My =ultimate= multi-fx pedalboard...W.I.P

[Auke Haarsma]

Because of a crash of my 'diy'-pc I lost the eagle files for the early stuff of this thread. One of those things is the Channel_Selector. And to be honest, I was quite puzzled when I tried to understand what I had in mind over a year ago....

Ah well, note to self: Make sure what you do/plan to do is WELL DOCUMENTED (and have backups..)! Tonight I took some time to figure it out. Here's a pic (mainly for myself). It shows how the selectors should be wired.

[rm -rp ./Matt*]

After all this hard work why not create a patch system at the back of the board? (Maybe you already are....) You'd need to build alot a patch cables but it'd mean you could always chop and change order and emit certain effects from the chain, plus it'd look real complex to people

[jacobyjd]

I was thinking about the patch cable concept too--I'm building effects 3-to-a-box right now, and I use that method. However, if I were building an all-in-one mega-unit like Auke's got going here, I'd put separate jacks for everything, but I would use the smallest, cheapest connectors I could find to do it, whether that would be bananas, RCAs, or 1/8" phone jacks.

Full modularization via patches, but much less expensive--just roll a ton of your own cables and you're in business

[Auke Haarsma]

thanks for the ideas guys!

Let's imagine... 14 effects, 2 effectsloops. That meanse 16 send+returns would be required. If we stick to the two channel concept, eacht send+return needs a A+B channel, so total would be 32 sends and 32 returns: 64 jacks 

Each effect(loop) would require 2 jacks (send+return), so 32 jackplugs.

Quite a bunch Both in numbers, $$$ and space.

However we could make this a smaller problem by using other types of jacks and plugs, as Jacob suggests.

But, what is the advantage? Routing options? Yeah, I guess. But what is the advantage over the idea I currently have?

As it is now I'd like to built two effectsloops in the chain. Their position is not set yet, but I think I place the first loop after the boosters and right before the OD/Dirt section. The second loop will be places after the Dirt and before the modulation-sections. That would, as I imagine, give quite interesting routing options.

And, how often do you really change the order of fx completely?

I think that the basic order of: Boost, OD, Dirt, Modulation, Delay is the most usefull. Swapping the order within such a section is possible with two loops.

Example: OD has TS and DOD. With Loop 1 just in front of the OD section I can put the TS on channel A, DOD on channel B. Normally the order is DOD-> TS. Now, with all other fx inactive, I route Loop 2 Send to Loop 1 Return. Loop 2 is on the A channel, Loop two I put on the B channel. Output I set to the B channel. Order now is input-> TS -> Loop 2 -> Loop 1 -> DOD -> Output. Voila! TS and DOD swapped

As you see, the Loops can be used to bring additional effects into the chain (orginal goal), but can also be used to swap the order of fx.

Maybe it is good to put in a third FX-loop. That would give me even more routing options.

[mth5044]

too cool.

[jacobyjd]

That sounds like a good solution. I don't tend to change the order of my board very often, but I do tend to add/remove things from the chain pretty readily.

Additionally, my goal is generally to minimize the number of bypassed connections being used--meaning if I'm not going to use a specific effect at a show, I remove it from my chain completely.

Another thing to consider with the issue of keeping them all with separate connections is what you do when something goes wrong. Suppose you have 6 effects strung together at a given point in your chain...something happens to fail, and you can't use any of those effects until you open the whole thing up, trace the problem, then fix it.

With separate inputs/outputs, you'll have the option to remove just one effect from a module of several in case something happens to fail.

[Auke Haarsma]

too cool.

Thanks! 

Another thing to consider with the issue of keeping them all with separate connections is what you do when something goes wrong. Suppose you have 6 effects strung together at a given point in your chain...something happens to fail, and you can't use any of those effects until you open the whole thing up, trace the problem, then fix it.

With separate inputs/outputs, you'll have the option to remove just one effect from a module of several in case something happens to fail.

Ok, this is a very good point. Reliability depends on the weakest link in the chain.

I did not take it that into much consideration to be honest. Of course, I have thought about how to build this is solid as possible. And of course, each single effect is tested before I put it inside (at the time of writing nothing is inside yet...).

But, my multi-fx does not differ that much from seperate effects. The only difference is: one big enclosure and some routing options. If an effect fails (which I hope is unlikely) I can still bypass it with the footswitch. In the worst case, if an ad hoc solution is needed, I can put the 'broken' effects in the channel B, and only use channel A for playing.

If also depends a lot on the cause of failure. If it is beer being spilled over the enclosure I have more trouble than if it is a broken LED

I guess the big test is actually to finish this bloody project and use it

[Auke Haarsma]

  ... over ten thousand views... that's insane!

Thanks to everyone who is following this project! It helps to keep me motivated a lot!

[greigoroth]

I check back here all the time! Keep going man!

[earthtonesaudio]

A very inspiring project.  Makes me want to build something at least 1/100th so ambitious.   

[Auke Haarsma]

Thanks for the encouragement guys!

And a special thanks goes out to: xshredx.

A few posts above I mentioned I lost quite a bunch of my Eagle files due to a computer crash. xshredx kindly reminded me that I sent him all the files I had at the time over a year ago. I completely forgot about that! He still had the files and mailed them to me. Exactly what I was looking for!

As you've probably seen in the Wah Enclosure thread by Mick Farlow I have received the 'custom' wah's build by Mic. Just two pics here:




The other wahs in the pic are for comparison.

As you see, two wah's. One with a single pot. One with two wahpots.

The single pot-wah will contain:
-a channel blender: so you can blend the two channels in my multi-fx with your foot.
-an 'hard'switch between the channels. Like an A/B-switch. So no gradual change, but instant switch from channel A to B and vice versa.
-LEDs in the plexi to show which channel is active. So the colour in the plexi changes as I rock the pedal. Looking forward to see this in action!
-an amp+cab sim with headphone out. For quiet playing

The wah with two pots:
-A wahwah, based on GGG modable wah. Two inductors. One 'stock' and a Whipple Inductor. Cap selection via a rotary, Q-control etc.
-A fuzz. Probably a face-bender. This is a combination of a Fuzz Face and a Tone Bender. The second wah pot will be used as a fuzz pot.
-Other ideas welcome. I'm not 100% conviced the wah-fuzz-pot is the best thing to do...

[Valoosj]

I'm looking forward to our meeting in November 

[mth5044]

oooo this enclosures are really cool.

[liddokun]

You should have a part at the bottom of your pedalboard that sticks out so that you can mount the wah enclosures on, so that it'll look like a
commercial pedalboard with the rocker pedals attached.  That'd be really cool.

[obelix]

I'll be keeping my eye on this thread...

nice work so far.

[Auke Haarsma]

Finally a pic of the initial wiring.

Things to note: the red/black-twisted wires are powersupply wires. They carry GND and +9V. I intend to keep the LEDs (switches) and fx seperate, powerwise.

And, note the 'telephone-cable'. It is the thick(er) black cable (you can see it clearly top left), with four coloured wires inside. Those wires are used to connect the FX to the Footswitch and the Channel Selector.



Probably a small step to some of you, but for me this marks a big(ger) step. I have now decided how to get the power to all those PCB's. Every pcb needs power... and to prevent a mess I put some thought in how to do that in a decent way.

[Valoosj]

T-46 days until the meeting... 

[Auke Haarsma]

Another small/big step 

Today I hooked up the outputs of the first Channel_Selector to an improvised mixer (25k LIN pot..) And yeah! Everything works. One channel has a SHO, the other channel is 'clean'. The mixer blends them nicely. Switching the Channel_Selector actually switches to SHO to the other channel. So, it works as designed.

[Auke Haarsma]

So, a time-consuming hobby it is! You can't imagine the amount of wires needed for this project. Or at least, I couldn't imagine up until now... It is insane!

Today I finished putting the third effect in . Currently I have:
-Splitter (not an effect, but required for the two channels)
-SHO
-ROG Omega
-DOD250

I tested it again and it did work on the 2nd attempt (1st attempt failed because I forgot to power the effects....)! I already am very very pleased with having two channels and the ability to blend them. Really FAT sounds possible when combining a bit of SHO and a bit of the Omega into a DOD250 (thanks to Mark Hammer for bringing up this possibility!)

And now for the pics. The first pic is a bit vague, but you can see three blue LEDs active (the three effects are 'on'). The other pics show the 'guts' and some of my testing setup. Enjoy! :

[flo]

Omg this project is just as fantastic as well as insane! 
Do you have any global "architecture"- / block- / signal-flow- diagram for this?
Good luck with it Auke! I'll "see" you at the Newtone forum...