passive boost

[Greg_G]

Some interesting quotes from the Cave Passive Website:

"Q: Why do some of the Cave pedals boost and some do not? Why can't they all boost?"
A: Good question! There are different types of effects pedals that are designed for different purposes. A chorus pedal, for example, usually does not have an amplifying ability, whilst an overdrive does. Some of our pedals boost because they are designed to increase the volume, either to drive the amp harder or to "push" the second stage of a circuit more."

"Most of our pedals that have a drop in level are being re-designed either to boost or retain an equivalent level to true bypass. "

"Q: I have been told by electronic experts that there is NO WAY a signal can be boosted without power. Cave are either lying about the boost effect and it is NOT true bypass, or Cave are defying the laws of physics. So my question is...WHAT IS THE TRUTH?!"
A: Sorry if we speak out of line, but what idiots have you been talking to?! Any REAL electronics/electrical engineer will tell you that a signal CAN be boosted passively! All of our pedals are equipped with true bypass, unless stated. We are not lying or "defying the laws of physics"!

[frequencycentral]

I've been using the same 9v battery for many years now. Every time it gets low I take it out of my negative ground FF and put it in my positive ground FF for charging. Presto!

[Hides-His-Eyes]

I've been using the same 9v battery for many years now. Every time it gets low I take it out of my negative ground FF and put it in my positive ground FF for charging. Presto!

/applauds

[R.G.]

Some interesting quotes from the Cave Passive Website:

Hmmm... seems my brothers in physics have been there before me. 

Q: Why do some of the Cave pedals boost and some do not? Why can't they all boost?"
A: Good question! There are different types of effects pedals that are designed for different purposes. A chorus pedal, for example, usually does not have an amplifying ability, whilst an overdrive does.

Actually, a chorus pedal has the amplifying ability, it just does not use it, at least for every chorus circuit I've ever seen. And come to think of it, I can conceive of not-actively-powered distortion and voltage gain (with transformers or perhaps resonant circuits) pedals, but I can't yet think of any way to do a chorus passively. Echo and reverb, yes. All you need is a large empty cavity to do those passively. You may have some trouble hauling the cave around with you, but it does work. Well, OK, those are not really passive - YOU power them by yelling or playing into them.

Some of our pedals boost because they are designed to increase the volume, either to drive the amp harder or to "push" the second stage of a circuit more.
"Most of our pedals that have a drop in level are being re-designed either to boost or retain an equivalent level to true bypass. "

Just doing some reading between the lines, I'd guess that there were some customer comments about the pedals being quieter than true bypass level. Just a guess.  Especially when no matter how much gain and volume a pedal puts out, there is always a customer who asks for more. We thought for a while about putting a knob on some pedals simply labeled "More". Maybe just a small box with an amplifier (powered; sorry!  ) that had a single "more" knob.

"Q: I have been told by electronic experts that there is NO WAY a signal can be boosted without power. Cave are either lying about the boost effect and it is NOT true bypass, or Cave are defying the laws of physics. So my question is...WHAT IS THE TRUTH?!"
A: Sorry if we speak out of line, but what idiots have you been talking to?! Any REAL electronics/electrical engineer will tell you that a signal CAN be boosted passively! All of our pedals are equipped with true bypass, unless stated. We are not lying or "defying the laws of physics"!

Notice the within-the-lines but IMHO diverting (and therefore politically useful!) use of "boost". Boost is really only meaningful in context. Boosted HOW? Bigger voltage? Sure. You can do that with transformers and resonant circuits. Resonant circuits aren't that much use for broadband boosts, by definition. Transformers do provide voltage gain, at the cost of current loss and impedance transformation. The impedance transformation is something that you're going to have to cope with because typical guitar pickups are picky about the impedance they drive; it affects tone.

So strictly speaking, no, the CPP folks (more probably, guy; the transformation to the plural "we" happens pretty soon after the web site goes up) are not lying nor breaking the laws of physics if you restrict the context enough. You can make a voltage signal bigger without additional power. You can make a current signal bigger without additional power. You cannot make a voltage and current signal bigger without power, by the First Law. You can't, for instance, do a passive buffer without voltage loss. Buffers provide more available current, and therefore if they are passive, they must have voltage loss. First Law. If a circuit provides voltage gain, it must also have current loss. First Law.

If by "boost", you only mean "bigger voltage", that's not necessarily a lie. I'm not concerned about them breaking the laws of physics. Mother Nature's pretty good about policing Her Rules. However, as we by now know, in the world of advertising, you can do anything. Just ask an advertiser. That's why most countries have had to pass laws about truth in advertising - to hold it down a bit. It can't be suppressed entirely. Those poor advert copy writers can't be held accountable if the readers understand something more than the literal words within context actually meant, can they? 

However, in the real world it is very difficult to provide (a) voltage gain (b) with a reasonably flat frequency response (c ) from a normal guitar pickup/output (d) into a normal guitar amp (e) using no external power source (f) at a reasonable price. That is, it's hard to do what most people think they want in this context.

The technology for voltage "boost" from a guitar signal exists: it's a transformer. The demands for a transformer (satisfies "e") to get a, b, c, and d are very rigorous. In particular, I think it's impractically expensive to get f with a, b, c, and d.

From H.L. Mencken.:

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

[earthtonesaudio]

That's a really good idea. How about the band members, instead of prancing about on stage, sit on stationary-bicycle generators and their vigorous pedaling powers their pedals and amps! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R_R9Q_OXqA

[R.G.]

That's it! I knew I wouldn't be the first to think of it. Now all we gotta do is get all bands to adopt that style! 

[caress]

it's kind of silly to be making "green" pedals that use no energy when you plan on playing them through an amp which requires much more power demands than a 9v boost pedal...  just saying.    there are other ways to be "greener" if you're a concerned pedal builder - donate some of your funds to sustainable energy research, only use recycled enclosures, join a local CSA or co-op, recycle more, reuse more, start a garden, etc etc.

[Brymus]

I followed the "ginger ninjas" link and then found their website. http://gingerninjas.com/
I searched until I found the technical info on their pedal power system,interesting stuff,I imagine the 58 farad caps are quite pricey indeed.
Anyway I sent them an email and informed them about our wonderful forum,perhaps one of them will join.
BTW the amount of energy used to power a band is nothing compared to the amount used to get them to practice and performances.

[Hides-His-Eyes]

it's kind of silly to be making "green" pedals that use no energy when you plan on playing them through an amp which requires much more power demands than a 9v boost pedal...  just saying.    there are other ways to be "greener" if you're a concerned pedal builder - donate some of your funds to sustainable energy research, only use recycled enclosures, join a local CSA or co-op, recycle more, reuse more, start a garden, etc etc.

The greenest thing we can do as builders is to refuse to put battery clips in pedals.

[R.G.]

it's kind of silly to be making "green" pedals that use no energy when you plan on playing them through an amp which requires much more power demands than a 9v boost pedal...  just saying.    there are other ways to be "greener" if you're a concerned pedal builder - donate some of your funds to sustainable energy research, only use recycled enclosures, join a local CSA or co-op, recycle more, reuse more, start a garden, etc etc.

Correct.

My main gripe with the constant slew of exhortations to do this, that or the other to be greener is that many are silly, most are misguided, and all amount to making you feel like you're the problem, so you should do anything possible to display contrition.

The bottom line is this: Humans change the planet they live on. Period. So do walruses, poison ivy, pine trees, bats, elephants, microbes, and everything else that can be said to be alive. The implicit reasoning behind the "don't do anything" school of environmental sensitivity is that the only pollutant is humans and what we do. Taken to the extreme conclusion in this line of reasoning, the only good human is a human that's not there. Is there some willful ignoring of selective facts there?

Anything else amounts to trying to find some balance between killing ourselves off by environmental pollution, and finding ways to live as "not here" as possible, no matter how much that interferes with anything else being human involves. It has become popular to adopt the religion of environmentalism, and play holier than thou by acting and suggesting that everyone be greener. As in many "religions", the holiest guys think they get to tell everyone else how to live, eat, sleep, breathe, drink, act, talk, and everything else. There is no thoughtful balance about how much humans should be "allowed" to change their environment. The holy guys will tell you. And if need be, sacrifice your property, your way of living, and eventually perhaps you. (Ever read about the Mayan culture?)

What that approach leaves out and ultimately suppresses is the discovery of ways to have less impacts. Google "local minima", and escaping such.

Want carbon neutral? Figure out how to (as a for instance) scale up the petroleum producing algae and bacteria that have been discovered so we can step sideways from a drilled-petroleum economy to a solar-powered-petroleum economy. Google it. It's there. This approach substitutes semi-religiously inspired modifications to lifestyles with a happily accepted step sideways. What it misses is that there is no "holy guy" who gets the power to tell everyone else what to do. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that it will ever exist. 

[Hides-His-Eyes]

I think the incentive from many people's point of view is maintaining as pleasant and sustainable planet as possible for future generations. Is it so wrong to hope that our grandchildren won't be born into a world undertaking violent changes due to the enormous human populations we're going to end up with?

[R.G.]

I think the incentive from many people's point of view is maintaining as pleasant and sustainable planet as possible for future generations. Is it so wrong to hope that our grandchildren won't be born into a world undertaking violent changes due to the enormous human populations we're going to end up with?

Is it so wrong? No. I think that too, and that's my incentive.

But I find it strange that a non-mainline-environmentally-correct view of how to get to a more pleasant and sustainable planet for our descendants is immediately viewed as an objection to any green endeavors. And I resent a little the implication that by thinking a little about the problem, I would willingly damn our descendants to short, brutish, environmentally disadvantaged lives. I didn't say that, but that's what you write that I said. Think about how you came to that conclusion a bit before you reply.

I suggest that you read what I said again. Nowhere in there does it say anything about raping the planet being good, or that ignoring any environmental problem being OK. It was a plea for some clever thinking about how to both save the planet AND not make it an abusive place for the humans that inherit it. I don't think that anywhere in there I said that it was wrong to hope that our grandchildren won't be born into an unpleasant place to live. In fact, if you'll read it, I want them to live there as free people as well as living happy, healthy lives.

[Gus]

could it be something like this
http://www.blueguitar.org/new/schem/_gtr/dual_mid.pdf
mounted in a box

An old thread
http://archive.ampage.org/threads/0/guitelec/001458/Has_anyone_put_an_inductor_in_their_guitar_for_a_tone_control-1.htmll

Craig Anderton had a circuit in one of his books

I just found this using google how is this legal?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2154081/Craig-Anderton-Guitar-Electronics-for-Musicians

[R.G.]

Craig Anderton had a circuit in one of his books
I just found this using google how is this legal?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2154081/Craig-Anderton-Guitar-Electronics-for-Musicians

It's probably not. It's a DMCA based legal action waiting to happen. The poster there just thinks that they can get away with it, or that the law is wrong, and therefore they don't have to follow it - or they didn't think at all.

There's a lot of that going around.

[oldschoolanalog]

The greenest thing we can do as builders is to refuse to put battery clips in pedals.

Amen.

[PRR]

> Craig Anderton ...how is this legal?

Altho the title says Craig, the document says "Donald Brosnac".

Interesting that the copyright page is missing.

> legal action waiting to happen

It has apparently been posted for 2 years.

Anybody have the Anderton to compare?

[earthtonesaudio]

I think a big problem with the current "environmental movement" is what R.G. is picking up on.  It's become a huge blame game.  Lots of finger pointing and asking the wrong questions.  We should stop asking "what activities can you willingly give up in order to reduce your carbon footprint" and start asking questions more like "what is it about driving an SUV that really enhances my life?  Could I get the same benefits from a more efficient vehicle?"  If your answer indicates you would be just as happy with a smaller car, go for it.  But if not, you're not really doing the planet any favor by switching vehicles anyway and getting a big chip on your shoulder in return.  Which would I rather live in, a polluted planet full of happy beings or a pristine planet full of hatred?  If you think about it, that's just pollution in a different form.

Unfortunately I don't know of a way for the positive, constructive, affirming environmentalists to really communicate with the masses.  Most people don't really think about this stuff, they just get the filtered-by-media message that tends to emphasize how "you're doing it wrong," because that message is easy to communicate.  Communicating a sense of empathy for your environment and ALL the things living in it (human or not) is not 7-second soundbyte fare.

It's like this:
Would you like a community garden in your neighborhood?  Most would say sure, sounds nice.  Then you either say "okay, we're going to take half of your yard," and suddenly it doesn't sound so good, OR you say "a bunch of us are chipping in to buy that condemned lot at the end of the street when it goes to auction, you want in?" and it is much more palatable.  There are ways of achieving common-good goals that empower everyone and foster feelings of pride and ownership, and there are ways of achieving common-good goals that are divisive and breed contempt.

[DougH]

My thoughts:

1. "Free-energizing" your pedal system while ignoring the amplification is as useful as a fan in a hurricane, pissing in the wind, pick whatever metaphor for uselessness you like.

2. The cave pedal soundclips sound llike crap IMO. Pretty much what I would expect a passive circuit driven by a high-impedance source to sound like.

3. Those guys on the bikes playing the music look like a bunch of dorks. Seriously...

4. I will never drive or own a Prius or any other hybrid. Never...

That is all.

[earthtonesaudio]

My thoughts:

1. "Free-energizing" your pedal system while ignoring the amplification is as useful as a fan in a hurricane, pissing in the wind, pick whatever metaphor for uselessness you like.

2. The cave pedal soundclips sound llike crap IMO. Pretty much what I would expect a passive circuit driven by a high-impedance source to sound like.

3. Those guys on the bikes playing the music look like a bunch of dorks. Seriously...

4. I will never drive or own a Prius or any other hybrid. Never...

That is all.

My rebuttals:

1. The longest journey begins with a single step, or whatever metaphor for "ya gotta start somewhere" works for you.  Human, solar or other alternative energy sources are not going to move mountains anytime soon, but powering your pedals this way is an attainable goal.  At best, it gives you a sense of perspective on what is required to make a little electrical power.  Perspective that can help you perceive the rest of the world.  At worst, you don't have to buy batteries anymore.
2. Totally agree
3. I've yet to meet someone who didn't think building stompboxes was at least a little bit dorky.
4. I'm with you.  Hybrids are for sissies who can't give up their internal combustion security blanket.  All-electric is the way to go.  High five!

[R.G.]

I think a big problem with the current "environmental movement" is ...  It's become a huge blame game. 

That is a remarkably forward-looking, positive, and - more importantly! - useful attitude.

Humans seem to have a talent for making things into a zero-sum game; I win by taking things away from you.

It's probably an evolutionary artifact. It is demonstrably simpler and less dangerous to steal the food you've hunted or gathered than to go do my own hunting and gathering. All that kept this from being an extinction process was the competing fact that if I have several friends I can convince to help me, it's even easier and less risk to take your food.

I spent more than three decades watching this survival-of-the-slimiest process happen at IBM. There were two ways to succeed there. All the players were smart and capable; that was an entry criteria. But some succeeded because they turned out more good results than others (that's group A). Group B succeeded by politically assassinating their competition. It was far easier and more productive of position, power and money to make the competition look bad and thereby take away the results of productivity without actually doing anything productive yourself. Unfortunately, there was no way to tell group A and group B apart ahead of time. You had to let them try, then discard the group B's - if you could get rid of them. They *might* have so insinuated themselves that they could not be effectively removed.

Does any of this sound familiar? 

I think that it's one reason that managers/bosses and leaders are natural enemies.

The environmental movement has moved far away from searching for solutions which are good for the planet AND for people. In the long run, I'm deeply afraid that we'll get neither a good environment nor a social environment good for people. Neither "side" is working for that. They just want to knock the (presumably 'evil') other side off.

I wish I had some solutions. However, by not supporting either side, I become the enemy of BOTH of them.