MN3007 ADA Flanger Clone Questions

[Paul Marossy]

Happy 13,000!

Gee thanks. I didn't even notice that.

[Scruffie]

I was looking for some info I got from somewhere about a depth control that you could add to this circuit, but couldn't find it in this loooong thread, so I must've found it somewhere else I guess. I have it scribbled onto a schematic but I am not sure what I have is correct... doesn't seem to make sense.

The width control in conjunction with the manual already is a depth control, sometimes on modulation the wet level gets called depth though so it could be adjusting the mixing resistor?

[dfx_pedalpcbs]

ive got 4 PCB's i made for the ADA, I have populated it and it does work, ive just not got around to calibrating it. I am giving them away to you folks (just pay postage) in return I just ask that you also verify it and can calibrate it. Its made from the Flintlock schematic. Forgot to add a pin from the CD4047 to make the calibrating a bit easier.
Send me a message if you want to try one. Its designed to fit into a 1590BB Vertically, i do have drill template for it.

[Paul Marossy]

I was looking for some info I got from somewhere about a depth control that you could add to this circuit, but couldn't find it in this loooong thread, so I must've found it somewhere else I guess. I have it scribbled onto a schematic but I am not sure what I have is correct... doesn't seem to make sense.

The width control in conjunction with the manual already is a depth control, sometimes on modulation the wet level gets called depth though so it could be adjusting the mixing resistor?

I think I found what I was looking for, have a Word doc with it saved there. Not sure who is was directed to but this is what it said:

armdnrdy's suggestion:

I was looking at a few flanger designs when I thought of your need for a "depth" control.

I think that you can insert a pot (try a 100KB) between the output of IC4B, and the range trimmer.

Connect one lug of the depth pot to IC4B pin 7, the wiper to pin 3 of the Range trim (P4) and the other Depth pot lug to ground.

Instead of mixing between wet and dry this should control the LFO amplitude for a genuine Depth control.

[Scruffie]

ive got 4 PCB's i made for the ADA, I have populated it and it does work, ive just not got around to calibrating it. I am giving them away to you folks (just pay postage) in return I just ask that you also verify it and can calibrate it. Its made from the Flintlock schematic. Forgot to add a pin from the CD4047 to make the calibrating a bit easier.
Send me a message if you want to try one. Its designed to fit into a 1590BB Vertically, i do have drill template for it.

I may not have any ownership over the A/DA Flanger circuit, but do you not think to post directly after me, referencing the project name that you freely admit you've worked directly from that is sold through a company you're well aware I work for, that you're asking for verification builds for a project to sell through your store, might be a bit less than the classiest of moves?

[Scruffie]

I was looking for some info I got from somewhere about a depth control that you could add to this circuit, but couldn't find it in this loooong thread, so I must've found it somewhere else I guess. I have it scribbled onto a schematic but I am not sure what I have is correct... doesn't seem to make sense.

The width control in conjunction with the manual already is a depth control, sometimes on modulation the wet level gets called depth though so it could be adjusting the mixing resistor?

I think I found what I was looking for, have a Word doc with it saved there. Not sure who is was directed to but this is what it said:

armdnrdy's suggestion:

I was looking at a few flanger designs when I thought of your need for a "depth" control.

I think that you can insert a pot (try a 100KB) between the output of IC4B, and the range trimmer.

Connect one lug of the depth pot to IC4B pin 7, the wiper to pin 3 of the Range trim (P4) and the other Depth pot lug to ground.

Instead of mixing between wet and dry this should control the LFO amplitude for a genuine Depth control.

I see where he was coming from but that would just be another way to skin a cat and would make set up more complicated, the width control already is a divider before the range trim and achieves the same aim.

[Kevin Mitchell]

ive got 4 PCB's i made for the ADA, I have populated it and it does work, ive just not got around to calibrating it. I am giving them away to you folks (just pay postage) in return I just ask that you also verify it and can calibrate it. Its made from the Flintlock schematic. Forgot to add a pin from the CD4047 to make the calibrating a bit easier.
Send me a message if you want to try one. Its designed to fit into a 1590BB Vertically, i do have drill template for it.

Well that's a slap in the face with my not-so-much-now upcoming a/da pcb giveaway 

A competent enthusiast would test their own experiments before indulging others. Calibrate the darn thing!

The one I'm cooking up is more true to the original. But I can't imagine it sounding much different.
Guess I'll have to change things up and fit it into a 125B 

-KM

[derationalize]

     I'm breaking down and finally posting after years of lurking because I just can't seem to get this darned thing to work! First of all, moosapotamus was sold out of boards when I first started working on this earlier this summer, so I went ahead and etched my own board. I made a single sided layout with all dual opamps instead of quads because that's what I have in my parts bins. I've checked this thing against the Rev5 schematic, and the questionable area around the transistor was triple checked against the veroboard layout floating around the web. I must have read this whole thread thrice, and a couple of posts "the other forum." Problem is, I can't get to the calibration step! I edited the power section of the board to omit the charge pump and replaced all that stuff with an LM317 (and necessary components, of course) because I have a reliable power supply I can get 18v out of.

     I'm getting good power at about 14.6 volts on the regulator output. My bias voltage signal is stable and at a sensible spot somewhere around 7.2 volts. The LFO is giving a good signal, and the speed and range pots seem to be giving a decent control signal. My audio, however is blocked. Plugging in the MN3007 doesn't to do much of anything, and I've been leaving it out till I can make sure the rest of the circuit is working properly. I've stuck in a couple of times to see if that had any effect but it doesn't do anything so I leave it out as a safeguard. I traced the signal on my scope to the D5 and D6 diode pair, afterwards the signal exits the diodes with barely a blip of high frequency information in it left, which gets eaten up in the resistors, never making it to the transistor. I can get sound out of this if I put a jumper leading from the diodes to either collector or emitter of the transistor. Shorting to the base does nothing, which I suppose makes sense. What exactly do the opamps after the transistor do?

      If anyone still has any boards for this that work, I'm game to try them out as I still have yet to get this thing workign after it hogging up my bench all summer. I even made a pretty box for it with a built in expression pedal out of oak to house it. I'll also attach my modified for dual opamps schematic and layout in case it's of any use to someone out there. I have some multisim and ultiboard files I can email anyone interested in them if it helps the community out.

[derationalize]

What's the difference between the flintlock and the moosapotamus versions?

[Fender3D]

You're misunderstanding the FET purpose...

It just shorts to ground the signal from BBD, thus acting as noise gate when you're not playing.
If you use one FET out of specifics it may remain shut, then you get no signal.

D5 and D6 are parts of the rectifier built around U5, you're not supposed to have a nice signal there...

You might as well pull off the FET just for test purpose (and leave it out if you don't need the noise gate )

[Kevin Mitchell]

What's the difference between the flintlock and the moosapotamus versions?

Circuit differences aside from the use of dual opamps all around instead of the quads, not much really - if any at all in the signal path.

The Flintlock has the option to use a MN3207. I don't believe anyone has done this yet.
On that note - I think a 15v clock pulse going to a 3207 would be damaging. For anyone to go that route, it would be ideal to cut the +15v trace at the 4049 and wire the pad to the BBD's +V. The 4049 can handle >+V at it's inputs and will only output as much as it's supply voltage.

-KM

[Scruffie]

What's the difference between the flintlock and the moosapotamus versions?

Apart from board mounting everything in a 1590BB, 3207 switching as Kevin says, a few value tweaks and the re-addition of BBD balancing resistors, not a whole lot.

What's the difference between the flintlock and the moosapotamus versions?

Circuit differences aside from the use of dual opamps all around instead of the quads, not much really - if any at all in the signal path.

The Flintlock has the option to use a MN3207. I don't believe anyone has done this yet.
On that note - I think a 15v clock pulse going to a 3207 would be damaging. For anyone to go that route, it would be ideal to cut the +15v trace at the 4049 and wire the pad to the BBD's +V. The 4049 can handle >+V at it's inputs and will only output as much as it's supply voltage.

-KM

Let alone a 15V clock pulse not working, the BBD wouldn't take that! The intention was you'd just use a 9V regulator for the whole circuit if you went with the 3207 (although as you say, I'm not aware of anyone actually taking that route) I couldn't think of an elegant way of reducing the 4049 voltage that wouldn't require extra hoops for the 3007 build version at the time. It's probably time the circuit got an update.

[Kevin Mitchell]

Let alone a 15V clock pulse not working, the BBD wouldn't take that! The intention was you'd just use a 9V regulator for the whole circuit if you went with the 3207 (although as you say, I'm not aware of anyone actually taking that route) I couldn't think of an elegant way of reducing the 4049 voltage that wouldn't require extra hoops for the 3007 build version at the time. It's probably time the circuit got an update.

Yeah that's a good point. You'd have to put more jumpers on the board. I don't blame the designer for leaving that to the builders discretion.

-KM

[derationalize]

I took some voltages down in hopes that someone might be able to spot where the problem is at. I wrote down the approximate minimum and maximum voltages for these signals because I have an ancient analog scope that's hard to get accurate readings off of. U12 (MN3007) is absent from its socket for these readings, and U7 has been omitted since the LFO section looks fine under the scope.

U1
1:  Square wave test signal 0v - 12v
2:  Signal 3.5v - 10v
3:  Signal -0.8v - 16v
4:  0v
5:  14.3v
6:  Signal 11v - 13v
7:  Signal 12v - 12.8v
8:  14.45v
U2
1:  13.1v
2:  7.2v
3:  7.2v
4:  0v
5:  13v
6:  13.1v
7:  13.1v
8:  14.4v
U3
1:  4.9v
2:  4.9v
3:  4.9v
4:  0v
5:  7.2v
6:  Signal 12.6v - 13v
7:  0v
8:  14.4v
U4
1:  7.2v
2:  7.2v
3:   7.2v
4:  0v
5:  7.2v
6:  7.2v
7:  7.2v
8:  14.4v
U5
1:  Signal 0v - 13v
2:  2.4v
3:  Signal -0.8v - 15v
4:  0v
5:  7.2v
6:  Signal 0v - 12v
7:  Signal 0v - 12v
8:  14.5v
U6
1:  High-Frequency 0v - 0.4v
2:  High-Frequency 2.6v - 3v
3:  0v
4:  0v
5:  4v
6:  4v
7:  2.1v
8:  14.5v
U8 (CD4007UBE)
1:  0.1v
2:  0.1v
3:  0v
4:  0.1v
5:  0v
6:  0v
7:  0v
8:  0.2v
9:  4.2v
10:  14.5v
11:  6.9v
12:  High-Frequency 0v-14.5v (7.31v)
13:  14.5v
14:  14.5v
U9 (CD4047BE)
1:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.73v)
2:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (6.50v)
3:  High-Frequency 0.4v-13.6v (7.41v)
4:  14.2v
5:  14.2v
6:  14.2v
7:  0v
8:  0v
9:  0v
10:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.25v)
11:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.25v)
12:  0v
13:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (8.04v)
14:  14.2v
U11 (CD4049UBE)
1:  14.2v
2:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.22v)
3:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (6.59v)
4:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (6.59v)
5:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.08v)
6:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (6.91v)
7:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (6.73v)
8:  0v
9:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.25v)
10:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.25v)
11:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.25v)
11:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.25v)
13:  0v
14:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (6.60v)
15:  High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.22v)
16:  0v

[Scruffie]

Your CMOS voltages seem okay but a lot of your op amp voltages seem out of whack.

Why is U3 pin 7 at ground? Same goes for U6 pin 3? The voltage swing is less helpful to read than where it's biased but U1 has a limited swing which suggests you haven't adjusted the bias trim or there's something wrong with that too.

Have you got pictures of your build? Too late in the evening to check through your PCB but if you have the time, it never hurts to quadruple check the layout.

[derationalize]

All the trimpots are sitting midway. I can't get to the biasing and adjusting step. Here's some pics of my board. This was my first etch, so I've had to bolster the tracks with solder and in some places with snips of component leads. I've checked the traces for continuity / shorts and I can't seem to find the source(s) of my problem. The LFO has stopped functioning since my last post as well. Would removing all the ICs and then adding them one at a time make it easier to check voltages and root out any possible bad components? A lot of my components came from grab bags and cheap assortments off Amazon, so I think malfunctioning parts are in the realm of possibility.

[Fender3D]

Tracks look like either too much thin or even not consistent (interrupted?)

I guess a second etch will save you from a long long debug...

[derationalize]

Well if you think my board needs a better etch then I might as well rework the layout a bit and increase trace width. At that point, why not try one of the other boards that available for this now?

[Fender3D]

Well, you'll go over 2MHz on VCO section there...
Moreover this is a complex circuit, correct layout and clean soldering will avoid issues.

Flux between tracks on VCO may make it work at a different frequency from desired or make it not to work at all...
LFO issue suggest you have some continuity issue too.

There's the upper right side burned (it looks so...) I don't know if it's causing problems, but normal PCBs don't look like this...

[Kevin Mitchell]

EDIT:
Never mind. Nothing to see here.

-KM