp.



Am I connecting all the power pin correctly? Any mistake can be found?
Thanks for your help.

[noisette]

Looking good at a glance except that pot E3 should also referenced to Vref...

Nice circuit, please tell how you like it!

[nguitar12]

Looking good at a glance except that pot E3 should also referenced to Vref...

Nice circuit, please tell how you like it!

I connect E3 (volume) to GND according to Mark's new schematic.
Should it be connected to Vref or GND? If so I have to update my layout.
Thanks so much.

[noisette]

Probably works both ways...
When in doubt, trust Mr. Hammer 

[duck_arse]

to your opamps question, the quad package (tl074) will use slightly less current than 2 dual (tl072) opamps. only a small difference, but it might matter if you run on batteries. and you can use any combination of single, dual or quad packages, if they make your laying out any easier.

the ne5534 single opamp was the low-noise choice for diy magazine audio preamps way back when. I think the ne5532 is the low-noise dual equivalent, but don't quote me.

[nguitar12]

Thanks duck_arse . I am going to use two quad op amp since 1590a enclosure is size sensitive...

[nguitar12]

Probably works both ways...
When in doubt, trust Mr. Hammer 

Yup. Mr. Hammer is as reliable as 5088 lol
I am a bit worrying on my build. I have just failed even on two simple build ( little angel chorus / MXR noise gate ) using verified layout by other people.
However I think doing layout myself is just more fun. So I would like to give it a try. Even though 90% will fail again.....

[sigmoid]

Concerning this new single-supply version, isn't the unbuffered voltage divider for Vref going to interact with the Salen-Key filters? I've had trouble getting them to behave in the past. Has this been taken into account, and would buffering the divider output change the frequency response?

[PRR]

> unbuffered voltage divider for Vref going to interact with the Salen-Key filters?

Put a Big Frikkin Cap on Vref, we don't need no stinkin buffers.

For a hardly-good-enuff design, make the Vref cap 100X bigger than the S-K filter's caps.

Here we have 47uFd or 47,000nFd against 39nFd, a 1,000+X ratio, so I would not expect audio interaction.

[sigmoid]

For a hardly-good-enuff design, make the Vref cap 100X bigger than the S-K filter's caps.

Thanks PRR that's some good info.