anyone gonna tackle the new Stereo Flanger from BYOC????

[Mark Hammer]

The A/DA builds from Charlie's boards sound a whole lot better IMO.

The sweep generator of the A/DA has few equals, but the board is big (hence the chassis as well), and the BBD chip/s increasingly more difficult to locate and buy.   As much as the A/DA has going for it, the BYOC represents a decent compromise.  Small footprint, reasonable cost, and decent sound.  Not exceptional, I'll grant you, but decent.

I'm watching the video right now, and I gotta tell you, I don't really hear any difference between the single BBD and dual-BBD settings.  

I heard a really loud pop, so loud it makes me laugh 

I heard it too.  The pop is only partially electronic.  A big part of it is actually mechanical, and is rather exaggerated IMHO.  Not deliberately so, but I think it sounds much louder than it actually is because of the way things are mic'd up.  Since the single/dual switch is optional (it will work with one BBD just fine), and is not intended to be a stompswitch one would activate mid-song, the audible pop is quite acceptable as far as I'm concerned.  I'm a big fan of finding ways to make switches usable when not in bypass mode, but they don't HAVE to be if they produce a useful change.  Just make sure the thing is in bypass mode when you flick it.

Incidentally, I imagine the board can be reconfigured to yield separate dry and wet outputs without too much trouble, given what the schematic shows.  For my part, that makes a better use of dual outputs than the existing inverted/non-inverted "stereo". 

[oldschoolanalog]

One thing that can & should be tried with using 2 different BBD's; say MN3207 & MN3204 (or MN3209).
Instead of switching one on in parallel with the other; set the unit up to switch on one or the other.
This would give you a choice between "regular" and "high band" flanging. Now you'll hear a difference when you flip that switch.
This would require changing one resistor & making a trace cut or 2, IIRC.
IMHO, a 3208 has too many stages to give a good flange when clocked w/a 3102 driver.
However, a nice chorus can be achieved w/a 3208 BBD & 3102 clock.
Just some thoughts...
Dave

[KorovaMilkBar]

well i am not sure if this is the best flanger in the world, but since i have never owned a flanger (or even messed with one) i would like to own this. i am incredibly curious as to how they work and create that unique sound. plus i just want to be able to have at least one really trippy, crazy pedal that i can say " ya, i made this  " . i have found that people are ussually not very interested in a hand built distortion/ overdrive pedal (like you made it on accident or something). somtimes its like "hey check this out" Chuggachiggachuggachigga CHUG! "ya, thats cool i guess..." . i would like to see the look on someones face when i go "hey check this out" YYYYYOOOOWWWWWOOOOSSSSHHHHAAAAOOOOWOWWWOAOOWSHASOHWEGINAWVOIA!@($$*#!!!!()#%)___#(4 .

[nelson]

If you're going to go to the trouble of including an extra BBD, at least make it a through zero mod.

When I saw the extra bbd on the layout, I assumed that's what it was doing.

Seems rather pointless to improe fidelity on something advertised as an analog flanger. If you want fidelity, go digital.

[Thomeeque]

If you're going to go to the trouble of including an extra BBD..

He will not go to any trouble, he will just buy the kit and build it, right?

..at least make it a through zero mod.

Which means to add extra clock generator, extra buffers, extra filtering, mixing, switching.. and to loose most original feature of this circuit (or to add even more switching ).

Btw. how "playable" is this TZF? It adds some lag (even few ms), isn't it annoying?

Seems rather pointless to improe fidelity on something advertised as an analog flanger.

Getting less noise and less distortion makes sense on something advertised as an analog flanger, I'd say.. Plus there is still posibility to try MN3207/3208 combination..

If you want fidelity, go digital.

DIY?

[nelson]

If you're going to go to the trouble of including an extra BBD..

He will not go to any trouble, he will just buy the kit and build it, right?

..at least make it a through zero mod.

Which means to add extra clock generator, extra buffers, extra filtering, mixing, switching.. and to loose most original feature of this circuit (or to add even more switching ).

Btw. how "playable" is this TZF? It adds some lag (even few ms), isn't it annoying?

Seems rather pointless to improe fidelity on something advertised as an analog flanger.

Getting less noise and less distortion makes sense on something advertised as an analog flanger, I'd say.. Plus there is still posibility to try MN3207/3208 combination..

If you want fidelity, go digital.

DIY?

Point 1: From the end users point of view, yes. I'm talking from a design and result view.

Point 2: Good point, however, if you've got an extra BBD, why not go to the trouble? Alterntively, it could be true stereo.

You know TZF......

Point 3: Less noise and less distortion is desireable, but I'd say it makes negligable difference to the end user - look at the complaints on this thread. I'd say TZF was a lot more desireable than the MN3208/3207 combo.

Point 4: Why wouldn't BYOC make a digital flanger DIYable? For $120 a kit, they could through in a pre programmed DSP, or even a úC LFO. That would be worth buying.

As it is, it's kind of disappointing.

I don't run a kit business, but I would think they could have given it more options to make it desireable.

Then again, I'm not their target market, I suppose.

[Thomeeque]

 OK, BYOC guys should definitely make better presentation, with better sound, in stereo, 3207/3208 mode demonstration etc., so we could actually hear how useful their unique features are, before judging.. labelled controls would be nice too

Btw. you could blame EHX, that thay did not made their original SAD1024 based Electric Mistress TZF, two BBDs are inside as well.. 

[nelson]

OK, BYOC guys should definitely make better presentation, with better sound, in stereo, 3207/3208 mode demonstration etc., so we could actually hear how useful their unique features are, before judging.. labelled controls would be nice too

Btw. you could blame EHX, that thay did not made their original SAD1024 based Electric Mistress TZF, two BBDs are inside as well.. 

Yeah, two 512 stage BBD's......not two 1024 stage....

In saying that, EHX aren't aiming for the DIY market.....

Plus, the effects buying musician was a lot different 30 years ago....

[Thomeeque]

Yeah, two 512 stage BBD's......not two 1024 stage....

Two 512 stage BBD's would not make flanger with TZF?

In saying that, EHX aren't aiming for the DIY market.....

Some DIYers love to build simple 3-knob builds, some love to build complex 8-knobs/10-switches builds, IMO in the sum DIY market demands (at least analog-flanger-wise) will not be too diferent compared with commercial effects market..

Plus, the effects buying musician was a lot different 30 years ago....

Do EHX, MXR, BOSS and such companies make any analog TZF flangers now?

[snap]

last time I commented a byoc design, coming back after a few days showed me it were `threadlock`-holidays.
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=72773.msg589636#msg589636:icon_rolleyes:
no comment this time, although it would concur with some critical opinions!

[Thomeeque]

last time I commented a byoc design, coming back after a few days showed me it were `threadlock`-holidays.
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=72773.msg589636#msg589636
no comment this time, although it would concur with some critical opinions!

And would you care to explain your statements this time?

[Mark Hammer]

Two 512 stage BBD's would not make flanger with TZF?

Not without two separate clock and filtering circuits.  What is required for TZF is that one path be fixed delay and "staggered" in time a bit, such that when the normally modulated BBD reaches minimum delay in its sweep cycle, it is actually delaying LESS than the staggered BBD.

Do EHX, MXR, BOSS and such companies make any analog TZF flangers now?

In the analog domain, only EHX makes one, and that is the Flanger Hoax, designed by none other than our very own Antonie "Ton" Barmentloo, beer connaisseur, bon vivant, and botanical photographer extraordinaire (and a gentleman too).  I believe that unit might apply phase shift as a means of producing juuuuust enough signal stagger to provide a through-zero point.  But that is simply guessing on my part.

One experiment that someone should try is to snap up two FAB Flangers (I gather they can be purchased for $20 or less in many places?), figure out how to lift/cancel the clean signal at the mixing stage, and combine them with a mixer and splitter.  I have a similar experiment in planning with a pair of Boss BF-1 flangers.  I lifted the clean/dry signal at the mixing stage such that the flangers each provide a delayed-only signal.  I have to whip together a splitter/mixer unit, such that I feed them a common signal, and blend their outputs back together.  Since the BF-1 is a 4-knobber that permits manual adjustment of a fixed delay, I can tweak how far the sweep travels past the zero point.

[snap]

last time I commented a byoc design, coming back after a few days showed me it were `threadlock`-holidays.
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=72773.msg589636#msg589636
no comment this time, although it would concur with some critical opinions!

And would you care to explain your statements this time?

not necessary to explain this time, bacause most points of criticism were drawn by others already.
Last time an explanation was impossible, because the thread was found locked when I came back after
my season (christmas) holidays absence!

[Thomeeque]

Two 512 stage BBD's would not make flanger with TZF?

Not without two separate clock and filtering circuits.  What is required for TZF is that one path be fixed delay and "staggered" in time a bit, such that when the normally modulated BBD reaches minimum delay in its sweep cycle, it is actually delaying LESS than the staggered BBD.

Yep, I know:

..at least make it a through zero mod.

Which means to add extra clock generator, extra buffers, extra filtering, mixing, switching.. and to loose most original feature of this circuit (or to add even more switching ).

  This question just came up from longer discussion, you'd have to go back a bit.. T.

[Thomeeque]

Last time an explanation was impossible, because the thread was found locked when I came back after
my season (christmas) holidays absence!

Unless you would do it already in the first post, or in the second one..

[Thomeeque]

Do EHX, MXR, BOSS and such companies make any analog TZF flangers now?

In the analog domain, only EHX makes one, and that is the Flanger Hoax, designed by none other than our very own Antonie "Ton" Barmentloo, beer connaisseur, bon vivant, and botanical photographer extraordinaire (and a gentleman too).  I believe that unit might apply phase shift as a means of producing juuuuust enough signal stagger to provide a through-zero point.  But that is simply guessing on my part.

Oh, I see, thanks! (it looks capable virtually of everything )

One experiment that someone should try is to snap up two FAB Flangers (I gather they can be purchased for $20 or less in many places?), figure out how to lift/cancel the clean signal at the mixing stage, and combine them with a mixer and splitter.  I have a similar experiment in planning with a pair of Boss BF-1 flangers.  I lifted the clean/dry signal at the mixing stage such that the flangers each provide a delayed-only signal.  I have to whip together a splitter/mixer unit, such that I feed them a common signal, and blend their outputs back together.  Since the BF-1 is a 4-knobber that permits manual adjustment of a fixed delay, I can tweak how far the sweep travels past the zero point.

I have tried to emulate TZF only by my mighty emulator so far, and it did not make me want to have it in real one*.. but I'll check the Hoax demonstration for sure!**

Edit:

* I did try it again and now I remember: it did not seemed to me to be an useful feature for the guitar pedal, it seems to me more like good effect to apply on the whole band mix or on the drums track or something like that, not on bare guitar sound..

** I did watch the Dan Miller's demo before a while, but they don't demonstrate TZF there..

[oldschoolanalog]

First. Please let's keep this discussion as civilized as possible. Alot of good ideas can potentially come of this thread if we refrain from "BYOC bashing". Thank You.
Next. The "flaw" in the Analog Delay snap was referring to was the way a switch was shown to be wired in the schematic. (Hey, snap. Is that what you were referring to?) More of a missprint, if anything.
DIY digital delay, chorus, flange & more on a chip:
http://www.spinsemi.com/products.html
More later...

[Mark Hammer]

* I did try it again and now I remember: it did not seemed to me to be an useful feature for the guitar pedal, it seems to me more like good effect to apply on the whole band mix or on the drums track or something like that, not on bare guitar sound..

I concur.  In fact the benchmark flanging recordings have pretty much all been those where TZF was applied to a mixed-down signal.  Having said that, the Line 6 Liqui-Flange does TZF, and when the signal has enough harmonic content to make those notches more audible, TZF can be very sweet indeed.

[nelson]

* I did try it again and now I remember: it did not seemed to me to be an useful feature for the guitar pedal, it seems to me more like good effect to apply on the whole band mix or on the drums track or something like that, not on bare guitar sound..

I concur.  In fact the benchmark flanging recordings have pretty much all been those where TZF was applied to a mixed-down signal.  Having said that, the Line 6 Liqui-Flange does TZF, and when the signal has enough harmonic content to make those notches more audible, TZF can be very sweet indeed.

Meh, you could say the same thing about all flangers.

[Thomeeque]

* I did try it again and now I remember: it did not seemed to me to be an useful feature for the guitar pedal, it seems to me more like good effect to apply on the whole band mix or on the drums track or something like that, not on bare guitar sound..

I concur.  In fact the benchmark flanging recordings have pretty much all been those where TZF was applied to a mixed-down signal.

Do you say that it *is* good for the whole band mix? That's what I'm trying to say as well (but with my weak English)

So, IMO, TZF for bare guitar NO (or not much), TZF for the whole band mix, for the drums etc. YES

T.