http://www.smallbearelec.com/Categories.bok?category=Reverb (http://www.smallbearelec.com/Categories.bok?category=Reverb)
i tried ripping one of these open, not easy!
looks like a much of smt pt2399s, great deal for this chip!
sounds wonderful!
Doesn't get much simpler than that!
For those about to be asking 4.4m questions [like I did] and building nearly as many reverbs to find out the answers to them, here's yet another [as yet untried?] option !
It looks like Belton is making available a device based on signifigant research, very interesting and eduactional, just reading the data sheet !
Vertical or Horizontal...!
very strange to have three versions for delay time: short, medium, and long.
very strange to have three versions for delay time: short, medium, and long.
"This is the medium-delay version."
Being offered as an option, leads to the thinking:
The chip compliment and much of the circuitry is the same or similar [in cost].
The placement of the delay length setting components could be critical to the function of the device noise floor and the choice was made to simply offer 3 clock option settings to make the delay time selectable.
This is a spring reverb pan replacement, right? Reverb pans are available as short, medium and long reverb times, so it makes sense to me to offer a replacement with the same option. I'm sure if these become popular enough somone is going to open it up and figure out how add an adjustable delay amount feature.
my hometown is Belton, TX and I sort of want to get one of these just so I can have a part that says "Belton" on it in my amp.
But does it sound like a thunderstorm when you kick it?
-- T. G. --
Apparently Doug deeper dug deeper and tore one open to find smt pt2399s, these chips don't do reverb Thunder-kiX.
the whole appeal goes away if you can't physically interact with it, at least for me personally.
One could try to play guitar through it, I'm pretty sure it will interact that way.
(Have not tried it, but it looks like a very cheep deal)
But I know what you mean, kicking you're equipment ads to the musical experience,, for instants,,
I used to use my singer in the conventional way, which sometimes was boring, so I started kicking him,,
The sounds that generated where truly spectacular, and I never have been able to recreate those squeaks and grunts with diy, digital ore otherwise.
So instead of going vintage and ask that singer back (I don't really want him, he is such a whiner, complaining about bruises and such), the only other solution I could think of was to use a sampling devise, which I can kick, to get the spring thunder sounds and such.
(Pauses to make a cup of coffee *insert elevator music*)
Ah thats better, trying to wake up, sorry for that,,
Uhm yeah, nothing beats a spring reverb besides a better spring reverb, although you might prefer the not better one (whatever that means), and I love the clanking of metal it does.
I love all the other music devises to, as long as it processes sound, and does not ad to much (unwanted) noise, I'm interested.
Almost every effect has it's own special charm.
(DANGER, ridicules humor alert, read with cautious scepticism)
Cool! I saw one of those on Ebay a few months ago but couldn't find anything at the Belton site. I figured they weren't made anymore and were extremely rare. Nice!
Very interesting, I ordered some right away. Let see how they are for (large) stompbox use.
Very attractive package for those desiring wetness on the signal !
I'm tempted to put this in one of my amps, or to put it inside a DPDT loop with another circuit, for the 'Xeffect'+Rev-delay sound at 1 switch.
PT2399's in a low noise clocking package...very convenient ! [5v supply certainly simplifies the PS issues, but how much headroom does that allow for before it distorts?
Did anybody see whether it did reverb "tails"? I didn't, so I'm assuming it probably doesn't.
That doesn't rule it out, but I gotta get me some tail...
Not THAT kind!!!! :icon_mrgreen:
im not 100% that they are pt2399s, but there are the right amount of pins, and the passives look to be in all the right places on the top side at least.
there is some serious glue happening in there and i could only really get about a quarter of the casing off, and i lost a few resistors along the way....opening these up is not recommended!
i was hoping to tweak the "chip" a bit, but its basically a death sentence for the device.
Suffice it to say [for now] that there are no reverb springs in there, delay chips make the reverb...it'll be interesting when we get some the builders feedback on the unit here !
Ok, I built the belton pedal circuit as of smallbear yesterday using the Medium reverb version (look up the component at smallbear and there is a schematic there). I haven't had time to play with it long enough, but first impressions are:
>:( If the input level is too high, it doesn't distort. No, worse, it stops reverbing, freaks out and starts generating lots of very loud noise. only way to get back at normal operation is by disconnectiing the power from the unit.. This happend while playing through it and only one some loud notes at a particular frequency. Changing the cap value in the reverb filter solved this. (might have been due to the fact I was using humbuckers, and bridge pu), but it might be better to change the amplification factor a bit there.
:( You can hear long pulsating delays in the reverb.
:( The reverb is noticably out of tune with the guitar, so it appears there is some delay modulation going on.
:) The amount of reverb available is "over the top", but that is a good thing.
My first impression is, not very good. Only useful when the reverb is kept down.
Also no information on the mystery pin nr. 6. Applying voltage, current or draining current did not make a noticable difference. (I haven't put my DMM to the pin yet)
That's it, I'll continue my experimentations.
~arph
Hello there! I have a Mister Springgy Lee Jackson reverb pedal! This pedal sounds great!!! I opened it to see and guess what... Goop everywhere... But I could see the the BTDR in the pedal, so it seems that this BTDR module can make some great reverb sounding... This pedal is so transparent, I love it!! No problem with powerful guitar or with line level, this pedal is great. Would be great if we could clone it!!! Just check the sound sample on the lee jackson website.
Wouldn't be surprised if it is just the beltone schematic. Wet out only isn't that hard either.. just disconnect the clean sound :S
Can you tell which beltone module is in there? the short Medium or long version?
My guess would be short after hearing some samples.. It does sound better then my test setup, so there are some differences. Mr Lee sys he mods the modules before using them, seems unlikely after reading doug's comments.
I don't know if it's modded but there is a "Mister Springgy" sticker on the BTDR, so I can't see what module it is... But I'm sure we could design something good around this module, just have to find the good values!! I'm not home now, but I will post some guts pictures, even if there is a lot of goop, it could give us some strating point.
Thnx, that would be great.
Did anyone compare the three versions?
Regards,
Arnoud
Here is a first shot. You can see the goop that fasten the BTDR to the enclosure on the left, and some goop that fasten the pcb to the enclosure... In fact it seems there is no goop on the pcb's component but removing the pcb from the enclosure seems to be impossible without breaking it... :icon_cry: I'll try to see a little further... This pedal is sooooo great! :icon_lol:
(http://dantahoua.homeip.net/Electronic/Springgy/springgy.jpg)
Ah good, is the belton sticker still underneath there? ;D
Messy wiring btw, look at the cap at the power supply
Yup, even if the sound is great, it should not be sold that price!!!! :o The original sticker is under the other one, but they are well stick together... Would be great if we could make something similar but far less expensive... I would like to have another one for my second board...
Perhaps you can take a sneak peak at one of the sides under the sticker, you should be able to tell which belton module it is. There is a small S M L indication at the very edge of the original sticker. :)
BTW. You can almost get the exact thing by building the pedal from the schematic at smallbear. I've tweaked the opamp section going into the module a bit. I'll look it up and tell you what I used/changed.
Just took first tests from this Belton box and sounds much like a spring reverb. I dont have a filter in there yet.
Quote from: ~arph on March 31, 2009, 09:23:22 AM
:( You can hear long pulsating delays in the reverb.
FWIW, you can hear discrete delays in real spring reverb, too.
Quote from: Taylor on April 12, 2009, 01:46:02 PM
Quote from: ~arph on March 31, 2009, 09:23:22 AM
:( You can hear long pulsating delays in the reverb.
FWIW, you can hear discrete delays in real spring reverb, too.
You definitely can - in some more then others. I have a SR-101 Pioneer spring reverb, and one reverb channel is nice an mostly clean but the other is practically a delay!
When you input a sig into a spring tank, it travels to the other side, bounces off, travels to the other side, bounces, and so on, so you still hear that signal every time the signal comes back to the pickup. What makes it a reverb, is the massive amounts of extra reflections along the spring that are typically quieter then the "primary" bounce.
Anyone have some sound clips/videos of something they did with this thing?
Here's the Lee Jackson "Mr. Springgy":
http://www.leejackson.com/mp3/MRSpringgy-Live.mp3
And here's the Malekko "Spring Chicken" which seems likely to be based on the Belton since it just popped up, has the same price as the Lee Jackson pedal, and they say "we didn't invent this chip, but we made it sound great".
http://www.malekkoheavyindustry.com/index.php?page=spring-chicken
Quote from: Salvatore on February 19, 2009, 09:02:16 AM
One could try to play guitar through it, I'm pretty sure it will interact that way.
(Have not tried it, but it looks like a very cheep deal)
But I know what you mean, kicking you're equipment ads to the musical experience,, for instants,,
I used to use my singer in the conventional way, which sometimes was boring, so I started kicking him,,
The sounds that generated where truly spectacular, and I never have been able to recreate those squeaks and grunts with diy, digital ore otherwise.
So instead of going vintage and ask that singer back (I don't really want him, he is such a whiner, complaining about bruises and such), the only other solution I could think of was to use a sampling devise, which I can kick, to get the spring thunder sounds and such.
(Pauses to make a cup of coffee *insert elevator music*)
Ah thats better, trying to wake up, sorry for that,,
Uhm yeah, nothing beats a spring reverb besides a better spring reverb, although you might prefer the not better one (whatever that means), and I love the clanking of metal it does.
I love all the other music devises to, as long as it processes sound, and does not ad to much (unwanted) noise, I'm interested.
Almost every effect has it's own special charm.
(DANGER, ridicules humor alert, read with cautious scepticism)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thank you Sooooooo much for this comment . It's Easter Monday morning when a am reading this and I am at my contry house and eating breakfast, the sun is shining bright , no clouds, it's spring and 15 deg C and I have laughed for 40 minutes and my abdominal has gone past its best now. This is going to be a perfect day.
Again thanks a mill pal.
//Solderman
Hi
I have checked this out and I agree that the PT239x is the most probable candidate inside. To build a pedal around this gadget seams to go over the stream for water. I wold suggest the FV-1 :: SPN1001 from Spin Semiconductors http://www.spinsemi.com/products.html (http://www.spinsemi.com/products.html) since it has all you need and a bunch of more digital sounds. like reverb, chorus, pitch shift etc. in a singel IC and with a low count of surrounding components to a relatively low cost. The footprint is also better for a stompbox Hammond BB size.
//Solderman
Funny, I prefer the Malekko sound compare to my Lee Jackson (just after seeing the video...). The Malekko is less expensive too, would like to know what is inside (with the Belton... ;)) I try to unstick the 2 stickers, but I'm not able, sorry, the glue remove the wrting of the original stickers...
Quote from: solderman on April 13, 2009, 04:13:46 AM
Hi
I have checked this out and I agree that the PT239x is the most probable candidate inside. To build a pedal around this gadget seams to go over the stream for water. I wold suggest the FV-1 :: SPN1001 from Spin Semiconductors http://www.spinsemi.com/products.html (http://www.spinsemi.com/products.html) since it has all you need and a bunch of more digital sounds. like reverb, chorus, pitch shift etc. in a singel IC and with a low count of surrounding components to a relatively low cost. The footprint is also better for a stompbox Hammond BB size.
//Solderman
Have you heard the built in effects in the FV-1? They aren't very good, IMO. Even SpinSemi admits they are only for demonstration purposes. The FV-1 is only useful if you know DSP and can write custom algorithms for it.
The Belton BTDR-1 reverb is much more musical sounding and is less expensive when considering the total system cost.
Unrelated, but I wondered why they say this:
The VisualSound 1SPOT 9v DC power supply is NOT compatible with MALEKKO EKKO pedals. Use of this power supply will void manufacturer warrantee.
http://www.malekkoheavyindustry.com/index.php?page=echo-300b (http://www.malekkoheavyindustry.com/index.php?page=echo-300b)
I think that tells more about melekko's design than the 1spot.
I believe he's upgraded all his pedals so they're compatible.
You guys can say what you will about Lee Jackson's pedals but the man knows his stuff. He stops by the PAiA office to ship/receive packages and we usually get to talking about the different guitar pedals he's working on or having problems with. He's the kind of guy that can offer a lot of insight into anything that you talk with him about. Very cool guy, but I was definitely a bit starstruck when I first met him.
We got to talking today about the BTDR-1H delay modules that he uses in his delay pedals. As it turns out, these devices are NOT bucket brigade delays as many people seem to think but are, in fact, completely digital delays. The datasheet is quick to point out that this is a digital device. Another thing he pointed out is that out of the 1000 or so modules he orders at a time, about 1/3rd of them are unacceptably noisy and another 1/3rd are fairly noisy, with the last bit being the useful ones that go in his pedals. He has to hand sort every device to find ones that are usable and I'm sure by now has a large collection of unusable delay modules. His big problem is that the manufacturer REFUSES to acknowledge that there is a consistency problem from device to device and won't allow the unusable devices to be returned/traded. The reason I bring this up is because I remember reading Paul Morossy's post about building a GGG project based off of the BTDR-1H and was having some noise problems with his pedal. It may not have been the op amp but, in fact, the delay module. If anybody else has had a problem with their BTDR-1's being too noisy then please let me know, Lee could use some backup in getting the manufacturer to produce a product that actually performs as specified.
Well yes, I had noise issues, see reply #17. I had this with both untits I ordered. So i thought it was to do with the circuitry around it.
btw.I find it funny to see that PT2399 delays are sometimes still marketed as analog or 'between analog and digital' delays. This is just a side note and has nothing to do with the topic :P
Quote from: Cliff Schecht on August 05, 2009, 03:25:43 AM
We got to talking today about the BTDR-1H delay modules that he uses in his delay pedals. As it turns out, these devices are NOT bucket brigade delays as many people seem to think but are, in fact, completely digital delays.
But that's what everyone's been saying all along, eh? Doug Deeper posted that in the first couple of replies of this thread.
Yes, but I think he did not mean us here.. but the people that buy them
Quote from: Taylor on August 05, 2009, 04:04:19 AM
Quote from: Cliff Schecht on August 05, 2009, 03:25:43 AM
We got to talking today about the BTDR-1H delay modules that he uses in his delay pedals. As it turns out, these devices are NOT bucket brigade delays as many people seem to think but are, in fact, completely digital delays.
But that's what everyone's been saying all along, eh? Doug Deeper posted that in the first couple of replies of this thread.
It's an erroneous assumption that a lot of non-techies make. IMO it doesn't matter if a delay is analog or digital, I just care if it sounds good!
Quote from: Cliff Schecht on August 05, 2009, 03:25:43 AM
We got to talking today about the BTDR-1H delay modules that he uses in his delay pedals. As it turns out, these devices are NOT bucket brigade delays as many people seem to think but are, in fact, completely digital delays. The datasheet is quick to point out that this is a digital device. Another thing he pointed out is that out of the 1000 or so modules he orders at a time, about 1/3rd of them are unacceptably noisy and another 1/3rd are fairly noisy, with the last bit being the useful ones that go in his pedals. He has to hand sort every device to find ones that are usable and I'm sure by now has a large collection of unusable delay modules. His big problem is that the manufacturer REFUSES to acknowledge that there is a consistency problem from device to device and won't allow the unusable devices to be returned/traded. The reason I bring this up is because I remember reading Paul Morossy's post about building a GGG project based off of the BTDR-1H and was having some noise problems with his pedal. It may not have been the op amp but, in fact, the delay module. If anybody else has had a problem with their BTDR-1's being too noisy then please let me know, Lee could use some backup in getting the manufacturer to produce a product that actually performs as specified.
My noise problems seem to have been caused by things other than the Belton reverb module. I've got that sorted out now.
One thing I'd like to point out is that the patent documents for the Belton reverb unit refer to a PT2399. I don't know if they are actually in the unit or not, but it does mention it in the document. http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat20090003614.pdf
It appears to me that it could be basically multiple PT2399s + filtering + feedback + modulation.
Quote from: Cliff Schecht on August 05, 2009, 03:25:43 AM
Another thing he pointed out is that out of the 1000 or so modules he orders at a time, about 1/3rd of them are unacceptably noisy and another 1/3rd are fairly noisy, with the last bit being the useful ones that go in his pedals. He has to hand sort every device to find ones that are usable and I'm sure by now has a large collection of unusable delay modules. His big problem is that the manufacturer REFUSES to acknowledge that there is a consistency problem from device to device and won't allow the unusable devices to be returned/traded. ... If anybody else has had a problem with their BTDR-1's being too noisy then please let me know, Lee could use some backup in getting the manufacturer to produce a product that actually performs as specified.
I can say for a fact that the BTDR-1 modules meet the published spec: http://www.neunabertechnology.com/BTDR1/downloads/BTDR-1Datasheet.pdf (http://www.neunabertechnology.com/BTDR1/downloads/BTDR-1Datasheet.pdf). I know, because I wrote the spec to conform to the test results of literally hundreds of samples. Also, Belton tests the modules at the factory to ensure they meet the spec. The residual noise of the modules range from -72dBV worst-case, as clearly stated in the datasheet, to around -86dBV best-case. Yes, this is inconsistent (which has always been acknowledged) but within the specification.
I designed my sample pedal schematic using a module with -72dBV noise, and it works pretty well (http://www.neunabertechnology.com/BTDR1/downloads/ReverbPedalSchematic.pdf (http://www.neunabertechnology.com/BTDR1/downloads/ReverbPedalSchematic.pdf)). To my knowledge, other pedal makers who use the module do not have a problem with it.
I don't know what's in Lee's circuit, but my guess is that he has too much headroom and/or the gain structure is wrong. I have offered him numerous suggestions and even offered to review his design under nondisclosure agreement. He refuses my help and refuses to consider that perhaps his circuit is the problem rather than the module.
If someone needs a reverb that has higher signal-to-noise ratio than what the BTDR-1 offers, I have no problem recommending someone else's solution. The Spin FV-1 and Wavefront AL3201BG are viable options. They cost more (as a system solution), are more complicated to use, and some don't care for the sound of their built-in reverbs; but, on the other hand, they have the potential to give much better results with a little effort. You get what you pay for.
I personally like the BTDR-1, I think it sounds great. IMO, it is a breakthrough device. Maybe not a 100% consistent device, but I don't think it's too bad, all things considered.
Any sound samples somewhere of long, short and medioum versions?
Quote from: neunaber on April 16, 2009, 01:45:00 PM
Have you heard the built in effects in the FV-1? They aren't very good, IMO. Even SpinSemi admits they are only for demonstration purposes. The FV-1 is only useful if you know DSP and can write custom algorithms for it.
The Belton BTDR-1 reverb is much more musical sounding and is less expensive when considering the total system cost.
While I must disagree on your opinion of the built in reverbs, they are not for demo only. Many people use them in production, the older datasheets did caution about using in production because we could only simulate the chip and programs prior to fab (and simulating a DSP running a program in Verilog takes a LONG time to run to get just a few seconds of audio!). Once the chip and programs were proven we have told people it is fine to use the built in programs if they wish in their products. Datasheet was updated to reflect this (I believe I missed one mention of this in the the datasheet, will fix soon). Costs depend on many factors, if using a built in program and purchasing in production quantities the FV-1 is very cost effective, especially if you want more than one effect in the target device. I don't know what the Belton unit goes for in production quantities. But the FV-1 and Belton unit are different animals, the Belton unit is a fixed effect unit, nothing wrong with that. The FV-1 is a multi-effect unit, can use POTs to adjust effects in real time.
Quote from: octfrank on August 08, 2009, 01:22:29 PM
Quote from: neunaber on April 16, 2009, 01:45:00 PM
Have you heard the built in effects in the FV-1? They aren't very good, IMO. Even SpinSemi admits they are only for demonstration purposes. The FV-1 is only useful if you know DSP and can write custom algorithms for it.
The Belton BTDR-1 reverb is much more musical sounding and is less expensive when considering the total system cost.
While I must disagree on your opinion of the built in reverbs, they are not for demo only. Many people use them in production, the older datasheets did caution about using in production because we could only simulate the chip and programs prior to fab (and simulating a DSP running a program in Verilog takes a LONG time to run to get just a few seconds of audio!). Once the chip and programs were proven we have told people it is fine to use the built in programs if they wish in their products. Datasheet was updated to reflect this (I believe I missed one mention of this in the the datasheet, will fix soon). Costs depend on many factors, if using a built in program and purchasing in production quantities the FV-1 is very cost effective, especially if you want more than one effect in the target device. I don't know what the Belton unit goes for in production quantities. But the FV-1 and Belton unit are different animals, the Belton unit is a fixed effect unit, nothing wrong with that. The FV-1 is a multi-effect unit, can use POTs to adjust effects in real time.
I stand corrected.
I also know people using the built-in programs of the FV-1 in production. I don't care for them, but to each his own. That said, I am using the FV-1 in my pedal (www.neunabertechnology.com/wet-reverb (http://www.neunabertechnology.com/wet-reverb)), albeit with my own custom reverb algorithm. It's perfect for stuff like this.
I don't want to get into pricing, because I'm not in sales; but I do know the BTDR-1 ends up a couple dollars less than the FV-1 when considering system cost. The FV-1 is more flexible and has better specs but has a higher learning curve. So, there are trade-offs. I think each has its place.
Fellas, while I find this very interesting, I do think we might be venturing into uncomfortable territory with two competitors touting the advantages of their products on this forum. I wouldn't want to see this thread closed because of a perception of spamming.
Quote from: Taylor on August 08, 2009, 02:48:51 PM
Fellas, while I find this very interesting, I do think we might be venturing into uncomfortable territory with two competitors touting the advantages of their products on this forum. I wouldn't want to see this thread closed because of a perception of spamming.
Honestly, I don't think that would happen here... on the gear page: YES but here at diystompboxes generally Aron and the guys are more laid back - heck steve from smallbear posts here all the time about new products and I think most of us are glad he does! I know personally, I appreciate these fellows piping in the discussion.
my $.02
Quote from: wampcat1 on August 08, 2009, 03:57:35 PM
Quote from: Taylor on August 08, 2009, 02:48:51 PM
Fellas, while I find this very interesting, I do think we might be venturing into uncomfortable territory with two competitors touting the advantages of their products on this forum. I wouldn't want to see this thread closed because of a perception of spamming.
Honestly, I don't think that would happen here... on the gear page: YES but here at diystompboxes generally Aron and the guys are more laid back - heck steve from smallbear posts here all the time about new products and I think most of us are glad he does! I know personally, I appreciate these fellows piping in the discussion.
my $.02
I agree. :icon_cool:
Quote from: octfrank on August 08, 2009, 01:22:29 PM
Quote from: neunaber on April 16, 2009, 01:45:00 PM
Have you heard the built in effects in the FV-1? They aren't very good, IMO. Even SpinSemi admits they are only for demonstration purposes. The FV-1 is only useful if you know DSP and can write custom algorithms for it.
The Belton BTDR-1 reverb is much more musical sounding and is less expensive when considering the total system cost.
While I must disagree on your opinion of the built in reverbs, they are not for demo only. Many people use them in production, the older datasheets did caution about using in production because we could only simulate the chip and programs prior to fab (and simulating a DSP running a program in Verilog takes a LONG time to run to get just a few seconds of audio!). Once the chip and programs were proven we have told people it is fine to use the built in programs if they wish in their products. Datasheet was updated to reflect this (I believe I missed one mention of this in the the datasheet, will fix soon). Costs depend on many factors, if using a built in program and purchasing in production quantities the FV-1 is very cost effective, especially if you want more than one effect in the target device. I don't know what the Belton unit goes for in production quantities. But the FV-1 and Belton unit are different animals, the Belton unit is a fixed effect unit, nothing wrong with that. The FV-1 is a multi-effect unit, can use POTs to adjust effects in real time.
Thanks for clearing things up again, Frank! :icon_wink:
Looking forward to whatever Keith (and you guys) come up with next... :icon_smile:
Quote from: Taylor on August 08, 2009, 02:48:51 PM
Fellas, while I find this very interesting, I do think we might be venturing into uncomfortable territory with two competitors touting the advantages of their products on this forum. I wouldn't want to see this thread closed because of a perception of spamming.
No probz, AFAIC:
the one represents a chipmaker that is of interest for all free DIY-ers,
the other represents a modulemaker (who uses various chips...) that are of interest for the same group...
no conflicts - just: WIN!
BTW: the favorite DIY-suppliers carry both...
:icon_cool:
Hello:
I am currently working on a digital reverb with PT2399 six modules.
I could not download the patent of module. Where can I get it?
Here is the link of my project with demos, schematics...
http://sites.google.com/site/analogcustomkits/Home/reverb-digital (http://sites.google.com/site/analogcustomkits/Home/reverb-digital)
I heard some demos of Belton module and the sound is very similar.
Belton demos here
http://www.abbianengineering.com/misc/BeltonCarrier.html (http://www.abbianengineering.com/misc/BeltonCarrier.html)
(Excuse my writing. I do not speak English.)
Regards
Data sheet: http://www.smallbearelec.com/Projects/BTDR-1H.pdf
Patent #20090003614: http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat20090003614.pdf
I have an FV-1 based multieffect module and AL3201 based one and according to my ears /listening to the demos so far/ they both beat the c..p out of the Belton modules but that's only my opinion.
Maybe for certain cituations and designs I'll also use one of those, who knows. :icon_rolleyes:
QuoteI am currently working on a digital reverb with PT2399 six modules.
Common man, give me a break. Get one of the chips mentioned above and save yourself time and pain :)
Here is a link to AnalogCustom's project page over at electro-music: http://electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35276
Figured I'd post a link since details are in English there. Very cool project! Thank you for taking the time to share your project and go through the hassle of translating everything to English AnalogCustom.
The Neunaber patent looks like an analog implementation of a feedback delay network reverb, where the scattering junction is a Householder matrix. This can be viewed as equivalent (or almost equivalent except for sign) to a waveguide reverb where a single scattering junction is used, and all waveguides have equal impedence. Julius Smith first published such an idea in 1985. The patent seems to list the idea of not sending the input to all of the delay lines at once, and taking the output from one or more parts of the scattering matrix, which has been used by Miller Puckette since the mid 1980's.
The analog part of the patent seems like an "implementation" patent, which patents a certain hardware manifestation of a concept. Yamaha has a few hundred of these patents, and they are quite common in the industry. Getting an FDN running in (largely) analog hardware is a very impressive feat.
The FV-1 can certainly implement such reverbs. FDNs tend to cost a little bit more than the allpass loop reverbs on this chip, as the chip has a few instructions and a special register to enable allpass delays to be calculated in 2 instructions. However, a waveguide/Householder style matrix can be implemented on the chip in (2N+1) instructions, where N is the order of the matrix, which is a fairly reasonable cost.
I think that the built in reverbs on the FV-1 are very good, and some of the downloadable example programs on the Spin Semi website are even better. The chip has enough cycles to run Lexicon algorithms (224XL era), so it is a nice choice for reverb pedals. I have managed to get some other nice sounds out of the chip. I have spent the last year developing VST/AU plugins, but am going to revist the FV-1 for kicks.
Sean Costello
http://www.valhalladsp.com (website)
http://valhalladsp.wordpress.com (DSP nerd blog)
http://www.audiodamage.com/effects/product.php?pid=AD023 (Eos, a reverb plugin I wrote the algorithms for)
3) pt2399!
just as i has thought!
now i wish i hadnt ripped one apart!
;D
Quote from: doug deeper on August 29, 2009, 09:09:39 AM
3) pt2399!
just as i has thought!
now i wish i hadnt ripped one apart!
;D
I like to find the patent documents for such things, they usually tell you what you need to know without having to do exploratory surgery on something to find out what's inside. :icon_wink:
I guess they should put a label on it that says "PT2399 Inside", kind of like Intel likes to do with their products. :icon_lol:
Quote from: Paul Marossy on August 29, 2009, 11:28:02 AMI guess they should put a label on it that says "PT2399 Inside", kind of like Intel likes to do with their products. :icon_lol:
... always makes me think of this
(http://www.scotgold.com/acatalog/idiotblue.jpg)
Quote from: Naz Nomad on August 29, 2009, 01:14:20 PM
Quote from: Paul Marossy on August 29, 2009, 11:28:02 AMI guess they should put a label on it that says "PT2399 Inside", kind of like Intel likes to do with their products. :icon_lol:
... always makes me think of this
(http://www.scotgold.com/acatalog/idiotblue.jpg)
Ha ha, I haven't seen that little label before. Is that what the computer sees from inside the case? :icon_lol:
Hi guys. Here is a DIY project using the BTDR-1H Belton. I've made it and sounds good as far as I've tested it. The post is on the french site techniguitare.com :
http://www.techniguitare.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=9130