I am designing (redesigning) the Ibanez Tube Screamer distortion pedal circuit based on generalguitargadgets information (http://www.generalguitargadgets.com/effects-projects/distortion/tube-screamer/). I want to make the circuit smaller and learn about the process.
I have a doubt about this Ibanez Tube Screamer project:
Searching in Internet, I see that there are many versions of distortion apparently based on the original Ibanez Tube Screamer which, by the research, dates from the end of 1979.
The Tube Screamer suggested by the generalguitargadgets is a version containing a JRC4558D CI and is supposedly based on the first Ibanez Tube Screamer. It happens that in my searches I do not find photos and circuits of an original Ibanez Tube Screamer of 1979 that has only one operational amplifier CI, but with two ICs.
My doubt is:
Why are there projects of the Ibanez Tube Screamer (and its variants like the Tube Screamer TS-9) with only one CI operational amplifier while other Tube Screamer variants (including the 1979 original) have two ICs? What's the difference in using one or two CIs?
I thank everyone who can contribute with some information.
All the versions we have seen (and that have filled hundreds or thousands of posts on this forum and other similar forums) have one IC with two opamps inside it. It is called a "dual opamp." That is like the 4558 or the many chips we substitute. The one you have also has two opamps on one IC, no? What do you mean?
Like many, I have never seen a version of the Tube Screamer that used two chips. I checked my files to see if a Maxon pedal that may have been an early version of the TS-808, but everything used a single chip: a dual op-amp.
And that may be the source of your confusion. Yes, the JRC4558 is one physical chip, but it includes TWO op-amp sections. So photos of the board will only show one little black square, but schematics will show two triangles, each representing half of that chip.
Does that make it all less confusing? Or is there some "secret" issue of the TS we haven't yet stumbled on? Stranger things have happened.
Quote from: idy on July 28, 2018, 04:02:46 PM
All the versions we have seen (and that have filled hundreds or thousands of posts on this forum and other similar forums) have one IC with two opamps inside it. It is called a "dual opamp." That is like the 4558 or the many chips we substitute. The one you have also has two opamps on one IC, no? What do you mean?
+1 this. Not two ICs, two op-amps. In one chip. Hence the difference between the schematic (2 op-amps) and the pictures (1 IC).
Show me a photo of a tubescreamer with two chips and I'll believe you.
T.
Some have 2 dual opamp IC's... One of the dual opamps is just being used for the input and output buffers instead of the transistors..
I built a tube screamer for a neighbour's son years ago, a young lad who thought he and his geeky friends knew everything. He even gave me the circuit. For a laugh I built in a "bounce circuit" from the Eventide Instant Phaser - although not actually connected, to see if he noticed. Sure enough he asked me what the extra ICs (2 duals I think) were for, I told him that it was to comply with EU regulations!!!!!!
Certain versions of the Maxon OD-808 had 2 dual opamps but, like I mentiond previously one of them was just being used as a buffer.
http://www.matsumin.net/diy/bunkai/od-808/OD-808_sch.BMP
If you are going for a smaller circuit you can ditch the buffers completely and just use 1 dual opamp. Many people prefer to leave the buffers off, nothing new there...
Pretty much all you could ever want/need to know about tube screamers at the link below.
http://www.analogman.com/tshist.htm
Quote from: J0K3RX on July 28, 2018, 09:06:36 PM
Some have 2 dual opamp IC's... One of the dual opamps is just being used for the input and output buffers instead of the transistors..
Fair enough, I stand corrected. I've never seen one.
In that case, to answer the OPs original question, "what's the difference between the one and two chip variants?" the answer would be "nothing really", since the buffers shouldn't affect the tone.
Ah but it might affect the tone, and playing speed, if I may be so bold!
Go on then, tell me why...
Quote from: J0K3RX on July 29, 2018, 05:10:04 AM
Certain versions of the Maxon OD-808 had 2 dual opamps but, like I mentioned previously one of them was just being used as a buffer.
http://www.matsumin.net/diy/bunkai/od-808/OD-808_sch.BMP
If you are going for a smaller circuit you can ditch the buffers completely and just use 1 dual opamp. Many people prefer to leave the buffers off, nothing new there...
Pretty much all you could ever want/need to know about tube screamers at the link below.
http://www.analogman.com/tshist.htm
The earliest versions of the Boss OD-1 also used op-amps for the input and output buffers. But instead of a pair of dual op-amps, like the Matsumin drawing shows, they used an MC3403 quad op-amp. I made myself a clone, because I had a couple of 3403 chips, and rather like it.
And once I had some clues for what to look for, I realized I did have an older Maxon schematic, as J0K3RX showed.
Is there any audible difference? Given that they are used in unity-gain mode, I can't see there being any audible difference that might exceed the difference created by using one transistor type versus another (e.g., 2SC945 vs 2SC1815 or 2N4401), when transistors are used as the buffer stages.
WHY did Ibanez change from a pair of op-amps to a single chip and couple of transistors? My guess is that it probably had to do with the flexibility it provided with respect to layout. If the two buffers are in the same chip, the rest of the buffer circuit MUST be situated near-enough to the same chip. I don't know this for sure, just guessing.
(http://www.acsanantonio.com/wp-content/uploads/vintage-smokingbank-vintage-boss-od-1.jpg)
I think that's probably the answer Mark.
Thank you to all who have participated so far in this discussion.
In my searches, before posting this question that we discussed here, I found this site http://www.analogman.com/tshist.htm (the same as you indicated, J0K3RX). In it we can see a list that, according to the site, would be of the models of existing pedals that would be based on the original Tube Screamer TS-808. At least that's what I understood.
We can see the list starting with a model identified as "104322? (R) JRC4558D 1980, 80 / 15th week caps, nut on power jack". I do not know if this order in the list indicates the manufacturing order, but even if it is, I did not find clear circuit information or photos of this particular model. Maybe it's something that has gone unnoticed in my research, or I have not researched the right place.If anyone knows something and can say here about this model, I will be grateful.
Still seeing this list of models I could not identify one that was from the year 1979. This was important for me, since, in principle I imagined that my construction should be based on the first pedal (I was thinking that it should be the closest possible that I can do of the first ... being, if possible, smaller); but I still do not know if that would be the case now. Maybe I'll end up with one that is not exactly like the first, since as I continue with the search, I now see that the successor, TS-9, seems to have a building that produces a better sound (if someone can disagree this, or confirming this, is welcome to manifest itself :) ) and the reproduced sound is more important, for my purpose, than being exactly like the original.
To try to clarify a bit more how I got the doubt that generated this post, follow these photos:
Here we see a PCB with two ICs: (http://www.analogman.com/graphics/TS808narrowbluediodes.jpg)
In this link, where the author say to be photos of an original, it is possible to see (http://www.jacquesstompboxes.com/ts808.html (http://www.jacquesstompboxes.com/ts808.html)) that has only one IC.
And in this image one sees a supposed comparison between the models Narrow box TS-808 (which to date, according to my research, is the first original Ibanez Tube Screamer pedal of 1979) and the TS-808 reissue of the 35th anniversary. We see two ICs.
(http://www.analogman.com/graphics/TS808annivNarrow.jpg)
Here we see a schematic apparently of the original pedal posted here in the forum at this address: https://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=116462. msg1082250#msg1082250 (https://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=116462.%20msg1082250#msg1082250)
(http://i.imgur.com/L5wo4Qs.png)
Here is a schematic for anyone who wants to mount a true bypass version, in this address: https://www.electrosmash.com/tube-screamer-analysis (https://www.electrosmash.com/tube-screamer-analysis)
(https://www.electrosmash.com/images/tech/tube-screamer/tube-screamer-true-bypass-schematic.png)
Here we see the schematic of generalguitargadgets http://www.generalguitargadgets.com/pdf/ggg_its8_sc.pdf (http://www.generalguitargadgets.com/pdf/ggg_its8_sc.pdf)
We see that in the schematics two ICs appear and in the mounted pedal photos two ICs or an IC can appear. Being that when two ICs appear, the photo seems to be of the first versions (or first ...?) of the pedal. And the IC of the first version, by what I understand when viewing information on the manufacturer's website (http://www.ti.com/product/MC1458/samplebuy?CMP=conv-poasamples (http://www.ti.com/product/MC1458/samplebuy?CMP=conv-poasamples)) seems to be a dual operating amplifier (http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/mc1458.pdf (http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/mc1458.pdf)).
The "narrow box" version was sold only in limited markets, I think in relatively small numbers, and not often thought of as being in the Tube Screamer family, even if it was called that. The main versions, TS-808 and TS-9, have almost the exact same circuit, just two resistors are different. Which of those two sounds best is obviously a matter of opinion. I like both quite a bit.
From Analogman's website at http://www.analogman.com/tshist.htm (http://www.analogman.com/tshist.htm):
"There were some TS-808s made in the 1979 period, mostly for other than USA markets, that came in a narrower box. These have a bottom plate that unscrews to change the battery like an MXR pedal, no plastic battery cover. This narrow TS-808 had a different circuit. It uses two 1458 chips which are the 1st version of the low-tech dual op-amp."
Also from Analogman: "These had a circuit board labeled OD-801. This board can also be found in some old Maxon OD-808 OVERDRIVE pedals ..."
There's not a conspiracy here. Maxon was the company that actually made the pedals for Ibanez. They sold a version of the design, called the Maxon OD-808, that used a second dual op-amp for the I/O buffers instead of transistors, as noted above. That version appears to have made it into these early narrow box TS's.
It shouldn't make much of a difference to the sound what is used for the buffers. Since Tube Screamers are subject to an inordinate amount of debate over small differences, perhaps you should make one with transistor buffers and one with opamps. (And then make a Zendrive, which omits the buffers entirely.)
Or even one with both!!
Quote from: Ashura on July 29, 2018, 11:59:08 PM
(http://www.analogman.com/graphics/TS808narrowbluediodes.jpg)
In this pic it looks like Analogman has replaced the
impossible-to-find Panasonic MA150 clipping diodes with
somewhat difficult-to-find Toshiba 1S1588s. Silly. Both types were commonly used in original TS808s and TS9s, but I think Maxon neckbearded all remaining stocks of the MA150s to include in their reissue OD808s.
"Neckbearded"? :icon_confused: :icon_question:
As that two IC schematic shows no NEED for two double op-amp IC's, I would suggest that maybe there were physical reasons for using two 4558's when one would do. Maybe the PCB was just easier to lay out. Maybe it avoided some parasitic problem. Maybe, maybe, maybe.
Though unusual, it would not be the first time a variation exists where some versions use discrete op-amps, and some use multiple on one chip op-amps. (aren't there Phase 90 variations like this?)
The header of this thread asks "What's the difference?". I'm presuming the implied question is whether there is a sonic difference.
A couple years ago - maybe 3 - a local buddy brought over his Timmy pedal, because he had read somewhere that use of a 1458 dual op-amp "improved" it. I was skeptical, but installed a socket, and we tried out about a half dozen other dual op-amp chips. And sonuvagun if we didn't both prefer the 1458. The basis for this would seem to be the more limited gain-bandwidth product the 1458 has, compared to the 4558 or 4560/4580. It just sounded less harsh when gain was dimed.
What could a person infer from this? Well, I suspect the use of op-amps for the buffers plays little to no role. Gain/bandwidth would play no role at unity gain. However, use of a 1458 for the higher-gain clipping section might - and I emphasize might - provide a slightly warmer color to the sound at highest gain settings, where limits on the chip's ability to produce lots of gain for higher frequencies comes into play.
HOWEVER, this is all conjecture, based on subjective experience (rather than objectively measured) with a related, but still different, circuit. Is the result going to be all that much different than a "normal" TS circuit with a bit of treble-taming after it? Maybe, maybe not. Is it the sort of putative difference that would only show up when fed with an input that already has high end, like single coils? Maybe, maybe not. Throw in component tolerances for those caps that set upper and lower bandwidth points in the circuit, not to mention Vf differences between diodes, and it might be an impact that comes and goes, from pedal to pedal, like a ghost.
I've gathered that the MC1458 is probably the most common and longest lived type of dual 741 op-amp. Previous ones needed more than 8 pins for both offset null connections, such as the LM747. The 4558 was seen as an improved 1458.
Quote from: Mark Hammer on July 30, 2018, 09:25:19 AM
"Neckbearded"? :icon_confused: :icon_question:
"neckbearded" - a gender neutral worn beard around the capacitors!!!!!! Have you not seen them??
Quote from: Mark Hammer on July 30, 2018, 09:41:36 AM
The header of this thread asks "What's the difference?". I'm presuming the implied question is whether there is a sonic difference.
Yes, indeed the question is focused on this. However, I think it would be interesting to know the technological/technical difference between the two ways of doing it. Which, after all, would be better... (?)
"Better" isn't a term that means anything on its own. It always comes with parameters attached, even if those are only implied. I suspect you mean "sonically", but "lowest cost", "simplest layout", "easiest part availability", "most robust", "lowest current consumption" and others are all valid, along which whatever weighted combination of those you want.
I like simple circuits, so while I'll add parts if it makes a big sonic difference, I won't keep adding bits for marginal gains in quality. Plus "sounds good" doesn't always mean "technically the highest specification". We're rarely looking for 20-20KHz flat bandwidth and distortion figures of 0.01%. So even "better sonically" can be a bit vague!
Quote from: StephenGiles on July 30, 2018, 10:50:18 AM
Quote from: Mark Hammer on July 30, 2018, 09:25:19 AM
"Neckbearded"? :icon_confused: :icon_question:
"neckbearded" - a gender neutral worn beard around the capacitors!!!!!! Have you not seen them??
Only when I look in the mirror after starting a shave, only to find out that the blade is too dull to continue after doing the "easy" parts.
+1 totally agree with Mark's post.
There's a lot of stuff about different op-amps will show up when you push them hard or beyond their design limits - e.g. into clipping.
But when you use them at unity gain as a buffer? Nope, not so much. You'll really struggle to find measurable tonal differences from one to another for many common op-amps.
I couldn't care less whether the buffers on my tube screamer were transistor or op-amps, as long as they were designed decently.
Quote from: Mark Hammer on July 30, 2018, 09:25:19 AM
"Neckbearded"? :icon_confused: :icon_question:
neckbeard
n. - A man whose facial hair grows mainly on his neck and not on his face.
neckbeard
v. - To hoard or buy up large quantities of hard-to-find items. Apparently a common practice among neckbeards.
I thank everyone who participated in this conversation about the JRC4558D on this Ibanez Tube Screamer pedal.
Changing a subject, but still talking about the same pedal, I would like to know what the function of this diode(D8) W03C in this circuit (?). I imagine my doubt comes from my little knowledge about electronics, but, why is this diode in parallel with the positive and negative tracks? If his function is to protect the circuit from a reversal of polarity, should not he be in series position on the circuit? Being in parallel it seems to me to have no function ... (?!)
(https://www.electrosmash.com/images/tech/tube-screamer/tube-screamer-power-supply.png)
It is there for reverse polarity protection of the DC jack. Plug in the wrong type of jack (negative tip vs. positive tip) and the diode acts as an easier path for current than the rest of your circuit so you don't damage anything further down the line.
You can do a similar thing with a forward-biased diode in series with the positive side of the DC jack, but then your circuit power is a diode drop less than whatever you plug in.
Quote from: tonight, we ride on August 24, 2018, 10:52:10 AM
It is there for reverse polarity protection of the DC jack. Plug in the wrong type of jack (negative tip vs. positive tip) and the diode acts as an easier path for current than the rest of your circuit so you don't damage anything further down the line.
You can do a similar thing with a forward-biased diode in series with the positive side of the DC jack, but then your circuit power is a diode drop less than whatever you plug in.
Thanks @tonight, we ride. Now I understand. So, this diode creates a short circuit situation, right? Is this short circuit situation technically better than placing diodes in series on the positive and negative tracks, which, instead of causing a short circuit, would block the current flow if an inverted polarity source were used?
No not short circuit.
Stops the current flowing the wrong way which will damage the opamps.
Please can the people who understand electronics better than me reply in a way that everyone understands and not get too technical.
Cheers
It's not a short circuit either way... the diode is there to offer resistance between the two power nodes and drop voltage.
Imagine having the pedal powered as expected: you would have +9V DC on the top node (connected to the cathode - negative terminal of the diode), and ground connected to the bottom node (connected to the anode - positive terminal of the diode). This is normal operation, and creates a situation where the diode is reverse-biased and thus can be considered a HUGE resistance to current flowing through it. Current gets to that point, effectively ignores your diode as a path to get back to ground, and instead continues forward to your circuit.
Now imagine the opposite situation occurring from accidentally plugging in a DC jack that has the polarity reversed: you would have ground on the top node (connected to the cathode - negative terminal of the diode), and +9V DC connected to the bottom node (connected to the anode - positive terminal of the diode). This would forward bias the diode, which means it is more than happy to conduct current until failure. The diode still offers resistance and will drop the typical forward voltage of roughly 0.6 Volts, but in order to maintain that voltage it will pass more and more current until potential failure of the diode. This creates a situation where you are saving your opamp and transistors from potential damage, while potentially sacrificing a diode. Although, your diode will ideally have a maximum forward current rating that will be able to handle whatever your power supply is churning out. Use a 1N400x series diode and you shouldn't have any problems unless your planning on using a power supply that is going to give off multiple amps of current.
Some other people may have further opinions about this, but there's no real advantage/disadvantage to having the diode in parallel with the supply (and reverse-biased) vs. having the diode in series with the supply (and forward-biased). The only notable difference is that if you have the diode in series with the power you will have a constant diode drop worth of voltage lost by the time it gets to your actual circuit, so some people go the parallel route if they are trying to reduce unnecessary power consumption.
Quote from: tonight, we ride on August 24, 2018, 02:08:42 PM
It's not a short circuit either way... the diode is there to offer resistance between the two power nodes and drop voltage.
Indeed. The diode has some resistance, so there is no short circuit. I despised this feature of the component. ;D
Quote from: tonight, we ride on August 24, 2018, 02:08:42 PM
Some other people may have further opinions about this, but there's no real advantage/disadvantage to having the diode in parallel with the supply (and reverse-biased) vs. having the diode in series with the supply (and forward-biased). The only notable difference is that if you have the diode in series with the power you will have a constant diode drop worth of voltage lost by the time it gets to your actual circuit, so some people go the parallel route if they are trying to reduce unnecessary power consumption.
What would be a source of this tipe? Would you have an example of one so that I can study it?
Here's what the circuit you posted would look like with the series diode arrangement.
In this circumstance you can still trace the current from the most positive point of the circuit to ground.
With the diode in the forward-biased arrangement the current can travel from the 9V DC source to the anode of the diode and on to the rest of the circuit. If, for some reason there is a short circuit past the diode it will potentially protect other points in the circuit by failing as an open circuit if the maximum forward current rating of the diode is exceeded.
If the diode were flipped 180 degrees, with the cathode (negative side) of the diode connected to the positive side of the 9V DC power supply and the anode (positive side) of the diode connected to the top of the capacitor, the diode would then be reverse-biased. You can no longer trace the current from the most positive point in the circuit to ground without being blocked by the diode, which means no current will flow through the circuit. You will still have the voltage drop across the diode (about 0.6 Volts), but no reasonably measurable current will flow through it, so it is basically an open circuit.
(Sorry about the poor lighting on the photo! Three beers into the night and didn't want to turn the lights back on)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/6wlb0s0rb/Protection_Diode_in_Series.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/6wlb0s0rb/)
The shunt diode scheme is, as noted, designed to protect against reversed battery or power supply voltages by conducting so much current that the reversed voltage never gets above one diode drop - about 0.6V to 1.0V if the current it really large.
The series diode scheme protects against reversed battery or external power supply by blocking current flow in the "wrong" direction.
A diode lets current flow only in the direction of the arrow part of the diode sche matic symbol. It blocks current in the reversed direction, shown by the "bar" part of the schematic symbol.
The shunt diode scheme is really best suited to batteries and "smart" external power supplies. The fundamental ideas of what a guitar pedal looks like and acts like was solidified when batteries were the only good option for powering them. Batteries have limited "short circuit" current, something a diode can conduct without damage for a short while. A shunt diode also subtracts zero voltage from a battery in the "correct" direction. So a shunt diode is just about ideal for protecting against fumble-fingered insertion of batteries backwards. Smart power supplies have built in current limits that will not kill a shunt diode, so this is a good solution for them as well. Batteries lose voltage as they wear out, so losing voltage to a series diode can be a real problem to sound quality,.
Shunt diodes are not so good if you connect a not-smart power supply backwards. Simple brute force power supplies can supply so much current to a shunt diode that the diode overheats, then burns open. When that happens, the reversed power supply can start killing capacitors and ICs in the pedal. Transistors may or may not live through this as well.
The worst of all possible schemes for a shunt diode protection setup is to connect an AC power supply to the external power jack of a pedal with a shunt diode. AC power supplies are almost always a simple transformer; this can supply very large currents to a shunt diode, burning out the diode, then killing the rest of the pedal. A pedalboard apocalypse can happen if you have your pedalboard powered by a single power supply through a daisy chain cable and you hook up an AC power supply to the daisy chain. The common AC power supplies for digital effects pedals use a power connector that is similar enough to the "normal" DC connectors to force the AC connector in. When this happens, every pedal is subjected to the AC power, and pedals start dying.
Series protection of some kind is the only good answer for a high current "dumb" DC power supply or AC power supply mis-connection. You lose some voltage, but this is not so bad with a fixed power supply that doesn't drift down like batteries.
Even better is a smart circuit solution to reversed power supply voltages. There are several schemes that actually sense whether the incoming power supply voltage is the right polarity and turn a series transistor on or off depending on the polarity. A series transistor can have a much smaller series voltage drop than a diode, so this almost eliminates the difficulty with the voltage drop of a series diode.
If you have found it yet, there are a number of articles on powering pedals, including reverse polarity protection, at geofex.com.
Quote from: anotherjim on July 30, 2018, 10:12:20 AM
I've gathered that the MC1458 is probably the most common and longest lived type of dual 741 op-amp. Previous ones needed more than 8 pins for both offset null connections, such as the LM747. The 4558 was seen as an improved 1458.
Aw shoot. Here I was thinking I could get all mischievous and nail together a TS-9 circuit with a pair of groady old 741s just to give everyone the heebie-jeebies. Guess not.
Quote from: ElectricDruid on July 28, 2018, 07:20:17 PM
Quote from: idy on July 28, 2018, 04:02:46 PM
All the versions we have seen (and that have filled hundreds or thousands of posts on this forum and other similar forums) have one IC with two opamps inside it. It is called a "dual opamp." That is like the 4558 or the many chips we substitute. The one you have also has two opamps on one IC, no? What do you mean?
+1 this. Not two ICs, two op-amps. In one chip. Hence the difference between the schematic (2 op-amps) and the pictures (1 IC).
Show me a photo of a tubescreamer with two chips and I'll believe you.
T.
There was a pedal in the short-lived "Master Series" pedals that is considered to be the TS of that series, I forget the name of it but it had 2 dual opamps in it.
Al
Quote from: Mark Hammer on July 28, 2018, 06:38:48 PMOr is there some "secret" issue of the TS we haven't yet stumbled on? Stranger things have happened.
No, no, they haven't.
Quote from: StephenGiles on July 29, 2018, 02:05:23 AMI told him that it was to comply with EU regulations!!!!!!
You may have to revise your answer post-Brexit.
Quote from: zombiwoof on August 29, 2018, 09:48:42 AM
Quote from: ElectricDruid on July 28, 2018, 07:20:17 PM
Quote from: idy on July 28, 2018, 04:02:46 PM
All the versions we have seen (and that have filled hundreds or thousands of posts on this forum and other similar forums) have one IC with two opamps inside it. It is called a "dual opamp." That is like the 4558 or the many chips we substitute. The one you have also has two opamps on one IC, no? What do you mean?
+1 this. Not two ICs, two op-amps. In one chip. Hence the difference between the schematic (2 op-amps) and the pictures (1 IC).
Show me a photo of a tubescreamer with two chips and I'll believe you.
T.
There was a pedal in the short-lived "Master Series" pedals that is considered to be the TS of that series, I forget the name of it but it had 2 dual opamps in it.
Al
That'd be the STL I think. Its forerunner the ST9 was much the same with the extra opamp used for the mid-boost circuitry. The ST9 had the boost before the clipping stage and the STL after (I may have reversed those so don't take as gospel).
Well we already know that changing op amps does sound different. Whether it's better is anyone's guess but my Deluxe Memory Man sounds so much better with RC4558 chips in there..... For real! :-)
I love the tone of the Deluxe Memory man... Must be something from childhood!
I had posted a reply to the R.G post. here, but it looks like my comment has been moved to a new topic here at this address: https://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=121861
Was that same?
I'm not complaining, I agree, I think it is more organized like this; because this topic here was originally created for the Ibanez Tube Screamer JRC4558D amplifier speeches. And I introduced the subject of pedal protection because it was the one used on the same pedal ...
This is normal? When the post is moved, who posted it does not receive an warning? I had thought that my post had been lost ... :icon_confused: :icon_question:
> my comment has been moved to a new topic
My doing. Your post deserved a new thread, not hang-on under a '4558-count thread.
I had thought this forum software posted a notice on a move; I am sorry to see that it does not.
If you think a post of yours has been lost or moved, try clicking "Profile" at the top of the page (or your name next to any of your posts you do find), then "Show Posts". This lists your posts.
Quote from: PRR on February 05, 2019, 08:16:01 PM
If you think a post of yours has been lost or moved, try clicking "Profile" at the top of the page (or your name next to any of your posts you do find), then "Show Posts". This lists your posts.
Thank You PRR.