Here's a preliminary look at replacing the SAD1024 in the A/DA Flanger with a readily available MN3007...
http://moosapotamus.net/ADAflangerSCHmn3007.GIF
All the credit for this redesign effort goes to oldschoolanalog (Thanks, man!!!).
I've tried it out and it sounds really good to me. But it would be great if some of the more knowledgable folks here would give a look and chime in with thoughts, ideas, analyses, suggestions, etc...
Thanks again, OSA!
~ Charlie
Great news.
Does this mean you are ramping up for a new board or will I be able to finish my ad/a on one of the made for SAD1024 revisions.
Very good news! I've been waiting for this.
Curious as I am, are there soundclips available? Is there a PCB?
Now look here - do you mean to tell me that I've got to make one of these too?? :icon_biggrin:
A great job done there, I remember that the parts used in Mike Irwin's 1024 version around the BBD were chosen for good reason, has this been invoked around the 3007 or is it the standard circuitry?
Well, well. I wake up this morning to see this. Seems Charlie was really on top of this one. Nice work, Moose!
Quote from: magikker on November 19, 2008, 11:16:43 PM
Does this mean you are ramping up for a new board...
That's what this R&D is all about.
Quote
...or will I be able to finish my ad/a on one of the made for SAD1024 revisions.
If you have an "old" board; and can't find an SAD1024; the retrofit circuit is relatively easy to build and set up.
Quote from: Auke Haarsma on November 20, 2008, 03:08:12 AM
Very good news! I've been waiting for this.
Are you going to be adding this to your multi f/x extravaganza? :o :icon_eek: ;D
Quote
Curious as I am, are there soundclips available? Is there a PCB?
It sounds just like the other 3 A/DA's I compared it to. There are plenty of soundclips of the A/DA out there. PCB soon come.
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 20, 2008, 06:58:41 AM
Now look here - do you mean to tell me that I've got to make one of these too?? :icon_biggrin:
Of course Sir! You know one can never have enough of these... :D
Quote
I remember that the parts used in Mike Irwin's 1024 version around the BBD were chosen for good reason, has this been invoked around the 3007 or is it the standard circuitry?
Except for the 100k trimpot at the 3007 output (more on this later), it is the standard circuitry as far as the A/DA revs. 3 & 4 go. The MN based versions. After looking over the 3010 & 3007 datasheets I realized they had very similar, and in most cases, identical characteristics. I figured the 3007 should be as close to a "drop in" replacement as there was going to get. Except for the need to double the clock frequency, of course. The input, Vdd, Vgg, Gnd, and clock setups were taken directly from the A/DA rev3/4 schematics. So much for originality :P. But hey, at least I'm honest.
The output trimpot was decided upon after some trial and error. When all was said and done this seemed to be the easiest and most intuitive method for me (it also sounded the best). EE guys so eloquently refer to this as an "Easter egg hunt". For me, it's "R&D" :icon_lol:!
Quote from: moosapotamus on November 19, 2008, 09:21:27 PM
But it would be great if some of the more knowledgable folks here would give a look and chime in with thoughts, ideas, analyses, suggestions, etc...
Big time +1.
C'mon; I know you're out there with rage in your eyes and your megaphones!
BTW; for accuracy's sake; When I tested this in my unit; the R that's marked 150R was really 250R. Also, I would change that 10u cap for 22-33u.
That's it for now. More later.
All the Best,
Dave
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 20, 2008, 10:56:51 AM
Quote from: Auke Haarsma on November 20, 2008, 03:08:12 AM
Very good news! I've been waiting for this.
Are you going to be adding this to your multi f/x extravaganza? :o :icon_eek: ;D
Quote
Curious as I am, are there soundclips available? Is there a PCB?
It sounds just like the other 3 A/DA's I compared it to. There are plenty of soundclips of the A/DA out there. PCB soon come.
Awesome! Yeah, if it wasn't for the hard to get SAD1024 it would already be on the multi-fx crazyness :D . Now I will reserve space for this one!
If I understand correctly the pcb will be about the same size as the SAD1024 version?
Quote from: Auke Haarsma on November 20, 2008, 11:14:22 AM
Awesome! Yeah, if it wasn't for the hard to get SAD1024 it would already be on the multi-fx crazyness :D . Now I will reserve space for this one!
You are
really starting to scare me now :icon_twisted:
Quote
If I understand correctly the pcb will be about the same size as the SAD1024 version?
Yes, it should be.
Dave
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 20, 2008, 10:56:51 AM
BTW; for accuracy's sake; When I tested this in my unit; the R that's marked 150R was really 250R. Also, I would change that 10u cap for 22-33u.
I've updated the schematic with those values. Thanks Dave!
Just to confirm... Yes, the idea here is to produce an updated PCB, redesigned to use the MN3007 instead of the SAD1024. I'm guessing there will be enough folks interested to make it worthwhile to get a batch of these professionally fabricated for us. 8)
And for folks who might already have one of the SAD1024 boards, retrofitting them with a small daughterboard to hold the MN3007 and associated components should be pretty easy to do. I know Dave already posted some pictures of his, but here's a peek at what the retrofit looks like in my build...
(http://moosapotamus.net/MN3007retrofit.gif)
Without the SAD1024 and all the associated components, there should be plenty of room to snug that little daughterboard down in there.
~ Charlie
Is there any chance that this daughterboard could be adapted to allow the installation of the MN3007 into other SAD1024-based effects?
Quote from: theehman on November 20, 2008, 02:27:15 PM
Is there any chance that this daughterboard could be adapted to allow the installation of the MN3007 into other SAD1024-based effects?
While this was not designed as a "one size fits all" retrofit; I'm confident
some adaptation could be made to allow the MN3007 to replace the SAD1024 in other circuits. Anything specific? (EM/DEM? ;))
Dave
Probably the best one would be the EH Memory Man. Some of those use 2 or 3 SAD1024s an could get expensive if disaster strikes.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 20, 2008, 02:50:19 PM
Quote from: theehman on November 20, 2008, 02:27:15 PM
Is there any chance that this daughterboard could be adapted to allow the installation of the MN3007 into other SAD1024-based effects?
While this was not designed as a "one size fits all" retrofit; I'm confident some adaptation could be made to allow the MN3007 to replace the SAD1024 in other circuits. Anything specific? (EM/DEM? ;))
Dave
This would be cool to work something up for:
http://gaussmarkov.net/wordpress/circuits/9v-electric-mistress/
I'm sure a lot of folks would appreciate it, including me!!
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 20, 2008, 02:50:19 PM
Quote from: theehman on November 20, 2008, 02:27:15 PM
Is there any chance that this daughterboard could be adapted to allow the installation of the MN3007 into other SAD1024-based effects?
While this was not designed as a "one size fits all" retrofit; I'm confident some adaptation could be made to allow the MN3007 to replace the SAD1024 in other circuits. Anything specific? (EM/DEM? ;))
Dave
Couldn't a
shoe-in be designed though? this is an opportunity to make a really great building-block upgrade/retrofit which would solve many problems.
Like when we had to retro-upgrade all those Craig Anderton projects back in the 80's. Would have been much more elegant if we could have used a daughterboard solution.
Quote from: RedHouse on November 21, 2008, 09:25:05 AM
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 20, 2008, 02:50:19 PM
Quote from: theehman on November 20, 2008, 02:27:15 PM
Is there any chance that this daughterboard could be adapted to allow the installation of the MN3007 into other SAD1024-based effects?
While this was not designed as a "one size fits all" retrofit; I'm confident some adaptation could be made to allow the MN3007 to replace the SAD1024 in other circuits. Anything specific? (EM/DEM? ;))
Dave
Couldn't a shoe-in be designed though? this is an opportunity to make a really great building-block upgrade/retrofit which would solve many problems.
Like when we had retro-upgrade all those Craig Anderton projects back in the 80's. Would have been much more elegant if we could have used a daughterboard solution.
My thoughts exactly. If a 1024 upgrade/replacement can be made then it should only be a short step to a SAD4096 replacement. There's an awful lot of vintage units that used SAD chips that could benefit from this. Another great one would be the SAD512 to MN3307 conversion, especially for the MXR Micro series.
I should probably do the datasheet work myself, but I'm too lazy. So, a key question, is the biasing of the MN3007 the same as for the SAD1024? The retrofit is an excellent idea, but I'm just mentioning it in case there is actually more work involved than simply plugging in a retrofit.
Before we digress too much from the original topic; does
anybody have any comments/suggestions/opinions/questions about this as it pertains to the immediate task at hand (the A/DA retrofit). Something like this:
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 20, 2008, 06:58:41 AM
I remember that the parts used in Mike Irwin's 1024 version around the BBD were chosen for good reason, has this been invoked around the 3007 or is it the standard circuitry?
http://moosapotamus.net/ADAflangerSCHmn3007.GIF
335 views. One question. Hmm... Anybody?
Dave
PS: I have
lots of thoughts about retrofitting other units. I just want to get this A/DA thing completed first.
Thanks!
In discussion with Mike, and seeing a first-hand demonstration of the circuit sitting right in front of me, Mike told me that the buffering is key, and the buffering is in place via the paralleled 4049 sections. Without buffering, the MN3007 craps out around a few hundred khz, as the datasheet proposes. WITH proper buffering of the clock lines, he has run it well out to 2mhz. The limit is not set by the MN3007 itself, but by the manner in which the input capacitance of the clock pins interact with the click lines feeding them. Buffer, as shown in Charlie's diagram, and you should be good to go.
Thanks Mark. The buffering is part of the circuit shown as tested w/the 3007. I clocked it to ~1.3MHz; Charlie clocked it a bit higher (~1.4MHz IIRC). We both got positive good sounding results. It's just nice to here the words "should be good to go" from somebody with your BBD knowledge. 8)
All the Best,
Dave
why not buffer with three inverters in parallel on each phase?
(immediately after the 4047?)
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 21, 2008, 01:31:39 PM
Thanks Mark. The buffering is part of the circuit shown as tested w/the 3007. I clocked it to ~1.3MHz; Charlie clocked it a bit higher (~1.4MHz IIRC). We both got positive good sounding results. It's just nice to here the words "should be good to go" from somebody with your BBD knowledge. 8)
I owe what I know to Mike.
That's a nice job guys! Does the new circuit still needs to be fed with 15V as required in the SAD1024 version? Or now it's OK to feed the circuit with 9V or 12V? And just we should tweak trims T4 and T5 to double the clock frequency? And why is that? because SAD has 512 stages and MN3007 has 1024 stages?
Thanks
Will
Quote from: WLTerry on November 21, 2008, 03:40:20 PM
That's a nice job guys! Does the new circuit still needs to be fed with 15V as required in the SAD1024 version? Or now it's OK to feed the circuit with 9V or 12V? And just we should tweak trims T4 and T5 to double the clock frequency? And why is that? because SAD has 512 stages and MN3007 has 1024 stages?
Thanks
Will
Thanks Will! Yes, the intention is to keep the supply 15V. Haven't tried it at 9V or 12V. The idea was/is to do this change w/as little modification to the existing circuit as possible. And... Yes, doubling the number of BBD stages requires doubling the clock f to maintain the same delay range.
Dave
see subject line (3207).
btw, list of literature useful for this thread:
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=49929.0
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=51703
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAflanger.html
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=51692.0
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=52219
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=53679.0
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=54798.0
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=56307.0
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=60150.0
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=64771.0
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=70867.0
Quote from: snap on November 22, 2008, 03:11:07 AM
see subject line (3207).
I
see it "2".
:icon_question: :icon_question:
Please elaborate.
Thanks.
Quote from: snap on November 21, 2008, 01:39:43 PM
why not buffer with three inverters in parallel on each phase?
(immediately after the 4047?)
I can't lay my hands on the text from Mike, but I believe he abandoned "three inverters in parallel on each phase" for a good technical reason - possibly something to do with clock rise and fall times?
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 22, 2008, 10:18:00 AM
Quote from: snap on November 21, 2008, 01:39:43 PM
why not buffer with three inverters in parallel on each phase?
(immediately after the 4047?)
I can't lay my hands on the text from Mike, but I believe he abandoned "three inverters in parallel on each phase" for a good technical reason - possibly something to do with clock rise and fall times?
In the Ultra Flanger Mr. Hollis uses the 3 inverters in parallel on each phase to clock the MN3007 to ~1MHz. Hmm... I would like to know the technical reason if anybody could help with this. Please.
Check it out:
http://www.geofex.com/PCB_layouts/Layouts/ultrafln.pdf
The reason it's not being done here:
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on May 22, 1970, 09:10:13 PM
The idea was/is to do this change w/as little modification to the existing circuit as possible.
It works just fine the way it is. "If it ain't broke; don't fix it." ;)
Dave
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 22, 2008, 09:27:20 AM
Quote from: snap on November 22, 2008, 03:11:07 AM
see subject line (3207).
I see it "2".
:icon_question: :icon_question:
Please elaborate.
Thanks.
2 as in: MN3207 (BL3207 or V3207) low voltage versions,
for once the Panasonics 3007s are starting to vanish.
Quote from: snap on November 22, 2008, 01:35:10 PM
2 as in: MN3207 (BL3207 or V3207) low voltage versions,
for once the Panasonics 3007s are starting to vanish.
Understood. Point taken.
However, as I previously stated :
Re: A/DA Flanger Clone PCBs - LAST BATCH?
« Reply #39 on: November 10, 2008, 11:04:12 PM »
Quote from: Nitefly182 on November 10, 2008, 07:19:00 PM
Which means we are focusing on the cool audio clones of the MN3207 and not actual MN3007s because the same thing will happen with them.
To which I replied:Another thing that crossed my mind when starting this project was just that. However; I wanted to keep the unit working at 15V. The max supply V with the 3207 would have been 9V. Such a radical change would probably necessitate changing other parts of the circuit. Also, IMHO, the 300x series BBD's sound better than their 320x counterparts. There are loads of 3007's available for real cheap. If cost is any indication of quantity available, then there are most likely alot more of these out there than one can imagine. I recently purchased 10 pcs. MN3007 for ~$20US. Less $$ than the cost of a single SAD1024! From a US distributor (not HK). Upon testing they all worked perfectly. I don't think a short run of this PCB is going to have much of an effect on the availability of the MN3007. Heck, if you look at the projects at Tonepad alone, you will find 3 that use the 3007. This hasn't seemed to put a dent in their availability; and I'm willing to wager it won't for the forseeable future. However, after this anything I design in the future will use the newer Cool Audio chips. Just to practice what I preach, so to speak.
Dave
Note the last 2 sentences...
Once the 3007's vanish maybe
somebody will do
another redesign. :icon_eek:
sorry, OSA for not having read through those for sale-threads completely
and therefor having missed that part :icon_redface:.
thanks for your explanation.
Stephen: maybe some unbuffered version of hex inverters sports fast enough slopes
to follow the 4047 directly, but I`m not aware of their "fan-outs".
I'll keep looking for Mike's email, I used to print them out at that time.
Found it saved to a Word document - I was looking for a text file!
Mike said:
" I would have liked to use the 4049 inverters set up as two groups of
three paralleled inverters - but the 4047 is not able to drive the
combined gate input capacitance very well... so the technique shown has
been used as a compromise to preserve good rise/fall times."
Hope that is of some help.
Thanks Stephen! That helps a bunch. As always, your efforts are greatly appreciated.
Hey snap, it's all good. I believe there are at least 4 threads about this out there. Gets confusing for sure. :D
Dave
Before I finish updating the PCB layout for the MN3007, here's a question...
What about including a spot for a 78L09 regulator on the power rail to the BBD, only? This would allow folks to experiment with some of the 3207 BBD chips that can only take a 9V supply, such as the BL3207 or the V3207. They seem to have the same footprint as the MN3007. What I'm not positive about is if the same associated components in OSA's 3007 retrofit circuit would be sufficient to get one of these other BBD chips working with, maybe, only a few value substitutions. Anyone have any thoughts about this? If using the MN3007, you could just install a jumper across the 78L09.
~ Charlie
If you are asking if a 3207 would work in place of a 3007 with use of a 9v regulator then the answer is no. 3207 chips use positive supply voltage while 3007s use negative supply voltage(maybe thats backwards), so all the Vdd Vgg etc would be incorrect in polarity.
If anyone disagrees then speak up because I am not 100% sure on this.
Zach
Something I saved to textfile a while ago:
Swapping MN3007 for a MN3207
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=56291.0
Some quotes from that thread:
"The functions of the pins are the same, but that does not mean that what voltages they are supposed to see are identical. Personally, I have never understood all the things that needed to be changed, but I do know that it is not as simple as sticking a 3207 in the socket and simply flipping the GND and supply lines. There is also the issue of the bias voltage."
"When running the bias supply to be able to go from ground to the full supply voltage one should be OK to set it correct for a 3207.
Other than that:
- Reverse the power supply pins. V+ (Vcc, Vbat or whatever) becomes ground and the ground becomes V+.
- Change the output resistor going from output to to V+ in the 3007 case and run it from output to ground in the 3207 case.
- If your supply voltage is higher than 9 volts use a 7809 to limit it to 9 volts far the BBD AND the BBD bias."
"For the clock driver the setup is similar. Make use of the datasheets on Mark Hammer's website (BBD Dementia, Panasonic Paranoia or whatever the name was but, and I'll always mention this: Thanks so much for that file Mark!) for these chips and make a comparison between a chorus like the CE2 (GGG.com?) and any BBD loaded Ibanez chorus found online. The differences in connecting is what you're looking for and the above will become clear."
I've replaced MN3007 with MN3207 and it requires a minimum of changes to external circuitry but there is rewiring necessary. The pinouts aren't the same and like was mentioned, one runs on (+) voltage and one on (-) voltage. Since you have to replace the BBD and Clock, you'll be changing ground/power connections in two parts on the circuit. It might be worth creating a separate PCB for it, since cutting traces and adding jumpers is real messy. It's only like two or three traces that need to be rerouted so shouldn't be hard to change them and pump out a new PCB. Then you can add the regulator as well.
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=68806.0 (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=68806.0)
oops. got ahead of myself.
you're only replacing the BBD not the clock. That was in reference to previous circuits replacing the MN3007/MN3010 combo..
Quote from: Michael Allen on November 24, 2008, 03:21:10 PM
I've replaced MN3007 with MN3207 and it requires a minimum of changes to external circuitry but there is rewiring necessary. The pinouts aren't the same and like was mentioned, one runs on (+) voltage and one on (-) voltage. Since you have to replace the BBD and Clock, you'll be changing ground/power connections in two parts on the circuit. It might be worth creating a separate PCB for it, since cutting traces and adding jumpers is real messy. It's only like two or three traces that need to be rerouted so shouldn't be hard to change them and pump out a new PCB. Then you can add the regulator as well.
Why not just a few headers with jumpers?
Quote from: theehman on November 24, 2008, 03:39:47 PM
Why not just a few headers with jumpers?
Well, that's exactly what I was thinking. But it's starting to sound like a 3207 adaptation would require a bit more development before committing the option to a run of PCBs.
~ Charlie
Also it can only run 9v
Zach
The SAD1024 version will run at 9v, you just need to adjust the bias.
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 24, 2008, 05:16:30 PM
The SAD1024 version will run at 9v, you just need to adjust the bias.
True, but 15v provides more headroom. The problem is that mn3207 has a limit of 9v and cannot be run on 15v no matter what, so 9v is the ceiling.
Zach
10V! (absolute max:11V).
is more always better? Do we really need 15V for a guitar-signal? I'd say it can be run perfectly on 9V, signal-wise.
nice tread!
it would be nice if someone can make a tutorial how to change the SAD1024 with the MN3007, if the basis is always the same for every SAD1024 based FX.
this would be great, 'cause SAd1024 are becoming almost impossible to find nowadays!
Quote from: Zben3129 on November 24, 2008, 05:20:44 PM
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 24, 2008, 05:16:30 PM
The SAD1024 version will run at 9v, you just need to adjust the bias.
True, but 15v provides more headroom. The problem is that mn3207 has a limit of 9v and cannot be run on 15v no matter what, so 9v is the ceiling.
Zach
Yes, and the additional headroom would also allow multitrack recorder processing.
Ever seen a clock + buffer using LM339 + CMOS4069? This seems to use 3 gates in parallel to drive 2 x MN 3005.
http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/manuals/KINTEKKT24.pdf
4047 into SAD 4096
http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/manuals/SMARTSR330.pdf
All you need to do is reverse the power connections.
So now, GND goes to MN3207 pin 1 and V+ goes to pin 5. The circuitry connected to MN3007 pin 1 in your circuit should still be connected to MN3207 to filter the + power supply but the trimmer coming from MN3207 pin 7/8 should now be referenced to ground instead. Pin 4 doesn't matter whether it's referenced to ground or power if I recall...
Compare the schematics for the FL9 and the FL301, and you can see it's only the power rails and output resistor that need to be rewired.
http://tonepad.com/getFile.asp?id=52 (http://tonepad.com/getFile.asp?id=52)
http://www.mojotronics.com/images/FL9.pdf (http://www.mojotronics.com/images/FL9.pdf)
If you were going to insert header pins on the PCB that could allow for jumpering, that would allow for one PCB to accommodate both chips. Excellent idea!
So, to show how the 3207 would work in the schematic, you would just simply relabel pin 1 as pin 5, and relabel pin 5 as pin 1... swap them? And, of course, include a +9V regulator for the 3207.
If that's right, it would be pretty easy to do the layout with a couple of jumpers so that either chip could be used. Any other thoughts on this?
Thanks
~ Charlie
next........ TDA 1022 perhaps?
and then... "The Universal ADA Layout"... well, maybe not right now. ;)
I'll just work on the 3007/3207 hybrid layout for now. 8)
~ Charlie
do you by any chance have the schematic available as an eagle-file?
Sorry, I don't use Eagle.
~ Charlie
Thanks for posting this schem, Charlie. I've been putting off flangers for a long time, mainly due to lack of SAD1024 chips. I'm going to thoroughly enjoy the pain involved in veroing this circuit over christmas! :D ;D :D ;D
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/StephenGiles/adafl.jpg)
:icon_biggrin:
Show off!
:D ;D :icon_lol:
Quote from: Michael Allen on November 25, 2008, 05:07:50 PM
All you need to do is reverse the power connections.
So now, GND goes to MN3207 pin 1 and V+ goes to pin 5. The circuitry connected to MN3007 pin 1 in your circuit should still be connected to MN3207 to filter the + power supply but the trimmer coming from MN3207 pin 7/8 should now be referenced to ground instead. Pin 4 doesn't matter whether it's referenced to ground or power if I recall...
Compare the schematics for the FL9 and the FL301, and you can see it's only the power rails and output resistor that need to be rewired.
http://tonepad.com/getFile.asp?id=52 (http://tonepad.com/getFile.asp?id=52)
http://www.mojotronics.com/images/FL9.pdf (http://www.mojotronics.com/images/FL9.pdf)
If you were going to insert header pins on the PCB that could allow for jumpering, that would allow for one PCB to accommodate both chips. Excellent idea!
OK. Just to be clear, here is my interpretation. Someone please set me straight if something isn't right, or give me a thumbs-up if it all looks good.
MN3007 setup...
(http://moosapotamus.net/MN3007.gif)
MN3207 setup
(http://moosapotamus.net/MN3207.gif)
Aside from adding a 9V regulator on the +V rail for the MN3207, does that look correct?
Thanks
~ Charlie
The 1k & 14k resistors need to be switched around so Vgg=14/15Vdd.
Thanks, Dave. I'm kinda tied up today, but should be able to post the new ADA layout, updated to use either 3007 or 3207, within the next couple of days. 8)
~ Charlie
Tahnks in advance! Looking forward to that!
Quote from: moosapotamus on December 02, 2008, 01:30:32 PM
Thanks, Dave. I'm kinda tied up today, but should be able to post the new ADA layout, updated to use either 3007 or 3207, within the next couple of days. 8)
~ Charlie
it`d be cool!
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on November 20, 2008, 02:50:19 PM
Quote from: theehman on November 20, 2008, 02:27:15 PM
Is there any chance that this daughterboard could be adapted to allow the installation of the MN3007 into other SAD1024-based effects?
While this was not designed as a "one size fits all" retrofit; I'm confident some adaptation could be made to allow the MN3007 to replace the SAD1024 in other circuits. Anything specific? (EM/DEM? ;))
Dave
I have repaired my MXR flanger already but will be fun to try this retrofit, what d'you think? could it work in my MXR?
Looking very very much forward to it Charlie. You seem to be Sinterklaas! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinterklaas) :D
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 25, 2008, 01:49:57 PM
Ever seen a clock + buffer using LM339 + CMOS4069? This seems to use 3 gates in parallel to drive 2 x MN 3005.
http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/manuals/KINTEKKT24.pdf
Have you checked this out?
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 25, 2008, 02:29:42 PM
4047 into SAD 4096
http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/manuals/SMARTSR330.pdf
......and this?
Those links are interesting, Stephen. I particularly like the simplicity of the second one.
Quote from: Prive on December 02, 2008, 09:46:19 PM
I have repaired my MXR flanger already but will be fun to try this retrofit, what d'you think? could it work in my MXR?
You won't know until you try. What have you got to loose? ;)
~ Charlie
Quote from: StephenGiles on December 03, 2008, 08:07:35 AM
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 25, 2008, 01:49:57 PM
Ever seen a clock + buffer using LM339 + CMOS4069? This seems to use 3 gates in parallel to drive 2 x MN 3005.
http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/manuals/KINTEKKT24.pdf
Have you checked this out?
I was looking at this (pg. 19) and am curious to know why would one need
six inverters in parallel for each clock phase?
Each clock phase has it's own 4069! And unless I'm seeing things (always a good possibility), aren't they configured 6 in/6 out?
Anybody have any thoughts? :icon_confused:
Stephen, how/where do you keep coming up with all this great stuff? :icon_cool:
Quote from: Prive on December 02, 2008, 09:46:19 PM
I have repaired my MXR flanger already but will be fun to try this retrofit, what d'you think? could it work in my MXR?
I have a bunch of those old 117's kicking around. I'll take a look at the schem & pedal later.
Dave
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on December 03, 2008, 11:53:24 AM
Quote from: StephenGiles on December 03, 2008, 08:07:35 AM
Quote from: StephenGiles on November 25, 2008, 01:49:57 PM
Ever seen a clock + buffer using LM339 + CMOS4069? This seems to use 3 gates in parallel to drive 2 x MN 3005.
http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/manuals/KINTEKKT24.pdf
Have you checked this out?
I was looking at this (pg. 19) and am curious to know why would one need six inverters in parallel for each clock phase?
Each clock phase has it's own 4069! And unless I'm seeing things (always a good possibility), aren't they configured 6 in/6 out?
Anybody have any thoughts? :icon_confused:
Stephen, how/where do you keep coming up with all this great stuff? :icon_cool:
Quote from: Prive on December 02, 2008, 09:46:19 PM
I have repaired my MXR flanger already but will be fun to try this retrofit, what d'you think? could it work in my MXR?
I have a bunch of those old 117's kicking around. I'll take a look at the schem & pedal later.
Dave
I always save links of sites I find so that I can go back to them. The Film-tech site used to list the additions but no longer does.
Okay... finally got a first pass done on the new layout. Here it is...
http://moosapotamus.net/ADAflangerOVRmn3007.GIF
None of these boards have been made yet. But using a MN3007 has been tested with OSA's retrofit in one of the previous SAD1024 boards and it sounds great! Using one of the 3207 chips (BL3207, V3207) has not been tested yet, at least not to my knowledge. But this new layout is setup with pads that can be jumpered two different ways for either a 3007 or a 3207. There is also a spot for a +9V regulator to go with the 3207. If using the 3007, a jumper can be installed between the outside pins of the regulator.
I would really appreciate another set of eyes on this.
Here's a detail of the area in question...
(http://moosapotamus.net/3007detail.gif)
Q2 is a 78L09 +9V regulator that can be installed if using a 3207 chip.
Does anyone think there should be any additional components for power filtering for the +9V regulator?
The jumper pads work like this...
Pad P is V+.
Pad R is ground.
Pad T is the leg of the trim pot.
If using the MN3207 chip jump P to P1, R to R1, and T to T1.
If using a 3207 chip, jump P to P2, R to R2, and T to T2.
Please let me know if that makes sense and/or if anything else, above, looks mixed up.
Thanks
~ Charlie
I think there may be an issue with using mn3207 in this circuit but I would need a look at the schamatic to know for sure, and can't find it right now :icon_eek: Could you link me to it?
As you know, mn3207 has a few differences from mn3007....3207 runs on + voltage supply, and can only run on 9v maximum. These differences have been covered and should not pose a problem.
However, the mn3207 needs a positive clock frequency (between 0v and 1.1v IIRC) while mn3007 needs a negative clock frequency (between 0 and -1.1v IIRC). This is the reason mn3101 is used to drive mn3007, while mn3102 is used to drive mn3207; mn3101 provides a positive clock frequency while mn3102 provides a negative clock frequency.
The BBD in this circuit, whether it be sad1024 or mn3007/3207 is driven by a CD4047 (or some CMOS chip, can't remember part number), correct? If so, it would also be necessary to alter the clock stage to make the frequency positive rather than negative. I am not sure if this is possible with the chip used as the clock driver, and if it is possible I am also not sure if it is practical.
As always, if someone sees anything wrong with this speak up so that the mn3207 issue can get sorted out correctly.
Zach
Quote from: moosapotamus on December 03, 2008, 10:13:02 PM
Does anyone think there should be any additional components for power filtering for the +9V regulator?
Moose, if you can fit the cap's in that would be good, I have experienced random issues/problems in the past with the 78xXX series when running w/o capacitors, not every time but just when you don't need it if you know what I mean. A couple .1's will do nicely and they can be those itty bitty little blue 50v ceramic mono's to save space.
In fact now that I mention it, one can really just piggy-back them on the solder side if there is no real estate for Wima style caps on the board.
-Brad
SMD !
Quote from: Zben3129 on December 03, 2008, 10:27:30 PM
I think there may be an issue with using mn3207 in this circuit but I would need a look at the schamatic to know for sure, and can't find it right now :icon_eek: Could you link me to it?
Thanks for taking a look at this Z. There is a link to the schematic in the first post on page 1 of this thread but, to make it easy, I'll put it here too. 8)
ADA clone schematic w/ MN3007 (http://moosapotamus.net/ADAflangerSCHmn3007.GIF)
And there are schematic snippets showing the alternate connections for the MN3207 at the bottom of page 3 of this thread, here...
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=72329.msg587202#msg587202
I know that the MN3007 will do the trick (thanks again OSA!). But I'm not really sure, myself, if the 3207 can work as shown. I'm relying on everyone's kindness to figure out if it makes sense to include the 3207 option. If not, it would simplify the layout to just have the 3007. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Quote from: RedHouse on December 03, 2008, 11:32:57 PM
Moose, if you can fit the cap's in that would be good...
So, you don't think the single 22uF (or 33uF) will do it? I might be able to find some room for a couple of Wima 0.1uF caps to put in parallel with the 22uF.
Anything else?
Thanks
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on December 04, 2008, 09:46:47 AM
Quote from: Zben3129 on December 03, 2008, 10:27:30 PM
I think there may be an issue with using mn3207 in this circuit but I would need a look at the schamatic to know for sure, and can't find it right now :icon_eek: Could you link me to it?
Thanks for taking a look at this Z. There is a link to the schematic in the first post on page 1 of this thread but, to make it easy, I'll put it here too. 8)
ADA clone schematic w/ MN3007 (http://moosapotamus.net/ADAflangerSCHmn3007.GIF)
And there are schematic snippets showing the alternate connections for the MN3207 at the bottom of page 3 of this thread, here...
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=72329.msg587202#msg587202
I know that the MN3007 will do the trick (thanks again OSA!). But I'm not really sure, myself, if the 3207 can work as shown. I'm relying on everyone's kindness to figure out if it makes sense to include the 3207 option. If not, it would simplify the layout to just have the 3007. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Quote from: RedHouse on December 03, 2008, 11:32:57 PM
Moose, if you can fit the cap's in that would be good...
So, you don't think the single 22uF (or 33uF) will do it? I might be able to find some room for a couple of Wima 0.1uF caps to put in parallel with the 22uF.
Anything else?
Thanks
~ Charlie
The datasheet indicates a .33 on the input and a .1 on the output but it assumes a reasonable noise/ripple free supply.
I didn't see if you have the 78L09 being fed from the 7815 or from the main power input to the board, if it's from the 7815 it should only need the small caps .33/.1 if it's from the main power input the 22uF would be better for sure.
A couple of notes.
This should read:
If using the
MN3007 chip jump P to P1, R to R1, and T to T1.
If using a 3207 chip, jump P to P2, R to R2, and T to T2.
If anybody claims to have proofed this layout and didn't notice this:
Shame on you!!! :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:
Also,(and I noticed this right before I clicked "post") the 1k R in the V divider is hardwired to ground as shown. For the 3207 setup this needs to be lifted from gnd so it can go to Vdd (pin 5, 3207). The 14k R to ground in the 3207 setup is correct. Connecting points R & R2 will result in both sides of the V divider being connected to ground. Might want to reroute some of them traces.
Other than that; great job. ;D
I have to agree that the 78L09 reg should have some provision for filter caps. Better safe than aggravated later. Maybe moving C33 and that trace under it "south" just a bit would free up enough room for a 1u at the input and a .1u at the output of the reg? Might be kind of tight. But doable.
Quote from: moosapotamus on December 04, 2008, 09:46:47 AM
I know that the MN3007 will do the trick (thanks again OSA!). But I'm not really sure, myself, if the 3207 can work as shown. I'm relying on everyone's kindness to figure out if it makes sense to include the 3207 option. If not, it would simplify the layout to just have the 3007. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
I think it's a good idea to include the 3207 option as it would probably make alot of folks very happy. Plus, it's (almost) already done! On paper it should work.
However my one concern; if it works; is how is it going to sound? I can say with confidence that the 3007 circuit has all the A/DA "sonic character" of the 1024 & 3010 versions I compared it to. I was going make a retrofit board for the 3207 but then realized I had none in my BBD stash. Maybe somebody else wants to try a 3207 retrofit board? It's really not all that much work. Hmm...
Also, to be totally honest, I have no intention of ever populating this circuit w/a 3207. Just a personal choice. Nothing against the 3207. I've explained my reasons for the 3007 choice elsewhere.
All the Best!
Dave
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on December 04, 2008, 11:21:46 AM
This should read:
If using the MN3007 chip jump P to P1, R to R1, and T to T1.
If using a 3207 chip, jump P to P2, R to R2, and T to T2.
If anybody claims to have proofed this layout and didn't notice this: Shame on you!!! :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:
Doh! :P Just wanted to see who was paying attention. Um... you passed. :D
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on December 04, 2008, 11:21:46 AM
Also,(and I noticed this right before I clicked "post") the 1k R in the V divider is hardwired to ground as shown. For the 3207 setup this needs to be lifted from gnd so it can go to Vdd (pin 5, 3207). The 14k R to ground in the 3207 setup is correct. Connecting points R & R2 will result in both sides of the V divider being connected to ground. Might want to reroute some of them traces.
Ack! Right about that, too! I'll fix that tonight. Thanks!
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on December 04, 2008, 11:21:46 AM
I have to agree that the 78L09 reg should have some provision for filter caps. Better safe than aggravated later. Maybe moving C33 and that trace under it "south" just a bit would free up enough room for a 1u at the input and a .1u at the output of the reg? Might be kind of tight. But doable.
Well, there's already a 1u on the +15V rail (C32). So just a 0.1u on the +9V rail somewhere near C33 shoul do it, right?
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on December 04, 2008, 11:21:46 AM
I think it's a good idea to include the 3207 option as it would probably make alot of folks very happy. Plus, it's (almost) already done! On paper it should work. However my one concern; if it works; is how is it going to sound? ...
Absolutely. But in addition, I think Zben3129 raised a really good question, too... Does the 3207 need a positive clock frequency instead of the negative colck frequency used by all the others (MN3010, SAD1024, MN3007)? Kinda makes sense because logically it fits with the idea of having to switch the power and ground connections for the 3207. But how to do that? I don't really know... Didn't really want to get into having to change the clock circuit, too. Anyone else have an educated opinion on that?
Thanks
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on December 04, 2008, 11:57:27 AM
Doh! :P Just wanted to see who was paying attention. Um... you passed. :D
The only thing I passed is, uh, nevermind... ::)
Quote
Well, there's already a 1u on the +15V rail (C32). So just a 0.1u on the +9V rail somewhere near C33 should do it, right?
(Personal "doh!" moment) Yes, this is true. That should do it.
Quote
Absolutely. But in addition, I think Zben3129 raised a really good question, too... Does the 3207 need a positive clock frequency instead of the negative clock frequency used by all the others (MN3010, SAD1024, MN3007)? Kinda makes sense because logically it fits with the idea of having to switch the power and ground connections for the 3207. But how to do that? I don't really know... Didn't really want to get into having to change the clock circuit, too. Anyone else have an educated opinion on that?
Nothing needs to be done. The clock circuit is a positive clock and works just fine. The 1024 operates on a positive clock. So does the 3207. Use your meter and check the clock pins of the 1024. ~+7.7V IIRC. This should work properly for the 3207. Remember, I changed nothing about the clock circuitry and the 3007 board works. Its the 3007 and 3010 (which I based the 3007 work on) that need to be setup so they "see" (I dislike terms like that but I don't know the correct term) the (-) supply & clock they require. Thats why the Vdd & Gnd are switched for each other w/the MN30XX BBD's.
Not the 32XX BBD's. The 32XX are setup so Vdd is Vdd; and Gnd is Gnd. Just like the 1024. Someone like Mark Hammer or Stephen could explain the technical aspect of this better than me. I just know how to do it and that it works. :icon_wink:
More fun on the way!
Dave
OK, I think that actually makes sense to me. So, once I get those other fixes done it should be good to go. 8)
Thanks
~ Charlie
I see, I was assuming that sad1024 and mn3007 both used the same clock polarity and mn3207, but the mn3207 and sad1024 are the similar ones. And since this has been proven with a 3007 by simply reversing the clock output, then mn3007, mn3207, and sad1024 should all work.
What I was worried about was that if the mn3207 required the opposite polarity of the sad1024, that creating this would be impossible from the circuit. The obvious way would be to just reverse the outputs which woud theoretically work, but I wondered if doing this would create some kind of short or other internal problem in the clock IC causing failure. I assumed that since they make mn3101 and mn3102 that reversing outputs would be impossible, as why would they make two chips that are identical besides supply voltage and output polarity? Couldn't you just wire the mn3101 up in various ways to create all of the functions of the mn3102? The reason for the two chips must be just the difference in supply voltage and higher reliability of the mn3207. Or maybe reversing outputs on mn3101/2 is impossible, but since this circuit uses cd4047 (CMOS) as the driver it is possible.
Zach
Still also need to swap the 1K and 14K resistors like OSA mentioned. So here...
(http://moosapotamus.net/3007_3207_ani.gif)
Right?
Thanks
~Charlie
Kind of rough on the eyes for midnight. A bit of a sadistic streak, have we Charlie? :icon_lol:
However, between squints and blinks, it looks all good. Layout on the way?
Thanks (I think. :D)
Dave
PS: Is there something subliminal in there?
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on December 05, 2008, 12:07:56 AM
PS: Is there something subliminal in there?
Yes. You must stare very closely for a very, very long time... And listen to Magical Mystery Tour backwards at the same time... Maybe have a couple of drinks, too. :D
So, anyway...
Yes, I fixed the layout (but you'll be the judge of that :D). Won't be able to post it until later tonight, tho.
~ Charlie
OK, here's the latest round of corrections. The area in question now looks like this...
(http://moosapotamus.net/3007detail2.gif)
And the full layout is here...
http://moosapotamus.net/ADAflangerOVRmn3007.gif
To use the 3007 chip...
Do not install Q2. Jump the outside legs of Q2 together.
Do not install the 0.1uF capacitor located below C33.
Install jumpers from P to P1, R to R1 and T to T1.
Install the 1K and 14K resistors as shown.
To use a 3207 chip...
Install Q2.
Install the 0.1uF capacitor located below C33.
Install jumpers from P to P2, R to R2 and T to T2.
Install the 1K resistor where the 14K is shown.
Install the 14K where the 1K is shown.
Check it out please. 8)
Thanks
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on December 05, 2008, 08:23:45 AM
Yes. You must stare very closely for a very, very long time... And listen to Magical Mystery Tour backwards at the same time... Maybe have a couple of drinks, too :D
I tried what you said in vain. :icon_cry: Maybe this is more of a job for Laughing Sam's Dice... :icon_twisted:
Let the games begin.
The 3007 layout was correct the first time, and still is. Very :icon_cool:.
After it took me a minute to realize how you went about it (
Real nice work!); The 3207 layout is now "on the money". Very, very :icon_cool:.
Thanx for your effort and patience. You rule!
Dave
Allright! 8) Thanks, Dave. I guess it's time to take this back to the For Sale/Trade forum. 8)
Thanks!
~ Charlie
OK. As this seems to be getting wrapped up; I am going to organize as much of the BBD retrofit data I can find and start a new "The BBD Retrofit Thread" early next week. By popular demand :D. Now it's time to get to work on all the questions and ideas that were mentioned earlier here. It'll be nice to have all this info in one place.
Stay tuned...
Dave
Does this mean we'll soon see a ready-to-print PCB layout here or on moosapotamus.net?
Quote from: Rocket Roll on December 06, 2008, 07:41:28 PM
Does this mean we'll soon see a ready-to-print PCB layout here or on moosapotamus.net?
Check it out.
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=72682.0
...And a good time was had by all...
Dave
Quote from: Rocket Roll on December 06, 2008, 07:41:28 PM
Does this mean we'll soon see a ready-to-print PCB layout here or on moosapotamus.net?
So that would be a big "yes"! 8)
Please chime in on that thread over in the For Sale/Trade forum so I can get a rough head count of how many folks are going to be up for building this. Would like to get a feel for the number of boards to have made up.
Thanks
~ Charlie
Any plans to make up a daughter board for the older revision boards out there ;)
Alternately, a set of plans for it would be appreciated. I can't quite justify the cost of a whole new board, but I would very much like to compare the two.
Quote from: Ry on December 07, 2008, 11:20:55 AM
Any plans to make up a daughter board for the older revision boards out there ;)
It's really pretty simple. In addition to the BBD chip, six components and a trim pot... that's it. In fact, you could probably fit it into the open perfboard area in the lower left corner of the PCB and use a few flying leads to tie it in. 8)
Quote from: Ry on December 07, 2008, 11:20:55 AM
Alternately, a set of plans for it would be appreciated. I can't quite justify the cost of a whole new board, but I would very much like to compare the two.
For starters, the schematic is at the top of this page. But I think some details on what connection to make where could definately be arranged. 8)
~ Charlie
A quick diagram would be great, although I'm sure I can figure it out if I spent a bit of time with it :icon_redface:
Thanks!
Sorry, if this is asked before.
Is it possible to use 3205 in this new version of the ADA?
Quote from: carrejans on January 18, 2009, 04:18:12 AM
Is it possible to use 3205 in this new version of the ADA?
If you mean a 3207 look here. Click on the first link in the first post. Read the building notes. ;)
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=73483.0
If you do mean a 3205, realize that: The 3207 is a 1024 stage BBD. The 3205 is a 4096 stage BBD. The 3207 has a standard 8 pin DIP footprint. The 3205 has 8pins, but has the footprint of a 14 pin chip.
Save them 3205's for long delays. The 3207 is inexpensive and readily available.
Dave
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on January 18, 2009, 09:46:04 AM
Quote from: carrejans on January 18, 2009, 04:18:12 AM
Is it possible to use 3205 in this new version of the ADA?
If you mean a 3207 look here. Click on the first link in the first post. Read the building notes. ;)
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=73483.0
If you do mean a 3205, realize that: The 3207 is a 1024 stage BBD. The 3205 is a 4096 stage BBD. The 3207 has a standard 8 pin DIP footprint. The 3205 has 8pins, but has the footprint of a 14 pin chip.
Save them 3205's for long delays. The 3207 is inexpensive and readily available.
Dave
Yep, I did mean a 3205 (it is a clone from Coolaudio). I know it is a 4096 stage BBD; but was just wondering if the 3207 can be swapped with this one without any modifications. (besides the different footprint)
BTW, what are the differences soundwise between the 3207 and 3007?
Quote from: carrejans on January 18, 2009, 10:10:00 AM
Yep, I did mean a 3205 (it is a clone from Coolaudio). I know it is a 4096 stage BBD; but was just wondering if the 3207 can be swapped with this one without any modifications. (besides the different footprint)
Probably could be made to work. However the minimum delay time would be very limited. I don't think you could clock a 4096 stage BBD high enough to get a real good flange sound. Chorus, maybe.
Quote
BTW, what are the differences soundwise between the 3207 and 3007?
Very little. You would have to compare them side by side to notice
very subtle differences.
Dave
Thanks for the answers.
And of course for the adapted design. I ordered one. :icon_biggrin:
bump (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=72329.0) for baja (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=74367.msg607558#msg607558)
(http://moosapotamus.net/3007_3207_ani.gif)
Hi guys :) Long time lurker...
This thread just reminded me I still have some parts to get for my SAD version of moose's board. I was wondering given all the animated pictures we have so far for alternate chip configurations for the new boards, whether or not instructions for using older boards with an MN3007 was still on the cards?
Regards,
Stratman ;)
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on January 18, 2009, 11:12:32 AM
Quote from: carrejans on January 18, 2009, 10:10:00 AM
Yep, I did mean a 3205 (it is a clone from Coolaudio). I know it is a 4096 stage BBD; but was just wondering if the 3207 can be swapped with this one without any modifications. (besides the different footprint)
Probably could be made to work. However the minimum delay time would be very limited. I don't think you could clock a 4096 stage BBD high enough to get a real good flange sound. Chorus, maybe.Quote
BTW, what are the differences soundwise between the 3207 and 3007?
Very little. You would have to compare them side by side to notice very subtle differences.
Dave
With the 4049 buffering in the ADA Flanger clock it into infinity!!
Yes!, let's clock our 3205 at 8.2MHz to get .5ms delay.
Or; we could go w/a 4.1MHz clock for a more pedestrian 1ms delay.
:icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_eek:
Hello guys!
I've gone thru the whole thread but I have not found answer:
Can somebody please confirm, that you have been able to double clock frequency compared to SAD version? In other words, that CD4047 was able to tick at 2.6MHz at TP (~ at 1.3MHz at Q/-Q outs)?
I'm on hunt for proper clock signal generator for MN3007/3207 based "ultra-short" delay (yep, TZF board ;)) and ADA clock is one of my candidates, but I need to know that I'd get at least 1MHz sampling frequency.
Thanks, T.
Quote from: Thomeeque on June 23, 2010, 09:21:58 AM
Hello guys!
I've gone thru the whole thread but I have not found answer:
Can somebody please confirm, that you have been able to double clock frequency compared to SAD version? In other words, that CD4047 was able to tick at 2.6MHz at TP (~ at 1.3MHz at Q/-Q outs)?
I'm on hunt for proper clock signal generator for MN3007/3207 based "ultra-short" delay (yep, TZF board ;)) and ADA clock is one of my candidates, but I need to know that I'd get at least 1MHz sampling frequency.
Thanks, T.
Is this what you're after? http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=72682.msg589262#msg589262
Simple as it gets. 50KHz - 1MHz:
http://www.hollis.co.uk/john/ultraflanger3.jpg
(More) very good reading:
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=74612.0
You design it (PCB layout too, please).
I'll build & test it.
No problem. :icon_cool:
PS: This is for the 9V/3007/EM?
Lets move it over to that thread if possible.
Thanks!
Quote from: Scruffie on June 23, 2010, 09:34:58 AM
Is this what you're after? http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=72682.msg589262#msg589262
Hmm, thanks Scruffie, partially yes, but
1) it's not clearly stated at what point was the frequency measured (if TP or Q/-Q) - but it is probably sampling frequency (Q/-Q), otherwise it would be lower then original ADA.
2) If I understand it right, Dave did not try to alter clock circuitry (
I think that a wider range might be possible by playing around w/R68, R69, and C29.), so there may be some reserve yet. I would assume that somebody would go "deeper" to get maximum out of his build (I would ;))..? I will buy CD4047 eventually and do my own experiments, but knowing other's experiences could move me forward faster.
T.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on June 23, 2010, 11:44:14 AM
Simple as it gets. 50KHz - 1MHz:
http://www.hollis.co.uk/john/ultraflanger3.jpg
Yep, this is another candidate but I would believe more to signals generated by 4047 (it provides exact 50% duty cycle thanks to the frequency divider and I expect better sync at Q and -Q outs too), even it is more just assumption then anything else at this moment.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on June 23, 2010, 11:44:14 AM
(More) very good reading:
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=74612.0
Great, thanks!
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on June 23, 2010, 11:44:14 AM
You design it (PCB layout too, please).
I'll build & test it.
No problem. :icon_cool:
That's the spirit! :) Thanks!
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on June 23, 2010, 11:44:14 AM
PS: This is for the 9V/3007/EM?
Lets move it over to that thread if possible.
Thanks!
Yep, it is - here I'm just for my A/DA w MN3x07 related questions :)
Cheers, T.
Is a 4047 now the holy grail of clock generators? I'm sure EH thought so 30 years ago!
Quote from: StephenGiles on June 23, 2010, 01:07:46 PMIs a 4047 now the holy grail of clock generators? I'm sure EH thought so 30 years ago!
Good & simple never goes out of style. :icon_biggrin:
Inexpensive too!
Quote from: Thomeeque on June 23, 2010, 11:48:38 AM1) it's not clearly stated at what point was the frequency measured (if TP or Q/-Q) - but it is probably sampling frequency (Q/-Q), otherwise it would be lower then original ADA.
I always take clock measurements at the BBD. Wearing dry pants, of course. ;) :icon_lol:
Quote2) If I understand it right, Dave did not try to alter clock circuitry (I think that a wider range might be possible by playing around w/R68, R69, and C29.), so there may be some reserve yet. I would assume that somebody would go "deeper" to get maximum out of his build (I would ;))..? I will buy CD4047 eventually and do my own experiments, but knowing others experiences could move me forward faster.
I didn't touch the original circuitry. I would first try a smaller value for C29 and see what happens.
If I find a 4046 in my stash I'll protoboard the Hollis clock and see how clean it is (duty cycle, etc.) when viewed on a 'scope (later).
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on June 23, 2010, 01:29:35 PM... If I find a 4046 in my stash I'll protoboard the Hollis clock and see how clean it is (duty cycle, etc.) when viewed on a 'scope (later).
That would be great! If possible, perhaps you might compare two buffers with three, to see if there is any advantage.
I think when I do another gig, I'll announce that my ADA uses a 4047 clock which is voltage controlled by a 4007 just in case anybody has taken to gin for fear that it's a 4046 :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol: