early discrete circuit effects

[Dolly Parton]

Personally, I use chips in just about everything I build these days - the more the merrier! - but I started out learning about simple transistor circuits and the first thing I ever 'designed' was a common emitter booster using the guidelines given in a textbook.  This grounding has stuck with me and served me well over the years, so even if there's an easier way to do what you want to it's worth pursuing your ideas as you'll learn a hell of a lot in the process…and if you end up using chips, at least you'll understand why they work!

Gez   Dolly

[casey]

my site towards the bottom has alot of old school circuits.

as far as the compressor....i know that joe davisson had some interesting compressor type effect with diodes on his site and a discrete tube screamer as well.  

i wonder if you got into a situation where you had something that required an ic, if you could emulate what was going on in the chip with transistors.

anyway, check out my site below.....and your idea and future project sounds WAY cool.

God Bless

[lovekraft0]

This is kinda weird - dunno who I'm more uncomfortable with, the neo-luddites or the IC salesmen!   

Sure, doing an all-discrete rackmount multi-F/X unit is gonna be a hard slog, and it's probably going to be noisy and fincky when completed,  but if the man wants to reproduce Mt. Rushmore using only hand tools, let him go for it, and more power to him!

It is a bit alarming to find out that we have so many passionate adherents to the "if it's old, it must be good!" philosophy, though - as somebody who grew up having to use that noisy, unstable "old-school" gear when it was still relatively new (late 60s, early 70s), I guess I'm just not very impressed with most of it. To each his own, I suppose, but give me reliable, consistent and quiet any day, even if it's got some (shock! horror!) digital stuff in it. As always, YMMV. 

[A.S.P.]

...

[Paul Perry (Frostwave)]

For me, the 'chips vs discrete' question is a non-starter. I ask, "what do I want to do?" and then, see whatever is the simplest & best way. Personally, I'm biased (no pun intended!) toward chips, because there is usually less variation in a chip design. but, those old transistor designs sure were elegant, sometimes.. For personal DIY,  even if the circuit turns out to be sensitive to tranistor gain & leakage, why, you can swap away & maybe come up with one that is better than any other in the world. That's the bright side of making single boxes.
If you want to make a bunch of boxes, all the same, then you are goig to have to put some effort into designing so that the component variation is alowed for. I can guarantee this, though.. discrete design leads to you learning more electronics (whether you want to or not).

[Transmogrifox]

I think rch explained it pretty clearly.  He's doing this for the sake of aesthetic value.  Most of you are building stompboxes because you like making music--which is very strongly measured by its aesthetic value--so you should be able to relate.

He's taking on an ambitious project, and when he's done he will hopefully have a bunch of pedals that not only give him the sound he wants, but will also make him feel like he's back in the era and he will be pleased with what's under the hood.  How many people rebuilt a '68 Camaro thinking it's going to outperform a modern BMW?  It's just a sweet car.   Another way to look at it (just for perspective), when people training for sports, some coaches give them a handicap so that they will be forced to make other muscle groups stronger, or improve performance in a different area.  Likewise, building FX with only discrete components will make it like he's doing DIY FX building in the '60's when IC's were not readily available nor practical.  Furthermore, it will limit the number FX he can use to a certain variety and force him to a new realm of creativity musically.

So, now, rch.  I'm sorry I don't have any recommendations that are useful to your cause, but it looks like there have been some good recommendations by others in between the sales pitches for IC's.

Now I hope everybody will put aside opinions about IC's vs. discrete and just help this guy get going on this project.  You're not talking hime out of it, and there would be no value in it if you were successful putting ICs in his stompboxes.  How is it that such a simple question about discrete FX circuits turns into an argument?  It seems silly to me to argue about such things. Just my 2 cents.  I don't mean any personal offense to you all who may feel threatened--rather, this thread should be a relatively impersonal topic altogether.

[puretube]

here`s the schem of the very first envelope-follower ever:



(maybe also of interest for this here thread)

note: the left 41/2 tubes were not used.
the phono-input was utilized,
fed by a special (outboard) ECC83 filter stage (not to be shown/disclosed, here),
whose parameters where altered by a lightbulb hooked to the speaker-output;

As can be seen, the envelope follower had it`s own built-in tube-amp...

the build looked something like this:



to all the criticasters: this combination of tube-envelope-follower
in combination with tube-filter (=FolloWah) happened years before Stevie Wonder
ever heard the word: mutron...

[Gilles C]

I've been very very quiet in the effects building in the last months (years...), but I had to add my 2 cents.

I also prefer discrete to IC based circuits for guitar, even if I also love new technology. So I know what you mean.

It's not a matter of saying that one is better than the other one, it's just a matter of feeling.

Go for it and have fun.

While I'm here... Just a suggestion of a circuit that you could try, a preamp/vibrato.

http://topnet.com.au/~hairbear/page.2.htm

It is not a vintage or known effect, but it is a circuit from these years. There are a lot more, but I just happened to see it on my computer while looking for some files.

Gilles

[James V]

Here's a meta-thread from prodigy-pro.com about discrete opamps. Hopefully it's useful.

http://www.prodigy-pro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=281&sid=b265b3b980c874409d3b3f66b115d7ef

[Dolly Parton]

Here's a meta-thread from prodigy-pro.com about discrete opamps. Hopefully it's useful.

http://www.prodigy-pro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=281&sid=b265b3b980c874409d3b3f66b115d7ef

There are some nice links from that page, thanks!  I'll peruse some of this when I'm next having my legs waxed!

Gez      Dolly

[A.S.P.]

information lost...

[Joe Kramer]

How is it that such a simple question about discrete FX circuits turns into an argument?  It seems silly to me to argue about such things.

Amen, my brother!

There's an objective world of facts about how electronics work, and then there's a subjective world of sound and music.  We DIYers must constantly straddle those two worlds.  If we don't we're essentially fighting a war of left hand against right hand, and we all lose.  There are countless rules governing electronics, but only one that governs taste: If it sounds good, it is good.

And furthermore: nobody here tries to talk Puretube out of his passion and conviction about tubes, although some folks around here (not me) would argue they don't sound any different than a handful of transistors or op amps.  The fact is, he's entitled to his aesthetic, and it's practically incidental that he's an electronics genius. (Besides, you have to love a guy who stretches the vocabulary limits of this forum by using a word like criticaster! )

Joe

[A.S.P.]

information lost...

[The Tone God]

Is this DIYStompboxes or did I accidentally stumble on to a audiophool forum ? Whats all this "discrete/IC is better" crap ? Thats just silly talk.

The reasons I suggested ICs to the OP is not because I think they are better then discrete but instead in some cases the effects the OP was looking for could either:

1. Be made superior with ICs (boaster, buffer)

2. Be made significantly easier with ICs (phaser, chorus)

3. Not be made at all without ICs (delays, echoes, flanger)

The OP has the option of either removing the limitation of discrete only to get all the effects he requested or accept that they will not be able to do everything requested with only discretes. If he wants to make an all discrete BBD for example to learn or just for shits and giggles then I'm not going to stop them. I do idiotic things all the time just for kicks like restore a '71 Charger with the Super Bee package.

The OP's discrete/IC nerouses seem to be a subset of the "old is better then new" myth which we all know is fictatious but I feel the OP is not willing to take the time and effort to understand this and since this is not the time nor the place I will not follow through with the debunking process. Remember we are talking about a group (musicians) that like and/or have to live by various nerouses like accepting only certain types of woods, pickups, picks, strings, amps, tubes, etc. Trying to change those habits, which I'm sure we all carry, is extremely tough.

As for what side of the discrete/IC clan I'm on the answer is neither. I use what technology is the best for the job. That simple.

Andrew

[Dolly Parton]

"My one wish for you during your visit to Dollywood is that the wonder of the Great Smokey Mountains will touch your heart…and that you understand the inner workings of integrated operational amplifiers!"

[A.S.P.]

Is this DIYStompboxes or did I accidentally stumble on to a audiophool forum ? Whats all this "discrete/IC is better" crap ? Thats just silly talk

this is the thread, where the OP (=Original Poster) asked for:

...building a multiple-effects unit based entirely on trad, discrete circuits...

...And in the interest of historical accuracy and tone (and because I hate chips), I want to do it all with discrete circuits; no op-amps or ICs.

[SonicVI]

Minimoogs actually do have IC's in them, the new Minimoog Voyager has even more than the original and sounds just as incredible. 

[puretube]

I don`t think that any serious contributor to rch`s goal
really wants to convince him to put these monsters:
http://www.triodeel.com/images/gaprk2w1.jpg
http://www.triodeel.com/images/gaprk2w2.jpg
into an existing circuit
as a replacement for each individual modern opamp, but...

[jmusser]

I feel that this stuff is DIY. Do It Yourself doesn't give you a set of guidelines to work in. If you want to make boxes out of bear hide, and circuits out of bones and wood, have at it. DIY is a unique thing for each individual. I build a lot of my enclosures from scratch and from modified metal parts that were used for something totally different. About 75% of my components come out of junk VCRs, 8 Track Decks, Radios, etc. A lot of people think I'm insane to strip componets, when I can just buy new ones, or to make my own enclosures, when I could just by a Hammond box, but that's DIY to me. We have a lot of people on here that layout their own PC boards and populate them. That would drive ME insane, and I'd get no joy from that. That's DIY to them. Some people do amazing paint jobs and internal wiring, that's DIY to them. If all discretes is DIY to you, DO IT! Enjoy YOUR DIY! I place no value on my DIY time, because I enjoy myself. I do it for the thrill of making weird noises come out of a bunch of components and wire thrown together from a schematic that came off the Internet. What you're wanting to do, is a little like wanting to restore an old car. There's no money to be made. There's only money out of pocket, sweat and late nights scratching your head for thrill of the end result. Viva the end result!

[Paul Perry (Frostwave)]

I place no value on my DIY time, because I enjoy myself.

This deserves framing. Somebody was hanging it on me for buying a crap CD player for $10, but I pointed out that I would have a LOT more fun pulling it apart than watching a movie ($16) or reading a novel. Cheap thrills indeed!