Blueshift chorus first not chorusing, then half-chorusing. BBD issue?

[matopotato]

I built a Blueshift quite some time ago.
https://aionfx.com/app/files/docs/blueshift_documentation.pdf
Schematic separate, overview:



and a few zooms, top, bottom and right:








When engaged all I got was a volume drop, but no chorus effect.
Then the project  got stuck in the "fix at some later time"-box until now.
I probed around and got signal until pin 3 on IC3 and IC9 (MN3207, BBDs) as well as down to respective trimmer.
Some very very faint warbly sound on IC4 (I think), but that was it.
I then boldly swapped IC3 and IC9 and lo and behold, now I got some chorusing, but it kind of felt "too little" or as if something was missing.

So today I got tone generator and scope set up according to the instructions in the pdf, Calibration page 7
I did not set the trimmers to 3.4V on pin 3 of each IC3 and IC9 initially, but went back later and did it.
With the "half-chorusing" I get the described curve and I can tweak the trimmer to get it as described for TP2/TR2. But the TR1/TP1 is just a flat line.
I then swapped the ICs around again to the "non chorusing" state, and now both TPs showed flat line on the scope. One of them had a very so slight warbly/smudgy line in the setting I had, so I assume it is the representation of my initial "warbly sound".

Both ICs get their 3.4V on pin3 from presumably the correct OpAmp.

So from my perspective it would seem that one of the BBDs is faulty. Or one BBD plus some other component down the line.
I will of course first try to resolder all the pins of the socket on the faulty side.
But having them one way and nothing works, and the other an half works kind of points a finger at MN3207.
But it not being the cheapest component in the build I am wondering if:
1. Is there some way to test further if some other part is causing the BBD to not behave?
2. Have I missed something basic in my assumptions/gut feeling here?

[matopotato]

I did some more testing today and some measurements.
The V3207s that are in IC3 and IC9 have different results depending if I swap them or not.
In the "base" configuration there is no chorus effect (just a slight volume drop as other threads have mentioned)
If I swap them, the IC3 section of the schematic seems to work as it should. Scope shows nice curve as I would have expected.

I made some readings on all the ICs, Opto, RG and Qs
They are all written from the "base config" perspective where there is no chorus.
Then to the right of that I have written and different values (or "same") after a swap. In that case the IC3, IC4, IC5 and IC7 path seems to work properly
While the IC9, IC8 and IC6 does not, and it never does.

My gut feeling is still that the one V3207 is faulty since the swap makes the other perform.
But there is something more in the IC9,8,6 area since with the good V3207 it still does not produce anything choruslike.

I tried cleaning the smaller board from flux residue.
I heated up the sockets for IC9,8,6 and filled in some more solder.
And I checked each pin for connectivity to the next point in the schematic, as well as check that no socket legs were bridged (that shouldn't be) since I notice solder on the component side had flown out a bit in some cases and it is hard to see it that was a problem.
I also tried an new TL072 for IC6.
As well as OPA2134 and OPA2132 for IC1 and IC12.
None of this had any positive effect.
I also swapped the two clocks, but if anything it sounded a slight bit worse, but I think it was more my own wrongdoing since the testing was a little bit messy.
But I can redo that part if it is thought to yield anything interesting.

Any comments are appreciated.
IC1 TL072, OpAmp
4.59   9.17
4.59   4.57       Same on half-chorus
4.17   4.58
0.00   4.58

IC2 V571, Compander
1,21   0,68       1,17   0,64
1,86   1,86       Same on half-chorus
1,86   1,86       for the rest
0.00   9,19
1,87   1,87
1,86   1,87
2,97   1,87
1,86   1,86

IC3, V3207 BBD
0,00       2,57             same       4,62
3,06-3,17  2,60             same       4,63
3,36       3,02-3,17        same       same
6,12       6,52-6,57        6,03-6,11  6,46-6,52 

IC4, V3102 Clock
6,55         6,9-6,14      6,45-6,52   6,03-6,11
3,01-3,18    3,5-3,9       Rest the same
0,00         0,67-1,6
3,06-3,18    ~4,8-5,8

IC5, TL072
3,43-3,90  6,52
1,2-2,0    2,4-4,3       Same on half-chorus
1,55-2,02  3,33
0,00       3,33

IC6, TL072 (no signal area)
2,3-4,28  6,48
3,33      0,03          Same on half-chorus
3,33      4,55
0,00         1,18-1,78*    But pin 5 slightly wider range of sweep*

IC7, TL022 LowPower OpAmp
0,63-6,01   6,66
3,30        2,64-3,98       Same on half-chorus
2,5-4,11    3,33
0,00        3,32

IC8, V3102 Clock (no signal area)
6,61   6,19
6,61   0,03       Same on half-chorus
0,00   6,61
0,00   0,12

IC9, V3207, BBD (no signal area)
0,00   2,80       same   2,88
0,00   2,80       same   2,88
3,38   6,61       Rest the same
6,18   6,61

IC11, V571, Compander
0,99-1,11   0,87       1,16   1,00
1,86        4,86       Same on half-chorus
1,86        1,86       for the rest
0,00        9,19
1,86        1,86
3,08        3,07
3,08        3,07
1,86        1,85

IC12 TL072, OpAmp
4,60   9,19
4,59   4,60
4,59   4,59       Same on half-chorus
0,00   4,59

OptoCoupler, H11F1
1,29   4,55
0,01   4,00       Same on half-chorus
0,01   4,55

RG1
6,66              same
0,01              0,66 but unsure about first measurement
9,21              same

Q2, 2N5088
C  9,19
B  8,59       Same on half-chorus
E  7,02

Q3, J113
D  4,38
S  4,40       Same on half-chorus
G -0,77

Q4, 2N5088
C  9,19
B  4,23       Same on half-chorus
E  3,78

Q5, 2N5088
C  9,19
B  4,41       Same on half-chorus
E  3,86

Q6, 2N5088
C  9,19
B  3,85       Same on half-chorus
E  3,27

Q7, 2N5087
C  1,12-2,00
B  5,66
E  6,18

Q8, 2N5087
C  4,55
B  5,20
E  4,54

Q9, 2N5088
C  9,19
B  3,85       Same on half-chorus
E  3,27

Q10, 2N5088
C  9,19
B  4,21       Same on half-chorus
E  3,77

[duck_arse]

IC3, V3207 BBD
0,00       2,57       
3,06-3,17  2,60         
3,36       3,02-3,17   
6,12       6,52-6,57   

IC4, V3102 Clock
6,55         6,9-6,14   
3,01-3,18    3,5-3,9 
0,00         0,67-1,6
3,06-3,18    ~4,8-5,8



IC8, V3102 Clock (no signal area)
6,61   6,19
6,61   0,03       
0,00   6,61
0,00   0,12

IC9, V3207, BBD (no signal area)
0,00   2,80       
0,00   2,80     
3,38   6,61       
6,18   6,61

well, so, you say the IC 8 and 9 is the problem, but that IC 3 and 4, which is identical, is good. so what's different in your DC measures? and if you shout 0V, where is another close 0V?

and, why do we see no photos? [I must admit, I looked at that section for what stood out, then stopped looking. so, anything else not right .........  ]

[matopotato]

IC3, V3207 BBD
0,00       2,57       
3,06-3,17  2,60         
3,36       3,02-3,17   
6,12       6,52-6,57   

IC4, V3102 Clock
6,55         6,9-6,14   
3,01-3,18    3,5-3,9 
0,00         0,67-1,6
3,06-3,18    ~4,8-5,8



IC8, V3102 Clock (no signal area)
6,61   6,19
6,61   0,03       
0,00   6,61
0,00   0,12

IC9, V3207, BBD (no signal area)
0,00   2,80       
0,00   2,80     
3,38   6,61       
6,18   6,61

well, so, you say the IC 8 and 9 is the problem, but that IC 3 and 4, which is identical, is good. so what's different in your DC measures? and if you shout 0V, where is another close 0V?

Well, I sort of try to say that with the presumably "good" 3207 BBD in IC3, I get chorus from that TP on the scope, but not the other TP related to IC9.
When I swap there is no chorus on either TP.
So I think the problem is in the IC9 "path", although I have not any good idea of how far that stretches.

You mean IC9 pin 4 and IC8 pin 2 with unexpected zeros on them is where to look deeper?
These two are connected to each other with nothing else along the way.
And they have connection.
The values are the same regardless of having a good or "bad(?)" BBD in IC9. So I am guessing something else is failing, although if both BBDs were OK, then the path at IC3 IC4 IC5 (and IC7) should still provide half-chorus if I swapped them.

and, why do we see no photos? [I must admit, I looked at that section for what stood out, then stopped looking. so, anything else not right .........  ]

I will try some tests with fresh transistors as well since I have a few spare.
I failed to mention I also swapped the companders around, but to no effect.
I have also to swap the clocks when in the "half-working" state an listen again, last time it was not as conclusive.

Pictures below. But I would like to warn the faint hearted that it is not a pretty sight. I can only say I was younger back then and even less experienced.

The bigger board, less suspected




Underside of the bigger board. In my defense I want to say that I have used red pen to mark out suspect joints and have re-heated/re-soldered them. Since then the red color kind of floated around a bit. Not much clean up done on this board. I think the third picture in this group (showing lower right side) contains the bridging when selection 3207 vs 3007 so those are jumpers.









The smaller board, with the problem area as I suspect it.





The smaller, solder side. I tried to clean up some old flux, but it sort of got sticky and almost messier.
I tried wipe it off when the isopropsomething had done its thing, but cloth, q-tips seem to give off "fluffy stuff" that could look like bridges.

[eh la bas ma]

But I would like to warn the faint hearted that it is not a pretty sight. I can only say I was younger back then and even less experienced.

Thanks for the kind warning. Now let's see...

Aaaaah !!!

"back then" ? Well played. How much younger exactly, if I may ask ?

It's a 100-euros-expensive kit, more importantly : it's a legendary chorus that you will love and use during the next 30 years, so every moves with the soldering iron have to be well-thought, balanced, and surrounded by great caution and consideration. I would start by cleaning both boards, gently, patiently, and reflow all suspicious pads.  No Q-tips, nothing with cotton, but rather something that won't disintegrate itself on the soldering pads. A T-shirt, or some good kitchen rag would do. An old toothbrush will help cleaning the Q-tips remains.

There are not much space left in the enclosure once the circuit is boxed in, so remember to keep all soldering pads at low height on the larger board. If something sticks out, it could be a problem when you'll close the bottom of the enclosure. You will also need some tape or some piece of plastic/cardboard to prevent the pcb from shorting with the back of the enclosure.

It's almost a simple straightforward build. Some precision is required with the pin headers, to get them perfectly aligned. There are lots of parts in a very complex circuit, which means that it would be very hard to debugg if something went wrong. That's why we need to triple check every part, and solder them with few solder and extreme caution. These are the most noticeable difficulties I experienced in this build. From my humble perspective, the Blueshift game is : spend more time on the building process in order to avoid a long and challenging troubleshooting session.

Finally, I remember some trouble fitting all the pins inside their sockets, to connect both boards : poor visibility made it quite tidious. I had to perform some continuity tests, to make sure I didn't miss one socket.

I see lots of suspicious pads on both boards, due to flux residue and excessive use of solder (in my humble opinion). Weren't you going a bit too fast during the building process ?

You 've been very generous on solder with every parts, strangely you had to do the middle switch in "economy mode".  A sudden burst of parsimony ? This toggleswitch is amazing, surely among the best sounding toggleswitches in pedal history : it makes the two separate choruses inside the circuit criss-crossing each other. It's chorusing, but you can't tell where the sweep starts and stops...





Sorry if i can't be more helpful right now. I can provide some voltage readings as comparison if needed.

[matopotato]

But I would like to warn the faint hearted that it is not a pretty sight. I can only say I was younger back then and even less experienced.

Thanks for the kind warning. Now let's see...

Aaaaah !!!

"back then" ? Well played. How much younger exactly, if I may ask ?

I will have to "take the fifth" on that one.
Can we not just let history be history for a little while.
I want to believe that I am progressing, learning, growing and gaining experience as I keep making pedals...

It's a 100-euros-expensive kit, more importantly : it's a legendary chorus that you will love and use during the next 30 years, so every moves with the soldering iron have to be well-thought, balanced, and surrounded by great caution and consideration. I would start by cleaning both boards, gently, patiently, and reflow all suspicious pads.  No Q-tips, nothing with cotton, but rather something that won't disintegrate itself on the soldering pads. A T-shirt, or some good kitchen rag would do. An old toothbrush will help cleaning the Q-tips remains.

I did use toothbrush most actually, but it sort of gets sticky. Same with cloth, T-shirt etc. The only one that actually lets me micromanage the fluid both in distributing it and in sucking it up are Q-tips. But at the expense of cotton all over. On the other hand, cotton should not be conductive.
I guess I have to soak it in fluid (so some investment need to go to that) more or less and somehow dry off what does not drip off.
I've seen clips, but it is not the same at home on your own.

There are not much space left in the enclosure once the circuit is boxed in, so remember to keep all soldering pads at low height on the larger board. If something sticks out, it could be a problem when you'll close the bottom of the enclosure. You will also need some tape or some piece of plastic/cardboard to prevent the pcb from shorting with the back of the enclosure.

Yes, I did all that "back then" both trimming (despite someone telling me I trim too tight  ) and I think taping the lid. It is tight, but since it does not work fully yet I did not try a second time. It needs its decal first as well.

It's almost a simple straightforward build. Some precision is required with the pin headers, to get them perfectly aligned. There are lots of parts in a very complex circuit, which means that it would be very hard to debugg if something went wrong. That's why we need to triple check every part, and solder them with few solder and extreme caution. These are the most noticeable difficulties I experienced in this build. From my humble perspective, the Blueshift game is : spend more time on the building process in order to avoid a long and challenging troubleshooting session.

As with most builds, really.
But yes, I took this on because it should sound great and I also wanted to test something more challenging. So I felt I hit a wall when there was no chorusing at all first time around.
Now that I found that half of the chorus paths are probably OK, I got new energy for finding the last fault.
I had a few 2N508[7,8]s around so I will try swapping them as well. One actually sits very loose in its socket, but if it is out, there is no sound at all so easy to notice.
I will also check the clocks more deeply.
If there is a bad solder that does not conduct, I think I would have found it by now after having checked connectivity a number of times, although it is not always easy to know if you hit the pad or the leg or the solder. So might have to go over the IC9 path piece by piece again.

Finally, I remember some trouble fitting all the pins inside their sockets, to connect both boards : poor visibility made it quite tidious. I had to perform some continuity tests, to make sure I didn't miss one socket.

It was a while back, but I think once I got them together it was not so bad.

I see lots of suspicious pads on both boards, due to flux residue and excessive use of solder (in my humble opinion). Weren't you going a bit too fast during the building process ?

I felt I did it very slowly and confirming each solder point to the next ones before cutting any leg. And once putting the next part in also meant checking backwards, so each connection done at least twice despite the repetition.

You 've been very generous on solder with every parts, strangely you had to do the middle switch in "economy mode".  A sudden burst of parsimony ? This toggleswitch is amazing, surely among the best sounding toggleswitches in pedal history : it makes the two separate choruses inside the circuit criss-crossing each other. It's chorusing, but you can't tell where the sweep starts and stops...

Yes I saw that too, and tried to resolder, but it was hard to get it flowing again. And I didn't want to risk overheating causing issues with the switch itself.
Also, with the IC3 path doing chorus and looking good on the scope, each of the switches did something, so I am taking that as they are connected properly.

Sorry if i can't be more helpful right now. I can provide some voltage readings as comparison if needed.

No, no need. I should be able to do many more things first. And I wouldn't want you to unbox your build for this, considering how much work it is to get it in correct again.

I have built a "Wampler distortion" where I added lots of diode options, and also an MXR Dist + with lots of options. Both builds using several rotary switches, the big plastic long-shafted ones.
All those wires and the thicker rotaries was a huge problem to fit in to the box. In the end tape and a hard push finally worked.
Then I noticed on one that the rotary goes one step too far (but nothing happens, just annoying) and the decal was badly fastened (early build). But I just don't want to risk opening it again.
Like a Jack-in-a-box-can-of-worms it would just blow up in my room.
So no need for you to open yours.
Eventually I hope to have the Flanger and Chorus myself that you so highly cherish.

[eh la bas ma]

The only one that actually lets me micromanage the fluid both in distributing it and in sucking it up are Q-tips.

Now i understand, you are using flux to help the soldering process, and that's why some of your boards seem covered with residues ?

I thought you were only overheating the flux inside the solder, I didn't get that you were using extra flux.

I wouldn't know, i never used this thing. Some friends told me years ago that it was even more toxic using some extra flux when we solder things, like the fumes are more dangerous, or something...

Aren't most pcb already processed with dried flux, or some similar chemical treatment, so the solder goes more easily on the soldering pads ? Isn't there also some flux inside the solder itself ?

You don't feel comfortable soldering parts without using extra flux ?

Edit : I looked it up, and it seems that the main risks for our health when we solder things are coming from the flux burning.

Most people use extra flux for some special occasions (and there is often another way to do it without flux) :
- desoldering something very hard and tricky
- protecting something fragile from the heat while soldering (ex : toggleswitches)
- to solder something on a weird spot where the solder doesn't stick easily
- to clean the iron tip
- to reflow some old and bad solder joint that won't get reflown without some extra flux

I don't think it's meant to be used to solder a simple resistor on a good quality pcb. I can't see why you would cover the entire board with flux, especially if it creates so much residues, and if you have to struggle with Q-tips to take it off.

Be that as it may, I hope you ventilate the room, because flux is based on colophane ("rosin" in english) which is very corrosive and very volatile. Looks like my friends were right to warn me about it.

[matopotato]

Sorry, you might have drawn conclusions a bit too fast.
I sometimes but not often use flux paste. That is when soldering is a bit tricky or somehow needs a little bit of help to attach well. As you listed in your reply.
But mostly I only get the flux from the solder roll itself.



I use 382 degrees C, and tried a short while with 360 but felt it was a bit too low for me.
Still on 382 some situations where I linger a bit too long to get the solder to flow through, it can quickly get too hot. (lugs on 3PDTs come to mind)
Tip is around 2mm cut diagonally, listed as 1.6mm I think. I tried pointy ones and thicker ones. Not chisel type though (unless desoldering some old radio or TV set, but that is like really wide)
I put a little bit of solder on the tip, warm up the pad and leg/wire shortly and then put on the solder from the other side. I hope for it to flow down through the pad hole, but that does not always happen. Thus my connectivity check before cutting legs.

Why I am left with so much flux, not sure. Maybe I am going in too hot and staying too long, but staying too short I feel the risk for cold "unflowed" joints happen.
I try to get the Heshey kisses. And if it has flown through to the component side, that is often good in small amounts IMHO, but not to the point where I risk bridges on that side.

As ugly as it looks on the pictures, my experience so far has not been that too much flux is the root cause of my troubles. After adopting the connectivity check I described earlier I feel that bad soldering joints have been less of an issue.
I've fried parts, gotten bad tightness in sockets and what not. I am not saying I will not have bad solder joints and I appreciate it is the most common reason behind non functional builds.

I will go ahead and try the steps I listed before with connectivity on the IC9 path, swap some transistors and the clocks and see if that yields anything.
It is a slightly messy setup to test as I am using an Effects Tester. But it has a nice probe  and tone generator built in.

[matopotato]

For
Q7, 2N5087
C  1,12-2,00
B  5,66
E  6,18

Q8, 2N5087
C  4,55
B  5,20
E  4,54

Should be Base be higher than Emitter? Or the other way around?
Either way they seem to differ in that regard. Q8 with C and E so close, not sure if that is proper either...

[duck_arse]

well, so, you say the IC 8 and 9 is the problem, but that IC 3 and 4, which is identical, is good. so what's different in your DC measures? and if you shout 0V, where is another close 0V?

Well, I sort of try to say that with the presumably "good" 3207 BBD in IC3, I get chorus from that TP on the scope, but not the other TP related to IC9.
When I swap there is no chorus on either TP.
So I think the problem is in the IC9 "path", although I have not any good idea of how far that stretches.

You mean IC9 pin 4 and IC8 pin 2 with unexpected zeros on them is where to look deeper?
These two are connected to each other with nothing else along the way.
And they have connection.
The values are the same regardless of having a good or "bad(?)" BBD in IC9. So I am guessing something else is failing, although if both BBDs were OK, then the path at IC3 IC4 IC5 (and IC7) should still provide half-chorus if I swapped them.

if you get chorus, swap, then don't get chorus, well, it suggests one of the chips is bad. the trick would be to do voltage measure in both states and compare.

but my leading voltages were to point you to a ground pin being right next to a pin that was not supposed to be grounded, in the non-good channel. pull the good channel, measure resistance between .... GAH! scrolling .... cross checking .... bloody hell ..... pin 1 and 2 of the 3207 socket and between pins 3 and 4 of the 3102 socket. then measure across those same pins on the bad channel sockets, and I think they will show 0R. it looks at first glance to be a short to ground, somewhere in around that area, non?

now, what else have you put .....

and, why do we see no photos? [I must admit, I looked at that section for what stood out, then stopped looking. so, anything else not right .........  ]

I will try some tests with fresh transistors as well since I have a few spare.
I failed to mention I also swapped the companders around, but to no effect.
I have also to swap the clocks when in the "half-working" state an listen again, last time it was not as conclusive.

Pictures below. But I would like to warn the faint hearted that it is not a pretty sight. I can only say I was younger back then and even less experienced.

wrong jurisdiction - we have no fifths here, cept imported booze. and I'll leave Justin to eyeball the pics, my eyes hurt.

The bigger board, less suspected
.......
Underside of the bigger board. In my defense I want to say that I have used red pen to mark out suspect joints and have re-heated/re-soldered them. Since then the red color kind of floated around a bit. Not much clean up done on this board. I think the third picture in this group (showing lower right side) contains the bridging when selection 3207 vs 3007 so those are jumpers.

the purpose of the flux in soldering [and smelting] is to pickle away all the surface crap. adding ink crap means there is more junk that the solder itself really doesn't need to be dealing with. all that stuff gets melted into the solder, can't be a good thing for clean joints.

.....
The smaller board, with the problem area as I suspect it.
.....
The smaller, solder side. I tried to clean up some old flux, but it sort of got sticky and almost messier.
I tried wipe it off when the isopropsomething had done its thing, but cloth, q-tips seem to give off "fluffy stuff" that could look like bridges.

......

I post this and then I'll read Justin's epic posts .....

[duck_arse]

Sorry, you might have drawn conclusions a bit too fast.
I sometimes but not often use flux paste. That is when soldering is a bit tricky or somehow needs a little bit of help to attach well. As you listed in your reply.
But mostly I only get the flux from the solder roll itself.

please show us your flux paste. very important you aren't using the wrong type. also, if you can get leaded solder, do, and chuck the unleaded until you have your chops. I think that is an expression. on this type of top qual circuit board, with new parts, you should not need extra flux. and it only makes a mess.

leaded solder is a million times easier to get right. the switch to it will make you another new man, should you need one. also, don't be pulling and swapping transistors or companders, not till you have that ground short sorted. in a circuit like this that uses jellybean transistors doing nothing extraordinary, there really is no reason to have them in sockets. none.


flux fumes? breathing it orll these yirs  dun me  no h harmm mm m.  .,

[matopotato]

Flux, if I ever use it. I doubt I had it on this build though.




I do not have leaded solder, just a very thick small piece. It is no longer sold around here, but probably gettable on some dark ally in the shady-soldering district of town... But I've been told not to go there...

I understand it is better to work with leaded solder, but I hope it is possible to work with the stuff I have since I am guessing it is less detrimental to one's health.
I am sure the topic of old leaded vs new lead free solder has been debated loads of times in many threads in this forum, so I am not looking to open up that discussion in this thread.
But I take your point. Might try it. But hoping to get by with my current choice.

The swapping routine is perhaps not a good troubleshooting method, but how to figure out if a transistor is not doing its thing and why? That is new learning grounds for me.
So before reading the latest posts in this thread, I did put in a new 2N5087 in the "bad path" with the "good BBD" in.
And it started to chorus. Out with the new Q8 in with the old, no chorus and so on.
So now I felt really happy that the Q8 can be changed for a new one with positive effects.
Note: I have yet to verify the TP with Tone generator and scope.

Then I put the "good BBD" back in the "good path". And now that side does not chorus anymore.
Traded its Q7 with the new, but no change.
I don't get it. Am I that thick-handed so no matter what I touch I always break something when the circuits are sensitive enough?

I will have to come back after some more testing later on...
But at this point I had a new 3207 and a few 2N5087s on the wishlist.
There are some mentions that the 3102's should be in pairs with 3207, but there was no mention of that in the kit.

[eh la bas ma]

You 'll find the good kind of solder here :

https://www.musikding.de/Solder-100gr-1mm

I was wondering about flux, so I opened a thread on the subject on another forum. I'll post the link just in case.

Please, don't feel targeted by my words, i mentioned an "esteemed comrade" with "very dirty boards", but I wasn't thinking about you, dear Matopotato. Rest assured, it was about... Pangeadestructor in the Apostle thread, of course.

https://forum.pedalpcb.com/threads/wondering-if-using-flux-on-our-usual-pcbs-aions-lectric-fx-ppcb-etc-is-really-necessary.18321/

[matopotato]

OK, touch all the wood I can find, but this might be resolved...
But I dare not trust that yet given my history with the Flintlock Flanger.
From previous post, I now discovered that one of the pin connectors using cables while troubleshooting, the cable had jumped out. And it was the one connecting to the "good side". So wonder that stopped working during the testing.
So now I have been able with the scope and tone generator to establish:
1. One V3207 is not working, the other works fine in either position.
2. The Q8, PNP 2N5087 I have had all the time is not working. Swapping for a fresh and now the IC9 side of the chorus paths is working and come up nicely in the scope.
And looking back at my readings and having checked the FAQ here of what to look for (Thanks @R.G. Keen for that example), I thought the Q8 looked suspicious.
Earlier I had no clue and just sent out a Hail Mary of measurements in here hoping someone would spot and point it out.
I still have tons to understand from readings and ICs should say or not, but it is getting a touch bit clearer now.
Is it getting proper voltages?
Are the surrounding parts doing their thing, or is the Q or IC getting the wrong voltages?
I will try to absorb that for any future builds and troubleshooting sessions.

It seems likely that the one 3207 was bad from the start or at least until I began testing. But could very well be my own wrongdoing. I just had the "bad luck" of having them is a constellation where both chorus paths failed.
Now I know the problem and have a solutions, so I will order them.

Until then and any final confirmation, I will leave this Blueshift build alone and let it rest for a while.

Many many many thanks for the support and help I got and am getting here in this forum. Sometimes it is not always not the direct pointing at the fault, but the mere feeling of not being alone with a faulty build. That someone near or far away is spending time, effort and brain power to actually see me through. It means a huge deal.
Thanks.

Stay tuned, but a bit later, if I get hold of the  parts.

[matopotato]

You 'll find the good kind of solder here :

https://www.musikding.de/Solder-100gr-1mm

Thanks will consider it, although it has been banned for private persons (not companies) in Sweden from 2018 to buy.

I was wondering about flux, so I opened a thread on the subject on another forum. I'll post the link just in case.

Please, don't feel targeted by my words, i mentioned an "esteemed comrade" with "very dirty boards", but I wasn't thinking about you, dear Matopotato. Rest assured, it was about... Pangeadestructor in the Apostle thread, of course.


https://forum.pedalpcb.com/threads/wondering-if-using-flux-on-our-usual-pcbs-aions-lectric-fx-ppcb-etc-is-really-necessary.18321/

No problem, I can probably take it,  sob... snivel...
But I am still the Sweepdestructor, right?

[eh la bas ma]

Thanks will consider it, although it has been banned for private persons (not companies) in Sweden from 2018 to buy.

I don't think you should derogate from the Law, but I also think you shouldn't confuse what you are and what society has made of you.

From what i could find, the lead isn't as volatile as flux when it burns, it's not as much present in the fumes.
On the other hand, lead free solder needs to be heated at higher temperatures, so there are more fumes from the iron and ironically it could be even more toxic than leaded solder.

I am not sure there is a lead/no lead debate : everybody agrees that lead free solder is much harder to use and doesn't work as good as leaded solder.

You are supposed to ventilate the room, so lead or no lead it's all the same for your health.

No problem, I can probably take it,  sob... snivel...
But I am still the Sweepdestructor, right?

I see you just earned some new titles : Matopotato, level 8, the Sweep Destructor, BBD Crusher and Pcb Defiler (2500 pts).

Congrats !

[matopotato]

Thanks will consider it, although it has been banned for private persons (not companies) in Sweden from 2018 to buy.

I don't think you should derogate from the Law, but I also think you shouldn't confuse what you are and what society has made of you.

From what i could find, the lead isn't as volatile as flux when it burns, it's not as much present in the fumes.
On the other hand, lead free solder needs to be heated at higher temperatures, so there are more fumes from the iron and ironically it could be even more toxic than leaded solder.

I am not sure there is a lead/no lead debate : everybody agrees that lead free solder is much harder to use and doesn't work as good as leaded solder.

You are supposed to ventilate the room, so lead or no lead it's all the same for your health.

No problem, I can probably take it,  sob... snivel...
But I am still the Sweepdestructor, right?

I see you just earned some new titles : Matopotato, level 8, the Sweep Destructor, BBD Crusher and Pcb Defiler (2500 pts).

Congrats !

I am honored by my new elevated title, thank you very much. I will honor it with pride.

And for ventilation, I should be covered



(Edit: I guess the label is a bit hard to read unless you expand the picture...)

[duck_arse]

a few things, oh great Sweep Destructor, if I may beg your indulgence.

there are a few very [very] heavy hitters around here that go a bit funny about "the dangers" of lead in solder when the topic comes around. I will respectfully say no more on that.

if that solder paste [really, I have no Polish, just some polish under the bed] is of the acid flux type, those self same heavy hitters will come for you if they ever find you using it on electronics work. for plumbers only.

about transistors. you aren't buying them from the wet market, or a bloke in a back alley, yes? so, modern transistors are very very hard to kill with a modern soldering iron and a modern pcb. you would need to really want to kill them, and the pcb would destroy before the transistor. and - you use sockets, so you can't possibly be destroying the transistors by soldering.

and your circuits are running 9V, 18ish max, which is not really enough to stress to death a modern transistor. when you really stress a transistor, it will let you know by boiling its internals and creating gases that then blow out a chunk of the casing, for pressure release. and then you can peer inside to see the damage.

so. get a transistor, check the datasheet, put the device to your dmm transistor tester [does yours have?] and if it reads between 150 and 500, let's pull some figures from the air, assume the part is good. and that your soldering is good enough that you can't destroy them, and that the part does nothing needing special matching or swap testing, and then solder it to the board. no sockets = no added potential fail points.

now you know you have good soldered good parts to a good pcb, but it doesn't work. so, voltage measures then tell us, against the circuit diagram, where to look for a fault. and we have to trust this method, otherwise we end up with bags of expensive parts we think don't work. or don't work here, but work there. etc.

so to today's board, I can't see how that 2N5087 could cause/affect the bbd and clock chips with the bad 0V readings. ..........


allright. I've typed for hours, went and looked up the datasheet - because the pin functions aren't named on the schematic - and now I see that if the transistor is bad, the opamp output jambs and puts a voltage on the 3102 oscillator string. and stops it oscillating, taking the output pins one high one low. which may well tally with your voltages posted early this page. so compare the voltages on IC 6B and IC 5A, working versus bad. I'll stop typing now.

[matopotato]

a few things, oh great Sweep Destructor, if I may beg your indulgence.

there are a few very [very] heavy hitters around here that go a bit funny about "the dangers" of lead in solder when the topic comes around. I will respectfully say no more on that.

I assume you mean that the consensus is that 60/40 is the best.solder.to use and any negative effects on the solderer or surroundings are small enough that they do not have a big impact.
At the same time lead as such is a hot topic as at least some uses of it has proven less good?
If so I take your advice, and will consider it for future stock up on solder.

if that solder paste [really, I have no Polish, just some polish under the bed] is of the acid flux type, those self same heavy hitters will come for you if they ever find you using it on electronics work. for plumbers only.

It shouldn't be plumber's. I got it from a local electronics shop and the owner is 100% into electronics and 0 plumbing, so I trust he knows what he is selling.

about transistors. you aren't buying them from the wet market, or a bloke in a back alley, yes? so, modern transistors are very very hard to kill with a modern soldering iron and a modern pcb. you would need to really want to kill them, and the pcb would destroy before the transistor. and - you use sockets, so you can't possibly be destroying the transistors by soldering.

and your circuits are running 9V, 18ish max, which is not really enough to stress to death a modern transistor. when you really stress a transistor, it will let you know by boiling its internals and creating gases that then blow out a chunk of the casing, for pressure release. and then you can peer inside to see the damage.

Understood. I just did a stupid test, and to me it shows that the first was not delivering and the second did.
If it was a dud from the start, or if I managed to break the unbreakable (and I would not put that past myself given my track record), I am not able to say.
But in In My Humble Experience, the new transistor plus the "good" BBD did make that path work. And it had.never worked before.
I take to heart all you write and teach me. And it makes all the sense.
Sometimes, alone at night, I still wander around and try stuff my mind tricks me into trying.

so. get a transistor, check the datasheet, put the device to your dmm transistor tester [does yours have?] and if it reads between 150 and 500, let's pull some figures from the air, assume the part is good. and that your soldering is good enough that you can't destroy them, and that the part does nothing needing special matching or swap testing, and then solder it to the board. no sockets = no added potential fail points.

I always think I want all the options and all the tweakability. Even when looking back I can tell that the favorite configuration it the one I always use anyway. So from the early first build I always socketed ICs and Transistors, and a few resistors and caps as well. Unless adding a switch.
More than one did I find that I wanted to swap an item, be it troubleshooting (I  know I shouldn't...  but still) or "Wonder gow this will sound?" In the second I think it is justified and if I over time learn when it makes sense and not, I might take the plunge and solder transistors right into the pcb.

My old DMM would read hfe, but felt a bit dodgy. I have a cheap component reader. (LCR TC1) And it serves its.purpose fairly well. Low caps and transistors are not always perfect.

now you know you have good soldered good parts to a good pcb, but it doesn't work. so, voltage measures then tell us, against the circuit diagram, where to look for a fault. and we have to trust this method, otherwise we end up with bags of expensive parts we think don't work. or don't work here, but work there. etc.

Yes, I understand. It sort of already started, but I will try to stick to the method more.
My plan, after the transistor swaparound, was to check the components and connections between them to see why the voltages on Q8 were off (at least in my opinion), but when it started chorusing I just got so happy that I  left it at that.

so to today's board, I can't see how that 2N5087 could cause/affect the bbd and clock chips with the bad 0V readings. ..........


allright. I've typed for hours, went and looked up the datasheet - because the pin functions aren't named on the schematic - and now I see that if the transistor is bad, the opamp output jambs and puts a voltage on the 3102 oscillator string. and stops it oscillating, taking the output pins one high one low. which may well tally with your voltages posted early this page. so compare the voltages on IC 6B and IC 5A, working versus bad. I'll stop typing now.

Thanks for putting so much effort in 
I'll stop too now. Gotta save a few words for later

[matopotato]

According to this link it is rosin based, but on Another there was a datasheet describing it as alternative to rosin based flux. Either way it did not sound like "plumbing, keep away from electronics" at least
https://www.wasserman.eu/en/p/solder-paste-20g-ag-261840?gclid=Cj0KCQjwz8emBhDrARIsANNJjS6Mxq6xY3zPJ1Mg5v3Ep61vGBWgBsyRoPw333puMTOu8xSHegfvEOIaAhOTEALw_wcB