Double Delay

[Mark Hammer]

I'm not absolutely certain I understand what you are suggesting (although I am absolutely certain that you are pressed for time at the moment and not able to spend a lot of time posting things).  But here is what I think you mean.

If a person uses two identical high-capacity BBDs (like 2048, 3328, or 4096-stage devices), then one gets a delay time of exactly double the first chip at the output of the second.

The reason I suggested using an MN3011 is because the stagger between the first and second delay outputs can be adjusted without requiring a second clock.  Of course, the first chip does not HAVE to be an 1024-stage MN3007.  I only suggested it because it adds to the total number of stages, and because blanik said he was interested in a slapback and second delay.  If a person was to use a pair of MN3011s in series, controlled by the same master clock, and could select the tap-point where the output of the first chip was directed to the second, plus the tap point where the output of the second came from....well....that would pretty much take up your entire summer vacation working through all the possibilities of all the delay staggers, wouldn't it?

[slacker]

not to derail this interesting discussion but WelshWonder is planning on using PT2399s not BBDs.

[Mark Hammer]

Oops.

Then in the immortal words of Emily Littela: Never mind!

[puretube]

yes, I just thought: double (or half, just how you wanna name it) is a very nice musical/rhythmical interval...
(when you route it to 2 outputs...)
worx digi as well as ana.

digi can whine too, e.g. via the rails, btw...

[WelshWonder]

not to derail this interesting discussion but WelshWonder is planning on using PT2399s not BBDs.

Thanks, yeah, I want to use the PT2399's...

It's interesting to hear you discuss your ideas about delay so I am still all ears. However, I am not at that level yet where I can design my own schematics for new effect techniques (wish I could), so I have to work with what I already know (for the moment).

I did wonder about the noise problems using two identical delay designs and I wondered if that is best kept at bay by placing them serial or parallell configuration, although I will probably add a switch for this function.

I will be using the Rebote design and recreating a new layout so that the two circuits and the tempo LED indicator circuits are all on one board (this I am confident in doing). It is going to be a fair size enclosure but I think in the end it will be worth it, even if it is not the best sounding device, it will inevitably help me in improving my knowledge of effects construction.

[Processaurus]

Neat project idea.

With regards to noise issues, I'd say go for it, and worry about it only if it comes up.  I think having seperate boards and power supply decoupling, and grounding them together at the power supply will be fine.  Maybe use shielded wire for the input.  But don't give up on your project before its started.  I had two small clone boards hooked together every which way with clip leads a while back and was surprised to have no problems with heterodyning or whining.

Idea for your bypass:  Forget true bypass, always have your signal going through the dry side of the delay mixer, and have two stompswitches to kill the two respective delay lines going into the mixer.  Maybe use those switches to kill the repeats when its in bypass as well.

Is there a tempo LED possible (ie. easy)with the PTs?

[Bassmanfox]

Would it be possible to add an analog delay circuit in series or parallel with the pt2399 or would this just cause more problems?

[Seljer]

Is there a tempo LED possible (ie. easy)with the PTs?

It seems that it is
the ratio between the PT2399 frequency and the delay time is a relatively constant, at around 680000 to 690000, so all you need to is make a circuit to blind a LED every 685000 clock cycles
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=50185.0 with a layout and everything