Utility Pedal to turn 2 drives into dual drive?

[-GFX-]

I'm new to the forums, pretty new to pedals, and to electronics, but eager to learn. I'm after a bit of a sense-check I guess. (Replies along the lines of "let me stop you there" will be listened to). So my question is:-

Is it sensible to try and build a utility pedal to turn 2 drives into dual-drive?

I appreciate you can run any pedal into another, and then reroute the patch cables on your pedal board to reverse the order, but I think a pedal that facilitated that would be helpful.

Also, I have a Boss LS-2, but that treats its 2 loops purely as parallel channels and I'm after some series options.

Most of the fundamental functionality I'm after looks like it can be done passively:-

→Passive order reverser (so Input>Loop A>Loop B>Output, or Input>Loop B>Loop A>Output)
→Passive Line Selecter (ie a regular reversible ABY pedal)
→Passive Blend of A and B (probably best done via separate level control of each channel?)
→Passive DC Filter? (where does this need to be to stop switching noises?)
→Wet/Dry Blend

Additional "nice-to-have" functionality

→Phase inverter
→Buffer
→Boost (ideally variable, and, if possible, possible to place at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the chain)
→Ability to power the two drive pedals

I'd like to be able to get the following output options:-

→A (on its own)
→B (on its own)
→A+B (with ability to vary the blend)
→A>B
→B>A

Additional Controls

→Wet/Dry Blend
→EQ?
→Kitchen Sink

Is that feasible? I can see most of this functionality available in various kits and layouts, but nothing that combines all or even most of these. Grateful for any help or pointers.

[stallik]

Firstly, welcome to the forum

What you're planing is a bit of a Swiss Army knife. It's probably possible to do everything you want BUT, chances are, many or most of the options would not get used because they wouldn't sound different enough to the next option. If you include everything, you'll end up with a complicated pedal which is perhaps an unwise first project.

Have you manually wired your existing pedals in each of the configurations you ask for? If not then do that first. You may be able to shorten the list.

Finally, the kitchen sink - single or double drainer?

[idy]

Welcome!
That is a pretty big wish list, no matter how much you know.
That Boss LS-2 is pretty neat. Mainly you wish it had a into b, b into a.

A/B order switcher is pretty simple by itself. Having that plus parallel option, not an obvious solution.

Having an active AB mixer with two loops is a really neat tool to have. Those are simple to make. Fun with things like one envelope filter going up and the other going down, both with fuzz in their own loops. Or just blending two drives. And those can easily have a phase investor.

But passive blend is not so great, as many pedals have a volume control at the very end and so lowering one volume kills the other.

Some of us use two similar drive pedals, like two copies of an OD with bass and treble, and use one towards the beginning of a chain (with a tube screamer or fuzz in the middle) and the other at the end. Viola, A into B, or B into A. Or A1 into B into A2

[Eddododo]

Man I spent a few years obsessing over this kind of thing specifically... I really enjoyed the problem solving of finding elaborate switching options and utility solutions


Here's what I will suggest quickly because I'm sleepy.. I will likely come play in this thread though tomorrow

For what you're describing, I REALLY like having a low pass (hi cut).. you can use sallen key topology, and you can even add a switch to choose between first and second order filters (describes how steep the cut off is)

Look for sallen key on ESP (Google sallen key Elliott sound esp)

If you're crazy like me you can put low pass in and/or out of each stage... on the way out to a dirt, it will limit how hard the high frequencies clip. If you put it after you can round off the full range clipped sound and remove some harshness. You can do both and really shape it, you can use it to make pedals play nice together too, if things are getting too harsh.

Same goes for high pass (low cut).



You can go all out and make it a cumbersome bells and whistles machine, but if you're trying ti be at all sleek and elegant, low pass filters are a lot of bang for your buck without getting too exotic or off message

[-GFX-]

Quote from: stallik on Yesterday at 05:47:11 PM<blockquote>Firstly, welcome to the forum

What you're planning is a bit of a Swiss Army knife. It's probably possible to do everything you want BUT, chances are, many or most of the options would not get used because they wouldn't sound different enough to the next option. If you include everything, you'll end up with a complicated pedal which is perhaps an unwise first project.

Have you manually wired your existing pedals in each of the configurations you ask for? If not then do that first. You may be able to shorten the list.

Finally, the kitchen sink - single or double drainer?
</blockquote>

Thanks a lot for the welcome and the thoughts. I agree - it definitely feels like a long wish list, but...
a) it seems to me each of them is feasible (and readily available) and each is fairly discrete - so it's *just* a case of bolting them together. (Easy for this noob to say, right?), and
b) I thought I'd list everything, then cut back if any of you told me a certain feature is unwise.

My goal for this project *is* the swiss army knife, really - I want it to make the experimentation easier. I *could* manually wire pedals up, but really I want to make experimenting with fx order easier with the pedal. Also, I want to swap drive pedals in and out - I haven't got 2 specifically in mind.


Quote from: idy on Yesterday at 10:52:17 PM<blockquote>Welcome!
That is a pretty big wish list, no matter how much you know.
That Boss LS-2 is pretty neat. Mainly you wish it had a into b, b into a.

A/B order switcher is pretty simple by itself. Having that plus parallel option, not an obvious solution.

Having an active AB mixer with two loops is a really neat tool to have. Those are simple to make. Fun with things like one envelope filter going up and the other going down, both with fuzz in their own loops. Or just blending two drives. And those can easily have a phase investor.

But passive blend is not so great, as many pedals have a volume control at the very end and so lowering one volume kills the other.

Some of us use two similar drive pedals, like two copies of an OD with bass and treble, and use one towards the beginning of a chain (with a tube screamer or fuzz in the middle) and the other at the end. Viola, A into B, or B into A. Or A1 into B into A2
</blockquote>

Hi. Thanks for the post. That's very helpful.

"That Boss LS-2 is pretty neat. Mainly you wish it had a into b, b into a." - Ha. Yes. I could have saved myself some typing - you've hit the nail on the head.

What I would say is that the LS-2 is focused quite a bit on the cycling order the footswitch goes through. I'm not after that, which simplifies the project a bit, to my mind.

Can you expand on why having A/B order switcher plus a parallel option is tricky? I can picture achieving this using a number of ABY pedals - something like this:

...so I thought it would be fairly easy to replicate within a pedal. Bear in mind I'm a novice so I'm probably missing something very basic.

I note what you say about blending - there seem to be some decent (active) blending circuits out there, so maybe that's one that moves over from the passive feature list to the active features.

Quote from: Eddododo on Yesterday at 11:54:16 PM<blockquote>Man I spent a few years obsessing over this kind of thing specifically... I really enjoyed the problem solving of finding elaborate switching options and utility solutions


Here's what I will suggest quickly because I'm sleepy.. I will likely come play in this thread though tomorrow

For what you're describing, I REALLY like having a low pass (hi cut).. you can use sallen key topology, and you can even add a switch to choose between first and second order filters (describes how steep the cut off is)

Look for sallen key on ESP (Google sallen key Elliott sound esp)

If you're crazy like me you can put low pass in and/or out of each stage... on the way out to a dirt, it will limit how hard the high frequencies clip. If you put it after you can round off the full range clipped sound and remove some harshness. You can do both and really shape it, you can use it to make pedals play nice together too, if things are getting too harsh.

Same goes for high pass (low cut).

You can go all out and make it a cumbersome bells and whistles machine, but if you're trying ti be at all sleek and elegant, low pass filters are a lot of bang for your buck without getting too exotic or off message
</blockquote>Thanks a lot. This sounds interesting but a bit beyond me at the mo!

The reason I thought I might be able to get away with building this as a novice is that it's (largely) a set of commonly available circuits, and I *just* need to sort out the routing/switching between each of those "blocks", if that makes sense.

[ElectricDruid]

While I can see the attraction in having everything in one box, I think it'd be easier and more flexible to do some of these jobs separately. Call it a "modular solution"?!?

Build a A<->B order switcher loop box. Build a buffer that splits the signal to two outputs. Build a mixer that mixes two signals together. Buy a pack of six patch leads or solder some up.

Then you can do loads of experiments with pedal order and arrangement - parallel, series, blended, feedback, etc etc.

[-GFX-]

Thanks for the reply - appreciated.

I get what you're saying - but it sort of defeats the purpose.

What I'm after is a one-pedal solution that offers as much of the functionality of a dual drive as possible.

It seems to me dual drives are liked because they:-

• Take up less space
  Only use one power supply
  Make changing drive order fast and hassle-free

As much as possible, that's what I'd like to replicate (with the added benefit of being able to swap different drive pedals in and out).

I thought it might help me to plan if I tried to visualise what the interface might look like and at the mo it would probably be something like this:-



Edit: Actually @ElectricDriud, I think that the A-B order switcher gets me most of the way there. How complicated would it be to add "Just A" and "Just B" toa switcher like that?

[matopotato]

Hi, and very much welcome to the forum. Many good ideas, tips and support I have gotten from here.
Couldn't stress that enough. Not always the replies I wanted, but mostly "better" ones...

Not sure this is what you are after, but in this thread https://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=129478.msg1251520#msg1251520
I got some 3pdt and 4pdt suggestions for the a b order part, and adding a 4pdt for a and b respectively should allow for
A>B, B>A, A or B modes. In my case I  wanted also a surrounding bypass option, and will test how noA +noB turn out considering the rest of the circuit.
I like the idea of On box to rule them all, but I can also see the advice you are getting about all-at-once has a risk of ending in a bit of a mess.
To each their own, but I would probably make a build of what was most urgent and like @ElectricDruid indicated, a separate build for another aspect. Once that is done, I would think if a Magnus Opus is doable and wantable.
No harm is sort of prototyping parts and joining later. A few lessons might lie ahead in waiting 

[ElectricDruid]

It seems to me dual drives are liked because they:-

• Take up less space
  Only use one power supply
  Make changing drive order fast and hassle-free

Fair points.

Edit: Actually @ElectricDriud, I think that the A-B order switcher gets me most of the way there. How complicated would it be to add "Just A" and "Just B" toa switcher like that?

If the two drives have got their own effect in/out bypass switching, you've got it already.

[-GFX-]

Hi, and very much welcome to the forum. Many good ideas, tips and support I have gotten from here.
Couldn't stress that enough. Not always the replies I wanted, but mostly "better" ones...

Not sure this is what you are after, but in this thread https://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=129478.msg1251520#msg1251520
I got some 3pdt and 4pdt suggestions for the a b order part, and adding a 4pdt for a and b respectively should allow for
A>B, B>A, A or B modes. In my case I  wanted also a surrounding bypass option, and will test how noA +noB turn out considering the rest of the circuit.
I like the idea of On box to rule them all, but I can also see the advice you are getting about all-at-once has a risk of ending in a bit of a mess.
To each their own, but I would probably make a build of what was most urgent and like @ElectricDruid indicated, a separate build for another aspect. Once that is done, I would think if a Magnus Opus is doable and wantable.
No harm is sort of prototyping parts and joining later. A few lessons might lie ahead in waiting 

Thanks. That's really helpful - lots of good info in that thread.

It seems to me dual drives are liked because they:-

• Take up less space
  Only use one power supply
  Make changing drive order fast and hassle-free

Fair points.

Edit: Actually @ElectricDriud, I think that the A-B order switcher gets me most of the way there. How complicated would it be to add "Just A" and "Just B" to a switcher like that?

If the two drives have got their own effect in/out bypass switching, you've got it already.

Yeah, can we just forget I asked that? Thanks for being so generous in your reply (no mocking at all! I'm very grateful!)

Nearly the layouts I'm seeing feature 1 or 2 LEDs which only serve to indicate which order is currently in place.

The  one by Craig Anderton towards the bottom of this page doesn't:

http://www.generalguitargadgets.com/effects-projects/boosters/effects-order-switcher/

Oddly the bill of materials features a DC jack. I don't understand why - I can't see it mentioned anywhere else.

Also, (please forgive the ultra-novice question) but is there a toggle switch I can use instead of the footswitch - along with the appropriate labelling, that can serve as an (unpowered) indicator of which order is in play.

Something like this?

http://www.esr.co.uk/shop/contents/en-uk/p33018_5A_4PDT_On-On_Miniature_HQ_Toggle_Switch_-_Solder_Tag.html

[matopotato]

Hi, and very much welcome to the forum. Many good ideas, tips and support I have gotten from here.
Couldn't stress that enough. Not always the replies I wanted, but mostly "better" ones...

.... and adding a 4pdt for a and b respectively should allow for
A>B, B>A, A or B modes. ....

Ooops... I meant adding 3PDTs, footstomps. the 4PDT and 3PDT switches are for the A>B, B>A part. Just to avoid any future confusion...

[nocentelli]

....is there a toggle switch I can use instead of the footswitch - along with the appropriate labelling, that can serve as an (unpowered) indicator of which order is in play?

You only need a 3PDT to switch the order of two separate loops: A 4PDT is needed for a foot switch, with the extra pole being used just for LED indication, but as you point out a toggle switch can indicate the order via the position of the bat.

Here's a diagram of a dual looper with a 3PDT (toggle) switch in the centre for order switching with two 3PDT bypass switches for the loops (note that the central column/pole of each of the loop bypass switches is unused but would normally be used for LED bypass/engage indication).

Can you expand on why having A/B order switcher plus a parallel option is tricky?
... I thought it would be fairly easy to replicate within a pedal. Bear in mind I'm a novice so I'm probably missing something very basic.

I don't think it's basic, but it is hard to explain. I have been searching for an "easy" way to do a series+parallel looper for quite a number of years and the lack of any similarly-featured commercial units on the market (that I am aware of) seems to indicate that it is indeed a difficult task. The key problem is the series/parallel "mode" switching. Think about how the signal routing must work: For a series looper (with a loop-order switch, or "juggler"), you need the guitar input to go direct to a switch that routes the signal to one of two loop inputs, routes that loop output to a second loop input AND sends the output of the second loop to the pedal output. The alternative throw of the switch re-routes the loop connections, but the initial input and output connections are fixed. For a parallel looper (definitely for one with a wet/dry blend or A/B blend control) the guitar input must be buffered first, then split to the two parallel loops. The connections to the separate loops involved in the two modes are quite different, and ALL of these connections need to be reconfigured by the mode switch. I imagine it may be possible with some kind of rotary switch with more poles (6P2T etc)  but I have yet to come across a "simple" or even complex passive solution. Parallel loopers (like your BOSS LS-2) are usually buffered and often have an active level control on each loop to ensure that you can balance the levels of two pedals in parallel, presumably because many FX (e.g. modulation, delay) do not have their own output control. I understand this last point is moot since you plan to use it for two dirt pedal which I assume both have a volume knob, but it is possible that they might sound great in series in either order, but be far too loud when switched to parallel mode; separate level knobs for parallel mode could help with this, but again would further complicate the required mode switching arrangement.

[-GFX-]

....is there a toggle switch I can use instead of the footswitch - along with the appropriate labelling, that can serve as an (unpowered) indicator of which order is in play?

You only need a 3PDT to switch the order of two separate loops: A 4PDT is needed for a foot switch, with the extra pole being used just for LED indication, but as you point out a toggle switch can indicate the order via the position of the bat.

Here's a diagram of a dual looper with a 3PDT (toggle) switch in the centre for order switching with two 3PDT bypass switches for the loops (note that the central column/pole of each of the loop bypass switches is unused but would normally be used for LED bypass/engage indication).

Can you expand on why having A/B order switcher plus a parallel option is tricky?
... I thought it would be fairly easy to replicate within a pedal. Bear in mind I'm a novice so I'm probably missing something very basic.

I don't think it's basic, but it is hard to explain. I have been searching for an "easy" way to do a series+parallel looper for quite a number of years and the lack of any similarly-featured commercial units on the market (that I am aware of) seems to indicate that it is indeed a difficult task. The key problem is the series/parallel "mode" switching. Think about how the signal routing must work: For a series looper (with a loop-order switch, or "juggler"), you need the guitar input to go direct to a switch that routes the signal to one of two loop inputs, routes that loop output to a second loop input AND sends the output of the second loop to the pedal output. The alternative throw of the switch re-routes the loop connections, but the initial input and output connections are fixed. For a parallel looper (definitely for one with a wet/dry blend or A/B blend control) the guitar input must be buffered first, then split to the two parallel loops. The connections to the separate loops involved in the two modes are quite different, and ALL of these connections need to be reconfigured by the mode switch. I imagine it may be possible with some kind of rotary switch with more poles (6P2T etc)  but I have yet to come across a "simple" or even complex passive solution. Parallel loopers (like your BOSS LS-2) are usually buffered and often have an active level control on each loop to ensure that you can balance the levels of two pedals in parallel, presumably because many FX (e.g. modulation, delay) do not have their own output control. I understand this last point is moot since you plan to use it for two dirt pedal which I assume both have a volume knob, but it is possible that they might sound great in series in either order, but be far too loud when switched to parallel mode; separate level knobs for parallel mode could help with this, but again would further complicate the required mode switching arrangement.

Thanks. Another really generous and helpful post - I really appreciate all this help. The stuff below is as much a record of my research and thinking as anything else.

For order switching, it would be great to only need a 3PDT - I need to work out your layout. The example from Craig Anderton looks like it needs a 4PDT - you can see his schematic here:-

http://www.generalguitargadgets.com/pdf/ggg_sw_order_sc.pdf

In terms of loop bypass switches, if I want to keep the pedal unpowered (and therefore no LED), I think, for those switches, I can get away with DPDT - something like this:-

DPDT On-On Rocker Switch marked "on/Off" - https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/265583310729?hash=item3dd5ffb789:g:tc4AAOSwQ6BiJhnH&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAoLC6FW711lMJKpH%2BZhQ79iOlUGBDp%2BUPysAWatArOB%2FfPyQtlPHm3HEntaceHpfgCajB9M%2F2hTh%2FcMH94fX66QKww5HHAD4ONSng7yavizsj7cYv5qLI%2BCB1xQ3oPjmbEmidVrrc%2BAvq%2FKGEt0KWKlTOeiLi0Boe1s8HWl4B05yDvGPYFJf9Nls7uUodrTaNOz3qj5jIAxlNI7zOu6GYryU%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR9zs1rvaYA

I found a useful site that helps with wiring...

https://stinkfoot.se/archives/2233

So I'll do it like this:-



Does that make sense?

In terms of switching between parallel and series functionality, if it's conceded/preferred that the solution needs to be buffered (which I think it probably does) then the switching and volume issues become less insurmountable. Products like the EHX Switchblade Pro look like they manage this.

If a passive solution is still appealing (which it is for me) then I think all that's needed to switch from the Parrallel setting to the Series setting is a 3PDT.

Going back to my first diagram (can you recommend software I can use to draw this out better than Visio? Your diagram looks good)...



That diagram was intended as a sort of "proof of concept" diagram, that showed I could achieve what I'm after by separate, passive pedals in a large pedalboard. My thinking was that if I could build it that way, I could replicate that routing and switching in a circuit.

So looking at that layout, I could buy something like the Lazy Bear Effect Order Switcher:-

https://www.lazy-bear.co.uk/product-page/effect-order-switcher-footswitch

...And put it in the place of the pedal I've labelled "Switch", and then for the pedal I've labelled "Parallel" I could buy something like the Lazy Bear Passive Blender:-

https://www.lazy-bear.co.uk/product-page/effect-order-switcher-footswitch

(actually, it would be better to get 2 and use the first to split the signal and send it to the 2 fx loops (and benefit from the pedal's ability to vary the two outputs), and use the other to balance the 2 signals coming back).

Then, I *think* my switch *just* needs to flip the 3 ABY pedals. So, in a circuit equivalent, all that's needed is a 3PDT.

Is that right?

Again, sorry for all the novice questions. Everyone's patience is gratefully received.

[nocentelli]

In terms of loop bypass switches, if I want to keep the pedal unpowered (and therefore no LED), I think, for those switches, I can get away with DPDT - something like this:-

Does that make sense?

Yes, but are you sure those eBay switches are actually DPDT? I can't see it in the ad copy and they look SPDT-ish

(can you recommend software I can use to draw this out better than Visio? Your diagram looks good)

Think I did it with MS Paint over a decade ago....

Going back to my first diagram -



So looking at that layout, I could buy something like the Lazy Bear Effect Order Switcher:-

https://www.lazy-bear.co.uk/product-page/effect-order-switcher-footswitch

You could build that pedal for around half that price:



(It's the same as my diagram but using a 4PDT for order jugging, showing all sockets but omitting the 3PDT loop bypass switches)

and then for the pedal I've labelled "Parallel" I could buy something like the Lazy Bear Passive Blender:-

https://www.lazy-bear.co.uk/product-page/blender {link corrected}

This arrangement (with your suggestion using two) might sort of work for parallel blending, but you don't have a fixed input/send level for both loops with a separate level pot for the return on each loop (as with the LS-2), but instead would have to fiddle with one pot to set the exact relative send levels to each chain/loop and then set a second pot to balance the exact output levels relative to each-other: I suspect this may be a bit fussy and unsatisfactory. You could just make a buffer/splitter to send to the two loops in parallel and have either two return level pots (i.e. volume pots) or even a single "return blend"  pot, Or............

http://thebin.free.fr/schematics/DualSplitterBlend-FINAL.gif

This looks a bit complicated, but it shows a FOUR loop parallel blender: Two of the loops have phase-reverse switches so you can see how it's done. You would only need to build one phase switchable loop and one normal, and you could omit the charge pump and output (post-blend) section, i.e just the part circled:



Of course, a buffer would mean that it would need to be powered, but I honestly think it's worth it and you could also have LEDs.

Then, I *think* my switch *just* needs to flip the 3 ABY pedals. So, in a circuit equivalent, all that's needed is a 3PDT.

This is where I get confused. The diagram looks sound, but you have SIX "ABY"s in that diagram that need to be switched for series/parallel routing: If each ABY is a pole (with "Y" as the common) and two throws (Y-to-A and Y-to-B), that is the 6PDT switch I suggested in the previous post.

I hope this helps a bit (and apologies for any errors in my interpretation, my eyes have gone funny from staring at these diagrams for quite a while now).

[Ripthorn]

This type of stuff is just being for relays and a microcontroller. It becomes almost trivial at that point.

[-GFX-]

In terms of loop bypass switches, if I want to keep the pedal unpowered (and therefore no LED), I think, for those switches, I can get away with DPDT - something like this:-

Does that make sense?

Yes, but are you sure those eBay switches are actually DPDT? I can't see it in the ad copy and they look SPDT-ish

(can you recommend software I can use to draw this out better than Visio? Your diagram looks good)

Think I did it with MS Paint over a decade ago....

Going back to my first diagram -



So looking at that layout, I could buy something like the Lazy Bear Effect Order Switcher:-

https://www.lazy-bear.co.uk/product-page/effect-order-switcher-footswitch

You could build that pedal for around half that price:



(It's the same as my diagram but using a 4PDT for order jugging, showing all sockets but omitting the 3PDT loop bypass switches)

and then for the pedal I've labelled "Parallel" I could buy something like the Lazy Bear Passive Blender:-

https://www.lazy-bear.co.uk/product-page/blender {link corrected}

This arrangement (with your suggestion using two) might sort of work for parallel blending, but you don't have a fixed input/send level for both loops with a separate level pot for the return on each loop (as with the LS-2), but instead would have to fiddle with one pot to set the exact relative send levels to each chain/loop and then set a second pot to balance the exact output levels relative to each-other: I suspect this may be a bit fussy and unsatisfactory. You could just make a buffer/splitter to send to the two loops in parallel and have either two return level pots (i.e. volume pots) or even a single "return blend"  pot, Or............

http://thebin.free.fr/schematics/DualSplitterBlend-FINAL.gif

This looks a bit complicated, but it shows a FOUR loop parallel blender: Two of the loops have phase-reverse switches so you can see how it's done. You would only need to build one phase switchable loop and one normal, and you could omit the charge pump and output (post-blend) section, i.e just the part circled:



Of course, a buffer would mean that it would need to be powered, but I honestly think it's worth it and you could also have LEDs.

Then, I *think* my switch *just* needs to flip the 3 ABY pedals. So, in a circuit equivalent, all that's needed is a 3PDT.

This is where I get confused. The diagram looks sound, but you have SIX "ABY"s in that diagram that need to be switched for series/parallel routing: If each ABY is a pole (with "Y" as the common) and two throws (Y-to-A and Y-to-B), that is the 6PDT switch I suggested in the previous post.

I hope this helps a bit (and apologies for any errors in my interpretation, my eyes have gone funny from staring at these diagrams for quite a while now).

Thanks. Even more really useful info.

Yes, there are lots like that that are SDST, but in the drop-down menu of that listing there's an on-on DPDT.

What you've said about the parallel blend makes sense. Really, I just wanted to see if there were pedals already available that could be an entirely passive means of achieving the goal. On the advice I've been given here I'm going to shelve the parallel stuff and focus on a series reorderer, so I may come back to that.

I thought the ABY switches that are used to run two signals into one didn't need switching. They just run whichever signal they receive out of the single output. I wouldn't be surprised to find out I'm wrong on that.

[iainpunk]

if youre going to do the parallel option, you might want to have a switch for phase inverting one of the channels. if youd mix a dist+ and a blues breaker, the signals would be out of phase and give a weird thin fizzy mess. for some of these situations, you would want to flip the phase. if youre clean blending as well, id say have both drive sides have phase inverting circuits.

cheers

[-GFX-]

I'm still (slowly) working on this project, and, frankly, I'm struggling to keep it as simple as I would like. As @nocentelli says, as currently envisaged I'd need a 6PDT switch, and that seems clunky. I'm hoping to find an alternative...

This type of stuff is just being for relays and a microcontroller. It becomes almost trivial at that point.

Hi Ripthorn - could I trouble you for more info on this approach - just some pointers at resources to read myself would be great.

[mdcmdcmdc]

This is maybe not exactly what you're looking for, but one more mechanical switch-based option...



I think this will give you flip flop between A and B and then A-into-B, regardless of which channel is engaged at any particular time. The unused row on the switch is for LED wiring, and it would be easy enough to wrap the whole thing in an on/off switch. That would give you 4 levels of drive (clean, A, B, A—>B).