DIYstompboxes.com

Has anybody got one of these? I've been quite impressed by the sound samples.
If it's anything like the Dimension D, it will have multiple delay lines on the chorus.
I think this is an interesting approach, it's the only commercial chorus I know of othat does this, unless someone wants to correct me ;)
I've seen one advertised and i'm interested in getting it unless anyone knows of an alternative. I might get it anyway to add to my collection  :icon_rolleyes:

You mean the pink "Boss" pedal version right ?
It has the "D"'s four push switches and sounds like
an exact copy of the "D"
Well worth having, lovely spacial chorus tones :D
The other one with "knobs" is meant to sound like poo !

Marty.

Well, it's more purple to my eyes, but on all oher counts Marty has it right.  Simply one of the best commercial chorus pedals out there.

Ok that's it! I want one!
I heard it was similar to the 'ensemble' effect in the Juno 6, 60 &106 synths. That is really lovely, so I would definitely like one of those!
Maybe FP should make a board for this chorus too....

Quote from: Mark Hammer on November 28, 2005, 10:37:12 AM
Well, it's more purple to my eyes, but on all oher counts Marty has it right.  Simply one of the best commercial chorus pedals out there.

OK then  ....  "LILAC"   !!!!    :icon_wink: :icon_wink:

This is one pedal that I would NEVER sell  !!
( though i may re-spray it deep blue ! )

MM.

We call it "mauve" (although I'm dutch-speaking it IS french) or "blue-lilac".
Lilac is more the BF-2 colour.

Marty, just leave it like it is. I love colours that are doubtful at first sight but are to get adictive after while.
...cough...like the tube screamer as a matter of fact....cough...

EDIT: I'ld like to add: once you DIY chorus and flangers stepping up to the dimension C isn't that hard I guess. It's just a double chorus added up.
Even the "mauve" is easy to find in cans ;-)

There was a lot of talking months ago about the DC-2. DiyFreaque build it and implemented Thru Zero Flanging with this device. Unfortunately, no layout arose from the discussion (by the way, there was an error in the schematic involving one of the compander... but I could be wrong about it).

This is a VERY dense circuit that can only fit into a Boss case through the miracle of SIP chips and vertically mounted resistors.  Vsat showed me a layout he had done for his own clone but this is more in the domain of table-top than stompbox.  BIG board.  Simply not recommended for anyone without at least 20 builds under their belt.  Far too many sources of risk for noise and malfunction.

Quote from: Jaicen_solo on November 28, 2005, 10:43:50 AM
I heard it was similar to the 'ensemble' effect in the Juno 6, 60 &106 synths. That is really lovely, so I would definitely like one of those!

I've got a Juno 60 and a Dimension C and, yes, it's the same kind of effect--lush, rich and sweet.  You have to hear it in stereo.  It doesn't do extreme sounds, tho.

P.S. If I remember correctly, the Juno doesn't have the compander that's in the Dimension C, probably because it's dealing with an internal synthesized signal that doesn't need to be tamed.

Agree, this one is a keeper. I bought one NOS that was gathering dust in a small music store , and although I constantly buy and sell pedals, this one I'll never sell. Best chorus out there. Adds some highs and cuts some lows along with the effect, but the chorus (specially in stereo) is soooo pretty and w-i-d-e...... Not a DIY pedal, I'm afraid... too much circuitry.

I'm wondering if anybody has ever tried the rack mounting Dimension D. Is it the same sound but with balanced inputs and outputs?

Quote from: Xavier on November 28, 2005, 11:36:53 AM
I'm wondering if anybody has ever tried the rack mounting Dimension D. Is it the same sound but with balanced inputs and outputs?

Used to use one in the "80's" all the time, they were in almost every studio in town !!
It's a damm close copy, someone here said once that he didn't envy the techie at
boss who was told to "fit one in a pedal boy"  !!
I recently bought the "Dimension D" plug in for the UAD card, THAT sounds awesome too !!
They also do the CE-1 model, which is next on the list  :D

MM.

Quote from: MartyMart on November 28, 2005, 11:56:07 AM

Quote from: Xavier on November 28, 2005, 11:36:53 AM
I'm wondering if anybody has ever tried the rack mounting Dimension D. Is it the same sound but with balanced inputs and outputs?

Used to use one in the "80's" all the time, they were in almost every studio in town !!
It's a damm close copy, someone here said once that he didn't envy the techie at
boss who was told to "fit one in a pedal boy"  !!
I recently bought the "Dimension D" plug in for the UAD card, THAT sounds awesome too !!
They also do the CE-1 model, which is next on the list  :D

MM.

I just saw the rack mount version on ebay and it's going for 600.00.  Must pack a mean mojo punch or mojo hype. 

Anyone ever played the digital dimension boss?

Garrock

Dammmit I WANT ONE NOW!!

The rackmount is the Dimension D, which I believe has more delay lines and sounds a little cleaner than the pedal version. That is really collectible, not so much with the pedal version for some reason.
I'm going to get that plug in for work, at least that'll be some consolation if I can't get a pedal.
Does anyone have any pictures of the internals of a Dimension C? I'd like to see this feat of miniaturisation! It must be insane, cos my Supervibe needs SMT and double sided boards and that's just a single MN3007/3001 combo!

http://modezero.com/bitmaps/dimension-C-Bx.jpg

The thin black things are the BA718 dual op-amps in SIP form.  the schematic can be found here: http://www.generalguitargadgets.com/boss/BossDC-2.gif

Told you it was tough.

The Dimension D also uses a pair of companded BBDs.  The process it uses is no different, but it involves more signal conditioning of inputs, outputs and the LFO.

It's a gorgeous sounding chorus IMO.  Terrifyingly compact circuit though, the only ones I can think of where Boss were even crazier is the DD-2 and first issue DD-3, and the DSD-2/3, which are insanely tight inside.

I have an early DD-3 myself, and while the layout is tight, it's nowhere near as compact as my Supervibe.
That said, the DD-3 terrifies me!! I broke 3 wires while doing the analogue mod on mine (brilliant), and had a few hairy minutes working out where they went. Sounds great now though.

I reckon it would be possible to build the DC on a smallstone sized PCB without too much trouble. However, i'm not sure how much heterodyning and bleedthrough you'd get, especially if the clocks are close. I wish I had the ability to make a layout of that complexity, i'm sure there'd be tons of interest.

Quote from: Mark Hammer on November 28, 2005, 01:41:19 PM
http://modezero.com/bitmaps/dimension-C-Bx.jpg

The thin black things are the BA718 dual op-amps in SIP form.  the schematic can be found here: http://www.generalguitargadgets.com/boss/BossDC-2.gif

Told you it was tough.

The Dimension D also uses a pair of companded BBDs.  The process it uses is no different, but it involves more signal conditioning of inputs, outputs and the LFO.

Link to pic of board doesnt work. Schem does, I think FP could design a board that could fit into a 1590BB.

Oh Nelson!
have you seen the CE-2 board FP designed? Now imagine fitting that into half the space, and you won't even be close to the board density of a DC!!!
Much as i'd like it, I can't see anyone knocking up a PCB for this anytime soon. It's a shame because I can't stand the CE-2, but the DC I just love!

One advantage with the CE-2 is that all the switching circuitry can be removed to make the board that much smaller.  However with the DC-2 (as with all the Digital Delays that I mentioned above) the board was so tight that Boss used a BA634 flip-flop IC, rather than building one from discretes, so the parts count is much lower for the switching section.

I'm throwing together a poor man's version of the DC2, using two small clone pc boards from this guy that sells kits and good quality PCBs
http://www.buildyourownclone.com/chorus.html (http://www.buildyourownclone.com/chorus.html)

I just made an inverted copy of one of the LFOs to drive the clock of the second chorus, and mixed the second signal back into the mixing section on the first chorus.  I didn't have anything remotely resembling heterodyning from the two clocks when I was testing it out, even with clip leads strewn all over.  Since the PCBs are made to fit in a hammond B size box, I'm sure two can fit in a BB size box.

Of course, its not the same as the DC-2 in terms of complexity, it doesn't have companding, or any pre emphasis/ de emphasis with EQing the modulated and dry signals differently.  It does have a similar sound however, in terms of chorusing without pitch wobble.  Also, the noise with the small clone frankenstein wasn't noticable to me, let alone an issue. 

A downside with this approach is that the parts were somewhat expensive ($15 apiece for the PCBs, $10 apiece for the BBDs, so for two boards its looking to be $50, to box it up, about $75).  You can get a used DC-2 for $150, so an exact clone might not be that rewarding.  A mutant super clone though, would be a different story. 8)

I used to have the pedal. I really loved it and needed to sell it to pay some bills. In mono mode it sounded to me very much like a Small Clone. But in stereo, wow this thing really shines. I thought I would just build one off a schematic someday. I wish I knew what I know now about the size.
The pedal ate up batteries like they were going out of style. I got it from a keyboardist friend who handed me a Boss AC adaptor and said "you're going to need this", he was right! It might be best to build one with a transformer or wall-wart only. Heck that could save you some more room shoe-horning it into a 1590BB.

Processaurus -> You forgot the BBD driver chips! So sum that up. Yet I think the cost bill doesn't have to be that high. You can use "democratic" BL3207's and BL3102's for the BBD lines ($7-$8 each couple= 15$ for two BBD lines). And your PCB doesn't have to be that expensive as well if you just could deliver some board design yourself. The etching itself can be cheap around the world. Don't forget the real cost is in the standard stuff: switch, enclosure,knobs,pots...) which are at least $20 for every effect.

Vanessa -> Yes a pedal with 2 companders and 2 BBD lines can be left or should be left without a possibility to battery feed it. True enough. Even a 9V clip is not only wasted space but also wasted money if you can use an adaptor. A couple-of-transistors Fuzz however is a true battery friend. It sucks easily 100 times less current than a modulation unit.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Boss-Dimension-C-Chorus-DC-2-RARE_W0QQitemZ7368922542QQcategoryZ22669QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Here's one that's getting a "bit" expensive for a "beat up" version !!

Marty.

Indeed.
I was bidding on that one (been hunting for a DC-2 here in Sweden for a while), but I'm not going to pay over 80£ (+ shipping) for one in that condition. This past 6 months I've seen two in Sweden going for 87 and 108£ respectively, and they were in far better shape. Too bad I wasn't fast enough for those two...
Best!
Pelle Garpebring

C'mon, a bit of courage and wit is all you need to get a nice PCB design. I admit it would take some time, but 80£(120â,¬) is way more than needed. 40-50£ (60-75â,¬) depending on parts at hand would suffice for DIY IMHO. With this price you could get the stock DC-2 PLUS nice features as there are through zero flanging, controls if wanted...

Haha, yeah that's the one I was watching. I like my pedals to look a little beat up so I don't mind all that much!
I found the virtual DC plugin at work today, can't wait to try that thing out!

I don't think I have the necessary skills to make a PCB for this, I don't know enough about the chips really. I'd happily build one into a rackmount unit, that's not an issue for me, so yeah i'd like a DC+ version PCB please!  I have three MN3007's just waiting for a worthy project! ;)
How close to a CE-2 is the actual chorus section of the DC?? It doesn't sound anything like a CE series pedal, it's much sweeter without the sick wobbliness.
Do you have any sound  samples of yours Processaurus???

Yikes!  I paid about £50 for mine and it's pristine.  No box or manual, but even so I was happy with the price cos the DC-2 usually fetches more.

Quote from: Jaicen_solo on November 29, 2005, 02:11:02 PM
Haha, yeah that's the one I was watching. I like my pedals to look a little beat up so I don't mind all that much!
I found the virtual DC plugin at work today, can't wait to try that thing out!

I don't think I have the necessary skills to make a PCB for this, I don't know enough about the chips really. I'd happily build one into a rackmount unit, that's not an issue for me, so yeah i'd like a DC+ version PCB please!  I have three MN3007's just waiting for a worthy project! ;)
How close to a CE-2 is the actual chorus section of the DC?? It doesn't sound anything like a CE series pedal, it's much sweeter without the sick wobbliness.
Do you have any sound  samples of yours Processaurus???

Well a Dim C IS in fact just two chorus lines in parallel with one single oscillator. The compander (NE570) trick is just added value. I guess the "wobble" comes from too extreme depth (and even rate) settings, high depth wobble is actually more flanging terrain. You can say the presets of the Dim C exclude any manual misconfiguration?  :icon_neutral:

Quote from: Steben on November 30, 2005, 08:08:49 AM
Well a Dim C IS in fact just two chorus lines in parallel with one single oscillator. The compander (NE570) trick is just added value. I guess the "wobble" comes from too extreme depth (and even rate) settings, high depth wobble is actually more flanging terrain. You can say the presets of the Dim C exclude any manual misconfiguration?  :icon_neutral: 

Yes and no.

The wobble comes from the pitch being either sharp or flat, relative to the clean signal.  In the DC-2, the pitch is always both, since the two BBDs are trading off which one is lagging behind and which one is catching up.  While there IS only one LFO, it drives the clocks in opposite directions to provide complementary actions.  The fact that boith flat and sharp deviations are present at the same time eliminates the feeling of directionality in the pitch change.

In some respects, it is probably more appropriate to think of the variable controls on a more conventional chorus as a necessary evil to compensate for its inadequacies.  The presets provide a couple of useful combinations and no mre is really needed...assuming your goal is to sound like a couple of musicians playing the same thing.

The companders are absolutely necessary.  Having two different clock frequencies operating, especially on a board crammed so tightly, introduces the risk of noise from heterodyning clocks, and there is also thefacts that if one BBD is noisy, two is twice as noisy.  You will note that one section of one of the 570 chips is sitting dormant, given that one section is used for compression in, and a second chip is used for two channels of expansion out.

Is high depth wobble "flanging terrain"? Not exactly.  True, bigger sweeps have an aspect of that to them, but generally speaking, pitch deviation needs a bit more delay time than flanging needs.  Doubling the delay time from 1-2msec will produce shifting notches, but doubling the delay time from 4-8msec will produce a more obvious pitch change.

Of course, you know what I'm wondering now?  What happens when you have complementary pitch change produced by two chains of allpass stages.

Hanert explained it here:
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat2905040.pdf (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat2905040.pdf)
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat2382413.pdf (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat2382413.pdf)
well - artificial delay lines - but to the same effect:
pitch-shift by phase-shift.

QuoteWhile there IS only one LFO, it drives the clocks in opposite directions to provide complementary actions. 

Any idea what the Hz is on the LFO?  Just curious how fast the thing switches.

That's a 1/(2*Pi*R*C) thing I guess

Really?  ...shows how little I know about BBD clocks.   :icon_redface:

Wish I could answer the question better, but I went back to my notes, and I'd recorded just about everything except the exact LFO sweep freq's and delay times of the four Dim C modes.  The best I could come up with was an email I sent to Antti Huovilainen last February (at the time I was working out external CV to the Dim C):

===
The minimum and maximum delay that the Dim C clock circuit will allow is as
follows:

7.12 ms (min) to 14.3  ms (max)

Obviously the original Dim C modulated the delay over a smaller range at
varying rates, depending on the modes.  The best I can offer are the
settings for a fairly deep, 'motionless' chorus.  That would be from 7.12 ms
to 10.24 ms, with the BBD's modulated antiphase with a triangle LFO of about
0.71 Hz.

Shorter delay ranges (ie from min to max) at higher LFO freq's sound just as
intense, but with different properties.  Longer delay ranges at slow LFO
ranges sound less intense, but still quite pleasing. 
===
Pretty high clock rates for a chorus device (though obviously other choruses share this trait).  IMO I believe it's yet another key among keys to the gargantuanly good sounding chorus of the Dimension C - higher clock rate = higher bandwidth.  Of course the dry bass response is boosted to eliminate the bass wiggle (of which Mark Hammer has pointed out is a factor in making a chorus less wobbly).  Companding is essential.  The equalized crossmixing of delayed signals is another biggie. 

Then there's the clock modulation itself- Mark Hammer again has quite well explained the effect of simultanously rising and falling pitch to produce the relatively motionless chorus.  In no way is half a Dimension C anywhere as good as a normal 'wobbly' chorus.  How do you make the Dimension C sound perfectly awful?  Take away one delay line.  The result is an absolutely terrible, sickly sounding pitch bend that sounds more like square wave modulation than triangle/sine modulation - the clock circuit responds to the LFO waveform in this manner.  The transformation of adding that second delay line in while listening to the Dimension C in this state is magical - it instantly changes from God-awful to heavenly.  One of the best examples of psychoacoustics there is.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - any of you who can shove this thing back into a Hammond box has earned my undying admiration.  For anyone wanting to rack mount or put it in a larger box, don't let that spare NE570 section lie fallow - it's begging to be turned into a second input channel compressor for stereo input (this was a stunt the Dimension D did that the C never did).  Those of you with stereo rigs might enjoy it - it's a bit of airy extra widener.  Of course, the true shining function of the Dimension C is mono to stereo conversion, so no big loss if you don't....

Cheerio,
Scott

Edit: Dry bass is boosted, not knocked down.

Quote from: Mark Hammer on November 30, 2005, 09:41:30 AM
Of course, you know what I'm wondering now?  What happens when you have complementary pitch change produced by two chains of allpass stages.

I think the classic *Metheny* chorus sound is two complimentary (static) pitch shifts of about ±15 cents, from two MXR DDL units. One of the main *chorus* sounds I use, is a blend of straight signal with +15 static pitch *detune* (Quadraverb). Very nice with a hint of delay and reverb. I would compare it to *button #1* on the Dim C.

Kerry M

7ms to 14ms is very "close range". It comes close to my believe a flanger should be deep range (>20:1) and a chorus "shallow" (2:1). Mark didn't agree partly, but for me it's clear. Is it "high" clocked? Perhaps. Anyway it means it doesn't matter whether you have 512 or 1024 stage BBD. That's for sure...

7ms to 14ms is very "close range". It comes close to my believe a flanger should be deep range (>20:1) and a chorus "shallow" (2:1).  

That's true.  Beause the Dim C was not built as a flanger, any TZF benefits are simply opportunistic.  Rather than run the risk of unbalancing the primary function of the Dim C, I'd start fresh if I wanted a box that had the primary purpose of producing TZF.  In that case, I'd incorporate elements of the Dim C that 'worked'.

With that abbreviated sweep range, the longer flange delay effects are obviously not going to come into play.  What is available, though, that a standard 'non-TZF' flanger can't provide is a range of delay through absolute zero (7 mS to 0).  With a low sweep speed, that particular range adds a good degree of psychoacoustical tension. 

A 'normal' flanger takes a long run and stops just short of jumping off the cliff.

The Dim C, when tapped as a flanger, takes a shorter run and jumps right over.

A TZF flanger takes a long run and jumps over the cliff.

A Flanger Hoax takes a long run, spins in figure eights, dances on its hands, and jumps over the cliff.


If you replace the 1024 stage BBD with a 512 stage BBD, it will make a difference.  If you don't adjust the clock frequency range, your delay range will run from around 7 ms to around 3.5 ms- an even smaller ratio.  This would certainly jack with the dimension chorus effect.  Halving the clock frequency would alleviate that, but then you would have to limit your audio bandwidth accordingly, which would still jack with the chorus effect. 

Note these delays are not the actual Dim C operational delays when used with the internal LFO - it's the max range you can run the clock with the original, unchanged clock circuit when driving it with something other than the internal LFO.  The actual LFO delay range, depending on mode, falls somewhere within these two values.

Cheerio,
Scott

QuoteA Flanger Hoax takes a long run, spins in figure eights, dances on its hands, and jumps over the cliff

:icon_biggrin:

if you want it, it`ll jump right back up, again...
:icon_razz:

Quote from: Mark Hammer on November 30, 2005, 09:41:30 AM
Of course, you know what I'm wondering now?  What happens when you have complementary pitch change produced by two chains of allpass stages.

The problem is that allpass chains do not produce "pitch" change. They produce a fairly complicated FREQUENCY change.

"Pitch" change assumes that the amount of frequency shift is proportional to the frequency being shifted. Higher frequencies will be shifted by a greater number of Hz than lower frequencies. Delay line modulation results in true pitch change, such that for all frequencies, the result is originalFreq*modulatingFunction. The harmonic relationship of the input signal is maintained

As a comparison, a frequency shifter adds a constant offset to every frequency in the signal, such that for all frequencies, the result is originalFreq+offset. The harmonic relationship of the input signal is NOT maintained.

A standard phase shifter is not really close to either of these. In phase shifters, the amount of frequency change differs with frequency, but in a very nonlinear fashion. For cascades of large numbers of allpass filters with the same coefficient, the results can get close to a delay line, but you might as well use a delay line in this case. Generally speaking, a phase shifter will produce a vibrato sound that is similar to a delay line vibrato over a certain frequency range, but outside of that frequency range things start getting "out of tune" and the harmonic relationship of the input signal is NOT maintained.

I tried to create a digital ensemble effect years ago, that used the basic Solina ensemble configuration (2 3-phase LFOs, 3 delay lines), but with 3 parallel 6-stage phase shifters. It sounded really sour and bad. Part of this was undoubtedly due to the nonlinear relationship between coefficient and phase shift frequency, but even when I modified the phase shift network to have Hz as an input, it still sounded flat.

This is not to say that having antiphase swept phase shifters would sound bad at all. However, I don't know if you will get the cancellation of pitch change that you do with the Dimension C implemented with modulated delay lines.

BTW, once you work in the DSP domain, all of these issues with heterodyning clocks of modulated delay lines just go away. I have a chorus running on the SHARC that implements a simplified Dimension topology (antiphase swept delay lines, but no crossover filtering), and it sounds really nice. You can use a single delay buffer with 2 modulated taps, or use 2 separate buffers, depending on your intended applications.

Sean Costello

thank you, Sean, for this explanation here!

referring to another  ("harm*nizer"-thread)  (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=39308.msg280465#msg280465), I wouldn`t have thought that the "addition" fact would matter much in low frequency-alterations as in a Vibrato, but would rather manifestate itself at drastic frequency-variations,
but it makes sense, the way you described it for simultaneously up & down shift
even at low amounts.

would you say it`d make more sense to "univibe" the phaseshift-stages (half a "Dome"-filter...) with staggered coefficients for evenly spreaded phaseshift throughout the bandwidth of interest, to make such a phaseshift-Chorus more musical?

This all reminds me of my favourite "preset" on an old Yamaha SPX90
"Pitch change C"
This was a detune in both directions of about 8/10 cents, it wasn't "moving"
but it provided a "lush" sound, great for instruments and backing vocals too !

..... I dont have one anymore ..... :icon_sad:

But my Boss DC-2 and PS-3 pitch shifter, get very close :D

Marty.

Is anyone aware of another pic of the circuit board?  This one is good: http://www.modezero.com/boss_dimension_c.htm and gives some clues on parts placement.  Another one from a different angle could help a great deal if someone was trying to do a layout.

Quote from: bellyflop on December 02, 2005, 11:39:47 AM
Is anyone aware of another pic of the circuit board?  This one is good: http://www.modezero.com/boss_dimension_c.htm and gives some clues on parts placement.  Another one from a different angle could help a great deal if someone was trying to do a layout.

Really, that doesnt look all that bad.

Tight layout yeah, but not outwith the realm of DIY at all.

Could certainly fit it into a 1590BB.

Yep I guess 1590BB should work.

note the vertical mounted opamps. That helps too. I guess its also easier to design a PCB with in-line chips?

Quote from: A.S.P. on December 02, 2005, 03:07:58 AM
thank you, Sean, for this explanation here!

would you say it`d make more sense to "univibe" the phaseshift-stages (half a "Dome"-filter...) with staggered coefficients for evenly spreaded phaseshift throughout the bandwidth of interest, to make such a phaseshift-Chorus more musical?

I don't know, to tell you the truth. Most of the theoretical explanations concerning phase shifting that I have read assume that all of the stages have the same coefficient, which is the closest approximation to a delay line (which is what you want for pitch shifting). I have not experimented with first order allpass stages with different coefficients in the digital realm, as it is a pain to program that digitally. Computing a phase shift coefficient using the bilinear z-transform usually requires a divide, which is expensive, but if the same coefficient is used for all of the stages, you can get away with it (especially if you only compute the coefficient once per block of samples, and use linear interpolation to smooth out the changes). If you need a separate coefficient for each stage, the computation gets pricey, and you probably want to look at a table lookup solution for the coefficient computation.

I haven't done any experimentation with this in the analog realm, either, except for playing around with my Voodoo Vibe (shameful secret: I suck at soldering, and haven't had much time for analog construction in the last few years). The Voodoo Vibe allows you to add an offset to the modulation, which enables you to "fine tune" whether the sweep takes place in an area where the harmonic relationships of the note are preserved or whether it sounds out of tune. Even with the Voodoo Vibe, you can hear the detuning between harmonics with low guitar notes.

Has anyone here done any work on what the spacing of the allpass sections in the Univibe actually does? Is it related to Dome filter theory?

One interesting note: This past spring, Jonathan Abel (of Universal Audio) and Julius Smith (of CCRMA) gave a talk at an Acoustical Society of America convention about using cascaded 2nd order allpass sections to get a specific group delay. This will probably first be useful in spring reverb emulation, but it might be useful for pitch modulation if the allpass sections are modulated, as changing the group delay will result in phase shifts/frequency shifts.

Sean Costello

P.S. By the way, frequency shifitng in opposite directions just produces tremolo. A single sideband shifter in one direction plus a single sideband shifter in another direction equals ring modulation.

QuoteP.S. By the way, frequency shifitng in opposite directions just produces tremolo

if you have a stereo-set: up-left/down-right... ?

Quote from: A.S.P. on December 02, 2005, 02:31:45 PM

QuoteP.S. By the way, frequency shifitng in opposite directions just produces tremolo

if you have a stereo-set: up-left/down-right... ?

Sorry, I meant when the signals were summed together electronically. Stereo is totally different, and totally cool.  For low shift amounts, sending upshift to one speaker and downshift to another results in the sound rotating around your head and through your skull. For high shift amounts, it ends up sounding like ring modulation, but with nice spatial characteristics.

Obviously, the cheapest way of doing this is with a single frequency shifter with both upshift and downshift outputs. The difference between the two outputs is one subtracts while the other adds, so you are talking about 2 opamp stages rather than one, or 2 ALU operations rather than 1 in DSP, so it is worth sticking in there.

The stereo tricks listed above work for barberpole phasers based around frequency shifters as well.

Sean Costello

Quote from: A.S.P. on November 30, 2005, 11:03:57 AM
Hanert explained it here:
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat2905040.pdf (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat2905040.pdf)
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat2382413.pdf (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat2382413.pdf)
well - artificial delay lines - but to the same effect:
pitch-shift by phase-shift.

Nice patents! One thing to note is that, even though the scanning vibrato mentioned in both patents relies upon the phase shift qualities of low pass filters, the actual circuit is not very close to the standard phase shifter, but rather to a linearly interpolated delay line. Each L/C section is said to have "approximately" linear group delay (the relationship of phase shift to frequency), so crossfading between the filter sections will result in a sound much closer to delay line modulation than a phase shifter. So the harmonic relationship between partials in the input signal will pretty much be maintained. My guess is that the same sort of modulation tricks that work with BBDs will work with the scanning vibratos.

Of course, the thing is dissimilar to a linearly interpolated delay line, in that each "sample" of the delay is in fact a filter with a nonlinear phase response. It is "approximately" linear, but the approximation will result in some interesting deviations. A digital implementation would be interesting, as each section could have more delay than a single sample. The lowpass filters could probably be replaced with allpass sections for an interesting effect (I don't know if allpass filters had been developed at the time of the patents).

Sean Costello

Reading the first patent more carefully...wow! Triangle wave antiphase chorus, using moving TAPE HEADS, back in the 1940's! I wonder if such a device was ever commercially released. And the scanner vibrato that implements the antiphase chorus is super cool as well.

Plus, this patent has the introduction of the tri-phase chorus used in string ensembles in the 1970's, although that seems to be discussed with having 3 separate banks of oscillators. The Korg Lambda used this: 3 separate divide-down chains, with a tri-phase LFO providing an ensemble effect. However, this works largely due to having a slight amount of detuning between the oscillators, in addition to the modulation from the tri-phase LFO. If you just have a fast tri-phase LFO for 3 delay lines, it sounds pretty bad - more like a really rapid beating effect than a vibrato. You need to have the slower tri-phase LFO added into the modulation signal to decorrelate the delay lines, so that the faster LFO is working on detuned sources. Crappy explanation, but a little bit of experimentation will reveal to the ears what I am explaining poorly in words.

Sean Costello

Quote from: MartyMart on December 02, 2005, 03:55:49 AM
This all reminds me of my favourite "preset" on an old Yamaha SPX90
"Pitch change C"
This was a detune in both directions of about 8/10 cents, it wasn't "moving"
but it provided a "lush" sound, great for instruments and backing vocals too !

A local recording engineer told me an interesting trick thats like that for multi-tracking the same part, after tracking once, you change the recording pitch up on your recorder a cent or so, and record your part again, and then pitch it down the same amount, and record again.The resulting mix is still in tune, just thicker.  You can do that as many times as you need, as long as the tracks are equally out of tune up and down from the original.

My favorite chorus sound is sadly also from digital pitch shifters with a detune function, too.  Because it doesn't wriggle around, I guess.

One thing I've wondered, that is hard to measure, is in a BBD chorus/vibrato circuit if pitch is related in a linear way to the LFO driving the high frequency clock.  For instance if a perfect linear triangle wave is fed to the clock, will the vibrato pitch stay the same amount sharp or flat when the wave is ramping up and down, and change instantly when it peaks?   

Quote from: Processaurus on December 02, 2005, 09:03:29 PMA local recording engineer told me an interesting trick thats like that for multi-tracking the same part, after tracking once, you change the recording pitch up on your recorder a cent or so, and record your part again, and then pitch it down the same amount, and record again.The resulting mix is still in tune, just thicker.  You can do that as many times as you need, as long as the tracks are equally out of tune up and down from the original.

I used to do that routinely with my Fostex Model 80 tape recorder, though to a lesser degree.  Record the guitar, rotate the "pitch control" knob slightly, then double the part on another track.  Then I panned the two tracks to about 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock.  The great thing is that you could hear the results immediately and adjust the depth of the effect as you messed around with the second track. 

I remember reading that Jake E. Lee recorded his parts four times to thicken the sound.  That seems a bit much, but who am I to say.   ;D

Quote
One thing I've wondered, that is hard to measure, is in a BBD chorus/vibrato circuit if pitch is related in a linear way to the LFO driving the high frequency clock.  For instance if a perfect linear triangle wave is fed to the clock, will the vibrato pitch stay the same amount sharp or flat when the wave is ramping up and down, and change instantly when it peaks?

Are you referring to triangular vs. hypertriangular?  Or are you thinking the DimC uses a trianglular LFO (I'm pretty sure it's square).

Quote from: SeanCostello on December 02, 2005, 05:05:58 PM

Quote from: A.S.P. on November 30, 2005, 11:03:57 AM
Hanert explained it here:
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat2905040.pdf (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat2905040.pdf)
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat2382413.pdf (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat2382413.pdf)
well - artificial delay lines - but to the same effect:
pitch-shift by phase-shift.

Nice patents!
Sean Costello

yes,that should have read frequency-shift rather than phase... :icon_redface:

and: yes, the art was aware of Allpass-filters at the time (Harold Bode - don`t know, whether he was related to Harald B.).

Ok,
Now I don't really understand the circuit diagrams of BBD based effects very well, so I'm hoping someone can help me out.
I've got myself a nice Yamaha DX27 for christmas. Unfortunately it has only Mono outputs so i'm looking for a good chorus to thicken up the pads I want it for. In this case, a Dimension would be just what i'm looking for.
What I need to know is if it is possible to modify FP's CE-2 layout to add a second BBD driven by an inverted clock. I have a couple of MN3007's, so I'd rather use them than the SAD1024 used in the Small Clone etc.
I remember the difference the ensemble effect used to make on the old Juno 106 we had at uni, it was literally like night and day! Everything just seemed so cold and one dimensional without it!
So, anybody got any pearls of wisdom??

Quote from: bellyflop on December 02, 2005, 10:38:42 PM
Are you referring to triangular vs. hypertriangular?  Or are you thinking the DimC uses a trianglular LFO (I'm pretty sure it's square).

Square  ??? I don't think so. Have to check again.

Quote from: Jaicen_solo on December 04, 2005, 05:16:59 PM
Ok,
Now I don't really understand the circuit diagrams of BBD based effects very well, so I'm hoping someone can help me out.
I've got myself a nice Yamaha DX27 for christmas. Unfortunately it has only Mono outputs so i'm looking for a good chorus to thicken up the pads I want it for. In this case, a Dimension would be just what i'm looking for.
What I need to know is if it is possible to modify FP's CE-2 layout to add a second BBD driven by an inverted clock. I have a couple of MN3007's, so I'd rather use them than the SAD1024 used in the Small Clone etc.
I remember the difference the ensemble effect used to make on the old Juno 106 we had at uni, it was literally like night and day! Everything just seemed so cold and one dimensional without it!
So, anybody got any pearls of wisdom??

Wow, odd. I guess it would be easier to add another BBD+ driver PCB and connect the specific points with cable.
Or make two CE-2's, connect and leave one LFO section out. But than you still need the inverting.

SAD1024's are good chips for what they are used for in the Electric mistress: going from jet flanging to mono chorus in a decent way.
Once you use two BBD lines, you should use cheaper BBD's AND get better results!

Quote from: Jaicen_solo on December 04, 2005, 05:16:59 PM

I've got myself a nice Yamaha DX27 for christmas. Unfortunately it has only Mono outputs so i'm looking for a good chorus to thicken up the pads I want it for. In this case, a Dimension would be just what i'm looking for.

Try using the detune function of the DX27 to get some chorusing within the pads. In general, FM pads should use algorithms with as much parallelism as possible, with different amounts of detuning between the parallel operators. I can't find a listing of algorithm numbers, but algorithm #5 seems like a good start. You would want to detune the parallel carrier/modulator pairs, and then have internal detuning between the carrier the modulator for each pair, as this produces choral effects on its own. Avoid algorithm #8, as this seems to have no real FM, just parallel sine oscillators, which will be difficult to produce useful beating effects (well, you could have 2 beating sine waves, but that is pretty dull).

Sean Costello

Whilst I can't argue with anything you've said there, none of it will help me to achieve a stereo output! In practical terms it's not really a big issue, but I want my pads to be lush and mellow ;)

Quote from: Jaicen_solo on December 05, 2005, 02:12:45 PM
Whilst I can't argue with anything you've said there, none of it will help me to achieve a stereo output! In practical terms it's not really a big issue, but I want my pads to be lush and mellow ;)

Bwanasonic had a good suggestion on page 2 of this thread.  He's used a Quadraverb, set to subtle pitch-shifting to achieve a nice stereo field.  Those things are pretty reasonable on eBay these days.  Maybe?   :icon_wink:

They are pretty reasonable, for the simple reason that after a few years, the internal battery fails. This results in a complete loss of all the internal programs, both factory and user presets. Effectively rendering them useless. That's why they're now flooding onto the market. Plus the fact that they're not actually that good ;)
However, that is a good idea, apart from the above.

Quote from: Jaicen_solo on December 05, 2005, 02:12:45 PM
Whilst I can't argue with anything you've said there, none of it will help me to achieve a stereo output! In practical terms it's not really a big issue, but I want my pads to be lush and mellow ;)

Yeah, the Dimension-D would help make a mono signal stereo. You might also want to look into a Boss SE-50, since they have a Dimension-style chorus in there (although it might be 3-phase instead of the antiphase Dimension chorus). The batteries on the SE-50 go after awhile, but you only lose the user programs, while the factory patches stay. The price can be pretty reasonable, around $100 or so.

For super nice pads, run the DX-27 through a Moog filter clone, THEN through your stereo chorus. The DX-27 can be set up to be stridently bright, and the Moog filter will give you all the mellow you need. ;)

Sean Costello

Haha, you guys think i'm made of money?!
The fact that I'm buying a DX27, not a DX7 should have given the game away ;)

Quote from: Jaicen_solo on December 05, 2005, 03:04:19 PM
They are pretty reasonable, for the simple reason that after a few years, the internal battery fails. This results in a complete loss of all the internal programs, both factory and user presets. Effectively rendering them useless.

???  I'm not sure about that.  I've always understood that you just need to replace the battery and restore your custom presets. 

Square   I don't think so. Have to check again.

Actually the LFO is trianglish, but the response of the clock circuit to the LFO creates a response that makes it seem like softly slewed square wave modulation rather than triangle wave modulation. 

In my rack-mount Dim C knockoff, I created a stereo input using the spare ME570 section as a compressor, and running the 'right' path individually.  I normalled the right input so that the Left/Mono input would send the mono signal down that path when a plug was not inserted into the right stereo input.

This left the opportunity to make the Dim C sound absolutely horrible if one did not observe the proper input connection - IE, if a signal is inserted only into the right input, and the left/mono output is used for the output, then only the 'right' delay line makes it to the output - no crossmixing, nothing.  This provides an opportunity to listen to what a single delay line in the Dim C actually does.

So, tonight I made a quick recording of the effect (it can be accessed at the following link - 867 KB):

http://mypeoplepc.com/members/scottnoanh/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/dimc_delay_compare.mp3

I patched my Korg DW6000 through the Dim C into my Sidekick amp.  From the amp, I patched line out straight to the recorder.

00:00 - 00:17  Just the synth - the Dim C is bypassed.  Mono.
00:18 - 00:35  The Dim C is unbypassed and is in mode 4, with both delay lines (normal use).  Mono
00:36 - 00:55  The DW6000 is plugged into the right input, using mono out, so that only the 'right' delay line can be heard.  Nasty*. Mono nasty.

BTW, I can modulate the Dim C with external CV's.  With an external triangle LFO used as the CV, the effect is exactly the same.

If the sample can't be accessed from the above link, it's clear at the bottom of this page under the link "Dim C One Hand Clapping":

http://mypeoplepc.com/members/scottnoanh/birthofasynth/id9.html

Cheers,
Scott

*Not a good nasty, either.

Scott-

I like the clips. Nice *Eno-esque* stuff.

Kerry M

Thanks, Kerry.  The Dim C certainly goes a long way to making someone sound better than they really are.  I recall when I first showed my brother the Dim C and what it did, he pretty much indicated that it was like 'cheating' :)

Take care,
Scott

That LFO does indeed sound nasty on it's own! Definitely a hint of squareness about it. Sounds lovely and lush with both lines though!!
I can't tell you how much I want one of these now! I'm going to look at the layouts of FP's CE-2 tomorrow and see if I can cobble together something similar using an inverted LFO from just one board to drive the second.

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I figure with hetereodyning cut out, it will sound pretty nice and ought to bring you that stereo chorusing you're after.   I'd sure be interested in hearing how it comes out! 

My DW6000 has 'stereo' chorus built into it.  It's a single delay chorus (MN3009 based), and actually, in stereo, one side is chorused and the other is not.  As simple as that is, it's actually quite effective.  I prefer that method of deriving stereo from an essentially mono effect over inverting the wet signal in the opposite channel, which kills the effect if a stereo recording is played in mono.  Having few modulation options and simple wavetable DCO's, the DW6000  desperately need chorusing.  With the Dim C around, though, I rarely use the on-board chorus. 

Take care,
Scott

Actually the LFO is trianglish

DIYFREAQUE, Is that a bit like spanglish?? ;)

edit: Ooops, forgot the reason for this post!
Ok, I just looked at the schematic of the CE-2. and it seems to me that it would be a relatively easy job to take a feed from the collector of Q4, and use that as an inverted clock signal to drive a second LFO.
It might require a small amount of buffering but it seems fairly easy to do. On the second chorus side, the clock IC and associated parts can then be ommitted.   

Quote from: Jaicen_solo on December 06, 2005, 06:13:32 PM
That LFO does indeed sound nasty on it's own! Definitely a hint of squareness about it. Sounds lovely and lush with both lines though!!
I can't tell you how much I want one of these now! I'm going to look at the layouts of FP's CE-2 tomorrow and see if I can cobble together something similar using an inverted LFO from just one board to drive the second.

Aha! I was thinking of the Small Clone. Of course the CE-2 has 3207 and 3102 as the Dim C does...
I was thinking of adding a 3rd ""mixing" board with PCB-mounted Jacks and in/out companders.

QuoteActually the LFO is trianglish

DIYFREAQUE, Is that a bit like spanglish??

perhaps trapezoid ?

like in fig.3, here: http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat3489843.pdf (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat3489843.pdf)

Quote from: A.S.P. on December 07, 2005, 06:31:31 AM
perhaps trapezoid ?
like in fig.3, here: http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat3489843.pdf (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat3489843.pdf)

Holy Mackerel! an elecro-mechanical implementation of the DC-2  :icon_exclaim:  :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

Has puretube seen this :icon_question:

Isn't it a leslie-box without speaker?
Looks like Hammer's idea of inverted phasing.

Quote from: stm on December 07, 2005, 08:46:37 AM

Holy Mackerel! an elecro-mechanical implementation of the DC-2  :icon_exclaim:  :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

Has puretube seen this :icon_question:

has Sebastian missed this:
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=30258.20 (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=30258.20) ?

Quote from: DiyFreaque on December 05, 2005, 08:36:15 PM
Actually the LFO is trianglish, but the response of the clock circuit to the LFO creates a response that makes it seem like softly slewed square wave modulation rather than triangle wave modulation. 

Hey I looked closer to the original schem. Just after the LFO the signal goes to an inverting amp with gain of 47/33 ~= 1,5. This means a fourth of the triangle gets clipped, resulting in a subtle trapezoid.

Quote from: Steben on December 07, 2005, 09:37:14 AM
Hey I looked closer to the original schem. Just after the LFO the signal goes to an inverting amp with gain of 47/33 ~= 1,5. This means a fourth of the triangle gets clipped, resulting in a subtle trapezoid.

That's not correct:

The LFO opamps are fed with 7V according to the schematic. The output of these opamps can swing typically within 1.5V from the supplies, so output can actually range from 1.5V up to 5.5V.  Now if you take into account the clipping voltages and the 100k and 33k resistors that define the triangle voltage sweep range, you obtain a triangle waveform that swings between 2.8 and 4.2 V (centered around 3.5V). Now let's apply the gain of 1.42 (47/33) around the 3.5 reference voltage, and we get a sweep between 2.5 and 4.5 V, which is still within the linear range of the opamps.

Mhhh, one would say I didn't really did the 1.4 amplification properly. Let's do a check: (4.5 - 2.5) / (4.2 - 2.8 ) = 2.0 / 1.4 = 1.42

mmm, didn't know enough about triangle LFO's. I guessed they went to max (1.5 to 5.5).
Do you mean changing the supply voltage or swapping with a rail-to-rail doesn't change the triangle?

Quote from: Steben on December 07, 2005, 11:28:32 AM
mmm, didn't know enough about triangle LFO's. I guessed they went to max (1.5 to 5.5).
Do you mean changing the supply voltage or swapping with a rail-to-rail doesn't change the triangle?

Au contraire mon ami, supply changes and rail-to-rail v/s non r2r op-amps DO affect frequency and amplitude in that kind of LFO.
This design is sensistive to almost everything! But it works in practice because deviations are small enough to be tolerated or unnoticed.

X-mas riddle:

which commercial product is being described  here ?  (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4205579.pdf)

(btw: fig. 2(2), 2(3), 2(4) and 2(5) show the painful endeavour (sic!) how to overcome transitional problems in time-domain circuits,
similar to the problem in the  latest looper thread  (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=40048.0)).

Quote from: puretube on December 20, 2005, 03:12:59 AM
X-mas riddle:
which commercial product is being described  here ?  (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4205579.pdf)

Wow, was this actually used in a product from Roland in the 1970's? It basically sounds like using a dual pitch shifter, where one voice is slightly shifted up, and the other voice is shifted down. Each voice is an overlap/add pitch shifter. I wouldn't be surprised if Eventide and other high-end audio companies use similar algorithms for their "Detune" presets today.

EDIT: OK, I was wrong about Eventide using this: http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4369336.pdf is an Eventide patent that illustrates a digital technique very similar to the Roland Dimension D algorithm. The patent details a very specific digital implementation, but the underlying concept is the same.

OK, if I have to field a guess, it would be the Roland RS-505 Paraphonic. I have never heard one of these, but the ensemble used four BBD chips, which fits in with the patent.

Sean Costello

Looks like a quadrupple chorus, or double dim C.

Quote from: puretube on December 20, 2005, 03:12:59 AM
X-mas riddle:

which commercial product is being described  here ?  (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4205579.pdf)

(btw: fig. 2(2), 2(3), 2(4) and 2(5) show the painful endeavour (sic!) how to overcome transitional problems in time-domain circuits,
similar to the problem in the  latest looper thread  (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=40048.0)).

Those were wild days of analog.   I wonder if there's a problem with phasing when the two pitch shifted signals are at the mid point in being crossfaded? 

Quote from: Processaurus on December 20, 2005, 03:57:56 AM

Those were wild days of analog.   I wonder if there's a problem with phasing when the two pitch shifted signals are at the mid point in being crossfaded? 

From having developed such algorithms in digital, the answer is, you bet!

Early pitch shifters, and simpler pitch shifters to this day, implement this simple form of overlap/add. I call it "dumb" pitch shifting, as there is no attempts to find a good splice point in the signals. This produces a fairly strong comb filtering effect, which is less noticable with small amounts of pitch shifting (as in the Roland patent), but becomes more noticable with higher amounts of pitch shift. Later pitch shifters used complicated pitch tracking algorithms to find the optimal splicing point - basically matching up the phase of the signals to be spliced in order to have the minimum amount of phase cancellation.

Another solution is to use windows with less overlap, so that the signals only overlap for a short period of time. This results in less phase problems, but can create a herky-jerky effect in the output, as the signal rather abruptly crossfades between different delay times.

Sean Costello

Quote from: puretube on December 20, 2005, 03:12:59 AM
X-mas riddle:
which commercial product is being described  here ?  (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4205579.pdf)
(btw: fig. 2(2), 2(3), 2(4) and 2(5) show the painful endeavour (sic!) how to overcome transitional problems in time-domain circuits,
similar to the problem in the  latest looper thread  (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=40048.0)).

this one is easier...   (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4164884.pdf)

Wow, I guess I'm late to the party here but anyway...

I've recently upgraded my setup to stereo and have become intrigued by the idea of the Dimension C "motionless chorus", esp after hearing the soundclips at modezero and seeing Scott's work with it. I don't have the time for a project of this complexity and I was curious about some of the other ideas that were suggested wrt to detuning and etc which are available in other units.

Does anyone have any experience with the Boss PS-5 "Super Shifter"? It is primarily a pitch-shifter/harmonizer but it has a "detune" function on it, stereo ins and outs and so forth that I thought might make it a decent candidate for this type of sound or a "reasonable facsimile thereof". There's a soundclip available here: http://www.bossus.com/index.asp?pg=1&tmp=22 (http://www.bossus.com/index.asp?pg=1&tmp=22)

To me, the clip sounds a little "plastic" in a way, but I don't know if that's the unit itself or just due to the myriad variables involved in clips, guitars, computer spkrs, etc. I will see if I can try it out at the store, but it sounds like it may be on the right track for the kind of "stereo enhancement tool" I'm looking for.  I have a couple stereo choruses, but I'm kind of excited by the idea of this sort of expansion of the stereo field without the pitch wobble. I also use a delay in stereo (sparingly - for a few Edge/Gilmour style syncopations) but it seems like a little delay goes a long way before it starts sounding like "Karaoke night on the cruise ship". :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen:

Thanks for any feedback,

Doug

I have the previous version PS-3 and I love it !
It also has an "expression pedal input" for more wierdness
Pitch shift detune/delay etc all great, if you dont mind the "sterile" digital
quality ....  :icon_wink:
Worth checkingout the "5" for sure, not sure of the difference ?

Marty.

Thanks for the feedback, Marty. Knowing that you like it makes me even more interested in it.  :)

I would guess the PS-5 is "this year's model" with more bells & whistles.  Not sure how much I'd use the other effects but I suppose it's one of those things you find uses for the more you play with it.

Re. "digital" effects: I've already polluted my signal chain with other digital effects, buffered "false bypass", and to top it off a SS amp for one channel. One more won't make a difference - I'm already a vintage enthusiast's nightmare... :icon_mrgreen:

Doug

I just checked out the details at -  www.bossarea.com
Great info BTW
The PS-5 is much more of a pitched based effect, my PS-3 has some of that
plus a DD-5 digital delay on board, up to 2 seconds delay :D

There you go,

MM.

Thanks, Marty. That's a cool link.

Doug