anyone build this yet?

[Gus]

http://www.diystompboxes.com/pedals/mbb.GIF

Some ideas for people to look at.  The distortion section is a fun distortion circuit I have not seen many posts on.  This one has added opamp buffers.  I built one like this without the tone section.  Has gain so watch the layout.   Should work fine with a lot of different transistor numbers.

[biggy boy]

No offence, but that looks like someone drew that while riding in a bus on a pot-hole filled road.

I'd have to redraw it to figuer it out


Glen

[Mark Hammer]

Both Gus and JC Maillet have a penchant for posting pencil-drawn schematics.  It's their perogative to choose that approach, rather than wasting time learning and using software to do it.  With the possible exception of the 18-inch Stonehenge prop from Spinal Tap, plenty of great ideas started as pencil sketches on paper.

But, to be fair, it is a bit of a challenge to take on some of their ideas/circuits with the same degree of confidence one adopts for "cleaner" drawings.  Not a criticism, just a suggestion.

[biggy boy]

Sorry I didn't mean it to be hurtfull. I was actually taking a jab at myself for not being able to read schematics like the more established members here.

I need to spend more time learning to read schematics.
What I'm thinking if I redraw it in the process of doing so, It may come clearer to me.

I'll shut up now

Glen

[slacker]

I've looked at it before, I don't think I ever got round to building it.
On a related note I'm just clearing some breadboard space to try that distortion plus with added buffer and volume recovery thing you posted ages ago.

[Gus]

I can use schematic progams but this IMO has more of a copyright.  Makes it harder for people to cut and paste.

Post what you don't understand about the schematic.  You just gave more of an understanding of why some of schematics may not been built.

[Mark Hammer]

I can use schematic progams but this IMO has more of a copyright.  Makes it harder for people to cut and paste.

I figured that would be a big part of it.  Probably why Ton Barmentloo also uses scanned paper drawings.

Post what you don't understand about the schematic.  You just gave more of an understanding of why some of schematics may not been built.

Generous of you.  Thanks.

[puretube]

I can use schematic progams but this IMO has more of a copyright.  Makes it harder for people to cut and paste.

I figured that would be a big part of it.  Probably why Ton Barmentloo also uses scanned paper drawings.

Hand drawing is quicker, yes, and more "artistic", and, yes, more clearly discernible as something personal,
aka: " IP "... 



(Gus: sorry, haven`t built that one, so can`t comment on the circuit...  )

[solderman]

I can use schematic progams but this IMO has more of a copyright.  Makes it harder for people to cut and paste.

This I do not understand. To me the whole meaning of posting something is about sharing and thereby letting the gene out of the bottle so to speak. If I post a layout or a schematics here it is SUPPOSED to be copied and used beyond my control.
The only reason I have taken the trouble to put up my own web site is that friends and others that are interested in the same thing as I am will be able to share. I have learned sooooo much from reading stuff on different people's sites that they willingly and for free on there own spare time have made available to me. This is a way for me to pay back to the sharing Net community. If I wanted to keep my designs for my self I wouldn't have posted them at all in the first place.

//Solderman

[B Tremblay]

One interesting element of the circuit is the BMP tone control with components changed to eliminate the notch - when the Tone is at 50% the response is flat.  While playing with the TSC I've been curious about such an implementation, but never tried it.

[Gus]

Thanks for noting the tone section I was wondering when people would "see" that.

Solderman I don't understand your post at all.  A schematic is copyrighted (the drawing) if someone uses a program some else can remove and add their name etc.

[solderman]

Thanks for noting the tone section I was wondering when people would "see" that.

Solderman I don't understand your post at all.  A schematic is copyrighted (the drawing) if someone uses a program some else can remove and add their name etc.

Yes and that is my point. I don't want things I put out on the web to be "copyright." Other than others right to copy my stuff with no strings attached.  Example; I often put the DIY file on my site so that any one that wants to can download it and do what ever they like. Among that delete my credits' and put there's instead. If this was an issue for me and I was afraid some one should "kidnap" my work without me getting cred for this I wouldn't post any ting in the first place. But since this is no concern of min I have no problem with this. As I se it it's a matter of how you refer to your own work. Of cause the hand drawn schematic's can be seen as an work of art but as I intrepid you it was the schematics' you referred to and not the drawing or have I miss understood??

//Solderman

[mdh]

I think it's more an issue of credit where credit is due.  Generally even open source licenses require that some record of contributions is distributed with any derivative works.  If you browse around freeinfosociety and other places on the web, you will see a lot of schematics drawn by people around here (most notably, R.G.) with all records of who drew them erased.  This is dishonest, and violates the intent of the person who originally made the artwork available.  Of course, you are free to distribute your own original work with whatever strings (or no strings) attached that you want, within the bounds of copyright law.

[solderman]

I think it's more an issue of credit where credit is due.  Generally even open source licenses require that some record of contributions is distributed with any derivative works.  If you browse around freeinfosociety and other places on the web, you will see a lot of schematics drawn by people around here (most notably, R.G.) with all records of who drew them erased.  This is dishonest, and violates the intent of the person who originally made the artwork available.  Of course, you are free to distribute your own original work with whatever strings (or no strings) attached that you want, within the bounds of copyright law.

Yes and don't get me wrong. I have full respect for the integrity of immaterial work. If ones name is associated with a piece of work that has been altered in a negative way, this can have consequences beyond ones control. However the nature of sharing is often a combination of availability and usability. There is always a trade off that has to be considered. Some times one simply has to put ones trust in that others have the same standards as one self. Of cause this is too much to expect but I have, in all I do, sort of chosen to believe that most people are good people and those who are not are there to prove that fact. To many this seams like a naive approach and used at the wrong situation it is. But this strategy has served me well for five decades and made me many friends so personally I will stick to it.

Regards
//Solderman

[bluesdevil]

Hey Gus - Haven't built that one, but want to do "Another Sick Fuzz" pretty soon. I built the "Octave Up Sick Box" and the "Simple Octave Up" circuits and both are great. That "Octave Up Sick Box" is better than the Scrambler, so hats off to you. Just wanted to give a public thanks.