STM's "BB&E" enhancer build report

[MartyMart]

http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=49860.0
Here's the schem from septembers FX-X submitions.

Very simple to build and does "exactly what is says on the tin" - to quote an annoying UK TV AD !
I built it "stock" at first but found the bass boost a bit subtle (on my rig) so changed R9 to a 33k.
All else stock other than all the 15k's ( had none ) became 16k's - close enough !
The circuit adds a lovely high "sheen" to both my strat and Yamaha LP with an additional low
"grunt" - V nice
One caveat - my pot ended up reversed, so looking at the schem, the pot connections are :
Top - lug 1 middle lug 2 and bottom lug 3 for correct "clockwise" increase.
This is using the FAQ pot wiring schem , back of pot, lugs down, left to right   3-2-1
Thanks to stm for creating this and posting it up - much appreciated dude

Marty.

[puretube]

pots alway oughtta be designated at one lug: CW

what`s a number?
where`s the rule?

[R.G.]

+1.

No, +100.

Pots should always be annotated with the CW turn direction.

One convention uses a small arrow across the wiper line to indicate CW or upwards travel. It's very handy. Another follows the transformer phasing rule and puts a black dot on the most significant - CW - direction lug.

I have somewhat steadfastly refused to learn pot numbering schemes, preferring to know which direction was hot (cw) and cold (CCW).

[MartyMart]

Agreed, I learned the pot "numbering" from Mr Anderton's book and from the FAQ here.
If a "CW" or arrow isn't shown, it's sometimes hard to visualize the correct wire up !
Other times, it's obvious from a schematic

MM.

[puretube]

oooops: I missed Anderton`s books (wrong time/continent...),
and a couple of FAQs (no time...),

but then again: sometimes it`s neither hot nor cold, but left and right 

(it`s then, when you have to decide whether it`s top- or bottom-view,
back/front,
and/or: stage-view, or audience-view...)

[John Lyons]

So basically this circuit is similar to the  classic "BBE" process in that it enhances and give a bit of sparle and definition to your sound?
Marty, If you get the time I'd love to hear your BB&E pedal as well as your La2A type compressor.

john

[MartyMart]

So basically this circuit is similar to the  classic "BBE" process in that it enhances and give a bit of sparle and definition to your sound?
Marty, If you get the time I'd love to hear your BB&E pedal as well as your La2A type compressor.

john

I'll see if I can get a sample done tomorrow for them

MM.

[O]

Bumpity 

[MartyMart]

The "edit" functions seem to have gone ??

Here' an mp3 of the BB&E :
http://aronnelson.com/gallery/albums/album72/BB_E_enhancer.mp3

First two strums minimum enhance
Second strums full enhance, spot the "sheen" and low end lift ?

MM.

[KerryF]

hows it sound with overdrive?

if you can, a soundclip with overdrive and minimum enhance, then overdrive and full enhance.

Thanks!  Sounds pretty cool.

[Doug_H]

I hear the "sheen" but not the "low end lift". Maybe its my computer speakers but the second strums sound thinner to me.

[KerryF]

it does sound a little thinner to me too.  but it sounds sparkling and trebly with the enhance.  thats why its probably a bit easier to detect with overdrive.

[powerplayj]

Is there a PCB and layout for this yet?  This is exactly what I need for my Strat when playing at low volumes.  I currently use the Mr. EQ (boost the bass and treble) but what I really need is a little presence instead of treble. 

[MartyMart]

Sorry boy's I haven't got time to make multiple samples !!
The raising of top and bottom makes the mids seem to go away ( this is normal ) so
that's why it sounds "thinner"
Increase low & High = mid scoop

mp3's kind of "suck" for this sort of detail, I tried a few for the LA light comp .... pointless !!
You just didn't hear the soft attack and "bloom" in the mp3, just plain gtr !

..... onwards .....

MM

[Doug_H]

mp3's kind of "suck" for this sort of detail, I tried a few for the LA light comp .... pointless !!
You just didn't hear the soft attack and "bloom" in the mp3, just plain gtr !

Yeah, I can believe that. My BBE is very subtle. I used it for a gig or two as it adds some bottom to the strat through my 10W amp and sounds nice. I got tired of carrying it around and have too much crap to plug in as it is, though.;-) I found you have to be careful with the highs as it will sound "processed" with distortion.

[SysCrusher]

I just tried this and it works really good in front of my amp as the last thing in the effects chain. I tried it in my loop too where it works ok but not great. Probably because of the impedence mismatch in my effects loop. I'v been playing with R9 and R4 as a low and high contour by adding pots inplace of the resistors. Works great even though I havn't found the best match for pots. I could be wrong about R4? I just used 1meg linear pots. I don't know what value would be the best yet. C2,C4 and C1 i used .1uf caps since that's what was available to me for the moment. R3 would make a decent level control. I think the enhance pot acts like a mix? Now to figure out how to make it work better in an effects loop. I know the real thing has a 47k input inpedence. I really like the circuit and didn't cost me a penny to put together.

[SysCrusher]

bumping this one up.

[O]

So... any pics?

[jmusser]

I was hoping for something a whole different, when I heard the sound sample. My little tube amp already has that sheen. In fact, if you played those samples exactly backwards, it would be closer to what the bass boost sounded like that I made. It took the sheen away, and subtlely dulled it, instead of doing any real bass enhancement. I'm looking for something that enhances the bass as well as the Rangemaster boosts treble. It seems to be a difficult process. I always thought "the fatter the cap" (more capacitance) the more treble that gets sent to ground, but after experimenting with that, it's more like all you build is a "tone and volume suck".The other thing you run into, is that you can bass the tone pretty well with something like the Big Muff tone stack, but then the fidelity is gone, and you're left with mud. What I'd like to end up with is a bassier version of my own amp's sound. The Rangemaster I built did a beautiful job of keeping the fidelity, without distorting. Maybe, high frequency fidelity, is just a whole lot easier to pull off, or it could just be the ear's perception, I don't know, but it seems like the old stereo radios and turntables of the 70s could do just what I'm talking about.