so ya, BYOC has finally released their flanger after quite a long wait i would assume. they were shooting for a late feb early march release and i have just heard about this halfway through may. but its here, and it looks AWESOME!!!!!!!!
me and my dad are planning on getting the kit and trying our luck (with the somewhat little skill we have). im sure we can get it done though, and its supposed to be a great flanger that combines many different aspects of famous flangers of 'yore (electric mistress, roland and such...) too produce a unique, orgasmic (i also presume) experience.
Question: do YOU think your man enough???????? :icon_lol:
peace
mike (KorovaMilkBar)
Quick reference for those interested:
BYOC kit page (http://www.buildyourownclone.com/flanger.html) (instructions contain link to schematic)
demo (youtube) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE7X3GjIeBo&feature=channel_page)
Mine is on my bench right now being populated.....
Dan
I suspect I'll be tackling a few anytime now... :icon_cool:
B.
It's one trimpot design should make it simple to calibrate. :icon_cool:
I really wanted 1 but its release date kept getting pushed back and back. So I bought a flanger. I might come up with the cash at some date to build 1 and sell my other 1.
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. And looking at the schematic ( http://buildyourownclone.com/flangerscheme.pdf ) I honestly can't see any reason why I would. Essentially all it is is two chips run in parallel with the clock lines flipped over for the other chip. In principal, it doubles the sampling rate and ought to improve signal fidelity, but I can't for the life of me see where it would change basic tone.
The stereo out is not really stereo, either. Basically, you have an in-phase output, and a second output that is simply the same thing inverted. This is not the same as having sum and difference versions of the wet/dry mix at different outputs; a common strategy for many "stereo" modulation pedals like phasers, chorus, etc.. If you had a wet/dry mix option and had a 100% wet output, then the phase-flip would be useful for producing sum and difference signals at a mixer. As is, however, I don't find it particularly useful.
Sorry, I hate to be negative, but I don't think this one is quite yet ready for market. Still needs some changes. Having said that about the seemingly needless minimally-useful bells and whistles, the basic device is fine.
Saw the vid. <yawn>...
Glad I have one of these instead: http://line6.com/tonecore/liquaflange.html (http://line6.com/tonecore/liquaflange.html)
Quote from: Mark Hammer on May 12, 2009, 11:24:14 AM
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. And looking at the schematic ( http://buildyourownclone.com/flangerscheme.pdf ) I honestly can't see any reason why I would. Essentially all it is is two chips run in parallel with the clock lines flipped over for the other chip. In principal, it doubles the sampling rate and ought to improve signal fidelity, but I can't for the life of me see where it would change basic tone.
I'd say that either you choose higher fidelity (using two same BBDs) or "difference" (using MN3207 as IC2 and MN3208 as IC3), seems pretty cool to me.
Quote from: Mark Hammer on May 12, 2009, 11:24:14 AM
The stereo out is not really stereo, either. Basically, you have an in-phase output, and a second output that is simply the same thing inverted. This is not the same as having sum and difference versions of the wet/dry mix at different outputs; a common strategy for many "stereo" modulation pedals like phasers, chorus, etc.. If you had a wet/dry mix option and had a 100% wet output, then the phase-flip would be useful for producing sum and difference signals at a mixer. As is, however, I don't find it particularly useful.
It seemed strange to me as well, but I would not be so sure it does not produce interesting stereo image, until I'd here it (shame that video is monophonic..).
Quote from: Mark Hammer on May 12, 2009, 11:24:14 AM
Sorry, I hate to be negative, but I don't think this one is quite yet ready for market. Still needs some changes. Having said that about the seemingly needless minimally-useful bells and whistles, the basic device is fine.
Too strong words IMO..
T.
Glad I built one of these (PFL workalike [actually works better]):
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/DSC00526.jpg
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/DSC00521.jpg
;D ;D ;D
Now that looks cool! :icon_cool:
Pedal flanging is awesome!
I've probably missed something obvious, but VR1 looks like a bias pot except it's setting the bias for both BBDs. Won't that cause problems if they don't want the same bias voltage?
Quote from: slacker on May 12, 2009, 01:37:41 PM
I've probably missed something obvious, but VR1 looks like a bias pot except it's setting the bias for both BBDs. Won't that cause problems if they don't want the same bias voltage?
You'd be surprised how many devices will "share" the same bias setting across multiple BBDs. I suppose fidelity can be improved when bias individually optimized, but in many instances, a satisfactory compromise can be reached for a couple of BBDs, using one trimpot.
Quote from: Thomeeque on May 12, 2009, 12:44:35 PM
I'd say that either you choose higher fidelity (using two same BBDs) or "difference" (using MN3207 as IC2 and MN3208 as IC3), seems pretty cool to me.
T.
That's actually an interesting idea. Using mixed chips, one would provide a "lagging" delay. Since the two chips are ganged to a single clock, there would be no heterodyning.
(http://www.aronnelson.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=39754&g2_serialNumber=1)
Half done, not gonna make this an all-nighter. Gotta love those flangers! I started out with a BYOC TS-808 kit, but they don't ship to Sweden anymore. Good thing there's vero!
LARS
Quote from: Mark Hammer on May 12, 2009, 02:11:37 PM
You'd be surprised how many devices will "share" the same bias setting across multiple BBDs.
Cool I didn't realise that. Apart from building Charlie's ADA flanger clone I've never done anything with BBDs.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on May 12, 2009, 01:09:51 PM
Glad I built one of these (PFL workalike [actually works better]):
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/DSC00526.jpg
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/DSC00521.jpg
;D ;D ;D
Whoa, that rocks. :icon_razz:
After watching the video I think Ill keep my ibanez flanger for now. When he flipped the differential switch either the microphone was right next to that switch or it there was a big thump in the pedal when it was switched.
Quote from: tackleberry on May 13, 2009, 12:04:40 PM
After watching the video I think Ill keep my ibanez flanger for now.
Ditto - I haven't heard a flanger yet that makes me want to ditch my FL99 Classic Flange. With true-bypass and loads of controls, it does everything I want a flanger to do.
The only other commercially made one that I liked (and probably should have kept) was an older Ibanez FL-301DX; it had a good buffer, ran on 9V and wasn't intense, but a very SWEET flange - almost like a chorus/flange blend.
The A/DA builds from Charlie's boards sound a whole lot better IMO.
Quote from: Mark Hammer on May 12, 2009, 11:24:14 AM
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 :icon_mrgreen:
Quote from: Nitefly182 on May 13, 2009, 01:17:43 PM
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.
Quote from: chilecocula on May 13, 2009, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: Mark Hammer on May 12, 2009, 11:24:14 AM
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 :icon_mrgreen:
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".
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
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 8) " . 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 .
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.
Quote from: nelson on May 15, 2009, 04:31:15 AM
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?
Quote from: nelson on May 15, 2009, 04:31:15 AM
..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?
Quote from: nelson on May 15, 2009, 04:31:15 AM
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..
Quote from: nelson on May 15, 2009, 04:31:15 AM
If you want fidelity, go digital.
DIY?
Quote from: Thomeeque on May 15, 2009, 05:27:43 AM
Quote from: nelson on May 15, 2009, 04:31:15 AM
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?
Quote from: nelson on May 15, 2009, 04:31:15 AM
..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?
Quote from: nelson on May 15, 2009, 04:31:15 AM
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..
Quote from: nelson on May 15, 2009, 04:31:15 AM
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.
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.. ;)
Quote from: Thomeeque on May 15, 2009, 07:36:40 AM
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....
Quote from: nelson on May 15, 2009, 08:02:56 AM
Yeah, two 512 stage BBD's......not two 1024 stage....
Two 512 stage BBD's would not make flanger with TZF?
Quote from: nelson on May 15, 2009, 08:02:56 AM
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..
Quote from: nelson on May 15, 2009, 08:02:56 AM
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?
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!
Quote from: snap on May 15, 2009, 09:25:35 AM
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!
And would you care to explain your statements this time?
Quote from: Thomeeque on May 15, 2009, 08:35:37 AM
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.
Quote from: Thomeeque on May 15, 2009, 08:35:37 AM
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.
Quote from: Thomeeque on May 15, 2009, 10:03:02 AM
Quote from: snap on May 15, 2009, 09:25:35 AM
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!
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!
Quote from: Mark Hammer on May 15, 2009, 10:26:01 AM
Quote from: Thomeeque on May 15, 2009, 08:35:37 AM
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:
Quote from: Thomeeque on May 15, 2009, 05:27:43 AM
Quote from: nelson on May 15, 2009, 04:31:15 AM
..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 :)).
:icon_mrgreen: This question just came up from longer discussion, you'd have to go back a bit.. ;) T.
Quote from: snap on May 15, 2009, 10:36:27 AM
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 (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=72773.msg589636#msg589636) post, or in the second (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=72773.msg589814#msg589814) one.. :icon_wink:
Quote from: Mark Hammer on May 15, 2009, 10:26:01 AM
Quote from: Thomeeque on May 15, 2009, 08:35:37 AM
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 (http://www.ehx.com/products/flanger-hoax) looks capable virtually of everything :D)
Quote from: Mark Hammer on May 15, 2009, 10:26:01 AM
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 (http://thmq.mysteria.cz/digital_mistress/) ;) 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..
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...
Quote from: Thomeeque on May 15, 2009, 11:17:41 AM
* 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.
Quote from: Mark Hammer on May 15, 2009, 12:47:32 PM
Quote from: Thomeeque on May 15, 2009, 11:17:41 AM
* 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.
Quote from: Mark Hammer on May 15, 2009, 12:47:32 PM
Quote from: Thomeeque on May 15, 2009, 11:17:41 AM
* 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.
Quote from: nelson on May 15, 2009, 12:56:43 PM
Meh, you could say the same thing about all flangers.
Agreed.
Well, I finished breadboarding the circuit, and I think it sounds pretty good. A nice bread&butter flanger. Makes a good platform for some tweaking, I didn't like the sweep much stock, but I upped R46 a bit and it got smoother. I also want more regen, so I lowered R23. If I ever get around to veroing this it'll have a few more trimpots. Good to play around with, lots of other things I want to try. It's got nothing on the ADA, IMO, then again nothing really does.
LARS
Im not gonna bash BYOC its where I started building stuff. 1 of their 5 knob comps I put it all together and it worked great. I was expecting as my first build to have to go back and figure out what I had done wrong. I kept checking their site looking to see when their flanger was finally coming out. If it had come out sooner I would have gone with it instead of the ibanez I bought, just got tired of waiting. I may at some when I have the extra cash not delegated to another project buy their flanger and get rid of my ibanez. We will see. It was entertaining to read some of the posts on the BYOC thread listed here.
There is nothing TO "bash". However, BYOC started out providing exact clones of existing effects (hence the name), and more recently started adding features and attempting something beyond a mere copy. Consequently, people are starting to expect BYOC products as something innovative, like DIY Keeley or Z-Vex products. Viewed through that lens, I find nothing particularly special about this flanger that warrants jumping up and down about. Its okay, does all the right things, and I'm happy that folks can have the pleasure of making their own flanger with a dependable commercial kit, instead of needing to have a drill press, hunt down parts, and take chances with their own PCB or layout. It does the job, but it's not a big step forward from anything you could buy from Rocktek or any other bargain basement manufacturer. That's no sin, just not an occasion for a ticker-tape parade (does such a thing even exist any more since ticker-tape machines have been replaced by those scrolling banner lines on financial TV shows?). I'll leave it at that, and congratulate all current and prospective builders on the pleasure of making one's own flanger.