A/DA Flanger does TZF?

[moosapotamus]

yes:
pins 11&12 of the 4007 represent the (variable) resistor being substituted by it,
[which controls the frequency of the 4047by resembling the frequency-controlling resistor between the pins 2&3 of the latter];

Thanks, Ton. 

I  hate to keep jumping in with my tsing when the brainstorming on layout changes has kicked back in ( which btw reminds me I wonder If I should've took all my questions to a thread separate  )  but I hope it all applies!

It's all good and it definately all applies. And, I'm glad you're posting in this thread. I think the fact that you are sharing the process of working out all your kinks will pay big dividends when we other brave souls are ready to follow in your footsteps.

Thanks!
~ Charlie

[analog kid]

 well well, there is just one 33uf there stephen's schem draw.  I hadn't noticed that. hmmmm. there are a couple 22uf's rather than 33 in a Rev 3 schem(C22/C26) I have which I thought you may be speakin of.
 I am assuming then that a difference of  as small as  10mv between Pins 10 and 11 from 4047 is not important then?  
 I wonder if posting my pin vltgs from maybe LM324, 1458, and 4047 at a predetermined common control setting may show someone here waht to point to causing my sweep problem?
   Thanks Moos' that is exactly what I was hoping for really , that It would be 'helpful'

UPDATE : ( This IS an EDIT , apologies to anyone who read this BEFORE I did this)
I thought I had found a problems when I went to put in a larger*(50k )Enhance trimmer, when I pulled the old one  I found on leg (leg 3) of the fragile blue bourns had snapped off below where I couldn't see. and upon installing 50k I THOUGHT that Enhance was working perfectly as it should . Trimmed back til able to go full CW before fb is too much.    UNTIL!!!!!..... I realized that the odd/even was at the time in the thin and weak volume ODD position.  Flipped back to even and AHHHHHH!! Feedback at less than 1/2turn regardless of trimpot settting!!  Again Ehance CAN be trimmed properly when in ODD Unfortunately this has NOT helped much if any in solving my problem with the staggered detuned sweep instead of smooth!! I understand this would be unavoidable at some settings (high range,etc..) but I'm not able to dial out this 'stagger' at many if any swept settings.
Progress Indeed
I also decided to mess around some more w/ listening tests while switch in ODD . When I notice that the overall sweep of the flange is much better here. The abrupt staggered detune is hardly offensive until Range is up Very high and Speed set very fast.  So unless this all stands to reason due to some freq cancellation or the like which I've yet to comprehend.... THiS discovery seem to mb may be very telling!! 

[StephenGiles]

Just a thought regarding the uneven sweep - you could try a 470k for the clock range preset in order to reduce the amount of maximum clock modulation. That may help.

On the enhancing side of things, check the voltage on the non feedback side which should be approx 50% of the supply voltage.

[analog kid]

thanks Stephen, I tried this and it did seem to help a bit  when set to it's exteme and the right range pot settings (and slower speed) allowing for some much more "useable" sounding sweeps, at lower sppeds)  However the uneveness is still there no matter how I try to "hide" it.  On a scope it''s easier to see  obvioulsy but my ears are all I have and even at very slow speeds (where I and many probably love flanging the best) there is still that detuned, staggered abrupt feeling thoughout each cycle .
(Non-feedback side) ?? IC1 pin 1 has 7.1v.  My enhance problem  I am hoping is hiding within an issue with IC1b pin 5,6,7 area. As 5 connects directly to the Middle/CW side of ENHANCE pot.
 
ALTHOUGH IC1 pins 5, 6, and 7 adjust equally with T1 Bias Trim , a couple of very strange things happen around here while audio probing:
1) set within Bias range (below 6v all way down to apprx 3v) probing 5-7 shows the Flanged output ,UNLESS the Enhance pot is turned off CCW, in which ALL "AUDIO" signal dissappears from 5/6 BUT not from 7!!, which is left with the dry unmodulated signal.  lookin' at the schem it doesn't seem right  for anything to be at 7 if not 5,6, ?And since  enhance doesn't change the bias vltgs this is freaking me out. also btw pin 7's audio can be cancelled too, but only if bias hits over 13v trim full cw
2) Ok, back to having enhance pot "on" at bit / ie; CW enough for the flanged signal to be at pin 5,6  AS WELL AS pin 7.  If BIAS is now trimmed 'out of range' , 6v and above, the same thing happens as in the previous.. No "audio" (follow me here) at 5,6 but still dry signal remaining at 7 again!  Reason I say No "Audio", at 5/6... is because if  Ehance is turned cw now  THERE IS LFO thob controlled by rate coming through on 5/6.  and ALSO at 7 but coming through on top of the dry audio signal!        IS THE LFO coming in via enhance pot here a red flag?     
  These interactions are surely what's causing at least one of the problems!? I SHOULD POINT OUT AGAIN, that although it obviously looks to me like the Enhance pot is interacting with the Bias voltage. At no time does Enhance pot rotation cause a change in the actual Bias Vltg. It stays firm whatever it's trimmed to.

[puretube]

At no time does Enhance pot rotation cause a change in the actual Bias Vltg...

but the other way `round: does Bias-variation change "enhance"?

the original Rev. 1 & 2, as well as Rev. D got AC-decoupled bias, IIRC...

[analog kid]

Yes PT, if i probe 5,6,7 and get the enhance up cw into that heavy edge of squealing regeneration, The bias trim(rotated still within the working bias range of 3-6v)  will change the feedback's character/volume indeed.   Of couse with bias over 6v as I said the enhance is killed along with the flanged signal and all audio (on pins 5/6)ipin 7 is some reason left with the dry audio signal.

[analog kid]

 Ok guys , R38  , I think you can highlight it in your notes!  
This part value which is ONLY shown as 10k in the MI parts change schematic and now I see for very good reason! It is shown as 30k everywhere else. I had seen it before but put off trying this change because I didn't realize it would play such a part with Enhance control or the BBD. DuH!!Thanks Puretube for pointing in the right direction with the note about differnce In Gain between the BBD's And thanks Gripp for putting it together with R38!
Well after making this change I have a  perfectly working enhance control > in both Odd And Even modes!! trim set for that "edge of shooshing oblivion" at full cw : ) and even better Odd/Even now are at very equal volumes with one another.
 These problems being remedied , I believe along with my having put in a much larger trim for clock range which S.Giles suggested, I have now been able to achieve very nice even swept flanging! If I set the clock trim anything much less than full resistance(which is a 470k!) then the sweep does begin to become abrupt and uneven again at some settings. So I don't know if using the large clock trimmer value is covering up a problem.  here nor there for now cause it's working.
I believe I will reconnect the noise gate and get a FET working.R34 is jumpered now and J5/14 disconnected to disable it.

[puretube]

it probably has to do with the leaving out (in the MI/SG-version)
of the "threshold"-part of the original.

this sets up different impedances around those mixing-sections,
when compared to the original, IMHO.

[StephenGiles]

You could well be right Ton, but I don't have this problem.

[Gripp]

Just to make this clear...maybe.

R38 that was 30k in the original rev3 and is 10k in the MI/SG schem,
is the 10k feedback resistor on IC1C (MI/SG schem; output from here carries wet to mix and to feedback filter, is actually IC1C in the original schem too).

This is the one that seems to matter (value 10k and not 30k).
Doesn't this resistor set gain for entire wet signal out to feedback filter and to output mix?

[puretube]

You could well be right Ton, but I don't have this problem.

I don`t think M.I. did a design-flaw;
therefore, I think when you strictly follow his circuit (like you obviously did)
without squinting at the "original" Revs, it will work out fine as is.

But when playing around with partly adaptions of the various "originals"
into the M.I. circuit,
strange things may happen...

[Gripp]

Let's not forget that the pcb layout that we're using here came from the hands of M.I too...and it is rev3 but modded for SAD. http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/layout_ADA_new-p.zip
Just no schem to go with it.
The only thing I did was to clean it up graphically and try to get a parts list together.

[StephenGiles]

Let me check back to old emails from MI this evening, I have a feeling that he pointed out R38 as an error on the ADA original circuit. Glad that you now have a good enhance control An. Kid.

[StephenGiles]

Let me check back to old emails from MI this evening, I have a feeling that he pointed out R38 as an error on the ADA original circuit. Glad that you now have a good enhance control An. Kid.

Confirmed, but since forgotten of course.

[analog kid]

 Oh , thanks gripp ,  if I didn't explain well enough the value change at r38 (30k to 10k ) etc..

But when playing around with partly adaptions of the various "originals"
into the M.I. circuit,
strange things may happen...

BINGO! That's what I think is alot of what's going on here indeed and what has brought on alot of the headaches and confusion at least in my case! looking at what value differences from rev's may apply to or contradict the bbd mod!   BUT based on the fact that M.I. has it seems applied his same config. of changes to BOTH Rev 3 and 4  Rev 3 one has to wonder should there be any reason for "strange things to happen"?  (what I mean by this is explained below)
  This is something that has made me wonder alot about whether certain values used in Rev 3 vs. 4 would affect the way the changes for the SAD work... this is  Looking at the schematic redrawn by Stephen incorporating all the SAD changes , which is a REV 4 minus the Threshold/Gate section. and THEN looking at the pcb Layout we're working from,which I, as Gripp stated,  believe was drawn by M.I. adding in bbd changes  BUT BASED FROM the Bergman Layout which is REV 3, with Gate included   This had me wondering why he'd see fit to redraw/add to this existing Rev 3 layout when his original SAD parts changes (the schem Stephen drew) were applied to a Rev 4 UNLESS Mike felt there was nothing to conflict with his SAD changes IN EITHER REV 3 or 4! 
    ANYWAY considering it was obviously drawn in some form BY M.I. using SAD in both the REV 4 ( in the giles drawn schem)  AND  Rev 3 ( the 'hybrid'  pcb layout collaborated though maybe unwittingly by Bergman and Irwin!)  So my point is that I have plenty of faith that the circuit will work with no major issues with the Rev 3 as I'm building or Rev 4 as well  which I assume is what Stephen built from.  : )   sorry if I thought too much into that 

Let me check back to old emails from MI this evening, I have a feeling that he pointed out R38 as an error on the ADA original circuit. Glad that you now have a good enhance control An. Kid

Thank stephen yes I have proper enhance , even volumes from odd / even now but I'm just not accustom to how it 'cancels' different frequencies of the flanging. AND making me the most happy.. the ability now to dial in much smoother swept flanging!! Albeit it seems that I have to use every bit of that 470k clock trimmer you suggested to reduce the modulation enough that I'm still be able to turn the Range up a bit without wobble.  YES That would be absolutely great to hear what you come across looking though some of those emails. I would definitely bet you'll find notes about r38 specifically but although It's possible Mike may have noted it as an error in the schem from the get go... based on the description of the different gains of both bbd's and what is obviously part of the job r38 does in the circuit, then I'd say it's also very possible that r38 was a change made be Mike Irwin to help the SAD operate better

[StephenGiles]

What MI said was that the Odd/Even circuit is supposed to be a switchable inverting/non-inverting amp with a
gain of one. As far as I know he simply adapted the ADA pcb for his SAD 1024 modifications, and so that his version would work - not so that this forum could lose any sleep over it

.....oh, and he doesn't refer to any particular rev either. Anyway, this has surely been a very interesting thread.

[analog kid]

As far as I know he simply adapted the ADA pcb for his SAD 1024 modifications, and so that his version would work - not so that this forum could lose any sleep over it

No doubt, No doubt. 
though at least one forum member surely has my friend.
thanks
yes the fact that he had used that existing pcb to build his versions had just made a million thought go through my head as to the possibilities of the 'changes' as they are applied to rev 3 vs. rev 4.   Thought processes Overkill!
  Well my Clone is flanging beautifully now!! I still have some issues of course. Volume drop even when lowering mix resistors to apprx 24k.   And most recently after reconnecting the noise gate partway (ie; jumper 5 back in place and R34 unjumpered) I have now only strong flanged output from one side of the Odd/Even switch (the Odd)      So this has me wondering if r34's current value of 10k OR it's  neccessity at all comes into play when employing the noise gate?

[markusw]

Quote
R43 (at pin 6/7  output amp)   27k instead of 4.7k  ?

IMHO the 4.7k should give you a much higher output than the 27k... Might be a place to check


Markus

Some more crap posted by me 
Obviously, it's the other way round. 27k gives higher gain than 4k7 
Don't listen to me!

Markus

[StephenGiles]

Analog Kid - I think you need to check the pcb and connections around the odd/even op amp and trace the signal through to see where it disappears in the even setting by listening to it.

By the way, I finally got my first phaser to work at 4am one night around 1976 - my first wife was not pleased!!!

[RedHouse]

Hmmm, my second wife loves my first phaser.