Harmonizer Schematic

[Hugo L]

What about the "Harmonic Multiplier" (Multiplying Octaver + Linear Mixer) at viva Analog/Analog Guitar and Bass Effect DIY page?
http://www.lynx.bc.ca/~jc/pedalsHarmonic.html

[puretube]

that`s a Ring Modulator, iirc...

(doubling frequency by multiplying itself)

[Mark Hammer]

One thing you touched on briefly was that it was very difficult to do another up octave with the rectification process. Would there be a way to use the 1st octave up "artifact" as a reference for something like a flip flop to achieve a perceived second octave up. Since it's quick and dirty as you say to accomplish this, there are several effects that use transformer rectification to get the artifact, but none I've seen that use division to achieve a second octave up. I'm thinking that something like the SOU would be a good candidate, since it has such an intense fuzz.

Well, I guess I would be the first one to admonish and say "Don't be distracted by synth principles based on pure steady tones!", but at the same time stop for a second and consider your basic sine wave.  Chop the negative half off, and you'd see bump-flat-bump-flat-bump on a scope.  Between the bumps is plenty of open space, so that if you were to take the negative half-wave and "fold it over", those open spaces would be filled with other bumps that are audible.  That is, in fact how the rectifier-based doubling "illusion" can occur.  But here's the rub.  The space between those successive humps is now so crammed and tight, that whatever you could shove in that space by chopping off the negative half cycle of THAT waveform and folding THAT over would be pitiful, and more importantly, timbrally different from the existing waveform.

So, could this re-rectification produce an audible 2nd octave up?  I'm not so sure about that.  Conceivably, there might be some way of transforming the original into some sort of comparator-based squarish waveform, with the sort of mark-space ratio (duty-cycle) that left loads of room for an audible multiple of the original tone, but there one starts to veer off into what feels like uncharted territory.  At least for me it is.  Certainly there would be some sort of filtering requirement to find a way to remove/reduce the fundamental from the signal being sent off for second-octave detection/production.  The challenge is to find an octave signal amidst all the noise generated in the rectification process which is obvious enough to use as a source for a second go-around.

Maybe the trick is to use recification of a nicely filtered signal, followed by the (ring) modulation approach for the second tier.  I'm just guessing here, but the gist is that perhaps two cascaded methods are called for..

Again, though, what happens in the world of pure, textbook waveforms is not what happens in the world of heterogenous, unsteady guitar waveforms.  That difference may yield MORE success (or more interesting failures) than anticipated, or less.  I wish I was strong enough in this stuff to know which.

[puretube]

http://www.zvex.com/images/Jonny%20Octave.pdf

[Mark Hammer]

Well I'll be damned!  He beat me to it!   :lol:   Well done and well played....both Zach *and* Ton!

Given the existence of something like this, I will put forth the question: Is the second octave as clearly and distinctly audible as the first one, or does it simply add a bit of timbre and texture to the first one?  Certainly the (helpful) diagram suggests that the "duty cycle" of each is going to be different, so I'm wondering about the sonic implications.

Let me just add that a second octave up that seems to blend into the first octave is not necessarily a BAD thing.  It can be quite musically useful.  To my mind, it's really more a question of avoiding disappointing discrepancies between the user's/consumer's expectations and what is technically feasible.  Clarifying what is reasonable to expect may help some to better appreciate what such a unit DOES deliver.

Just as an aside, looking at the picture in the PDF makes me feel like I have somehow wandered into the girl's locker room.  Happy to be there, but at the same time possessed of a feeling that maybe I'm looking at something I shouldn't be.  :wink:

[jmusser]

Unfortunately, my PDF reader would only give me the text, and not the wave form, so I may need to upgrade. I have listened to the Johnny Octave, and personally was expecting more of a separation. To my ears. I note more of a timbre and thickness change, then I do an actual second octave up that is totally distinct and separate from the first. You can tell that there is definitely something going on there, but what I was expecting was the type of separation I hear in double down octaves, such as my cheap and wonderful Arion MOC-1. I mentioned this before, and I sure wasn't wanting to piss off ZVex by implying his effect was subpar or anything. He's obviously achieved a second octave up through rectification, and should be commended for doing something that either very few, or no one else has done! What I'm asking for, and what is actually possible, seem to be two entirely different things, and unless I have people like you explaining that to me, I'll have unrealistic expectations. Between the articles the you have written on octaves prior to this, such as the Octave Doubling Fuzz, and "Octave"and R.G.s article on the "Technology of the Superfuzz", I'm starting to get the gist of what's going on with octaves.

[puretube]

you`re a candidate for the POG...

[RickL]

I just got back from being out of town for several days, hence the late reply. It will be hazy since I haven't played with the harmonizer in a while but I'll try to get back later this weekend with more details.

The harmonizer will only give one note at a time, blended with the note that has been input. Unison means you get the same note out that you put in at the octave selected by the other switch. I'm pretty sure that the notes generated above and below are distinct but you'll need a reasonably good amp to reproduce something 3 octaves down or up from a note input from a guitar.

The 3rd and 5th are, I believe, up from the input pitch. So selecting 3rd and no octave up gives you your original pitch plus a note a 3rd up. 3rd plus 1 octave down gives you your original pitch plus a note a 3rd above the octave below ( or a 6th below the original) (input C3, get C3 and E2).

More details later I hope.

Rick

[StephenGiles]

Just a Friday evening thought, why not sing the harmony line as you play the solo, and use your miked voice to drive a 4046 PLL arangement, where the output is passed through a distortion of your choice - brilliant, yes?
Stephen

[Dan N]

Just a Friday evening thought, why not sing the harmony line as you play the solo, and use your miked voice to drive a 4046 PLL arangement, where the output is passed through a distortion of your choice - brilliant, yes?
Stephen

http://www.generalguitargadgets.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=175&Itemid=200


Hee hee hee.

[toneman]

then......instead of using the xfmr method to make an octave...
start with the "modern" version of the RoctaveDividor @ Mark's site,
then, use a "digital doubler"  like at Ken Stone's CGS site.  Infact, double it 4 times.
Then, divide down, twice.  Then U'll have divide by 2 & 4 *and* multiply by 2 & 4.
U need 2 "double it" 4 times soz U can divide down.  Add a PulseWidth control,
and U can make the octave-ups "skinny" or "fat".  MayB throw in a phase control.
I've been toying with this idea for a while.  Got a Roctave pcb partially built, but
havn't had time to complete the "up" stuff.  OH, Mark's Rockave pcb adds the Anderton
4017 "divide-by-anything" mod to the pcb.
Put all this 2gether, and ....can U say..."marketable"
Stompboxers, U heard it here first !!
staydivided
tone

[Mark Hammer]

Just to clarify, it was fellow Canuck Dean Hazelwanter that did 100% of the work on the PCB.  All I did was scan and post the article, and promote the circuit publicly.  Dean is the one with the initiative and talent to make it a more realizable project for people.  Note that Craig Anderton's original layout does NOT include the pads for the 4017 mods, and has the pads for leads to pots, jacks and switches scattered willy-nilly, in contrast to Dean's more orderly layout.

[Pedal love]

Just to clarify, it was fellow Canuck Dean Hazelwanter that did 100% of the work on the PCB.  All I did was scan and post the article, and promote the circuit publicly.  Dean is the one with the initiative and talent to make it a more realizable project for people.  Note that Craig Anderton's original layout does NOT include the pads for the 4017 mods, and has the pads for leads to pots, jacks and switches scattered willy-nilly, in contrast to Dean's more orderly layout.

I built Dean's frequency shifter from GGG, and liked it. Heres to Dean

[RickL]

I got a chance to play around with my Harmonizer and as usual my memory was a little off.

I was correct about the 3rd and 5th being above the fundamental, but I was wrong about the tracking. It actually tracks quite well once the sensitivity control is set correctly. Use the procedure in the article and you should get pretty close. It tracks both up and down octaves all the way from open low E to 12th string high E and above. 3 octaves up on the high E string is little girl screaming pearcing and 3 octaves down on the low E string would sound awsome through a subwoofer.

The harmony doesn't sound much like a guitar. I'm pretty sure the pedal just uses the input pitch to synthesise (sp?) a new note. A little filtering on the harmonized note might help but mine's boxed and I'm not going to do anything else to it. The Blend control is fairly effective, letting you go from almost no added harmony note to entirely harmony with no original pitch.

I can't imagine using this thing live, but it's cool to show off to people who appreciate stuff like this.

[jmusser]

Thanks Rick for the details on the Harmonizer. It seems like it's something I'd like to build. I just like that kind of stuff. I may never use it for more than a noise maker, but I'd like to hear it do it's thing. One question you didn't answer was about the transistor and chips. Are the chips easy to get hold of, and does the transistor need subbed for somethging else?

[RickL]

I don't recall having any particular problem finding the chips and I think I just used a 2N3906 for the transistor. Any single op amps should work for the 741's if you're using the supplied layout (I did).

Finding the sp7t rotary switch will likely be a problem, but you can probably get a sp12t switch with a pin to convert to 7 throws. In fact it looks like that's what the article recommends. I happened to have a 7 pole switch in my junk box so I used that. I also used a spdt centre-off switch in place of the sp3t rotary that they recommend. The only difference is that the unison position is in the middle with 3rd and 5th on each side.

I used 2 9 volt batteries to supply it. I seem to remember that I couldn't get it to work using the on-board voltage inverter. The negative voltage only goes to the op amps anyway so I think it will work better with a solid -9 volts on pin 4 anyway.

I haven't tried the trigger out jack yet so I can't say for certain that it works.

[jmusser]

Thanks again. I got so many other things bagged up to build, that I don't know when I'll get to it, but it is on my "to do" list. I think it would end up being something fun to play around with, and do a few mods to. I think it would be nice for it to end up being a complex "Octup Blender", where you could "dial in" whatever octave you selected on top of a "boosted standard tone' at whatever level you wanted it. When I get that far, I'll probably need to find out what value of pot to use, and what I need with it for each octave. I have a massive tripple decker rotary switch I scavenged out of an old voltmeter, so I should be in good shape there.

[bond]

on diy ones is there a output for a second amp?

is there a straight pitch shifter, i could organise to jump up a 5th so i could put it on my second stereo line?

[Dirk_Hendrik]

I found 2 thing:

http://ampage.org/hammer/files/AnalogHarmonizer.ZIP
http://ampage.org/hammer/files/EMMHarmoGen.PDF

The first seems to be a very complex effect! It's good for me!!!!!!
The second it's simplest...

Let's not use the search...
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=35335.msg280189#msg280189