A few questions:
1. Referring to the MN3007 ADA Flanger clone PCB I recently recieved from moosapotamus, is it OK to use a CD4049UBE chip for IC9? I ask because I remember that there is a buffered and unbuffered version of that chip, but I don't know if it matters for this circuit or not. The parts list does not specify anything other than "CD4049".
2. On the 18V wall wart, what mA rating is required?
3. Has anyone had any problems with popping noises occurring when adding an LED to the bypass switch?
4. Is the heat sink on the LM7815 really necessary? All of the real ADA Flangers that I have been inside of never had a heat sink on the power regulator.
5. Is there any advantage to using an LM324 for IC1, IC2 & IC3 over using a TL074?
6. Where do you get a 500K reverse log pot from? Small Bear?
7. On the 2N4393 FET, has anyone used something else that works besides that FET? I only ask out of curiosity because I recently repaired a broken ADA Flanger for someone, and the original LS4393 turned out to be the culprit (or appeared to be), and when I tried to use any other FET with similar specs to the LS4393, it wouldn't work - including the 2N4393. The only FET that would work was a J201. I just want to be prepared for a Plan B in case I have the same experience with my clone that I am building right now...
1: 4049UBE is fine.
2: I'd say 18V@100ma is more than adequate.
3: No pops. Use a high brightness LED w/a large current limiting R.
4: No.
5: LM324 uses a bit less current. Not really much of an advantage in this case.
6: Yes, Steve has them.
7: In J201 we trust.
Enjoy!
Dave
Thanks! I can't wait to get it up and running. :icon_razz:
Hey Paul, it's good to see you excited about building again. Let us know how it goes. I wouldn't mind trying to build one using a 4049 also. I'm not sure how to do it myself.
Quote from: oldrocker on February 19, 2009, 09:05:21 PM
Hey Paul, it's good to see you excited about building again. Let us know how it goes. I wouldn't mind trying to build one using a 4049 also. I'm not sure how to do it myself.
Well, don't expect me to building a bunch of stuff. I already am helping someone wire up their one the guitar pedals in their product line for money since my hours were cut at work last year, so I'm only building stuff that is really worthwhile. This is one of those types of projects. :icon_wink:
Not to mention that I have a "full-time" job of 36 hours a week, playing on the church music team & doing a little studio work here and there, in addition to being a dad and a husband. I'm busy enough! :icon_eek: :icon_lol:
Charlie, I have another question.
In reading the calibration and setup instructions on your website, it says to use a frequency counter. I don't have one of those. Is there any other way to calibrate, and if not, can anyone recommend a good, relatively cheap one?
Thanks
Your ears :icon_biggrin:
That's good, my ears are cheap, and I have two of them.
Is there a specific order to adjust the trimpots, or should I just use the order that's laid out in the Calibration and Setup sheet?
Quote from: StephenGiles on February 22, 2009, 11:04:08 AM
Your ears :icon_biggrin:
+1 on that. Just realize the trimpots are
very interactive. You'll have to go back and forth between them to get it "just right".
I would start with T4 & T5 centered and take it from there. Be patient and trust your ears.
;)
Thanks,
Do the trimpot numbers on the PCB match up with trimpot numbering in the A/DA calibration sheet? They don't seem to.
T4 & T5 of this schematic:
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/ADAflangerSCHmn3007.GIF
Is there a test point for the cancel trim? I dont have my board in front of me but Im guessing its going to be on an IC rather than a dedicated point on the board.
I guess my question really is what does each trimmer do, and how do I know if it is the correct range? With six trimpots and five external knobs, it's a little difficult to set it "by ear" if I don't at least have some idea what each trimmer is supposed to adjust and what I can expect each knob to do. I don't have an original A/DA flanger to compare it to, so I'm a little lost here.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on February 22, 2009, 12:08:53 PM
Quote from: StephenGiles on February 22, 2009, 11:04:08 AM
Your ears :icon_biggrin:
+1 on that. Just realize the trimpots are very interactive. You'll have to go back and forth between them to get it "just right".
I would start with T4 & T5 centered and take it from there. Be patient and trust your ears.
;)
Yeah, that's basically what I did on the last two ADA Flangers that I have repaired. It just takes a little bit of patience.
Quote from: neil411 on February 22, 2009, 05:50:40 PM
I guess my question really is what does each trimmer do, and how do I know if it is the correct range? With six trimpots and five external knobs, it's a little difficult to set it "by ear" if I don't at least have some idea what each trimmer is supposed to adjust and what I can expect each knob to do. I don't have an original A/DA flanger to compare it to, so I'm a little lost here.
The schematics specify what the trimpots do. You can get some idea about what they do by their descriptions.
I'll go through my notes/files and post some answers/suggestions as soon as I can. In the mean time search "A/DA+flanger" (type it in with the quotes and the +); there is enough there to answer many questions.
Happy reading!
Dave
PS: Brew a large pot of strong coffee. :icon_eek:
Quote from: Paul Marossy on February 19, 2009, 11:37:41 AM
A few questions:
5. Is there any advantage to using an LM324 for IC1, IC2 & IC3 over using a TL074?
Isn't the LM324 part of achieving that signature wide sweep LFO?
The TL0xx series are JFET input op amps.
thanks oldschool,
I have been tweaking it. I read the original A/DA owners manual and that helped me understand what each knob was supposed to do, although the sample settings they show don't work with my build at all.
It also seems that the range and manual knobs have a really narrow useful range, way less than the full sweep, more like 1/10th of the full sweep, and a very small movement makes a huOrge change in the sound. It seems that one of the trim pots might make the range wider. Or is that the way it's supposed to work?
Quote from: neil411 on February 22, 2009, 07:40:45 PM
thanks oldschool,
I have been tweaking it. I read the original A/DA owners manual and that helped me understand what each knob was supposed to do, although the sample settings they show don't work with my build at all.
It also seems that the range and manual knobs have a really narrow useful range, way less than the full sweep, more like 1/10th of the full sweep, and a very small movement makes a huOrge change in the sound. It seems that one of the trim pots might make the range wider. Or is that the way it's supposed to work?
Sounds like something is wrong. Did you use the right pot tapers and values?
Quote from: Jason M. on February 22, 2009, 07:38:42 PM
Quote from: Paul Marossy on February 19, 2009, 11:37:41 AM
A few questions:
5. Is there any advantage to using an LM324 for IC1, IC2 & IC3 over using a TL074?
Isn't the LM324 part of achieving that signature wide sweep LFO?
The TL0xx series are JFET input op amps.
I don't know the answer with absolute certainty, but comparing data sheets, the TL074 has a much higher slew rate and twice the bandwidth of the LM324. It would seem to actually be a better IC chip to use than the LM324...
Nitefly,
Yes, I have the right parts. I have been playing with it some more, and I didn't have the threshold up high enough. Now the range and manual make more of a difference. I think I can get even more with a little trim pot adjustment. I'm starting to figure out how the thing works.
Yeah its a little more complicated than the average build ;)
A/DA Flanger (mn3007) distortion
« on: Today at 05:56:41 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just built one of the flangers from the new board, and i'm having an issue with it distorting. if i have the range and manual knobs below 50% it works fine, but anything about that and the top of the sweep distorts a lot. i've tweaked the bias trim and the sweep trims a ton and i can't seem to get rid of the white noise/distortion that's occuring. any thoughts on what could be going on?
Try adjusting TR6. This controls the level of the BBD output. I might be set too "hot". Also, what signal source are you feeding it? A bit more info would help alot. I'm at work now. More later...
as far as what i'm feeding it, i'm just playing a strat straight into it. i was able to minimize the distortion a bit more but there's still and audible slightly distorted LFO sweep in the background. is that normal?
More than the gate can resolve?
well the threshold knob gets rid of it when i'm not playing but it can be heard in the background when i strum at all. it's not bad but it's definitely present.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on February 23, 2009, 07:17:19 PM
More than the gate can resolve?
I didn't nother with the gate - the noise is all part of a flanger to me. Try changing R13 to the BBD bias trim to 4k7 which should provide a better range to trim out the distortion.
Just revisitiing the TL074 vs. LM324 IC chip question again. The one thing that the LM324 claims on the data sheet is that it has a "high voltage gain" of 100dB, and the TL074 data sheet does not a specify voltage gain or at least I don't know where to look for that info on the data sheet. I didn't see it anywhere.
So, I'm thinking that perhaps the LM324 is what is needed if a TL072 does not have similar voltage gain characteristics as a lower gain may make the effect less "intense". I have some LM324s coming from Mouser, so maybe I can do an A/B test to see if there is a really audible difference between them.
Comments and/or opinions?
LM324 can go to gnd!
(TL074 has an AVD (large-signal differential voltage amplification) specified as: "V/mV" (~200) ).
Quote from: StephenGiles on February 24, 2009, 06:48:23 AM
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on February 23, 2009, 07:17:19 PM
More than the gate can resolve?
I didn't nother with the gate - the noise is all part of a flanger to me. Try changing R13 to the BBD bias trim to 4k7 which should provide a better range to trim out the distortion.
"nother" how's your nothering missus? I meant bother!!
Quote from: puretube on February 24, 2009, 12:00:27 PM
LM324 can go to gnd!
(TL074 has an AVD (large-signal differential voltage amplification) specified as: "V/mV" (~200) ).
Pardon my ignorance, what does that mean? Does that mean that the TL074 has more gain than the LM324?
Look at the "real" A/DA schematics (with a grain of salt, of course). Revs 3,4 & Rev. D (the one w/SAD1024). No where in the audio path can an LM324 be found. 1/2 LM 324 is used in the gate circuitry in all 3 revs. The other 1/2 is used in the CV circuitry. A variety op op amps can be found in the audio section. 3403, 1458, 4741, 1458, 348 seem to be the ones specified (depending on the rev.) The LFO is a 1458 in all 3 revs. That's the "paper" side of things. In my 3010 based reissue things are a bit different. There is one LM324 (1/2 is the LFO, I haven't traced where the other 1/2 goes) and all the rest are TL074's & TL072's. I've used/tested TL072/4, LM324, OPA4228, MC33174, in audio portions of my A/DA builds. All with good success. No excessive noise issues. For the LFO I've used LM2904's & MC33172's. Chosen for low current consumption; they both work fine. So, what am I getting at?
Many roads lead to Rome. Try a variety of op amps and use what you've convinced yourself sounds best. Or; just use what you have on hand at the time. That's why I tried the OPA4228. By the way, it doesn't sound any better than a TL074 in this circuit.
More later...
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on February 24, 2009, 02:10:22 PM
Look at the "real" A/DA schematics (with a grain of salt, of course). Revs 3,4 & Rev. D (the one w/SAD1024). No where in the audio path can an LM324 be found. 1/2 LM 324 is used in the gate circuitry in all 3 revs. The other 1/2 is used in the CV circuitry. A variety op op amps can be found in the audio section. 3403, 1458, 4741, 1458, 348 seem to be the ones specified (depending on the rev.) The LFO is a 1458 in all 3 revs. That's the "paper" side of things. In my 3010 based reissue things are a bit different. There is one LM324 (1/2 is the LFO, I haven't traced where the other 1/2 goes) and all the rest are TL074's & TL072's. I've used/tested TL072/4, LM324, OPA4228, MC33174, in audio portions of my A/DA builds. All with good success. No excessive noise issues. For the LFO I've used LM2904's & MC33172's. Chosen for low current consumption; they both work fine. So, what am I getting at?
Many roads lead to Rome. Try a variety of op amps and use what you've convinced yourself sounds best. Or; just use what you have on hand at the time. That's why I tried the OPA4228. By the way, it doesn't sound any better than a TL074 in this circuit.
More later...
Thanks for clearing that up. I only ask this because on this bill of materials, http://www.moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/ADAflanger_MN3007_BOM.htm, it states that IC-1, IC-2 & IC-3 are all LM324s...
I do have the Rev 3 & Rev 4 schematics and know about the other IC chips that have been used in the earlier versions of the real ADA Flangers, I have all of those data sheets printed out and in my ever-growing ADA Flanger file. Anyhow, the newer IC chips clearly outperform what they had available in the late 70s/early 80s.
Well, my MN3007 IC chips came in the mail today. I put one in and the circuit started up with no problems... whew! I was hoping that I wouldn't have to do any troubleshooting as it's a pretty complicated circuit. A little tweaking of the trimpots and it's working nicely. Just a couple of small bugs to work out, but overall I am very happy with it. It really has a pretty wide range of sounds and effects, very fun little toy! :icon_razz:
One of those small bugs is that I can hear a bit of a slight distortion in some parts of the sweep with the knobs at certain settings. Is that normal?
Also, on some parts of the sweep, I can hear a very high pitched "whine" with my head phones on. I would guess that it's somewhere around 20-22kHz. Is that "normal"? I tweaked all of the trimpots to make everything sound as good as possible, but that whine is still there. It may not be audible when playing thru an amp, though. I'll have to do a little more testing...
Quote from: Paul Marossy on March 02, 2009, 09:56:29 PM
Well, my MN3007 IC chips came in the mail today. I put one in and the circuit started up with no problems... whew! I was hoping that I wouldn't have to do any troubleshooting as it's a pretty complicated circuit. A little tweaking of the trimpots and it's working nicely. Just a couple of small bugs to work out, but overall I am very happy with it. It really has a pretty wide range of sounds and effects, very fun little toy! :icon_razz:
One of those small bugs is that I can hear a bit of a slight distortion in some parts of the sweep with the knobs at certain settings. Is that normal?
Also, on some parts of the sweep, I can hear a very high pitched "whine" with my head phones on. I would guess that it's somewhere around 20-22kHz. Is that "normal"? I tweaked all of the trimpots to make everything sound as good as possible, but that whine is still there. It may not be audible when playing thru an amp, though. I'll have to do a little more testing...
You are getting clock bleed which means you have the clock frequency set too high. Try tweaking TR4.
My build has some clipping as well. That seems to be a typical issue I think.
Quote from: Nitefly182 on March 02, 2009, 11:14:51 PM
Quote from: Paul Marossy on March 02, 2009, 09:56:29 PM
Well, my MN3007 IC chips came in the mail today. I put one in and the circuit started up with no problems... whew! I was hoping that I wouldn't have to do any troubleshooting as it's a pretty complicated circuit. A little tweaking of the trimpots and it's working nicely. Just a couple of small bugs to work out, but overall I am very happy with it. It really has a pretty wide range of sounds and effects, very fun little toy! :icon_razz:
One of those small bugs is that I can hear a bit of a slight distortion in some parts of the sweep with the knobs at certain settings. Is that normal?
Also, on some parts of the sweep, I can hear a very high pitched "whine" with my head phones on. I would guess that it's somewhere around 20-22kHz. Is that "normal"? I tweaked all of the trimpots to make everything sound as good as possible, but that whine is still there. It may not be audible when playing thru an amp, though. I'll have to do a little more testing...
You are getting clock bleed which means you have the clock frequency set too high. Try tweaking TR4.
My build has some clipping as well. That seems to be a typical issue I think.
OK, I will give that a second look. Thanks.
Quote from: Nitefly182 on March 02, 2009, 11:14:51 PM
My build has some clipping as well. That seems to be a typical issue I think.
This is starting to confuse me. It really shouldn't be an issue; typical or otherwise. The circuit with the 3007 retrofit board that I tested had no such issues. I sent Charlie the same board to test and he reported no problems. Give me a chance to build mine (I'm waiting for some parts) so I can hear/see what's going on.
Quote from: Paul Marossy on March 02, 2009, 09:56:29 PM
One of those small bugs is that I can hear a bit of a slight distortion in some parts of the sweep with the knobs at certain settings. Is that normal?
What part of the sweep? And what settings? Your observations are greatly appreciated. I need to get to this resolved.
Maybe in the mean time someone with a completed build could either audio probe it or check things out on a 'scope to find out where the distortion/clipping occurs in the circuit?
I'm on the case. Thanks for your patience.
Dave
QuoteWhat part of the sweep? And what settings? Your observations are greatly appreciated. I need to get to this resolved.
Maybe in the mean time someone with a completed build could either audio probe it or check things out on a 'scope to find out where the distortion/clipping occurs in the circuit?
I'm on the case. Thanks for your patience.
Dave
I'll try to make some notes on this sort of stuff after I get home from work today, if I have any time to sit down and mess with it.
BTW, just for the record, I am using a $1.00 thrift store wall wart to power mine - a 12V 500mA wall wart. It puts out around 18V with no load on it.
I purchased a board from Moosapotamus - very nice board too! However I was less than overjoyed when i plugged my guitar in and played it (after setting it up with a frequency counter, a scope and the correct ADA calibration procedures). So - I set to work reading, downloading ALL the ADA schematics I could find and comparing them to the Boss BF2 etc.
Here is what I discovered (the board I am using is the one designed to accomodate the Panasonic MN3007 BBD chip - modified by oldschoolanalog).
The board has an additional 78L05 regulator fitted (silkscreen is 180 degrees wrong for this IC!!!!) to power the CMOS and BBD chips - why!!
I fitted a 47 ohm resistor in it's place (input to output pin on the board) to obtain the much higher headroom available ( the MN3007 is designed to work from + 15v dc anyway!!).
I fitted an additional 22k resistor (track break required) in series with the 10n capacitor and the inverting input of the gain stage immediately following the BBD outputs.
This allows a much deeper flanging effect to be heard (it could be a 20k preset with a 10k in series fitted externally if desired ).
I noticed more than one person on another 38 page thread on this site, complaining about the wobbly unatural and unusable high speed and partial solutions to this problem.
Okay - the original ADA flanger used a SAD1024 and then a MN3010 when the SAD became scarce. Both of these chips can give a 1024 stage delay, HOWEVER, they are both used as 512 stage delays in the ADA Flanger - take a closer look at the schematics - that's right, the inputs and outputs are paralleled in BOTH cases.( the MN3010 is two independent 512 stage delay lines)
The oldschoolanalog suggestion to use the MN3007, which is a single 1024 stage delay line has merit - it is still relatively easy to source and cheap (compared to the MN3005 and MN3010 etc.) BUT because we are now using double the delay line of the ADA Flanger we need to double the clocking speed to get the same results.(perhaps two MN3007 chips stacked would get closer to the MN3010 performance??!!).
The correct clocking speed should now be 69.6KHz to 2600KHz (not 34.8KHz to 1300KHz as in the ADA calibration specsheet)- don't worry the additional current buffers (CD4049) fitted, easily allow the MN3007 to be clocked at this higher speed.
I had to increase the 82k in series with the clock range trim pot to 150k to set the higher clocking speeds.(R65)
In conclusion - after these modifications the TRUE sound of the ADA Flanger was heard at last. I am genuinely surprised that no one has seemed to notice that the MN3007 was double the delay line length required for this circuit though. :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes:
cheers
bajaman
Bajaman,
Correct me if I'm wrong. I count three mods:
1. Get rid of the 15V regulator and put a a 47 ohm resistor in it's place.
2. Add a 22k resistor in series with the 10n cap
3. Replace R65 (82K) with a 150K resistor.
Is that it?
Thanks
:icon_biggrin:
The 7805 is only to be used if you are using an MN32XX type chip that runs on 5v instead of 15v. The delay line issue is interesting. Ill have to try swapping out R65 to see if the clock works out better.
Quote from: Nitefly182 on March 03, 2009, 05:48:05 PM
The 7805 is only to be used if you are using an MN32XX type chip that runs on 5v instead of 15v. The delay line issue is interesting. Ill have to try swapping out R65 to see if the clock works out better.
I'd like to see what the end result of that is also.
Bajaman,
On mod #2, the 22k resistor goes after C37 on the PCB?
I removed the 15v regulator and put in 48 ohm resistor, and I replaced R65 with a 150k resistor.
OMFG
MUCH better.
I am going to wait for clarification before I do anything else, but I can definitely confirm that changing R65 makes a huge improvement.
I'm going to play now before my wife calls me to dinner....
Quote from: neil411 on March 03, 2009, 06:02:35 PM
I removed the 15v regulator and put in 48 ohm resistor, and I replaced R65 with a 150k resistor.
OMFG
MUCH better.
I am going to wait for clarification before I do anything else, but I can definitely confirm that changing R65 makes a huge improvement.
I'm going to play now before my wife calls me to dinner....
It looks like he was taking out the 5v regulator, not the 15v regulator. The 15v IC should stay in place. What difference are you seeing with R65?
Quote from: bajaman on March 03, 2009, 04:31:38 PM
The board has an additional 78L05 regulator fitted (silkscreen is 180 degrees wrong for this IC!!!!) to power the CMOS and BBD chips - why!!
That's a misprint. That should be a 78L09 9V reg. It is there for those who want to try a 3207. It's not supposed to be installed if using a 3007. That's explained in the building notes:
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/ADAflangerPCB_MN3007rev01notes.html
QuoteI fitted an additional 22k resistor (track break required) in series with the 10n capacitor and the inverting input of the gain stage immediately following the BBD outputs.
Thanks for that tip. 8) That's exactly the type of info I was looking for when this was posted:
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=72329.0
QuoteThis allows a much deeper flanging effect to be heard (it could be a 20k preset with a 10k in series fitted externally if desired ).
I'll give it a try. I just wish somebody suggested this before the fact.
QuoteI noticed more than one person on another 38 page thread on this site, complaining about the wobbly unatural and unusable high speed...
This is usually the result of getting used to the controls and wide sonic pallate of this unit. Try turning the range ccw and/or back off on the regen. This flanger is capable of many very nice sounds; it's also capable of some very ugly sounds.
QuoteOkay - the original ADA flanger used a SAD1024 and then a MN3010 when the SAD became scarce. Both of these chips can give a 1024 stage delay, HOWEVER, they are both used as 512 stage delays in the ADA Flanger - take a closer look at the schematics - that's right, the inputs and outputs are paralleled in BOTH cases.( the MN3010 is two independent 512 stage delay lines)
Understood. Which leads us to...
QuoteThe oldschoolanalog suggestion to use the MN3007, which is a single 1024 stage delay line has merit - it is still relatively easy to source and cheap (compared to the MN3005 and MN3010 etc.) BUT because we are now using double the delay line of the ADA Flanger we need to double the clocking speed to get the same results.(perhaps two MN3007 chips stacked would get closer to the MN3010 performance??!!).
Which I pointed out here:
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=72329.0
Reply #4. The need to double the clock f is mentioned there.
QuoteThe correct clocking speed should now be 69.6KHz to 2600KHz (not 34.8KHz to 1300KHz as in the ADA calibration specsheet)- don't worry the additional current buffers (CD4049) fitted, easily allow the MN3007 to be clocked at this higher speed.
In the A/DA calibration sheet these readings are taken at the clock test point. I mentioned that I take clock readings
at the chip. (If you really want I'll dig up a link to substantiate that...) 34.8KHz to 1300KHz at the chip is the same as 69.6KHz to 2600KHz at the test point.
QuoteI had to increase the 82k in series with the clock range trim pot to 150k to set the higher clocking speeds.(R65)
That will be useful to those who encounter that problem. Thanks! I didn't encounter that issue, nor did Charlie. (He clocked it to 1.4MHz [at the chip] IIRC)
QuoteIn conclusion - after these modifications the TRUE sound of the ADA Flanger was heard at last.
And order is restored to the known universe ;D. Thanks Baja! Your expertise is always appreciated!
QuoteI am genuinely surprised that no one has seemed to notice that the MN3007 was double the delay line length required for this circuit though. :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes:
cheers
bajaman
I'm genuinely surprised that nobody saw mention of this back on
Nov. 20, 2008 :o :o :o!
It would seem that there are some misunderstandings that just need to be cleared up. Before picking up a soldering iron,
please read the building notes; with a copy of the schematic & component overlay in hand; this can help clarify things.
I'm gonna go build me something exciting now. Maybe a TS... ::)
Peace y'all...
Dave
PS: cathexis built one of these from the schematic on vero and had none of the issues mentioned. He said it was "by far the quietest one I've played". Check out his build report & sound clips:
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=73715.0
Hi again guys
I have been hangin' out on 'the other forum' for the last couple of years so please excuse me if I have missed anything.
one of "the other forum's" members posted a link to moosapotamus and old schoolanalog's retrofit MN3007 boards for sale.
I purchased one of these boards from moosapotamus - very nice board at a good price too - and decided to build it.
When I had finished it I was a little disappointed in the "ugly sounds" it was producing,. This led me to further research the original ADA Flanger and it's versions.
in the process I read a 38 page thread on the ADA and TZF right here on Diystompboxes. Maybe I missed something but i could not see any reference to doubling the clock speed when using double the delay line length. Maybe I missed it BUT, running the clock at half the neccessary speed is the major reason for the "ugly sounds" encountered by many who have built this latest clone version. Honestly, once you double the clock speed ALL the speed and range settings are pleasant and extremely usable.
Another problem encountered during this build was the threshold circuit operation, although this is the first time I have mentioned this. I have tried 2SK117, 2N3819 and the old favourite here - the J201 :icon_eek: AND none of them work properly with the ADA threshold circuit. I suspect a lot of builders simply leave the fet out and disregard the threshold control function. The problem is without the fet in position the 1 Meg resistor from drain to source is - well 1 Meg in resitance. Consequently the signal level from the BBD and its following inverting gain stage is very large. With the jfet in the circuit this 1 Meg resistor is paralleled by the drain source resistance of the fet and is typically a lot lower than the 1Meg resistance - it is closer to 120 ohms. This provides a large attenuation of the delayed signal unless the threshold level control voltage acts to turn the fet off.
Even with large line level signals processed by the threshold circuit the fet resistance is still very low - typically in the 3.5K ohms region with a 2N3819 n channel jfet. I went as far as replacing the threshold control pot with a 100k linear pot to get the threshold control to actually work at guitar input levels, but this is something i am still working on, and I will let you all know of my findings.
Naturally, there is a great degree of interaction between the threshold level setting and the gain of the inverting stage following the BBD chip - more later :icon_wink:
In the meantime try the mods I suggested in my last post ( it does not matter which side of the 10n capacitor that the 22k resistor is placed :icon_wink:) and double that clock speed for the MN3007 as well as running it from a dropper resistor directly from the 7815 regulator ( toss the 78L05 - it is not needed!)
With regard to using the MN3207 - you will not only need the lower voltage supply but also a completely different layout because it works from a negative NOT a positive ground as the MN3007 runs from :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_wink:
Have fun - more soon!
cheers
bajaman
follow up regarding the threshold circuit, fets etc.
I just spent the last couple of hours playing with the threshold circuit whilst monitoring the waveforms on the scope.
I retained the 100k linear threshold pot (I just could not get the range from a 10k pot).
With the threshold control fully clockwise it is efectively out of the circuit and consequently the fet is turned hard off.
With this setting and a socket for the fet on the board, I tried a range of n channel jfets that I had stock of. None of the different fets tried had any effect on this setting ( I was comparing to no fet at all in the socket :icon_wink:). However, when I turned the threshold control fully counter clockwise the differences were astounding (well interesting perhaps).
First up the J201 - hardly any difference at all from fully clockwise - not suitable :icon_eek:
Next The 2SK117 - slight attenuaton - again not suitable
Then the MPF102 - hardly any attenuation - not suitable
Then the 2SK30 - again not suitable
Then the 2N5457 - very slight attenuation - not suitable
Then the 2N5459 - aha approximately 30% attenuation - looks promising......
BUT when I installed the 2N3819 I got maximum 50% attenuation - ideal - I tried a few more and they all worked fine.
I must get the correct fet LS4393 (or 2N4393) and try it, but for now the 2N3819 works as it should and almost completely attenuates the BBD output leaving just the dry signal.
One interesting discovery along the way - the best flanging effect occurs when the dry and delayed signals are the same intensity. After adding the 22k resistor as I suggested in my earlier post it is neccessary to adjust the trim pot on the output of the BBD (shown as simply TR on moosapotamus schematic) to obtain the same level of delayed signal as the dry signal - this is easy to see on the scope - just set the range control fully counterclockwise and use the manual control to sweep up and down - you will see the delayed signal collapse as you turn the threshold control fully counterclockwise - take a note of the dry signal level. Now turn the threshold control to full clockwise and adjust the trim pot TR until the signal level is now twice the dry level - you may have to sweep the manual control to give a clear picture on the scope.
Try these suggestions and you WILL get a whole range of very usable and satisfying sounds from this Flanger design - On the other hand tweak away in the darkness and you may get some meaningful sounds from within the chaos. Seriously - unless you have a scope and a good digital mulimeter with a frequency counter function on it you are never going to hear the GREAT sound this baby is capable of giving you. :icon_wink:
Cheers
bajaman
bajaman - I fitted an additional 22k resistor (track break required) in series with the 10n capacitor and the inverting input of the gain stage immediately following the BBD outputs.
Do you mean the 100n capacitor by any chance? I can't see a 10n in that part of the circuit - or has the excellent mexican food at our polo club last night affected my eyes!!!!!
sorry :icon_redface: 100n yes
bajaman
Quote from: bajaman on March 04, 2009, 05:43:16 AM
sorry :icon_redface: 100n yes
bajaman
That's a relief!! Here's a link to my drawing of the ADA Flanger showing Mike Irwin's modifications for the MN3010 version to use an SAD 1024. His advice was to leave out the FET and threshold circuitry as noise was not really that much of a problem.
http://www.4shared.com/file/90662621/fc1969ce/ada_MI_1024.html
Almost 6 years has passed since I drew this in Excel - and my arm still aches!
QuoteHis advice was to leave out the FET and threshold circuitry as noise was not really that much of a problem.
But that is NOT what the fet or threshold circuit is all about - read the ADA Flanger users manual - the threshold control is great IF you set it up with the correct fet etc. - it gives a touch sensitivity to the flanged sound - it was never intended for noise reduction :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes:
bajaman
Quote from: bajaman on March 04, 2009, 06:04:02 AM
QuoteHis advice was to leave out the FET and threshold circuitry as noise was not really that much of a problem.
But that is NOT what the fet or threshold circuit is all about - read the ADA Flanger users manual - the threshold control is great IF you set it up with the correct fet etc. - it gives a touch sensitivity to the flanged sound - it was never intended for noise reduction :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_rolleyes:
bajaman
Yes it was, the manual describes it as "A noise eliminating gate". :icon_frown:
I stand corrected - the manual does descibe it as a noise eliminating gate, BUT it works very much like a touch wah when set wrong as far as the manual is concerned and it is this effect that makes it worthwhile. i agree that the flanger is reasonably quiet without it - just illustrating more than one use for it.
See ya - I'm back to "the other forum" now ( you know where that is Stephen :icon_wink: :icon_wink: - that place where we only discuss fuzz boxes, as you once said when you were a member there :icon_razz: :icon_razz:)
bye bye
bajaman
QuoteMaybe I missed it BUT, running the clock at half the neccessary speed is the major reason for the "ugly sounds" encountered by many who have built this latest clone version. Honestly, once you double the clock speed ALL the speed and range settings are pleasant and extremely usable.
So, can you tell those of us who know enough to be dangerous exactly how to double the clock speed on the MN3007 version? IIRC, it's replacing R65 (82K) with 150K, correct?
Quote from: bajaman on March 04, 2009, 07:26:50 AM
I stand corrected - the manual does descibe it as a noise eliminating gate, BUT it works very much like a touch wah when set wrong as far as the manual is concerned and it is this effect that makes it worthwhile. i agree that the flanger is reasonably quiet without it - just illustrating more than one use for it.
See ya - I'm back to "the other forum" now ( you know where that is Stephen :icon_wink: :icon_wink: - that place where we only discuss fuzz boxes, as you once said when you were a member there :icon_razz: :icon_razz:)
bye bye
bajaman
I love it!! Do have a look at the Space Filter thread if you have a moment.
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=37931.40
QuoteSo, can you tell those of us who know enough to be dangerous exactly how to double the clock speed on the MN3007 version? IIRC, it's replacing R65 (82K) with 150K, correct?
This is neccessary to increase the high frequency of the clocking speed. To adjust just follow the ADA calibration procedure (moosapotamus site has it i think) EXACTLY but st the speed range to double what they specify. (34.8KHz becomes 69.6KHz at the bootom end and 1300KHz becomes 2600KHz at the top end)
Do the other mods for the delay level setting and threshold as suggested in my earlier posts and you will hear the ADA Flanger in it's true glory.
If you can get the correct threshold fet (LS4393) all the better. Otherwise use the 2N3819 as a substitute - the J201 is useless in this application :icon_wink:
That's all folks - read and do the mods but PLEASE use a scope and a frequency counter - you are pissin' in the wind taking the bootweak by ear route - save that for your next fuzz box build :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:
happy flangin'
bajaman
Baja,
Thanks VERY much for this help. I have the 2N3819s on the way, and a new DMM with frequency counter is also in my future. But the mods (changing R65 and adding the resistor after C37) have made my build come alive, even if I could only tweak it be ear.
Quote from: bajaman on March 04, 2009, 02:44:55 PM
QuoteSo, can you tell those of us who know enough to be dangerous exactly how to double the clock speed on the MN3007 version? IIRC, it's replacing R65 (82K) with 150K, correct?
This is neccessary to increase the high frequency of the clocking speed. To adjust just follow the ADA calibration procedure (moosapotamus site has it i think) EXACTLY but st the speed range to double what they specify. (34.8KHz becomes 69.6KHz at the bootom end and 1300KHz becomes 2600KHz at the top end)
Do the other mods for the delay level setting and threshold as suggested in my earlier posts and you will hear the ADA Flanger in it's true glory.
If you can get the correct threshold fet (LS4393) all the better. Otherwise use the 2N3819 as a substitute - the J201 is useless in this application :icon_wink:
That's all folks - read and do the mods but PLEASE use a scope and a frequency counter - you are pissin' in the wind taking the bootweak by ear route - save that for your next fuzz box build :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:
happy flangin'
bajaman
OK, but does R65 still have to be replaced? You said something to that effect in an earlier post. From your answer, it sounds like that is a "yes".
I am currently using a 2N4393 FET, which I have been told works in these flanger clones. Seems to work OK, I guess. According to a cross reference sheet I have from the manufacturer of the LS4393, a 2N4393 is supposed to be a substitute for it.
I swapped out R65. The difference was not dramatic. I dont think I could really identify any difference at all.
As I understand the extra resistor ins eries with C37 is supposed to even out the sweep? It really just decreased the fullness of the flange in mine. Reduced the presence of the sweep so it sounds like its in the background a little. I really dont think either mod is making these alleged dramatic differences.
Quote from: Nitefly182 on March 04, 2009, 04:29:33 PM
I swapped out R65. The difference was not dramatic. I dont think I could really identify any difference at all.
As I understand the extra resistor ins eries with C37 is supposed to even out the sweep? It really just decreased the fullness of the flange in mine. Reduced the presence of the sweep so it sounds like its in the background a little. I really dont think either mod is making these alleged dramatic differences.
OK, but what FET are you using?
Quote from: Paul Marossy on March 04, 2009, 04:43:17 PM
Quote from: Nitefly182 on March 04, 2009, 04:29:33 PM
I swapped out R65. The difference was not dramatic. I dont think I could really identify any difference at all.
As I understand the extra resistor ins eries with C37 is supposed to even out the sweep? It really just decreased the fullness of the flange in mine. Reduced the presence of the sweep so it sounds like its in the background a little. I really dont think either mod is making these alleged dramatic differences.
OK, but what FET are you using?
I was using a J201 and it cuts any noise when Im not playing. I have some 2n4393 from older flanger builds that I could drop in. The threshold doesn't really seem to have anything to do with the other two mods Bajaman is recommending.
Im about to upload a video of some noise at one part of the sweep too so I can see if other people have experienced the same sound.
Paul,
I replaced R65 with a 150K resistor, added the 22k resistor in series with C37, and replaced the B10k Threshold pot with a B100k. I had to re-tweak all the trimmers again. There is nothing "alleged" about the improvement from my point of view. I definitely have more usable sounds and a much more dramatic range in the flanging effect.
I have the 2N4393 in place, which is what the 3007 BOM called for.
Quote from: neil411 on March 04, 2009, 04:47:42 PM
Paul,
I replaced R65 with a 150K resistor, added the 22k resistor in series with C37, and replaced the B10k Threshold pot with a B100k. I had to re-tweak all the trimmers again. There is nothing "alleged" about the improvement from my point of view. I definitely have more usable sounds and a much more dramatic range in the flanging effect.
I have the 2N4393 in place, which is what the 3007 BOM called for.
I missed the change to B100k. lets see if that makes the difference.
How many builders of this board have now been able to compare the stock build with the the build after these changes? I am still waiting for some parts, and I'm not sure if I should make these changes before I fire it up for the first time or if I should wait to see what happens. It seems that there are some conflicting reports as to the difference the changes make. Can anyone else side add some data?
OK
2n4393 in. 100k threshold pot in. Threshold pot now works like people say it should and not just how the manual says it should (ie just noise reduction).
I left the series resistor by C37 out. I didn't like that it reduced the perceived mix of the flange.
Here is a video of some funky noise Im getting if anyone has an idea about what its coming from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsbKaK4KhV4
QuoteI left the series resistor by C37 out
Put it back in and adjust the trim pot TR to between 60 -75% rotation clockwise.
Honestly without a scope to see what is going on you are just "pissin' in the wind"
bajaman
Quote from: bajaman on March 04, 2009, 05:28:51 PM
QuoteI left the series resistor by C37 out
Put it back in and adjust the trim pot TR to between 60 -75% rotation clockwise.
Honestly without a scope to see what is going on you are just "pissin' in the wind"
bajaman
There is no "TR" trim. There are TR1-TR6 pots. Are you referring to TR6 which is right before C37? The Clock Nulling trim?
nitefly - I listened to your YouTube clip - it sounds like you have not calibrated it properly - if you do not have a frequency counter function on your DMM - BUY ONE THAT DOES!!!!!!!
If you do not have a scope - take it to someone who does - you have way too much delay level compared to straight signal.
A scope with the range set to fully counterclockwise will confirm this - i assume you ave a signal generator (not a guitar :icon_frown:) to see the waveform.
Honestly without meaning to be condesending or crushing your spirit of DIY, this is NOT a project for knob twiddling bootweakers. if you do not have the calibration procedures correct (don't forget to double the ADA recommendations for clock speeds when using the MN3007 :icon_wink:) access to a signal generator, frequency counter and oscilloscope then you will NEVER get this to work properly - take it to someone who has the tools required.
happy flanging
bajaman
QuoteAre you referring to TR6 which is right before C37? The Clock Nulling trim?
not really a clock nulling trim - more a BBD output level trim - but yes the one right next to the MN3007 :icon_wink:
bajaman
Quote from: bajaman on March 04, 2009, 05:39:56 PM
nitefly - I listened to your YouTube clip - it sounds like you have not calibrated it properly - if you do not have a frequency counter function on your DMM - BUY ONE THAT DOES!!!!!!!
If you do not have a scope - take it to someone who does - you have way too much delay level compared to straight signal.
A scope with the range set to fully counterclockwise will confirm this - i assume you ave a signal generator (not a guitar :icon_frown:) to see the waveform.
Honestly without meaning to be condesending or crushing your spirit of DIY, this is NOT a project for knob twiddling bootweakers. if you do not have the calibration procedures correct (don't forget to double the ADA recommendations for clock speeds when using the MN3007 :icon_wink:) access to a signal generator, frequency counter and oscilloscope then you will NEVER get this to work properly - take it to someone who has the tools required.
happy flanging
bajaman
Kinda funny that I have built 30 of these and everyone loves them so I must be doing something right.
The clock is calibrated to 1.3mhz with the manual control at max and all other controls at minimum. Are you suggesting that the clock be set to 2.6mhz? I tried that and the sound was not nearly as nice. The series resistor with C37 reduced the delay level output which made the flanging much more subtle which was also something I did not like.
OMG - "When it rains it pours!"
bajaman!
Where have you been all our lives!!! Oh, yeah... over at the other forum. ;)
Seriously, if you haven't picked it up from oldschoolanalog's posts... your analyses is exactly the kind of feedback that this A/DA project has needed from the beginning.
I've only read up to this point once, But I plan to go back and try out all your findings and suggestions, too. It is really good to hear that the best can be gotten from this initial MN3007 circuit board with only some minor modifications. I feel that some minor revisions to the circuit layout may be in order and more PCBs will be in the future, too! 8)
Awesome!
~ Charlie
Quote from: bajaman on March 04, 2009, 01:37:35 AM
With regard to using the MN3207 - you will not only need the lower voltage supply but also a completely different layout because it works from a negative NOT a positive ground as the MN3007 runs from :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_wink:
Just a minor clarification... As OSA mentioned, There is an error in the schematic... Q2 should be 78L09. And there are pads for jumpers in the layout that allow you to reverse the power/ground connections as needed if you want to try using a 3207 instead of the 3007. The details are outlined in the build notes. Post if you have any questions about that.
ITMT - I'm checking out bajaman's recommendations. 8)
~ Charlie
Quote from: Nitefly182 on March 04, 2009, 05:47:24 PM
The clock is calibrated to 1.3mhz with the manual control at max and all other controls at minimum. Are you suggesting that the clock be set to 2.6mhz? I tried that and the sound was not nearly as nice.
Note bajamans advice to follow the A/DA calibration procedure exactly.
Here: http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAcalibration.jpg
Quote from: bajaman on March 04, 2009, 02:44:55 PM
...To adjust just follow the ADA calibration procedure (moosapotamus site has it i think) EXACTLY but set the speed range to double what they specify. (34.8KHz becomes 69.6KHz at the bootom end and 1300KHz becomes 2600KHz at the top end)
Take note that A/DA says to take this reading at Pin 13 of IC6 (4047); the clock test point (see A/DA rev 3&4 schematics).
This will give you a 2 phase clock of 34.8KHz to 1300KHz at pins 10 & 11 of IC6.
Exactly double the 2 phase clock of 17.4KHz to 650KHz that is specified by A/DA on the Rev 4 schematic.
My apologies for not making this more clear a long time ago. :icon_redface:
This recent discussion brings some questions to mind: can someone who doesn't have a scope or (has yet to build) a signal generator get this flanger working properly without clock noise or other nasty sounding artefacts? It looks as if at the very least a DMM with frequency counting ability is needed. Will someone using this board with all of the exact parts listed on the BOM be able to get close by following someone else's settings on the trim pots--close enough to tweak into good working order?
Quote from: Tantalum7 on March 05, 2009, 01:34:18 AM
This recent discussion brings some questions to mind: can someone who doesn't have a scope or (has yet to build) a signal generator get this flanger working properly without clock noise or other nasty sounding artefacts? It looks as if at the very least a DMM with frequency counting ability is needed. Will someone using this board with all of the exact parts listed on the BOM be able to get close by following someone else's settings on the trim pots--close enough to tweak into good working order?
By all means you can get the pedal to produce awesome flanging without a scope although the frequency counter is a big help. Its the last 5% that the scope is going to make happen as far as I can tell.
Thanks. To think that for just a few dollars more I could have gotten the DMM -WITH- the frequency counter. When will I need that, I asked myself. Hindsight...alas. Still, when I do get a scope or access to one, I can dial that last little bit in properly. Who knows, maybe I'll never even notice the difference.
I'm not convinced, let's hear some samples.
Quote from: StephenGiles on March 05, 2009, 02:52:28 AM
I'm not convinced, let's hear some samples.
Youre not convinced of what?
Quote from: Nitefly182 on March 05, 2009, 03:44:27 AM
Quote from: StephenGiles on March 05, 2009, 02:52:28 AM
I'm not convinced, let's hear some samples.
Whatever difference the use of a frequency counter makes.
Youre not convinced of what?
Back when I built the SAD1024 version, I only initially used the frequency counter in my DMM to set the sweep range. Using the freq counter also helped me see what the trim pots were really doing. But eventually I ended up tuning the sweep by ear to get it exactly where I liked it. 8)
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on March 05, 2009, 08:01:33 AM
Back when I built the SAD1024 version, I only initially used the frequency counter in my DMM to set the sweep range. Using the freq counter also helped me see what the trim pots were really doing. But eventually I ended up tuning the sweep by ear to get it exactly where I liked it. 8)
~ Charlie
That's the whole point, "exactly where I liked it" - which is where I come from.
Well, further inspection revealed that my DMM does have a frequency counter. So "where I like it" will be about the best I can do until I track down one of my colleagues with a scope (I won't track them down with the scope, but you get my point) :icon_biggrin: Since I'm not about to go on tour or record a major album this week, that should do fine.
OK, so as suggested by some other builders of the MN3007 ADA Flanger clone, to get a much better sounding and more useable unit, I changed R65 from an 82K to 150K, added a 22K resistor in series with C37 and changed the Threshold pot from 10K to 100K.
Last night I followed the ADA calibration procedure, did the frequency counter thing and looked at the waveforms on the scope to make it as symmetrical as possible and all that. I thought I had it sounding pretty good doing everything by ear, but when I followed ADA's original calibration procedure, it went from sounding OK to sounding fantastic! :icon_razz:
I didn't think flanging could be so good. :icon_eek: :icon_redface: :icon_lol:
Quote from: Paul Marossy on March 06, 2009, 08:51:04 AM
OK, so as suggested by some other builders of the MN3007 ADA Flanger clone, to get a much better sounding and more useable unit, I changed R65 from an 82K to 150K, added a 22K resistor in series with C37 and changed the Threshold pot from 10K to 100K.
Last night I followed the ADA calibration procedure, did the frequency counter thing and looked at the waveforms on the scope to make it as symmetrical as possible and all that. I thought I had it sounding pretty good doing everything by ear, but when I followed ADA's original calibration procedure, it went from sounding OK to sounding fantastic! :icon_razz:
I didn't think flanging could be so good. :icon_eek: :icon_redface: :icon_lol:
I'd love to hear a sample or two if you have the time. I have the house to myself on Sunday afternoon so it won't matter if I make setting up noises :icon_biggrin:
Quote from: StephenGiles on March 06, 2009, 09:46:38 AM
Quote from: Paul Marossy on March 06, 2009, 08:51:04 AM
OK, so as suggested by some other builders of the MN3007 ADA Flanger clone, to get a much better sounding and more useable unit, I changed R65 from an 82K to 150K, added a 22K resistor in series with C37 and changed the Threshold pot from 10K to 100K.
Last night I followed the ADA calibration procedure, did the frequency counter thing and looked at the waveforms on the scope to make it as symmetrical as possible and all that. I thought I had it sounding pretty good doing everything by ear, but when I followed ADA's original calibration procedure, it went from sounding OK to sounding fantastic! :icon_razz:
I didn't think flanging could be so good. :icon_eek: :icon_redface: :icon_lol:
It's lots of fun, this MN3007 flanger clone! :icon_cool:
I'd love to hear a sample or two if you have the time. I have the house to myself on Sunday afternoon so it won't matter if I make setting up noises :icon_biggrin:
I'll see if I can record something this weekend that shows all the variety of sounds possible. I even found one setting that has a bit of a sitar-ish quality to it, which is really cool.
I think a lot of the music I have listened to in the past has made use of the ADA Flanger, there are a lot of familiar sounds which I can't quite put my finger on when it comes to naming tunes or who did them, but the same textural quality is there. Anyway... when I'm playing thru it, there's a very familiar and pleasant quality to it, and it's a sound that I haven't been able to get until now.
Many thanks
Quote from: Paul Marossy on March 06, 2009, 08:51:04 AM
OK, so as suggested by some other builders of the MN3007 ADA Flanger clone, to get a much better sounding and more useable unit, I changed R65 from an 82K to 150K, added a 22K resistor in series with C37 and changed the Threshold pot from 10K to 100K.
Last night I followed the ADA calibration procedure, did the frequency counter thing and looked at the waveforms on the scope to make it as symmetrical as possible and all that. I thought I had it sounding pretty good doing everything by ear, but when I followed ADA's original calibration procedure, it went from sounding OK to sounding fantastic! :icon_razz:
What did you end up changing when you actually did follow the calibration procedures? Could you list your rough trim pot settings now that it's sounding great? I won't have access to a scope for a bit, and I'm hoping that I can get something decent with just the frequency counter. Thanks.
Quote from: Tantalum7 on March 06, 2009, 05:07:47 PM
Quote from: Paul Marossy on March 06, 2009, 08:51:04 AM
OK, so as suggested by some other builders of the MN3007 ADA Flanger clone, to get a much better sounding and more useable unit, I changed R65 from an 82K to 150K, added a 22K resistor in series with C37 and changed the Threshold pot from 10K to 100K.
Last night I followed the ADA calibration procedure, did the frequency counter thing and looked at the waveforms on the scope to make it as symmetrical as possible and all that. I thought I had it sounding pretty good doing everything by ear, but when I followed ADA's original calibration procedure, it went from sounding OK to sounding fantastic! :icon_razz:
What did you end up changing when you actually did follow the calibration procedures? Could you list your rough trim pot settings now that it's sounding great? I won't have access to a scope for a bit, and I'm hoping that I can get something decent with just the frequency counter. Thanks.
I didn't really change anything on the calibration procedure, I pretty much followed it exactly. You really need a scope to get the waveform as symmetrical as possible when adjusting the BBD bias as there's a very small range where you hit the "sweet spot", where it sounds like it really comes alive.
Thanks. I guess I'll have to track down someone with a scope then. Just knowing how good it could sound is enticing enough to want to do it right.
I uploaded an off-the-cuff soundclip of my flanger clone here: http://improvisingguitarists.ning.com/profiles/profile/show?id=28c2tt8oagi7d - It's #42 on the music player, at the very bottom. A bad patch cord made the stereo signal cut out on the left channel a couple of times, sorry about that. :icon_confused:
One thing about my build is that the effected output level seems to be a little low, IMO. I changed out the two resistors R41 & R42 to 33K as suggested in the build notes, but the output level compared to the bypassed singnal level still seems a bit low to me. Is this something that is common to all flangers?
Paul, I changed R41 and R42 to 27K and added the A10k pot as a volume knob. I can turn the volume down to nothing, and up to better than unity, but it's still not a loud pedal.
Quote from: neil411 on March 09, 2009, 09:11:01 AM
Paul, I changed R41 and R42 to 27K and added the A10k pot as a volume knob. I can turn the volume down to nothing, and up to better than unity, but it's still not a loud pedal.
OK, then it sounds like it's probably "normal" then. For the ADA Flanger clone at least.
How nice to hear an undistorted guitar :icon_biggrin: Yes, the sample sounds perfectly normal for an ADA - I must have good ears!!
Quote from: StephenGiles on March 09, 2009, 03:54:58 PM
How nice to hear an undistorted guitar :icon_biggrin: Yes, the sample sounds perfectly normal for an ADA - I must have good ears!!
Cool, sounds like I am on the right track then. I haven't played around with real ADA Flangers much, I've only tweaked and/or repaired them for other guitarists...
Quote from: Paul Marossy on March 09, 2009, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: StephenGiles on March 09, 2009, 03:54:58 PM
How nice to hear an undistorted guitar :icon_biggrin: Yes, the sample sounds perfectly normal for an ADA - I must have good ears!!
Cool, sounds like I am on the right track then. I haven't played around with real ADA Flangers much, I've only tweaked and/or repaired them for other guitarists...
NO, I'm just going on the two I built and the two I breadboarded - very nice sample/
Quote from: StephenGiles on March 09, 2009, 05:34:00 PM
Quote from: Paul Marossy on March 09, 2009, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: StephenGiles on March 09, 2009, 03:54:58 PM
How nice to hear an undistorted guitar :icon_biggrin: Yes, the sample sounds perfectly normal for an ADA - I must have good ears!!
Cool, sounds like I am on the right track then. I haven't played around with real ADA Flangers much, I've only tweaked and/or repaired them for other guitarists...
NO, I'm just going on the two I built and the two I breadboarded - very nice sample/
Oh, OK. Thanks!
I finally got my A/DA clone wired up, but something odd seems to be happening. Every time I begin to power it up, R62 starts to burn up. This is a resistor that seems to be part of a voltage divider from V+ along with the max clock trim pot. It's attached to pins 4 and 10 of the IC3 LM324 op amp. About the only thing I was able to measure before the resistor started smoking was the voltage of pin3 of the voltage regulator. I had a full 18VDC going in and pin 3 was reading just under 15VDC so IC7 seems to be doing it's job. Any suggestions? I replaced the resistor and guaranteed that the replacement was the correct value (47R) and it burned up just as fast. Thanks.
Burning up resistor = too much current flowing through the resistor. From looking at the schematic, it seems that this can only be due to the series resistance to ground being really small (or nonexistent), or IC3 sourcing too much current for some reason. I would remove IC3 (if it's convenient), and measure the resistance to ground from the junction of R62 and R63. With the IC out, it should read about 60k. If it's a dead short, there's your problem, and you should look for solder bridges. Other than that, I don't know if electrolytic caps or op-amps can fail in such a way as to produce a short, but if so, C26 and IC3 would seem to be your best candidates.
Since I had written my question, I noticed that I had omitted the SPDT switch. I'm not sure if this could contribute directly to the problem, but it can't help. I just installed that switch and replaced R62 again. I'll try your suggestions and see what I get. Thanks again for the rapid response. I ordered duplicates on every component just in case anything got fried from my mistakes.
s
Problem solved. IC3 was in backwards. All the other ICs face in the opposite direction, and I installed the the socket correctly, but the chip was reversed. Thanks for the help.
Quote from: Tantalum7 on March 11, 2009, 02:27:06 AM
Problem solved. IC3 was in backwards. All the other ICs face in the opposite direction, and I installed the the socket correctly, but the chip was reversed. Thanks for the help.
Easily done, I reverse wired power to my last LM324 on Sunday - result.........misery!
Where is the layout for this if I want to etch a board? ???
Thanks
Joe
Quote from: Tantalum7 on March 11, 2009, 02:27:06 AM
Problem solved. IC3 was in backwards. All the other ICs face in the opposite direction, and I installed the the socket correctly, but the chip was reversed. Thanks for the help.
Yeah, I might have done the same thing if I hadn't looked at the component layouts on the original ADA schematics so much while repairing and/or tweaking some real ADA Flangers for people! It's the only one on the PCB that's "upside down".
Having recovered from the reversed IC problem, I find myself with another dilemma. I can't seem to be able to set the clock frequency correctly. Before I get too far in, let me make sure I'm not doing something completely stupid. In reading the clock frequency with my DMM, I connect the black lead to ground on the board and use the red probe to check the freq. at pin 13 of IC6, correct? Assuming this is the right way, I can't seem to get the TR5 to be able to stabilize on 34.8khz unless I also tweak TR4 a bit. Then when I go to set the max frequency with TR4 it won't reach 1.3Mhz. Also, if I try to check the range, the frequency seems to oscillate at both extremes of the range pot. Has anyone else encountered this? If these questions seem a bit simplistic it's probably because I've only got a few builds under my belt and nothing quite this complex.
Thanks,
s
Anyone have any suggestions at all about my clock frequency problems? Am I even close?
I had to get a real good ground connection, I found I couldn't get a good reading by just holding the ground probe to ground. I had to use a short connector with alligator clips at both ends to connect the black probe to the ground (that also freed up one hand). I connected to the ground lug on output plug.
There is a test point on the PCB just above IC6 marked "TP". Use that and you will know that you are checking the correct pin on the IC.
I had to use double the frequency as Bajaman suggested.
JoeGuitar, there is no layout, we all purchased a board from moosapotamus.
Quote from: neil411 on March 12, 2009, 03:32:03 PM
JoeGuitar, there is no layout, we all purchased a board from moosapotamus.
Yes, but if you are resourceful, you could make one using this as a guide (I personally wouldn't attempt it, though): http://www.moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/ADAflangerOVRmn3007.GIF
Don't forget that it is double sided, so you have to run wires for all of those tracks on the component side of the PCB.
Excellent. Thanks. That's what I need to get started tracking down any issues I may have. I wasn't sure what test point people were referring to before. It seems that the frequency at the chip is supposed to be half what bajaman suggested for the frequency at the test point according to previous discussion. I'll see if I can get a constant frequency there. I was having some issues of the frequency sweeping during one test procedure. Does it matter whether the flanger is switched on or in bypass when checking the frequency?
One last stupid question. What is JK1 for and does this jack have to be connected for the flanger to operate properly?
RE: JK1 - scratched my head on that one for a while too. That's for using an expression pedal with the Flanger. Requires a stereo jack, and my understanding is that you do not need to connect it for the pedal to work - but don't quote me on that.
I'm still confused about the frequency numbers. That was not clearly addressed in this thread AFAIC. I couldn't get the 34.8k/1.3m numbers, but I could get the 69.6k and 2.6m, so I went with that.
Maybe someone else could address that issue again and make it more clear for us non electrical engineer types. :icon_wink:
I thought the Neovibe was a tough build until I built this thing.
Quote from: neil411 on March 12, 2009, 03:59:11 PM
Maybe someone else could address that issue again and make it more clear for us non electrical engineer types. :icon_wink:
There was some discussion in this thread before about why the two test point and pin 13 should have different frequencies, but a quick refresher would be greatly appreciated.
Okay, that's what I suspected about JK1, but I didn't really know if it had to be connected or at least jumpered to get a working flanger.
RE: JK1
Note that the Manual control will not work if you simply do not install a stereo switching type jack, as drawn in the schematic. If you do not want to install a jack, you will need to install a jumper between pad Sw and pad S so that the wiper of the manual pot is connected to R53.
Installing the jack and being able to sweep the flanger however you want with a foot pedal is pretty cool, tho. Check out Mouser PN 502-13B. 8)
~ Charlie
On the schematic it looked like something had to be connected there to get the manual pot working. I'll jumper it to see if I'm finally able to calibrate it correctly now. It didn't seem as if the manual pot was doing much. I think this tells me why. Thanks for that critical bit of info.
s
I finally have flanging. I made all the recommended changes of resistor values and cut the necessary trace, but it's still difficult to get the max and min frequencies to stabilize. Even with back and forth tweaking between TR5 and TR4 it seems as if either I can get the 69.6kHz or 2600kHz, but not quite both at the same time--close, but not exact. Also, TR3 seems to be difficult to set because the frequency is sweeping through it's range. I'll have to see what happens next week when I can get access to a scope.
Thanks for all the help and patience.
Quote from: Paul Marossy on March 12, 2009, 03:37:36 PM
Quote from: neil411 on March 12, 2009, 03:32:03 PM
JoeGuitar, there is no layout, we all purchased a board from moosapotamus.
Yes, but if you are resourceful, you could make one using this as a guide (I personally wouldn't attempt it, though): http://www.moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/ADAflangerOVRmn3007.GIF
Don't forget that it is double sided, so you have to run wires for all of those tracks on the component side of the PCB.
I actually successfully made one of the old ones, and then made a new double sided one. didn't get my top and bottom lined up perfectly so there would have been some trouble areas. Scrapped the whole thing and bought one instead.
So. Who wants to calibrate mine for me? Someone with a scope and frequency counter willing to calibrate mine if I ship it to you? I finished the MN3207 version, 15V regulated supply with 9V for the BBD. Works and sounds freakishly because I don't know what the crap I'm doing with all those dials.
If anyone's willing to do this for me (I"ll ship it to you and back to me) please let me know!
Veroboard my friend - that presents none of these problems :icon_biggrin:
Quote from: StephenGiles on March 14, 2009, 07:25:29 AM
Veroboard my friend - that presents none of these problems :icon_biggrin:
Don't mean to sound harsh, but unless you are listening to the ADA through headphones with no other instruments, I don't believe you will hear any difference.
On adjusting the clock:
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on March 04, 2009, 11:19:44 PM
Note bajamans advice to follow the A/DA calibration procedure exactly.
Here: http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAcalibration.jpg
Quote from: bajaman on March 04, 2009, 02:44:55 PM
...To adjust just follow the ADA calibration procedure (moosapotamus site has it i think) EXACTLY but set the speed range to double what they specify. (34.8KHz becomes 69.6KHz at the bootom end and 1300KHz becomes 2600KHz at the top end)
Take note that A/DA says to take this reading at Pin 13 of IC6 (4047); the clock test point (see A/DA rev 3&4 schematics).
This will give you a 2 phase clock of 34.8KHz to 1300KHz at pins 10 & 11 of IC6.
Exactly double the 2 phase clock of 17.4KHz to 650KHz that is specified by A/DA on the Rev 4 schematic.
Note TR4 & TR5 are very interactive. Exercise patience and you'll be OK ;).
Also realize the "test point" (Pin 13 IC6) may not be a 50% duty cycle making readings potentially difficult (depending on your test equipment).
However, taking the clock f readings at the BBD assures you of a nice buffered clock with (hopefully) a 50% duty cycle.
Your choice...
I'm still confused.
What is the clock speed I should get at the test point?
Test point = 69.6KHz to 2.6MHz
This will give you:
At the BBD = 34.8KHz to 1.3MHz
Hope this clears things up.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on March 14, 2009, 06:36:37 PM
Test point = 69.6KHz to 2.6MHz
This will give you:
At the BBD = 34.8KHz to 1.3MHz
Hope this clears things up.
At your next gig, you can say to the audience - " would you mind waiting 20 minutes while I check that my BBD is being clocked at 34.8khz to 1.3mhz before we play this next song" :icon_lol:
Thanks OldSchool, that's all I needed to know. You guys were throwing too many different numbers around.
[/quote]
At your next gig, you can say to the audience - " would you mind waiting 20 minutes while I check that my BBD is being clocked at 34.8khz to 1.3mhz before we play this next song" :icon_lol:
[/quote]
Don't even bother to tell them. Just say you'll be performing a 20 minute piece by Webern. The few who get it will chuckle, and the rest of the people will think you're playing samples of a cat getting strangled.
But thanks to all for the clarification on the clock setting frequencies.
Quote from: Tantalum7 on March 14, 2009, 08:33:31 PM
At your next gig, you can say to the audience - " would you mind waiting 20 minutes while I check that my BBD is being clocked at 34.8khz to 1.3mhz before we play this next song" :icon_lol:
[/quote]
Don't even bother to tell them. Just say you'll be performing a 20 minute piece by Webern. The few who get it will chuckle, and the rest of the people will think you're playing samples of a cat getting strangled.
But thanks to all for the clarification on the clock setting frequencies.
[/quote]
No, I admire the perseverence for getting the settings right! My patience level doesn't reach that far.
I'll give calibration a shot. I haven't got anything better to do at the moment while I wait for parts for other projects to come in.
Sorry if I bump this thread with some really dumb questions.
In the BOM you can find listed a jack used for external control. Well, I've got two questions about this topic:
- should I use a normal (plastic, preferably) stereo jack or other particular kind of jack?
- which expression pedal is preferred with this application?
Thanks in advance.
Quote from: quarara on March 20, 2009, 06:02:06 PM
Sorry if I bump this thread with some really dumb questions.
In the BOM you can find listed a jack used for external control. Well, I've got two questions about this topic:
- should I use a normal (plastic, preferably) stereo jack or other particular kind of jack?
According to the schematic, it needs to be a stereo jack with at least a switched ring contact. See Charlie's post
at the top of this page here (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=74367.msg609537#msg609537) for a part number, but these jacks aren't that uncommon, so you should be able to find others. They come in both closed frame plastic styles and open frame metal styles.
Quote
- which expression pedal is preferred with this application?
It looks like a passive expression pedal with a linear taper pot would be right.
I have my own question, though. Charlie says:
Quote from: moosapotamus on March 12, 2009, 07:30:20 PM
RE: JK1
Note that the Manual control will not work if you simply do not install a stereo switching type jack, as drawn in the schematic. If you do not want to install a jack, you will need to install a jumper between pad Sw and pad S so that the wiper of the manual pot is connected to R53.
Now, I think I understand this correctly, but I'm confused by the silkscreen legending of the expression pedal jack pads. If I'm interpreting the schematic and the layout correctly, pad "S" should go to the ring, and pad "Sw" should go to the NC switch contact connected to the ring, while "T" is connected to the tip, and the sleeve of the jack goes to ground. Yes/no?
I have a couple of questions, and if any of them have been answered in the past, I apologise in advance.
-What does SW1, the SPDT switch actually do? It's listed on the schematic as odd/even. Is that what harmonics the flanger favors?
-Also, has anyone had problems trying to set the clock frequency? Whenever I try to set the clock frequency, no matter how any of the knobs or trim pots are turned, the frequency oscillates so much that setting it to a specific frequency is impossible. I have added jumpers to the test points and used clips for the leads of my scope to make certain I had a good connection, but nothing seems to help . Before I have to put this flanger on the shelf and move on to something simpler, I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions as to what I might be doing wrong.
Thanks.
Quote from: Tantalum7 on March 21, 2009, 03:32:04 PM
-What does SW1, the SPDT switch actually do? It's listed on the schematic as odd/even. Is that what harmonics the flanger favors?
In a word; yes.
Quote-Also, has anyone had problems trying to set the clock frequency? Whenever I try to set the clock frequency, no matter how any of the knobs or trim pots are turned, the frequency oscillates so much that setting it to a specific frequency is impossible. I have added jumpers to the test points and used clips for the leads of my scope to make certain I had a good connection, but nothing seems to help . Before I have to put this flanger on the shelf and move on to something simpler, I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions as to what I might be doing wrong.
Set the range pot all the way CCW. This takes the LFO out of the mix.
Hope this helps.
It definitely gives me a place to start checking. I've noticed that the range is decreased when turned CCW, but never seems to fade to zero. I'll go through everything again with a fine toothed comb to see if I have any incorrect valued components or pots. Many thanks for the suggestion.
s
Quote from: Tantalum7 on March 21, 2009, 04:55:36 PM
It definitely gives me a place to start checking. I've noticed that the range is decreased when turned CCW, but never seems to fade to zero. I'll go through everything again with a fine toothed comb to see if I have any incorrect valued components or pots. Many thanks for the suggestion.
s
If you read the other bigger ADA thread there is a simplified tuning process. When you are setting the clock, turn all the knobs CCW and then turn the Manual fully CW so you can set the upper range.
Actually, I never got a chance to post about it, but the majority of the oscillation I was seeing was caused by my not being familiar with the hand held digital scope I borrowed. I was using it to measure frequency, and it was set to auto scale. It kept trying to use the highest resolution it could and flip flopping between two scale modes. As soon as I put it in manual mode and chose one scale, everything stabilized again. I was never able to get the frequency to vary from 69.6kHz to 2.6MHz with the manual pot, nor was I able to get the range to vary exactly between 34.8 and 1.3 using the range trim pot, so something is still not quite right, but I am making progress. It is obvious from your sound clips that it's quite possible to get excellent flanging without the use of a scope (I'm assuming that you set only frequency by meter), so I'll keep plugging away at it.
s
Quote from: mdh on March 20, 2009, 06:31:56 PM
Now, I think I understand this correctly, but I'm confused by the silkscreen legending of the expression pedal jack pads. If I'm interpreting the schematic and the layout correctly, pad "S" should go to the ring, and pad "Sw" should go to the NC switch contact connected to the ring, while "T" is connected to the tip, and the sleeve of the jack goes to ground. Yes/no?
Yes. 8)
~ Charlie
Quote from: Tantalum7 on March 22, 2009, 02:15:07 AM
Actually, I never got a chance to post about it, but the majority of the oscillation I was seeing was caused by my not being familiar with the hand held digital scope I borrowed. I was using it to measure frequency, and it was set to auto scale. It kept trying to use the highest resolution it could and flip flopping between two scale modes. As soon as I put it in manual mode and chose one scale, everything stabilized again. I was never able to get the frequency to vary from 69.6kHz to 2.6MHz with the manual pot, nor was I able to get the range to vary exactly between 34.8 and 1.3 using the range trim pot, so something is still not quite right, but I am making progress. It is obvious from your sound clips that it's quite possible to get excellent flanging without the use of a scope (I'm assuming that you set only frequency by meter), so I'll keep plugging away at it.
s
It can definitely be done and is really much easier than the SAD1024 version. My second one with the new board really turned out better than expected. Set the clock right and everything else isn't all that hard to tweak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2UFfsMi1A0
Can this circuit be calibrated at 12v?
Quote from: grathan on March 24, 2009, 06:29:40 PM
Can this circuit be calibrated at 12v?
Youre better off building an MN3207 version which can run on 9V. The 3007 version could probably function on 12 v but you would lose a good deal of headroom.
It still bothers me that I can't quite get the frequency to vary between 69.6kHz and 2.6MHz at the same time. Does anyone know if there are some resistor values I might be able to tweak to get the two trim pots to work correctly together. I realize that some further information may be necessary before someone can make an informed suggestion, but if there is something simple that someone with a better grasp of the interaction of the components in this circuit could suggest, I'd really appreciate it.
s
Quote from: Tantalum7 on March 24, 2009, 11:09:20 PM
It still bothers me that I can't quite get the frequency to vary between 69.6kHz and 2.6MHz at the same time. Does anyone know if there are some resistor values I might be able to tweak to get the two trim pots to work correctly together. I realize that some further information may be necessary before someone can make an informed suggestion, but if there is something simple that someone with a better grasp of the interaction of the components in this circuit could suggest, I'd really appreciate it.
s
Are you looking for those exact values? Youll have a hard time getting those precise settings if so. I would set the upper range for ~2.6mhz and then check in to see that the lower range is close enough to 69.6. It wont be exact but it will be close enough that you shouldn't notice any difference.
Quote from: grathan on March 24, 2009, 06:29:40 PM
Can this circuit be calibrated at 12v?
Of course it can, just alter the BBD bias.
thanks, what's a bbd?
Quote from: grathan on March 25, 2009, 10:53:59 AM
thanks, what's a bbd?
BBD = Bucket Brigade Delay (chip)
can the bias of the bbd be adjusted by simply turning trimmer # 6? It looks like that connects to Vcc of mn3007 (ic10).
I guess my original question I shoulda mentioned, will this calibration carry over to 18v?
The BBD Bias is TR1 IIRC.
What is TR6 doing exactly then? I finally got the flanger tweaked to sound really good now, although nothing in the ADA calibration document mentions TR6 for rev4. TR6 definitely has a sweet spot and is doing something with the MN3007, but if TR1 is biasing...I'm not quite skilled enough to figure it out from the schematic yet.
Also, has anyone attempted the TZF mod on this build?
I would love to see someone pull off the TZF mod but adding an extra delay line is not something I really know how to do. I think the foxrox does it by delaying the dry signal by a few ms so the other delay line can pass it in the sweep.
Yeah, someone with real skills will have to tackle this. I can swap a few components here and there, add a stage or a subsection, but this is out of my depth. I'd love to hear it though.
Quote from: Tantalum7 on March 25, 2009, 11:50:46 PM
What is TR6 doing exactly then? I finally got the flanger tweaked to sound really good now, although nothing in the ADA calibration document mentions TR6 for rev4. TR6 definitely has a sweet spot and is doing something with the MN3007, but if TR1 is biasing...I'm not quite skilled enough to figure it out from the schematic yet.
This confused me, as well, and then I noticed that there is a cap between the MN3007 and the trimmer, so that trimmer can't have anything to do with DC bias. Plus, it's on the output of the BBD. It controls the level of output from the BBD that ultimately gets regenerated and mixed with the dry signal (see the exchange between bajaman and Nitefly182, up this thread).
Glad to hear that you got it calibrated to your liking. Mine is just in a box now, with a preliminary calibration, but I will be working on it some more in coming days.
Quote from: mdh on March 26, 2009, 01:24:52 AM
This confused me, as well, and then I noticed that there is a cap between the MN3007 and the trimmer, so that trimmer can't have anything to do with DC bias. Plus, it's on the output of the BBD. It controls the level of output from the BBD that ultimately gets regenerated and mixed with the dry signal (see the exchange between bajaman and Nitefly182, up this thread).
Glad to hear that you got it calibrated to your liking. Mine is just in a box now, with a preliminary calibration, but I will be working on it some more in coming days.
I checked a few sources for the info on TR6, but I should have looked in this thread first. That makes sense now. I was wondering how to reduce the content of the wet signal in the mix, so now I can tweak that to my liking as well.
As far as calibrating goes, I learned a lot more about how the flanger works by doing a rough frequency set on the clock and then turning trim pots and knobs to see what happens. If you don't have a signal generator, plug in a guitar and have some patient soul strum for you as you make adjustments. If nothing else, it gives you something to do until you acquire or find someone with a scope. It's probably my lack of experience, but I couldn't get any of the numbers to really come up when I was using a scope and a signal generator. Using the ADA calibration procedure as a rough guide and making adjustments of all the trimmers and pots got me much more pleasing results, but it did take quite a while of testing and turning before the best flanging came out.
Quote from: mdh on March 20, 2009, 06:31:56 PM
Quote from: quarara on March 20, 2009, 06:02:06 PM
Sorry if I bump this thread with some really dumb questions.
In the BOM you can find listed a jack used for external control. Well, I've got two questions about this topic:
- should I use a normal (plastic, preferably) stereo jack or other particular kind of jack?
According to the schematic, it needs to be a stereo jack with at least a switched ring contact. See Charlie's post at the top of this page here (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=74367.msg609537#msg609537) for a part number, but these jacks aren't that uncommon, so you should be able to find others. They come in both closed frame plastic styles and open frame metal styles.
sorry, but, according with this datasheet (http://"http://it.mouser.com/catalog/637/1123.pdf") and this schematic (http://"http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/ADAflangerSCHmn3007.GIF") the correct jack would be 502-12B instead of 502-13B, isn't it?
those jacks will be the death of me.
No. When nothing is plugged into JK3, the wiper of P3 should connect to R53.
502-12B is just a standard stereo jack with no switch. That won't work because when no plug is inserted, the wiper of P3 (manual) will not be connected to R53.
502-13B has a lug that connects to the tip such that when you insert a plug the contact is broken like a switch.
But, the schematic actually shows the switch contact going to the ring, not to the tip.
So, if you use 502-13B, I think you would still connect the switch lug to the wiper of P3. But you would have to swap the tip and ring connections. That would make P3 wiper connect to R53. Then, when you plug in a control pedal, the sweep action of the pedal will just be reversed. Otherwise, if you use 502-13B but do not swap the tip and ring connections, with nothing plugged into the jack, the wiper of P3 would connect to R50 instead of R53.
The jack that I used for JK3 in my build was actually similar to Mouser pn 568-NYS218, which is a stereo jack with a switch on all three contacts, tip, ring and sleeve. I only used the switch for the ring contact.
Hope that makes sense.
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on March 27, 2009, 11:20:08 PM
Hope that makes sense.
yes, it does, thanks! :)
I'm looking forward for the new batch of pcb's!
Hi All,
I have a few questions for others that have built this MN3007 flanger. I got the unit built up and running with no major problems, but a few small ones that are bugging me. When I check the output on the scope, I see a hell of a lot of clock riding along with the audio. It is really not audible, but should it be there? Since there is no clock cancel on the output of the 3007 or LP filtering, I expect some, but without another one to check I can't be sure. Has anyone else verified this on a scope?
I am also hearing a slight distortion in a part of the sweep that others have mentioned. It occurs when the clock nears 2.6mhz (through the LFO or when adjusting the manual control to full CW). When I investigated further, there is also a small amount of hum at this top end of the clock. When this happens I get a 1V drop at the input of the regulator (I am using a 24V 80ma supply). The output of the regulator though, stays locked at +15V. It seems that the CD4047 starts pulling much more current when the clock is running that high. When I check the power supply rail, I can see the DC is being modulated by the clock frequency. I have added more filtering to the supply (100n film cap on the output of the regulator, as well as extra 100n monolithics on the digital rail. I also seperated the MN3007 from the digital rail and ran R27 directly to V+. I beefed up the digital ground with a thicker bus wire directly to the main filter ground. All to no avail. Has anyone else seen clock on their V+ rail?
When I trim the unit to a lower clock frequency I get really clean performance, but the flanger does not sweep up to the almost TZF point - which is my favorite part of the sweep. Does anyone have any ideas?
Hi,
I'm slowly getting along with my build. I have a question regarding some parts subs. I couldn't get the values specified for R28(1M3), R71(14k) and R72(250). Instead I got 1M2, 15k and 255R. Would these substitutions be ok? From looking at the schematic I think so, but I'd like to hear an ok from someone else.
I also bought some MN3007's from my local supplier. They had 4 in stock and each was 0.8 Euros. Yeah! The salesman (a really old guy) didn't even know they had them in stock and mentioned he can't remember ever selling one of these.
thanks,
Peter
gtrgeek1: I just got a 'scope & function generator so I'll be able to check out the things you mentioned tommorrow. I will however be looking at a unit w/an SAD1024 as I haven't found the time to finish my 3007 build. It's the same layout (except for the BBD & associated parts) so I'll have a look and report back.
p.eat: Your substitutes are within 10% of the parts specified so I don't think there should be any problem.
Dave
Quote from: gtrgeek1 on April 08, 2009, 11:04:43 AMWhen I check the output on the scope, I see a hell of a lot of clock riding along with the audio. It is really not audible, but should it be there? Has anyone else verified this on a scope?
I did a quick look/see on my 'scope, and yes, there is some clock riding the audio at the output. Not a "helluva lot"; but it is there. While it is not audible, I don't know if it belongs there. I'll have to do more testing Sun., as work has gotten the better of me these last few days :P.
QuoteI am also hearing a slight distortion in a part of the sweep that others have mentioned. It occurs when the clock nears 2.6MHz (through the LFO or when adjusting the manual control to full CW). When I investigated further, there is also a small amount of hum at this top end of the clock.
I agree that it is very slight. However, in a live situation, playing with a full compliment of musicians, you can't hear it. Or I should say
I can't hear it. Heck; when one is putting this (or any effect for that matter) through the paces all alone in your quiet shop, any and all quirks are significantly magnified. I am not saying this is OK, however, certain things must be taken "with a grain of salt". I have "one or two" different flangers,
and some exhibit more noise at the top of the sweep (shortest delay) than at other points of the sweep.
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/DSC00806.jpg
QuoteWhen this happens I get a 1V drop at the input of the regulator (I am using a 24V 80ma supply). The output of the regulator though, stays locked at +15V.
At least this proves the V reg is doing it's job... :D
QuoteHas anyone else seen clock on their V+ rail? Does anyone have any ideas?
I'll check this out as soon as I have a chance.
In closing (for now), I would like to say that while the A/DA flanger is a great flanger for guitar, It is not exactly a piece of high end audio equipment. It's not a panacea. It has its inherent quirks. One might just have to learn to live with them...
You want high end audio? Clone an Eventide ;D!
Or, this looks pretty cool...
http://home.debitel.net/user/jhaible/jh_storm_tide_flanger.html
Hang in there; we'll get this all sorted out...
Till next time,
Dave
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on April 24, 2009, 09:51:35 PM
Quote from: gtrgeek1 on April 08, 2009, 11:04:43 AMWhen I check the output on the scope, I see a hell of a lot of clock riding along with the audio. It is really not audible, but should it be there? Has anyone else verified this on a scope?
I did a quick look/see on my 'scope, and yes, there is some clock riding the audio at the output. Not a "helluva lot"; but it is there. While it is not audible, I don't know if it belongs there. I'll have to do more testing Sun., as work has gotten the better of me these last few days :P.
QuoteI am also hearing a slight distortion in a part of the sweep that others have mentioned. It occurs when the clock nears 2.6MHz (through the LFO or when adjusting the manual control to full CW). When I investigated further, there is also a small amount of hum at this top end of the clock.
I agree that it is very slight. However, in a live situation, playing with a full compliment of musicians, you can't hear it. Or I should say I can't hear it. Heck; when one is putting this (or any effect for that matter) through the paces all alone in your quiet shop, any and all quirks are significantly magnified. I am not saying this is OK, however, certain things must be taken "with a grain of salt". I have "one or two" different flangers,
and some exhibit more noise at the top of the sweep (shortest delay) than at other points of the sweep.
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/DSC00806.jpg
QuoteWhen this happens I get a 1V drop at the input of the regulator (I am using a 24V 80ma supply). The output of the regulator though, stays locked at +15V.
At least this proves the V reg is doing it's job... :D
QuoteHas anyone else seen clock on their V+ rail? Does anyone have any ideas?
I'll check this out as soon as I have a chance.
In closing (for now), I would like to say that while the A/DA flanger is a great flanger for guitar, It is not exactly a piece of high end audio equipment. It's not a panacea. It has its inherent quirks. One might just have to learn to live with them...
You want high end audio? Clone an Eventide ;D!
Or, this looks pretty cool...
http://home.debitel.net/user/jhaible/jh_storm_tide_flanger.html
Hang in there; we'll get this all sorted out...
Till next time,
Dave
I definitely agree with the "it is what it is" outlook on this project. Its a late 1970s analog modulation pedal and it has some quirks. Its on of the gems from that era and you can definitely get it sounding awesome with a little tweaking.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on April 24, 2009, 09:51:35 PM
You want high end audio? Clone an Eventide ;D!
Or, this looks pretty cool...
http://home.debitel.net/user/jhaible/jh_storm_tide_flanger.html
Now, THIS makes me salivate. I wish someone with the brains for the task would figure out a way to adapt this circuit for the 3007 like with the A/DA. That would make my summer vacation so much more nerdy and isolated :icon_biggrin:
Seriously, PLEASE! Anyone?? I'd do anything not to mess with those nasty SAD1024:s, they make me damn nervous.
On another note, I just finished my expression pedal for the A/DA flanger. I used an old crybaby with the original 100K pot, and mounted the jack as per the moosapotamus schematic. Pretty cool, but I want to tweak it for a bit, not that happy with the sweep. Also, it seems backwards to me, I think I'd like the action the other way. I'm going to fool around with this a bit more, some tapering resistors, maybe.
LARS
I get panacea sometimes after eating a vindaloo!!!
Quote from: StephenGiles on April 25, 2009, 03:42:47 PM
I get panacea sometimes after eating a vindaloo!!!
Feel the burn... ;D
Quote from: Nitefly182 on March 26, 2009, 12:17:25 AM
I would love to see someone pull off the TZF mod but adding an extra delay line is not something I really know how to do. I think the foxrox does it by delaying the dry signal by a few ms so the other delay line can pass it in the sweep.
http://www.4shared.com/file/101817424/1b5f22c4/TZ-5.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/101817422/f23c87f1/TZ-6.html
These are Mike Irwin's TZF samples from the unit he designed using just one BBD and who knows what else.
Is that Sarah Mclachlan in TZ-6?
Some questions get/got answered in the "For Sale"-thread (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=73483.80), too...
BTW.: cool samples there, Stephen/Mike! :icon_cool: :icon_cool:
Does anyone know if I can use the 1024 chip with the new board (without frying my brain)? The building notes start off with a no modification section; does this mean using the 1024?
The newer boards are designed to use MN3007, not SAD1024. "No modifications" means just that. If you want to try to use a SAD1024 on the newer board, you would have to "modify" it. It's been done the other way around... Used a MN3007 on the old (SAD1024) board. That's how oldschoolanalog came up with the MN3007 retrofit in the first place. So I'm sure you could do it. Just leave out the MN3007 and its associated components and build a little daughterboard for the SAD1024 and its associated components. 8)
~ Charlie
A/DA clone w/SAD1024 info:
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAflanger.html
A/DA clone w/3007 info:
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/ADAflanger_MN3007.html
Trust me. You don't want to "modify" this back to an SAD1024. :P
Save those valuable and near impossible to get SAD1024's for repairs...
Peace.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on April 30, 2009, 06:25:38 PM
A/DA clone w/SAD1024 info:
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAflanger.html
A/DA clone w/3007 info:
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/ADAflanger_MN3007.html
Trust me. You don't want to "modify" this back to an SAD1024. :P
Save those valuable and near impossible to get SAD1024's for repairs...
Peace.
Hello oldschoolanalog.
I was wondering if a diagram to convert the old Moosapotomus ADA Flanger to MN3007 is available? Or if you might make one available I'd much rather do as you say, and leave SAD1024's to those who really need them :) It'd certainly be appreciated by at least one crazy lurker....
Stratman ;)
+1
Some photos of the first 3007 retrofit board. Installed in a Moose Rev1 board.
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/DSC00898.jpg
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/DSC00900.jpg
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/DSC00901.jpg
Making a nicer layout than I did should be no problem. Print copies of the 1024 version & the 3007 version.
Compare. It should be pretty obvious where In/Out/Clocks/Vdd/Vgg & Ground get connected to the old circuit.
Also, try Bajaman's suggestion and install a 22K resistor in series w/the .1uf cap at the output of the retrofit board.
And, please remember to double the low/high clock f's.
Let me know what you think. I'll dig up my notes if necessary.
All the Best,
Dave
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on May 01, 2009, 09:59:08 PM
Some photos of the first 3007 retrofit board. Installed in a Moose Rev1 board.
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/DSC00898.jpg
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/DSC00900.jpg
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/DSC00901.jpg
Making a nicer layout than I did should be no problem. Print copies of the 1024 version & the 3007 version.
Compare. It should be pretty obvious where In/Out/Clocks/Vdd/Vgg & Ground get connected to the old circuit.
Also, try Bajaman's suggestion and install a 22K resistor in series w/the .1uf cap at the output of the retrofit board.
And, please remember to double the low/high clock f's.
Let me know what you think. I'll dig up my notes if necessary.
All the Best,
Dave
Hello oldschoolanalog. I'll have a go at laying this out to start with. I wont be able to test it for a while, still a few parts for this one I need to get. I'll have a go at figuring out the connections and post something here later :) Thanks for posting the pics, I think they're very helpful :)
Stratman ;)
Hello guys!
May I ask:
- What is the highest clock (shortest delay time) your MN3007 based ADA clones achieve?
- How does clock signal on the scope look at this frequency? Are there still proper rectangles or are they already significantly triangularized?
Thanks, T.
(in both questions I refer to the outputs of 4049 buffer)Edit: Does it differ for MN3207?
Finished mine a couple of days ago. No sound at all until I adjusted tr1. Then I set the frequency by ear and it sounded about like my ce-2 clone. Nice but not what I was looking for, since I already had the ce-2. Apparently my ears aren't calibrated for high frequency like some peoples, plus I didn't really know what to listen for.
Yesterday I borrowed a dmm with frequency counter and set the range. That caused some distortion so I tweaked tr1. After a few minutes the JET PLANE arrived! This thing is great! Now just have to box it up. I've never used a scope but have access to one at work. Eventually I'll scope it out but I'm afraid to change anything until I wear it out a little.
Many thanks to Moosapotamus, Old School, and Bajaman!
Hi,
I have a problem with the clock frequency. I can't dial in 69kHz (min) and 2.6mHz (max).
The frequencys (measured add the TP pin on the 4047) are 35kHz and 1550kHz.
And not to meantioned the trim pots are maxed. And i replaced the 82K resistor with a 150K as meantioned by Bajaman.
I used the vero layout.
i hope someone can give me some pointers, the circuit works and sounds like a chorus now but not a flanger.
Ronald
Try reducing the clock capacitor, or better stil replace it with a variable capacitor. I think I used a 10-65p.
http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=460
Thanks, ;)
i will try that and come back with the results.
Ronald
Hi,
I have a question (an easy one indeed) regarding the odd/even switch.
I don't understand when the switch is in odd mode or when it is in even harmonics mode. I think that the harmonics are in odd mode when the two wires of the switch are linked, is it correct?
EDIT: Oh, I have another question, but it is more a survey on the tastes of those who've built this unit. Do you suggest me to use a 10k pot or a 100k one for threshold? Baja suggested a 100k one, that's why I'm asking.
Hi guys, I do need your help. I finished the flanger the other day and it worked like a charm. Now I've put it into a box and you can hear flanger strong and clever, but I have noises issues :( I have a fast squelchy sound that sometimes occurs. I wouldn't say it is related with LFO, but sometimes when I rotate the pots I can hear the noise a little bit stronger. I don't know what to think. I tried removing the led without result.
I calibrated it properly with a frequency meter and a scope and I've used cathexis layout and a charge pump with lt1054 (I used a cap between legs 2 and 7 of the chip to boost the frequency of it above the audio path).
You're my only hope! :(
I measured the voltages of my board and I noticed that instead of fixed +15V I have a floating voltages from +12,7V to +13,8V.
I tested my charge pump and it gave me +20,7V! I cannot believe it, yesterday it gave me +18,4V! I did another board (just a couple of components) and the new charge pump gives me +20,7V too! Honestly I don't know what to think... Tomorrow I'll try changing tha 15V regulator on the main board. It's really strange to see this floating voltage (I don't find out any other ways to call it) on my dmm. I don't think the regulator will be the issue. since the 7815 it's very sturdy. If you have any hypothesis, please tell me.
Hi Luigi,
Please try this first. Before you do any parts changing.
Remove the charge pump from the circuit. Now use a proper, known working 18-24VDC power supply. You can even use batteries if necessary. Test to make sure all your V+, V bias & Grounds are correct. Now; plug in your guitar, bass or whatever signal source you will be using.
Power up & play.
Listen carefully and see if your issues still persist.
Report findings.
I know this sounds simplistic, but sometimes it's best to start over at the beginning and proceed slowly again.
Best of Luck!
Dave
Hi Dave,
thanks for your suggestion, I've used two batteries in series to power up my flanger and the voltages are good and stable, so the regulator is alive and kicking :) I've played with the effect and I haven't noticed any appreciable bad noise. So I think that the problem lies in the power supply circuit... I think I have to choices now. The first one is the easiest and the most expensive: buy a +18v psu. The second one is to try again with a charge pump circuit. Dave, what do you suggest me to do? And... is there anyone else who tried to use a charge pump in this circuit? If so, please, chime in!
Personally I think charge pumps are a waste of time. Get a decent power supply.
My feeling is it's always best to use a good power supply of the proper voltage.
Quote from: StephenGiles on December 21, 2009, 11:28:52 AMGet a decent power supply.
+1
This way you can power a bunch of pedals without much hassle.
BTW; Nitefly182 has reported using a charge pump in this circuit without any issues. He has built "one or two" ;) of these and has a very good idea of what works.
Maybe the man from Montgomery Appliances :icon_cool: could chime in here?
Please?
To build a psu it's on my plans for my near future, I have bought a transformer too. I think I can build a 18v psu too, maybe with a smaller transformer. Unfortunately in my area it's nearly impossible to find a non-switching power supply in the stores.
Anyway I'd like to investigate a little bit more about charge pumps, if it works it'd be useful to have a single power supply on board. I sent a pm to Nitefly (so, he is Montgomery App? I wasn't aware of that! His videos of his clone of the A/DA are maybe the main reason I've decided to build one! :P).
Thanks for you support :)
Charge-pumps & similar SMPS are fun things as long as they don`t cause heterodynous whining
against any internal or outboarded HF-clocked circuits... :icon_wink: :icon_wink: :icon_wink:
Quote from: puretube on December 21, 2009, 05:27:56 PM
Charge-pumps & similar SMPS are fun things as long as they don`t cause heterodynous whining
against any internal or outboarded HF-clocked circuits... :icon_wink: :icon_wink: :icon_wink:
yes, I'm experiencing that :)
Hi,
I've done a sample with a couple of random setting with my a/da. Could you listen to it and say me if does sound normal to you? I don't have terms of comparison (i.e. another a/da to compare with) and I would like to know what do you think. Sorry for my crappy playing.
http://www.zshare.net/audio/7149414849acb252/
Quote from: quarara on January 22, 2010, 03:46:21 AM
Hi,
I've done a sample with a couple of random setting with my a/da. Could you listen to it and say me if does sound normal to you? I don't have terms of comparison (i.e. another a/da to compare with) and I would like to know what do you think. Sorry for my crappy playing.
http://www.zshare.net/audio/7149414849acb252/
Sounds "normal" to me. I think you did good Luigi. :icon_cool:
For a good sonic comparison:
http://www.aronnelson.com/gallery/main.php/v/cathexis/Veroboard+Layouts/ADA+Flanger/
Right under your nose all this time!
Did you vero this one?
All the Best,
Dave
Hi dave, thanks for your assurances.
Yes, I've listened to Lars' samples, but I am too un-neutral about my builds that I must oblige friends to listen to them to assure me it's alright :P
And yes, I veroed it :icon_cool: (I will never thanks cathexis enough for that layout!)
HI
Anybody who ha a link to a singel sided PCB transfer layout för the 3007 layout?
moosapotamus has made a grate DD sided but if there are a singel sided out there it would be simpler :-)
Hi
Just read this thread through and thanks all who have made this build so much more easy to tweek and debug.
A (Presumably stupid) question but
QuoteTest point = 69.6KHz to 2.6MHz
This will give you:
At the BBD = 34.8KHz to 1.3MHz
Hope this clears things up.
Witch pin do i test on the 3007 BBD?
:)
Quote from: solderman on February 23, 2010, 04:12:22 PM
A (Presumably stupid) question but
QuoteTest point = 69.6KHz to 2.6MHz
This will give you:
At the BBD = 34.8KHz to 1.3MHz
Hope this clears things up.
Witch pin do i test on the 3007 BBD?
Four out of five witches recommend pin 9 :icon_wink:
Which witch is this?
This *itch recommends the "read & learn" (before picking up a soldering iron) method.
The necessary tools:
http://www.synthdiy.com/files/2003/mn3007.pdf
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/ADAflanger_MN3007.html
Read the entire PDF. But everyone has done that.
Right? ::)
Dave
Yes
I have read all that true before putting out the question. As I expected my question was really too dumb to get an answer since it probably is obvious for all but not for me. Everywhere I look there is a reference to where to test at IC6 (4047) but nowhere where to test at the BBD (IC10) at least that I have found.
The reason I want to know is that Bajaman (I think) mentioned that the frequencies would be more stabile and easier to get there.
But with only 8 pins and 2 obvious NOT, there is only 6 left. So what can go wrong? ;D
OK, sorry, buddy ;)
You want to test at BBD's Clock Pulse inputs CP1 (pin 2) and CP2 (pin 6).
Good luck, T. :)
Quote from: Thomeeque on February 24, 2010, 03:32:55 AM
OK, sorry, buddy ;)
You want to test at BBD's Clock Pulse inputs CP1 (pin 2) and CP2 (pin 6).
Good luck, T. :)
No problem
Tank's ;D
..but maaaaybe the most beautiful signal for the frequency range testing would be at IC9's pins 4 and 6, where you should get the most sharp squares - squares at BBD's CP inputs will be heavily "rounded" at high frequencies beacuse of the capacitance at these pins (CCP = 700pF max.).
Is the new Ibanez AF-2 just a clone of A/DA flanger?
Didn't want to start a new thread for this question so thought i'd post it here but has anyone tried using an MN3009 in place of the MN3007? (They're pin for pin compatible but the MN3009 only has 256 stages)
I'm hopefully getting one to repair an old chorus but wondered what it might sound like in the A/DA Quickly? It's probably a really bad idea anyway.
Tried it. Sounds great after you adjust the clocking to taste.
Interesting, i'll shove it in then when I get it, did it give a thicker sounding sweep?
Hmmm... wouldn't a 256-stage BBD require 1/4 the sampling frequency to obtain the same delay time? If so, then that would bring the clock down into the audio range (~17 kHz) and lower the bandwidth of the flanger. Might be a good idea to adjust the low pass filtering to compensate (and avoid aliasing). Curious to know about the difference in sound when using fewer stages.
Quote from: Scruffie on March 25, 2010, 06:29:31 PMInteresting, I'll shove it in then when I get it, did it give a thicker sounding sweep?
Hard to describe. Something you have to hear. It didn't sweep as low, but swept alot higher. IMHO, way too high to hear w/guitar. However, when I had my buddy run his vintage Mini Moog through it the "sizzle" (Harmonics, not noise. Though a white noise input signal was cool too; but not to digress...) at the top of the sweep was amazing. IIRC, the regen trimpot needed a tweak too.
Try it!
Quote from: 12Bass on March 25, 2010, 06:54:28 PMHmmm... wouldn't a 256-stage BBD require 1/4 the sampling frequency to obtain the same delay time? If so, then that would bring the clock down into the audio range (~17 kHz) and lower the bandwidth of the flanger. Might be a good idea to adjust the low pass filtering to compensate (and avoid aliasing). Curious to know about the difference in sound when using fewer stages.
I'll check my notes if you really want but IIRC I clocked it (MEASURED AT THE BBD) ~15KHz to ~500KHz. This is like clocking a 512 stage BBD 30KHz - 1MHz. The only changes to the circuit were trimpot adjustments. The SAD1024 & MN3010 A/DA's have a low clock f of ~ 17.5KHz (At the BBD). I didn't notice any aliasing clocking the MN3009 at 15KHz.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on March 25, 2010, 07:15:46 PMI'll check my notes if you really want but IIRC I clocked it (MEASURED AT THE BBD) ~15KHz to ~500KHz. This is like clocking a 512 stage BBD 30KHz - 1MHz. The only changes to the circuit were trimpot adjustments. The SAD1024 & MN3010 A/DA's have a low clock f of ~ 17.5KHz (At the BBD). I didn't notice any aliasing clocking the MN3009 at 15KHz.
Thanks Dave!
Are you sure about the clock frequencies with the dual 512-stage units? I thought that their low clock was set for 34.9 kHz, but is effectively doubled because they are using parallel-multiplex mode. From what I understand, the MN3010/SAD1024A implementations are clocked exactly the same as a single 512-stage BBD would be; however, the dual versions get the benefit of a doubled sampling rate because they multiplex using both halves of the chip. As to the aliasing matter, it could be that the stock low pass filtering is low enough (8 kHz?) to filter out those frequencies. FWIW, even my SAD1024A version gets up so high that the very top of the sweep is of questionable usefulness, so I'm not sure a smaller BBD and even shorter delays would be desirable. Would be interesting to hear though. Should be building up an MN3007 retrofit board in the next while and will report back.
The 34.9KHz clock f measured at the "test point" (pin 13/4047) for calibration is double the actual clock f at pins 10&11/4047 (what the BBD actually "sees"). This is readily verified w/a f counter. So, when calibrated according to this (pertains to 512 stage units, for MN3007[1024 stage] DOUBLE the f's listed):
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADAcalibration.jpg
...you should have (at the BBD; 512 stage) 17.4KHz-650KHz. For MN3007 double the f's to ~35KHz-1.3MHz (At the BBD).
This test point has long been a source of confusion. If everybody measured the clock f's at the BBD this confusion would cease.
But that would make things too easy. :icon_rolleyes: :icon_lol:
As I mentioned, sounds great w/a synth.
According to the SAD1024 datasheet, parallel-multiplex mode doubles the # of samples for the same delay (clock f). The clock rate remains unchanged.
http://www.synthdiy.com/files/2003/SAD512-1024.pdf
Note: I said that the clock rate is "effectively doubled" in parallel-multiplex, then later clarified that it is the sampling rate which is actually doubled in that mode. Yeah... there does seem to be a problem with measurement points at issue here. If we measure at one of the clock inputs of the BBD, aren't we getting 1/2 the actual clock frequency, because the clock signal is divided into two phases, each with half the frequency of the full clock frequency? Just want to ensure that my understanding is on the right track here....
Doh!
Hello..
Just looking for a bit of advice..
Got my board a few weeks ago and I've got it all populated and wired up.
I don't have a frequency counter but I'll likely pick up a DMM soon that has one. Until then, I'm trying to do this by ear.
My question is, right now this thing sounds like a weird OD. I've tried a few different techniques I've read about in the instructions and online to calibrate it, but nothing seems to produce a flanging sound. Just how elusive is this sweet spot I'm looking for? Should it still sound somewhat like a flange?
Also, the lt1054 gets really hot. Is this normal?
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks!!
What are the voltages at the MN 3007 clock pins? They should be around half supply voltage.
Quote from: StephenGiles on May 29, 2010, 07:37:11 AM
What are the voltages at the MN 3007 clock pins? They should be around half supply voltage.
Because I have a lot of problems trying to debug it, I think that would be very useful to post a set of voltages from a good working one :)
Quote from: gigimarga on May 29, 2010, 07:58:01 AM...I think that would be very useful to post a set of voltages from a good working one :)
I will do this & post them by Monday.
Work is on the front burner for now. :P
'Till then...
Dave
That would help me too. Thanks Dave
Quote from: gigimarga on May 29, 2010, 07:58:01 AM
Quote from: StephenGiles on May 29, 2010, 07:37:11 AM
What are the voltages at the MN 3007 clock pins? They should be around half supply voltage.
Because I have a lot of problems trying to debug it, I think that would be very useful to post a set of voltages from a good working one :)
Those are probably the most critical voltages - if you ain't got them, it won't work - it's as simple as that. My advice when building the ADA in any format has always been to build one section at a time and test before attempting the next, much easier to troubleshoot. The temptation with a pcb is to stuff the lot - can be bad news!!!
That's why I've always used veroboard.
Quote from: mean_dorris on May 28, 2010, 07:22:54 PM
Hello..
Just looking for a bit of advice..
Got my board a few weeks ago and I've got it all populated and wired up.
I don't have a frequency counter but I'll likely pick up a DMM soon that has one. Until then, I'm trying to do this by ear.
My question is, right now this thing sounds like a weird OD. I've tried a few different techniques I've read about in the instructions and online to calibrate it, but nothing seems to produce a flanging sound. Just how elusive is this sweet spot I'm looking for? Should it still sound somewhat like a flange?
Also, the lt1054 gets really hot. Is this normal?
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks!!
Hi
Sounds like you have at least one error along the build.
The easiest way to find out if you ar OK with the build is inject a guitar signal or a signal generator (use a dist pedal in between if you use a signal generator. Its easier to hear the difference)
Set all trim pots to 50%
Set speed to 75%
Ser Enhance to 100%
Set range to 0%
Manually turn "Manual" fort and back while playing.
You should definitely have some sort of flanging chorus sound now.
Also, the lt1054 gets really hot. Is this normal?
NO its not. I guess you have some bad ground connection some where.
check out this thread from page 4 and onwards. It's a different PCB and some reference will not check but it's the same circuit.
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=83321.msg694204#msg694204 (http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=83321.msg694204#msg694204)
Here's some V's to start with. Sorry about the delay. Due to a nasty back injury this is the first time in a while I've been able to sit for more than a few minutes & type w/out pain. "Nuff said. First I'll post the VCO/clock/BBD V's. CV & audio later. All V's DC relative to GND. All V's rounded to the nearest .1 except where they're not :icon_rolleyes:. Conditions: Threshold full CW (off); Range full CCW (LFO "off"); Regen full CCW (off); Manual (where you see 2 readings), First reading full CCW; second reading full CW. SW1 (harmonics) even. For those "wetting their pants" over clock f's; as Stephen stated in another forum :icon_lol: ; Man CCW= ~40KHz, Man CW= ~1.6 MHz. Another note. Where you see (~7.5V), these pins are VCO/clock outputs (f's). Since these are being measured as DC V's you will see they seem to fluctuate down as the clock f goes up. Bottom line: anything from 7.1 - 7.5 should be OK. The reality; when viewed on a 'scope; is these V's are ALL 15V (Supply V), regardless of f. CMOS gives you the rails out. As always, individual performance may vary due to factors too numerous to start discussing. More later...
Oh! Here's the schematic all this info is/will be based on: http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/FlangerClone_SCH_rev5_MN3007_jan2010.gif
4007 4047 3007 4049 (see note above)
1- NC 1- 14.9 - 10 1- 15 Pins 1 & 16- 15
2- NC 2- .15 - 5 2- ~7.5 Pin 8- 0
3- 0 3- 7.9 - 8.3 3- 8.4 Pin 13- NC
4- NC 4- 15 4- 1 ALL other pins- ~7.5
5- NC 5- 15 5- 0
6- 0 6- 15 6- ~7.5
7- 0 7- 0 7- 7.2 - 5.8
8- NC 8- 0 8- 7.2- 5.8
9- NC 9- 0
10- 5.9 - 3.1 10- ~7.5
11- 7.9 - 8.3 11- ~7.5
12- .15 - 5 12- 0
13- NC 13- 14.9 - 10.5
14- 15 14- 15
You seem to have the correct clock voltages, I'd wager the audio is blocked somewhere. Test output of each opamp in audio path before BBD, then remove BBD (with power off) and test for output on all post BBD opamps.
Just a quick note to avoid confusion. The V's I posted are from a properly functioning unit.
I promised to do this for reference purposes several posts ago. I'll post the rest of the (correct) V's later as promised.
Until then, anyone with signal issues should take Stephen's advice in the above post.
Signal source & audio probe anyone?
Thank you very much oldschoolanalog!
You're great amd these voltages are a big help for me (and others builders, of course)!
My voltages on BBD are almost like yours, but the mainly problem seems that IC2 from Audio part (http://solderman.fatabur.se/ada/ADA%20Audio.jpg (http://solderman.fatabur.se/ada/ADA%20Audio.jpg)) becomes hot very fast :(
On 4007 some voltages are off, but I will recheck all tomorrow, with a clean head :)
Here are the rest of the V's. All conditions as per above post.
All the Best!
IC 1 IC2 IC3 IC4 (LFO; slowest speed setting)
1- 7 1- 4.7 1- 6.9 1- 13.4
2- 7 2- 4.7 2- 7 2- 7.1
3- 6.6 3- 4.7 3- 6.9 3- ~2 - ~12.4
4- 13.9 4- 13.9 4- 15 4- 0
5- 8.3 5- 7 5- 7 5- 6.9
6- 8.4 6- 7 6- 7 6- 6.9
7- 8.4 7- 6.4 7- 7.1 7- ~2.5 - ~11.8
8- 7 8- 7 8- 5.9 - 3.1 8-14.8
9- 7 9- 7 9- 5
10- 7 10- 7 10- 5
11- 0 11- 0 11- 0
12- 6.9 12- 6.9 12- 3.9
13- 7 13- 7 13- 3.9
14- 7 14- 7 14- 2.1 - 11.6
PS: Nothing should get hot. Especially the op amps. The 7815's on all my A/DA builds don't even get warm. And this is w/out using heat sinks.
Thanks for that info Dave, very helpful.
I always have an output test lead with a jack socket on one end and two fly leads with crocodile clips on the other, in order to test the output at various points through the circuit. An additional wire with croc clips on both ends is good for bypassing BBD sockets - because you have removed it for this test haven't you :icon_biggrin:
Also very important - TEST WITH BATTERIES :icon_twisted:
hi !
After a couple of years of inactivity I'm about to start building this MN3007 A/DA version...
I have a little question, It's about P6 (volume), I just cant figure where solder this pot altough I can see it in the schem... :icon_redface:
Can anyone help me with this one...please?
Thanks a lot !
Pierre
P6 is an offboard component. Just connect it to the output wire coming off the PCB. ;)
May or may not be necessary. Depending on your taste.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on June 10, 2010, 06:54:54 PM
..........................
PS: Nothing should get hot. Especially the op amps. The 7815's on all my A/DA builds don't even get warm. And this is w/out using heat sinks.
Of course that I agree with you oldschoolanalog, but can you give me a hint why it becomes hotter?
I looked over 10 times to find errors, but I didn't find one :D...and at his output I got Vcc/2 ???
Thank you very much!
If possible post some V's of the offending part of the circuit. Please use the schem I linked to for the pinouts & op amp #'s.
Also check to see what your resistances between V+ & GND are.
How do your other V's compare to the ones I posted?
All ther Best!
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on June 13, 2010, 03:57:34 PM
If possible post some V's of the offending part of the circuit. Please use the schem I linked to for the pinouts & op amp #'s.
Also check to see what your resistances between V+ & GND are.
How do your other V's compare to the ones I posted?
All ther Best!
Thank you a million times oldschoolanalog!
Now I'm very busy, but I hope that tomorrow I will have time to measure all the voltages. I need some time to do that because I used solderman's PCB and there are some differences between his version and moosopotamus's one.
Best regards,
Radu
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on June 12, 2010, 02:37:05 PM
P6 is an offboard component. Just connect it to the output wire coming off the PCB. ;)
May or may not be necessary. Depending on your taste.
Thank you !!!
...sometimes I just can't see the most basic things... :icon_redface:
Hello,
I recently got back to troubleshooting my beast. I'm a very much a rookie builder, and this guy has been quite the project thus far.
My problem right now is that IC6 (Cd4047) is getting very hot, very fast.
I took some voltages around it and they don't seem to line up with a list I found earlier in this thread.
1- 5
2- 3.2
3- 10
4- 15
5- 15
6- 15
7- 0
8- 0
9- 0
10- 12.6
11- 13
12- 0
13- 14.6
14- 15
Also, some voltages on IC5 (Cd4007) are a little wonky too.
Pins 1-8: 0
9- 6.5
10- 6.5
11- 2.5
12- 3.1
13- 15 <---!!
14- 15
I'm not sure what this is about. The voltages on the op amps are more or less the same. +/- 1 volt, if that. Not sure if that is a big deal or not.
Any help is greatly appreciated. Maybe the answer is obvious??
Thanks!!
I'm about to shrink the layout to fit in a B size enclosure. Any tips to avoid some nasty clock noise and other things?
The LFO should be kept as far away as possible from the audio, so there will be 2 pcbs in this build.
Could somebody point me out to the lfo though, I'm not that experienced yet in the theory behind these things. :icon_redface:
Quote from: Valoosj on November 13, 2010, 02:47:23 PM
I'm about to shrink the layout to fit in a B size enclosure. Any tips to avoid some nasty clock noise and other things?
The LFO should be kept as far away as possible from the audio, so there will be 2 pcbs in this build.
Could somebody point me out to the lfo though, I'm not that experienced yet in the theory behind these things. :icon_redface:
I can't answer this but... 1590B!? :icon_eek:
Solderman got it in a BB and even that was damn impressive.
Did he? I seem to have missed that one. Solderman and I like to keep our pedals small. He has a few more than I do at the moment, but let's see if he can top this one :icon_twisted:
(once I succeed at shrinking this layout :D)
On the Moose schematic the LFO is IC4a & 4b. FWIW, consider making one PCB with all the CV (LFO & Manual), clock & associated components. And the other PCB for the audio and its components.
Also realize there is really no "as far away as possible" in a "B" size box for this build. With 5 pots, 3 jacks, 2 switches & an LED you have a pretty "full house" on your hands. :icon_eek:
Good Luck & All the Best!
Edit: Make that 4 jacks. Can't forget the DC jack, can we?
I'm going to leave the expression pedal jack out on this one. Once I find the time this week I'll try to sort out which components belong to the audio and which don't, as to not make any mistakes in the layout. I'll probably post the schematic with all the parts highlighted, that way you can all kick me if I make a silly mistake. :P
Quote from: Valoosj on November 14, 2010, 06:47:13 PM
I'm going to leave the expression pedal jack out on this one. Once I find the time this week I'll try to sort out which components belong to the audio and which don't, as to not make any mistakes in the layout. I'll probably post the schematic with all the parts highlighted, that way you can all kick me if I make a silly mistake. :P
Yorick, This is a job cut out for you :-). As said before divide the audio and LFO parts in two. That was what I did. But I got too ambitious and wanted to have the possibility to switch between 3007 and 3702 so I tossed in some DIP switches that was unnecessary since i only used 3007 @ 15V as that sound was the best. I will mail you the original files. They are made in the very good and free Dip Trace application. So you have to download that (use the free all inclusive ver) to use the files. There is plenty of room to trim my layout to fit this in to a 1590B. It is almost there already. just lose the DIP sh*t and tighten the layout a bit :-)
PS. I never got the threshold to work. so I cut a trace and left it out.
(http://solderman.fatabur.se/ada/ADA%20LFO%20small.jpg)
(http://solderman.fatabur.se/ada/ADA%20Audio%20small.jpg)
(http://solderman.fatabur.se/ada/ADA%20%20PSU%20small.jpg)
(http://solderman.fatabur.se/ada/Bild.jpg)
Thanks for the email Anders, I just read it. Hopefully I'll get round to shrinking the layout sometime next week, college is giving me plenty of work to keep me occupied the following days (actually months :o) but all work and no play ...
Your layout does indeed seem quite bulky as opposed to your usual work. I'll need to look at what you did with the treshold, see if I can spot any mistakes.
Did you have any issues with noise? I just fired up my micro zombie chorus, and the thing is so loud, I'll have to redo my layout. (as I recall, your layout was almost the same, but without any noise. But you have to drill the input and output jack too high to my liking.)
Quote from: Valoosj on November 16, 2010, 07:29:28 PM
Thanks for the email Anders, I just read it. Hopefully I'll get round to shrinking the layout sometime next week, college is giving me plenty of work to keep me occupied the following days (actually months :o) but all work and no play ...
Your layout does indeed seem quite bulky as opposed to your usual work. I'll need to look at what you did with the treshold, see if I can spot any mistakes.
Did you have any issues with noise? I just fired up my micro zombie chorus, and the thing is so loud, I'll have to redo my layout. (as I recall, your layout was almost the same, but without any noise. But you have to drill the input and output jack too high to my liking.)
No noise but i have discowered that if you have more than one 3007 type of circuit on the same DC chain, it will produce noise.
Abot the layout. all components are numbered in the same order as in moose moosapotamus schem and the ones i have added have a higer numbre.
http://www.moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/ADAflanger_MN3007.html (http://www.moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/ADAflanger_MN3007.html)
Could somebody help me verify this? I'm not sure on the cut mark I made, and if all the components are on the right side.
As I see it, the lfo is the low part, audio is the upper. If any component should be on the other side, please let me know.
I'd like to get cracking on my 1590B layout as I have just finished the one for the neovibe ...
(http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i45/Valoosj/FlangerClone_SCH_rev5_MN3007_jan2010.gif)
I noticed that solderman had put the MN3007 on the audio board, but that should be on the lfo board, no?
Just circling the audio part would be enough, the rest will be lfo, CV, manual, associated components and go on a separate board.
anyone? Please ;D
The section above the line is audio. Below is CV, LFO, clock, BBD.
That I know, but is the cut correct, as in: is every resistor on the right side of the line, like R41 and R73 ...
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/FlangerClone_SCH_rev5_MN3007_jan2010.gif
Here's the bigger version of the schematic.
Quote from: Valoosj on December 29, 2010, 07:39:10 PM
That I know, but is the cut correct, as in: is every resistor on the right side of the line, like R41 and R73 ...
http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/FlangerClone_SCH_rev5_MN3007_jan2010.gif
Here's the bigger version of the schematic.
In a sense you are correct but the dry audio signal is actually going in on pin 3 of the BBD and leaving at pin 7-8 and will be "destroyed" by the clock/LFO feed on pin 6-2.
The wet signal from the BBD is then feed in to IC2c and the dry signal in to IC2b. The IC3a-b together with the FET will act as a attack sensitive "valve" controlling the wet/dry mix depending on how hard the sting is strum. This part I newer got to work. pin 14 on IC1d will resturn the wet signal to loop again (enhance)
I assume we can leave out the power parts in the middle of the schem.
At the moment I am working on my layout, and I have some questions. Is it ok to make IC2a, IC2d, IC3d and IC3c into one TL074? Changing the pins numbers on IC3d to 5,6 and 7. The V+ going to pin 4 would be the same as with IC3c then, and I would leave out C4, 22uF as I am using C26 which is 33uF . Is this ok, or should I use two TL072s instead?
The Vb generator, which parts are they exactly? I keep looking for a pair of resistors with one going to GND and one going to V+ but I can't find them.
Vb comes from IC2d (pin 14). The voltage divider is R7 and R8.
From the look of things, I think it would work to combine IC2a, IC2d, IC3c and IC3d. There's no mixing of audio and clock taking place, just Vb and CV.
Ah thanks for clearing that up. I was looking for the Vb signal right after the resistors, without an IC in between :icon_redface:
Just one more thing, if I don't want the expression pedal, I should connect R53 with the wiper on the manual pot, but what about R50?
I haven't the foggiest on how the switching goes when reading and re-reading the notes in the pdf. It never mentions R50.
I'm not using the jack input either. One mine, there's a jumper from S to SW on the PCB. This connects R53 to the wiper of the Manual potentiometer.
I know, but what about R50, is it just left floating?
If you're not using the exp. pedal jack just leave out R50.
Ok thanks for the help. The lfo part is done. I had to make some changes with the TL074 as mentioned above. Mostly just connecting some parts of the opamp to other 47ohm resistors and the adjacent elco. Next up is the audio part.
Glad this topic is still up and running :)
This is so close to being done I can smell it.. I just can't seem to get the freq's right. 70ish khz is no problem but nothing I do will get them to go up past 150 or so khz, and I understand I need 20 times that?
Otherwise it sounds like a flange that isn't quite up to snuff. Voltages seem good. Replaced a few fried chips. Is it something obvious?
Thanks!
Check your values for R68, R69 & C29.
Can anyone explain why the diode limiter (D1 through D4) was moved out of the feedback loop of IC1b (as in the original A/DA design) and put in front of the op amp?
I thought that part of the purpose of the limiter was to limit the sum of the input signal plus regeneration so that the BBD would be protected from overload. However, as it stands, the diode limiter limits the input, but doesn't impact any level which might be added from regeneration, allowing for a BBD overload condition when regeneration is added. From my own build, this sounds like what is happening.
I think I just found a mistake in the schematic. When I compare it with the layout (and some common sense, as far as I can say I understand it all) something is wrong.
The positive sides of D5 and D6 are connected with R31 and the output of IC3b. This is wrong, no?
Good eye. That is wrong.
Don't know what happened but this (http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/ADAflangerSCHmn3007.GIF) is the proper schematic where that FWR section is concerned. That connection you mentioned does not belong.
I wonder if this is the reason some folks can't get the gate to work. :icon_question:
Ah, I'm glad my post made sense. My brain doesn't seem to work as well this time of night :S
R68, R69 and C29 seem to check out. C29 measures around 45pf though, is that too high?
Thanks again :)
In regards to that last issue, after much flipping of the pcb it appears that the positives of D5 and D6 don't connect with R31 etc, at least on my board. I've got rev5.
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on January 17, 2011, 08:11:55 PM
Good eye. That is wrong.
Don't know what happened but this (http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/ADAflangerSCHmn3007.GIF) is the proper schematic where that FWR section is concerned. That connection you mentioned does not belong.
I wonder if this is the reason some folks can't get the gate to work. :icon_question:
The wrong schematic is from the pdf with rev.5. I'll check solderman's work, see if he has that trace, he couldn't get the gate to work either.
BTW, Valoosj, if you are concerned about space, it might be worth leaving out the threshold pot and associated circuitry. It serves as a noise gate which mutes the delay signal when the input level is low. However, there's not much noise, so I never use it on mine; the pot remains at 100 % all of the time.
Just made a few adjustments tonight to the LPF before the SAD1024A (older version) and the clock range. It's pretty easy to get the high end of the sweep so high that it affects mostly cymbals. I tried to find a balance where the top of the sweep wouldn't completely lose the harmonics of a guitar/bass signal. Because I don't have an oscilliscope, I used my DD-20 as a reference for the lowest delay time of 14 mS. Basically, I set both the A/DA clone and DD-20 with high feedback, fed them both white noise, then adjusted until the frequency of resonance was the same (~ C#).
Oh I'm not concerned about space though :) It will all fit nicely with two separate PCBs.
Just need to finish the second TL074 (IC1 on the schematic), adjust some traces to make is a bit neater when I have space left and then check it with the schematic.
The lfo section is done, all of the resistors but one are lying flat. So space is not much of a concern.
Setting it up might be a bit of a problem, I don't have that many tools but a DMM. So I'll have to do it by ear.
Quote from: Valoosj on January 18, 2011, 06:59:18 AMSetting it up might be a bit of a problem, I don't have that many tools but a DMM. So I'll have to do it by ear.
It's possible to get it tuned by ear. Above I gave a method to set the lower clock frequency. The highest clock (range) I set to taste.
One of the tricky settings is the BBD bias. After getting the bias in the ballpark, what I did was send the flanger a sine wave, say 200 Hz, from my sound card, and brought up the level gradually until the BBD output was clipping. Then I made fine adjustments until clipping went away. Then repeat with increased signal each pass until you've reached the limit of clean output and you've got optimal bias.
Quote from: mean_dorris on January 18, 2011, 01:56:45 AM
C29 measures around 45pf though, is that too high?
Shouldn't be. Where are you taking your clock f readings from?
What is your supply V at IC's 5&6?
And, which rev. board are you using? There are 2 spots designated C29 on the Moose PCB. Mare sure you have the cap in the correct one (the spot "in between" the ICs, next to R68).
Picture?
Quote from: Valoosj on January 18, 2011, 04:21:25 AM
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on January 17, 2011, 08:11:55 PM
Good eye. That is wrong.
Don't know what happened but this (http://moosapotamus.net/IDEAS/ADAflanger/ADA_MN3007/ADAflangerSCHmn3007.GIF) is the proper schematic where that FWR section is concerned. That connection you mentioned does not belong.
I wonder if this is the reason some folks can't get the gate to work. :icon_question:
The wrong schematic is from the pdf with rev.5. I'll check solderman's work, see if he has that trace, he couldn't get the gate to work either.
I wish I was so, but I found that Schem error as well and moosapotamus helped me to clear that issue. its's in this treqad some where
Quote from: 12Bass on January 18, 2011, 06:17:43 AM
BTW, Valoosj, if you are concerned about space, it might be worth leaving out the threshold pot and associated circuitry. It serves as a noise gate which mutes the delay signal when the input level is low. However, there's not much noise, so I never use it on mine; the pot remains at 100 % all of the time.
I thought that the idea was that you could control the amount of flange with your attack on the strings, say you pic gently and you get a clean tone strum the strings and you have flanging. sort of the thing one can do with a fuzz or or tube amp to controll dist. That was a brilliant idea I thought but if it doesent change that much It won't be worth the trouble. Since I never got mine to work I didn't have the opportunity to judge.
Quote from: solderman on January 18, 2011, 03:19:27 PMI thought that the idea was that you could control the amount of flange with your attack on the strings, say you pic gently and you get a clean tone strum the strings and you have flanging. sort of the thing one can do with a fuzz or or tube amp to controll dist. That was a brilliant idea I thought but if it doesent change that much It won't be worth the trouble. Since I never got mine to work I didn't have the opportunity to judge.
Yes, it is possible to use the gate to dynamically control the flanging level. Play over the threshold and the delay path gets added to the straight signal. Maybe I'm just more of a "flange or no flange" sort of guy... :icon_evil:
Added a pulsing LFO LED tonight.
Instead of taking the feed for the power LED from +15 V, I hooked it up to terminal 3 of the Range control on the PCB via a 2 K resistor (this is the output of the LFO). Now the LED pulses according to the LFO speed when the flanger is engaged. Doesn't seem to be any problem with LFO ticking in the audio, but then I added some extra supply decoupling here and there....
Quote from: oldschoolanalog on January 18, 2011, 09:36:48 AM
Shouldn't be. Where are you taking your clock f readings from?
What is your supply V at IC's 5&6?
And, which rev. board are you using? There are 2 spots designated C29 on the Moose PCB. Mare sure you have the cap in the correct one (the spot "in between" the ICs, next to R68).
Picture?
I'm taking my readings from TP. I managed to squeeze 170 kHz out with manual at 100%. That's pretty bad, I think. C29 seems to be in the right spot. I have 15 volts at 5+6 of the 4047.
Here are some pictures, I can try again if these aren't helpful. My camera isn't the best for macro..
Thanks again for your advice! :)
(http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/5276/dsc00082mt.jpg)
(http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7986/dsc00084bj.jpg)
Try this. Set the Range control so the LFO is disengaged. Set the Manual control full CCW. Take a V reading at IC3d, pin 14. Set the Manual control full CW. Take a V reading at the same spot (IC3d, pin 14).
Post results.
With range at 0, manual CCW, I have 2.2V at pin 14.
With manual CW, I have 12.2V.
If I'm keeping my counter on TP, and fiddling with the manual knob and nothing else, should I be seeing a change in frequency? I've somehow been able to get 1.3mhz now with everything maxed, but it doesn't seem to want to stay anywhere near that value when I try to set the low point.
Quote from: mean_dorris on January 19, 2011, 05:29:07 PM
With range at 0, manual CCW, I have 2.2V at pin 14. With manual CW, I have 12.2V.
OK, that's good . Your static CV is where it belongs.
QuoteIf I'm keeping my counter on TP, and fiddling with the manual knob and nothing else, should I be seeing a change in frequency?
Yes. Absolutely.
QuoteI've somehow been able to get 1.3MHz now with everything maxed, but it doesn't seem to want to stay anywhere near that value when I try to set the low point.
The Clock High & Low trimmers are
very interactive. 1.3MHz is what you want to see
AT THE BBD. Maybe its time to adjust the timing components a bit (R68, R69, C29). Think you can
carefully lift one end of C29 and tack on another 39pf cap in
series with it & the board? (This will roughly 1/2 the cap value.) This will raise your max clock.
Remember: Carefully.
I'll try to find the math for those timing components. It's posted somewhere in the "mega A/DA thread", IIRC.
Try the cap thing first.
And, report back. ;)
OoOOoo Ok,
So I put a 33p in series with the 39p, as it was the closest I had. The manual knob has now become very interactive with the frequencies. Seems like the biggest obstacle now is that T5 doesn't really do a whole heck of a lot in either direction. I verified that it measures 100k. This is exciting... :D
(Also I did that blinking LED mod. Very nifty thanks!)
Quote from: mean_dorris on January 19, 2011, 11:10:01 PMSo I put a 33p in series with the 39p, as it was the closest I had. The manual knob has now become very interactive with the frequencies. Seems like the biggest obstacle now is that T5 doesn't really do a whole heck of a lot in either direction. I verified that it measures 100k. This is exciting... :D
(Also I did that blinking LED mod. Very nifty thanks!)
Sounds like you're getting closer. Are you hearing flanging now? The effect of T5 is somewhat subtle. It sets the range of clock frequencies (mostly the top end limit) and interacts with T4, so both may need to be adjusted to get things tuned properly.
Glad you liked the pulsing LED mod. It's hypnotizing!
Yep, I'm hearing a flange, of sorts. I haven't plugged a guitar into it since I put in that extra cap, but it was doing a sort of flanging thing before, when the knobs were set just so. The manual knob and range knobs didn't really affect the sound much though, until they were maxed. Even the speed knob isn't all it can be. I think I might change to A500K instead of the reverse log. There aren't very many useful settings until most of the way through the sweep, then it gets mega touchy. And forget about threshold ;)
As far as measurements go, T5 is affecting the frequency by maybe 10% or less no matter where I've got things set. I feel like I could find a good balance if I could just get some performance out of that. Again though, I'm kind of shooting in the dark here.
What value is R65 in your build? T5 should do alot more than you described. Also, it sounds like you might have the Speed pot wired backwards. Should be CCW=slow, CW=fast. If the range & manual knobs don't do much there is a problem. First make sure it's biased correctly. Might be time to just recenter all the trimpots and do a complete recalibration as described in the pdf at Moosapotamus.
First recalibrate. Sounds like you're closer than you realize.
When I'm a bit more calm I will give my take on the threshold deal. Source of much unnecessary aggravation, grief and misunderstanding for me. :P
Wow ok. Leaps and bounds here.
R65 turned out to be way too high. Swapped that out for the right value. I've been able to get 65ishk hz and 2.6ish mhz at TP, which I'm using because I can clip my counter onto a lead I've got soldered there.
I had a bunch of questions here but I've since solved them all. This thing sounds icredible. My only issue with it is still that speed pot, but I think I can just swap in an audio log pot and be fine.
Thank you big time for all of your help!!! I owe you a beer :icon_biggrin:
Quote from: mean_dorris on January 21, 2011, 03:30:00 PMMy only issue with it is still that speed pot, but I think I can just swap in an audio log pot and be fine.
IIRC, the speed potentiometer should be reverse log, so a regular logarithmic (audio) pot is actually the opposite taper to what is specified, and "bunches up" the fast LFO range even more. FWIW, I'm presently using a 100 K linear, which offers a workable solution - doesn't get super slow, but I wasn't using really slow sweeps anyway. May order the reverse log some day....
Could somebody explain why R5 (1M at the input) is connected to Vb and not ground?
Or is this not a pulldown resistor to counteract popping noise?
Quote from: Valoosj on February 12, 2011, 02:03:58 PM
Could somebody explain why R5 (1M at the input) is connected to Vb and not ground?
Or is this not a pulldown resistor to counteract popping noise?
Not a pull down,
Sets that op-amps bias (operating point).
Oh ok. I'll add a pulldown then. If I have some room to spare ...
just finished my rev5 board from charlie, great board btw kudos. i cant seem to calibrate it properly, with all knobs ccw i get good 25khtz but when i turn manual fully cw i could only squeeze out 770khtz max (measured at bbd pin2/6), i get nothing from the tp or from pin 13 of ic6 when checking hertz, i have 2 of every component cause i was gonna build 2 and have tried swapping ic's no luck. i have read the whole pdf and this entire thread, i have 150k in r65. i checked voltages based on charlies or oldschoolanalog cant remember who posted earlier in this thread and mine are all within a few tenths of a volt except ic6 pin2/ic5 pin12 read good ccw .08v but cw where it should be 5v i have half of that 2.5v. also my t4 and t5 r very sketchy, i have adjusted in numerous positions on both trimpots and its always the same i hit 770khtz and then it starts to drop off rapidly, using either method at the end of the rev5 pdf. im on my lunch break at work now (measurements takin way to late into the night before) when i get home im was gonna try installing some single pin sockets i have for c29 and see a 10 or 20pf will work better any info would be great. (also note set t1 and t2 using keyboard through fuzz face, and t3 and t6 50%)
also forgot to mention i do have flanging of sorts but its not very noticable at lower enhance settings but with it cranked i get a airplane flange take off effect, i have also tried all calibrations above with the same settings except with the threshold knob ccw and cw wasnt sure wich way was gating the effect, it may or may not be working not sure how strong my keyboard signal is, also have tried a guitar as well to check to see if it was working but its still only a flanging of sorts. also note i have tried both knob and trim pot settings as it is written in the rev5 pdf.
didnt get to change c29 yet, but i messed with the trim pots some more getting closer but still no luck, on my dmm i have 2 frequency options last night i tried using the dc option (square wave) and could not get any readings at all, so i used the ac option ( i figured it was this one anyway based on the pic of the o-scope) and thats where i got the 770khz but never got anythin at the test point. i tried again on dc today and was able to dial a reading of 186khtz at best, but still got nothing at the tp. so i switched bak to ac and got the same htz as on dc but was able to get double those readings at the tp (wich as i understand from the thread is what it should be). getting a little frustrated so i probably wont switch out c29 till this weekend i need a break from it. also my input voltage from the 15v regulator is slightly under at 14.6v could that be my issue? i have a solid 9.2v measured at the charge pump in cant remember what is coming out but i checked it and it was close to 18v.
ok so i tried checking and resoldering some points of interest with no luck and rechecked my voltages and had some minor changes, most notably even less voltage at pin2 ic6/ pin12 ic5 so i decided to just recheck and record all voltages again and compare to thread with working flanger voltages and have some concerns so here is what i got
4007 4047 mn3007 4049
1-x 1-14.8 ~ 13.6 1-14.6 1 & 16-14.9
2-x 2-0.1 ~ 1.2 2-7.4 2 through 7-7.4
3-0 3-8.3 ~ 7.7 3-8.8 8-0
4-x 4-14.9 4-1 9 through 15-7.4
5-x 5-14.9 5-0 13-x
6-0 6-14.9 6-7.4
7-0 7-0 7-7.65 ~ 6.4
8-x 8-0 8-7.65 ~ 6.4
9-x 9-0
10-7.1 ~ 4.75 10-7.4
11-8.3 ~ 7.7 11-7.4
12-0.1 ~ 1.2 12-0
13-x 13-14.8 ~ 13.8
14-14.9 14-14.9
ic1 ic2 ic3 ic4
1-7.1 1-4.8 1-7.1 1-1.9 ~ 13.2 oscilating at ccw, 13.2 constant cw
2-7.1 2-4.8 2-7.1 2-7.8
3-6.4 3-4.8 3-7 3-3.2 ~ 12.3 oscilating
4-14.1 4-14.1 4-14.5 4-0
5-8.8 5-7.1 5-7.1 5-7.1
6-8.8 6-7.1 6-7.1 6-7.1
7-8.8 7-5.3 7-7.1 7-3.9 ~ 12.1 oscilating
8-7.1 8-7.1 8-7.1 ~ 4.75 8-14.5
9-7.1 9-7.1 9-6.1
10-7.1 10-7.1 10-6.1
11-0 11-0 11-0
12-7 12-7 12-3.9
13-7.1 13-7.1 13-3.9
14-7.1 14-7.1 14-2.2-11.6
measurements are same knobs as previos post, threshold cw, range ccw, regen ccw, rate 50%, even harmonics, first measurements manual at ccw second at cw, also some/most without 2 readings posted changed 0.1v usually less but some increased, all parts ordered from mouser/smallbear and are the same as in rev5 pdf. power supply voltages 9.43v into charge pump, 17.4v out of charge pump, 14.9v out of regulator. i know in my previous post they were slightly different but i was goin off of memory these are all fresh and recorded on paper today, same with the 2 previous measurement posts.
Hello, people. it's my first post in this forum.
I really, really, really, 900 times really a newbie in eletronics and before starting to crawl, i'm trying to fly. That said, i have some doubts about this build.
15v supplies and lt1054 ICs are really scarce here in Brasil. While build this stompbox, i wanna know how can i avoid using them. I've made an +15 -15volts supply for another project, but i would preffer to user to use 12dc supplies. witch are very cheap and easy to find here.
Can anybody help me? Eitch mods may i do in the circuit for it to work? Meanwhile, i'm trying to find some answer in this topic and this forum.
tks, regards
It has begun ...
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/ValoosjFX/ADA%20Flanger/DSC03201.jpg)
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/ValoosjFX/ADA%20Flanger/DSC03203.jpg)
This will probably take a few months to finish as I am currently quite busy with exams and moving, so bear with me :)
The lfo pcb is populated now, pics tomorrow when I have natural daylight available.
Well this... this is just silly... this can't fit in a 1590B... can it? And you're not even using SMD you mad man!
Don't tell me I spot a LT1054 Charge Pump there aswell...
Yes we can! :D
If my ruler is right that is.
And yes, that is the charge pump IC that you see.
Quote from: Valoosj on May 23, 2011, 04:33:33 PM
Yes we can! :D
If my ruler is right that is.
And yes, that is the charge pump IC that you see.
Well then... it appears we're going to have to burn you as a witch then. ;)
Quote from: Scruffie on May 23, 2011, 04:34:34 PM
Well then... it appears we're going to have to burn you as a witch then. ;)
As long as we're burning I'll bring some marshmallows to roast!
I don't like marshmallows :(
Audio board in the enclosure.
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/ValoosjFX/ADA%20Flanger/DSC03204.jpg)
The lfo board on top
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/ValoosjFX/ADA%20Flanger/DSC03205.jpg)
As you see, it all fits, nice and snug.
The lfo board.
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/ValoosjFX/ADA%20Flanger/DSC03206.jpg)
I had to cut the top of the 7815 due to a lack of space, I just hope it still works now.
Quotehad to cut the top of the 7815 due to a lack of space
Minor details.
Probably best not to feed it with 50 V now though :icon_mrgreen:
:o :o :o :icon_mrgreen:
Quote from: moosapotamus on May 24, 2011, 07:39:09 PM
:o :o :o :icon_mrgreen:
A moosapotamus sighting!
See what you started Charlie... :icon_lol:
And here's the audio board.
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/ValoosjFX/ADA%20Flanger/DSC03211.jpg)
The soon to be A/DA Flanger
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/ValoosjFX/ADA%20Flanger/DSC03212.jpg)
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/ValoosjFX/ADA%20Flanger/DSC03213.jpg)
And it all fits.
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/ValoosjFX/ADA%20Flanger/DSC03214.jpg)
Minchia!
hi, i need some assistance with calibrating my version 5 moosapotomus mn3007 a/da flanger clone. i sent an email to moosapotomus
but it came back saying mail error. mailbox full
if needed i can supply ic voltages etc later, but for the time being i need some simpler help!
my build appears to work first time, having flanging of sorts, but appears to need callibration.
im actually happy to invest in some equipment but what do i need?
from readings around and the price ive come across the following below.
OWON 7.8"color LCD Digital OSCILLOSCOPE 25MHz PDS5022S
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280599987004&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
ive obviously never used one before, but most things with pedals/amps i haven't either.
in calibration info it refers to
signal generators, and inject xyz frequency counter etc etc.
i only have a basic dmm, (no frequency) therefor what do i need? (to calibrate it properly)?
1) OSCILLOSCOPE
2) .......
3) ........?
i know these are simple questions for electronic experts!
http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af111/njkmonty/ada%20mn3007%20version5%20moosapotomus%20%20flanger%20clone/IMG_0319.jpg(http://)
http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af111/njkmonty/ada%20mn3007%20version5%20moosapotomus%20%20flanger%20clone/IMG_0315.jpg(//)
http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af111/njkmonty/ada%20mn3007%20version5%20moosapotomus%20%20flanger%20clone/IMG_0318.jpg(//)
please help
btw is the above oscilloscope any good?
Hmmm... nothing wrong with my email. I've been getting emails today and my in box is not full. Anyway...
I have never used a scope. I've only used my DMM, which does happen to have a frequency counter function, to calibrate the ADA. But I think you can actually get pretty damn close doing it by ear, too. (I know some folks will probably disagree with that. But if they chime in, you'll have their advice to consider, too. Cool, huh?) So, just go back and forth several times, set the high point of the sweep and then the low point of the sweep, then go back and check the high point again, then the low point again, over and over and so on... until you are happy with how it sounds. I think you'll find that you will either max out the extent of the sweep at one or both ends, or the sweep will go so far at one end that the sound of the effect will sort of get lost. In that case, just dial it back until you are happy with the sound.
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on July 08, 2011, 04:10:24 PM
Hmmm... nothing wrong with my email. I've been getting emails today and my in box is not full. Anyway...
I have never used a scope. I've only used my DMM, which does happen to have a frequency counter function, to calibrate the ADA. But I think you can actually get pretty damn close doing it by ear, too. (I know some folks will probably disagree with that. But if they chime in, you'll have their advice to consider, too. Cool, huh?) So, just go back and forth several times, set the high point of the sweep and then the low point of the sweep, then go back and check the high point again, then the low point again, over and over and so on... until you are happy with how it sounds. I think you'll find that you will either max out the extent of the sweep at one or both ends, or the sweep will go so far at one end that the sound of the effect will sort of get lost. In that case, just dial it back until you are happy with the sound.
~ Charlie
Which just about backs up what I said a while back. Too big a sweep makes it unuseable in a band situation because of the volume drop at the top end - to me at any rate.
<charlie@moosapotamus.net>:
child status 100...The e-mail message could not be delivered because the user's mailfolder is full.
thats what it said.?
if i did something on youtube, would you guys be able to assist?.
as i said its making flanging sound, but should it sound like a commercial unit? or are their some differences using mn3007?
would this be ok for a dmm? (with frequency)
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260728457220&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
You do realize Charlie has PM here?
The meter looks OK. I generally don't use HK sellers (too many issues in the past) but for the price it's worth a try (plus he has very good f'back).
Go on YouTube and check out some of the Owon 'scope demos. The resolution isn't as good as a CRT unit, but it does have some interesting features. I'm still toying w/the thought of getting one as a "backup". Love my old Tektronix 'scope however.
Be patient and you should be able to calibrate it to your liking by ear. Remember that the clock high/low trimpots are VERY interactive. An f counter will facilitate the process however.
If you do a YouTube demo w/good sound quality I'm sure you will get some opinions here (FWIW).
Best of Luck!
here is first link, iuts a bit dodgy as im sick at present and the video came outsideways from the i phone,
there are 2 videos
1st is very quick, explaining setup etc
2nd is me showing adjusting trims etc
any comments would be great.
remember, IM sick at present!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxzIxa8-gNM (first video)
2nd one is 1 gigabyte!! will take a while to upload, will post its link when done!
ive just gone over earlier part of thread and noticed this
"RE: JK1
Note that the Manual control will not work if you simply do not install a stereo switching type jack, as drawn in the schematic. If you do not want to install a jack, you will need to install a jumper between pad Sw and pad S so that the wiper of the manual pot is connected to R53.:
i had nothing connected to jk3!
and some voltages.
from boss 9v power supply = 8.79v
from charge pump = 16.50v
after regulator = 14.17v
4007 4047 3007 4049
1- 0.34 1- 12.2 - 9.1 1- 13.93 Pins 1 & 16- 14.25
2- 0.34 2- 0.7 - 3.9 2- ~6.3 Pin 8- 0
3- 0 3- 7.4 3- 7.99 Pin 13- NC
4- 0.04 4- 14.25 4- 0.87 ALL other pins- ~6.37
5- 0.04 5- 14.25 5- 0
6- 0 6- 14.25 6- ~6.26
7- 0 7- 0 7- 4.9 - 6.0
8- 0.05 8- 0 8- 4.9- 6.0
9- 0.37 9- 0
10- 5.1 - 3.7 10- 5.9- 7.2
11- 7.2 - 7.8 11- 5.9-7.2
12- 0.7 - 3.2 12- 0
13- 14.25 13- 12.3 - 9.2
14- 14.25 14- 14.1-14.5
IC 1 IC2 IC3 IC4 (LFO; slowest speed setting)
1- 7 1- 4.7 1- 6.9 1- 13.1
2- 7 2- 4.7 2- 5.6 2- 7.31
3- 3.4 3- 4.6 3- 6.5 3- 3.6 starts at this and goes up slowly
4- 14 4- 14.1 4- 14.9 4- 0
5- 7.4 5- 7 5- 7 5- 7.0
6- 8.0 6- 7 6- 7 6- 7.0
7- 8.0 7- 6 7- 7 7- 5.5 starts to drop slowly
8- 7 8- 7 8- 5.0 - 3.6 8-13.9
9- 7 9- 7 9- 5
10- 7 10- 7 10- 4.4
11- 0 11- 0 11- 0
12- 0.01 12- 6.9 12- 3.8
13- 12.87 13- 7 13- 3.8
14- 12.87 14- 7 14- 6.09 - 7.1
some major differences i noticed to others are
pins 12,13,14 ic1
???
There should be 15V after the regulator. No exceptions. There is not enough V going into it (check the datasheet of your reg for dropout V). This is one of the reasons I like to use an 18V PS and no charge pump (among others). If you are using a MAX1044 there will not be enough current for this project. Can you bypass the charge pump and get 18VDC to the input of the reg? Try that and then check your V's.
I'm at work. More thoughts later.
do you think that slight drop in v's will make a huge difference?
ive seen a few 18v power supplies around, ive noticed 2 types
both dc but one is transformer type and the other is not.
since the 15 volt regulator will be doing its thing, does it matter in what type of 18v dc supply i use? ???
First go to page 11 of this thread. I posted the V's of a properly functioning unit there.
Next read through this entire thread. It's a bit mind numbing, but not as much as the original "mega A/DA thread". Brew some strong coffee/tea and have at it.
My personal choice is to go w/the old fashioned transformer type PS. I have never had a problem with those; innefficient as they are & all that. There may/may not be any issues w/a switched-mode PS. I don't use them because they can potentially introduce heterodyning (maybe not). Just make sure it can supply ~ 100 mA @ 18VDC. If you read through this thread you will see several people have had issues w/the charge pump setup. Some have not. Your choice.
All the Best!
Have you got the diode in after the charge pump? Dropping that might help...
But I had a slightly lower than 15V reading and my A/DA is fine, I wouldn't worry about 1V of loss personally.
yes ive got the full charge pump circuit, in from the latest schematic literature.including the diode 11 (which is supposed to be labelled as diode 8 or 9?!!!)
i bought today a dick smith (aussie version of radio shack) multi dc powersupply, its obviously not a transformer based one, but i can take it back if i dont need it.
it goes from 12v, 15v, 18v, and 24v. the voltages measured from it where pretty close to advertised.
what i noticed was using the 15v regulator, would loose about .2 of a volt. ie 15v in , 14.8v out.
this occured with either the 18v or 24v. after 15v regulator the circuit was getting around 14.4v.
now when i used the 15v selection from the power supply, and fully omitting the charge pump/15v regulator
the measured voltage for the circuit varied from 14.85 - 15.05volts!
surely this will be good enough?
I will try and do another voltage chart testing thingy,
also do another video with this new power adapter.
one thing i have t6 trimmer turned fully clockwise for the most notable flange., this is a wet dry mix trim?? is it not? if so from reading different notes most have it trimmed in the centre. is how ive set my t6 up similar to anyone out there???
i did one a few days ago and after uploading it for a few hours on you tube, it then gets rejected becauseover a gigabyte!
heres another link of next video
http://www.youtube.com/user/njkmonty1#p/a/u/0/sYSccDFzIO4
for some reason came out pixelly?
after that one is another testing sounds and trim pots
http://www.youtube.com/user/njkmonty1#p/a/u/0/--xoMQ9D-Oc
Congratulations njkmonty, from your videos it would appear that you've got things mostly working! One thing to remember about this design is that it provides a very large range of adjustment and that achieving the best sounds requires careful adjustment of the controls (and that's after everything has been calibrated). I seldom use full LFO depth, as that sweeps too broad a range unless using extremely slow sweep rates.
The Enhance control adds regeneration (feedback) and its effect should be very noticeable - the sound should become very resonant and metallic as more Enhance is added. Maybe check T2 and the wiring to the Enhance pot and make sure the connections are functioning. I've set T2 so that maximum regeneration is just past the oscillation point (set to taste).
To set T1 (BBD bias), I disconnected the dry path and listened to the BBD path with a constant tone (generated by PC signal generator) and set a static clock (no LFO) then adjusted for highest output with least distortion. A sine test tone in the range of 60 - 500 Hz should suffice. Just listen for the onset of clipping and make increasingly slight adjustments until distortion is minimized. Optimal BBD bias varies somewhat according to clock frequency, so I tried to strike a balance somewhere in the middle range. Having a constant regulated board voltage is important to keep the BBD within spec.
T4 sets the base BBD clock, while T5 sets the range from low to high. These two are interactive. On my build, I set T4 to achieve roughly 13 ms at maximum delay (LFO depth at minimum). If regeneration is added, a 14 ms delay produces a resonant pitch which is around C#2 on a piano and sounds somewhat like a Cylon from Battlestar Galactica. T5 can then be used to set the minimum delay, which should sweep up to around 2 KHz at the highest (around C7). Using various tools and techniques, these controls can be adjusted without need of a frequency meter.
T3 adjusts the "lumpiness" of the LFO sweep. One trick to set the LFO for a fast rate, then adjust T3 to where the pulses are smoothest. This should give a reasonably smooth sweep when LFO speed is lowered.
As for T6, this didn't exist on my build (SAD1024A), though I added a small trimpot on mine for fine tuning. What I did was feed the flanger a pink noise signal from my PC, observed the output using an RTA program, and set the trimmer for maximum cancellation (largest visible nulls in frequency response) - you can see an illustration of this in an earlier thread where I posted the results. Again, this will vary somewhat according to clock rate due to non-linearities with the BBD, so I set mine for maximum cancellation through the "sweet" part of the sweep (somewhere between 0.5 ms and 2 ms).
Because frequency and period are reciprocal relations, it can be calculated that 0.5 ms delay equates to roughly C7, 0.4 ms is roughly D#7, while 0.3 ms is roughly G#7. So, if regeneration is added, it should be possible to set the maximum clock rate to generate these pitches rather than using a frequency meter. In terms of clock frequency, 0.5 ms is around 1 MHz [1/(0.5 ms/1000/512 samples)], 0.4 ms is around 1.3 MHz, and 0.3 ms is around 1.7 MHz. My SAD1024 version is set for a minimum delay of roughly 0.2 ms, but this clock rate (2.6 MHz) may be a bit much for the MN3007.
heres another vid
http://www.youtube.com/user/njkmonty1#p/a/u/0/mO0BC6C9OBw
wow thanks for the answer!
its helped already and ive onlyabsorbed 20% of it!!, will read over again after printing it out, so what i gather is im close and just need to fine tune it better,
i was a little unsure if i was suppose to get extreme flang out of it.
i do get some pleasant chorus though, that led me to believe id stuffed up!
Quote from: njkmonty on July 13, 2011, 11:42:16 PM
... so what i gather is im close and just need to fine tune it better,
i was a little unsure if i was suppose to get extreme flang out of it.
i do get some pleasant chorus though, that led me to believe id stuffed up!
Chorus is sort of a "sub-species" of flanging which occurs at longer delay times where you hear pitch modulation more than comb filtering. Aspects which make flanging more "extreme" are a large sweep ratio, very short minimum delay, longish sweep period, and high levels of regeneration. When properly set up, the A/DA hits all of these points. Also important is setting the wet/dry ratio to as close to 1:1 as possible, to maximize comb filtering. The best way to hear the impact of comb filtering is to feed the flanger a full range signal, or something with a lot of harmonics (like raw fuzztone guitar).
The range control adjusts the LFO depth, or how much the LFO modulates the delay time. At minimum, the LFO has no impact on the delay, and there's just a static delay, or a "frozen" flange sound. At maximum, the LFO sweeps the flanger from maximum to minimum delay time (as set by T4/T5).
Manual sets the starting point for the sweep. In other words, it sets the baseline delay from which the LFO moves up and down (mostly down, IIRC). So, if you set the manual control for 5 ms, the flanger will sweep up and down around that point, with the depth/intensity of the sweep controlled by the range knob.
Enhance controls regeneration or feedback. It's what makes for peaky/metallic/extreme oscillation effects. If there's a problem with the wiring here, it might explain why your flanger is not sounding as extreme as it should. By adjusting this control and T2 to maximum, you should be able to produce massive self-oscillation.
This thread contains a few samples from my SAD1024A A/DA build (note: "white noise negative" seems to have been deleted): http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=83352.0
BTW, have you installed SW1? I'm hearing negative flanging in your videos, but not positive. Negative flanging sounds sort of "tubular" but won't produce the same "jet swoosh" as positive flanging. If not, try installing SW1, or just put a jumper across the pads and see what happens.
For my taste in flanging sounds, I tend to keep the delay out of the chorus range, sweeping from around 0.3 ms to say 8 ms. If you can, try feeding the flanger pink or white noise, or a full-range music signal, and play with the manual and range controls to fine tune the sweep. This should help familiarize yourself with the controls and is easier than tweaking while playing guitar. Having too much range will put the bottom end of the sweep into the chorus zone and sound "warbly" rather than "flangey". Also, see my earlier post regarding making the LFO less "lumpy".
one quick thing i noticed capacitor 18 asks for 1500pf?
i have a 1noj 100v cap in there. (actually i think im suppose to have 0.0015uF is that right?
does 0.0015uF = 1500pf?
also the only other value that was away from exact pdf specs was i used a 560pf cap instead of 510pf in c19?
you are right, im not getting much response from enhance pot
Yes, 1500 pF = 0.0015 μF. The slightly larger 560 pF cap for C19 will make the regeneration path a little darker, while 1 nF C18 will make it a little brighter. FWIW, in the thread linked above, I noted a number of changes I made in my build to open up the sound by relaxing the low pass filtering. But that's stuff to think about after you've got a fully functioning flanger....
I'd suggest troubleshooting the enhance control. There may be a bad connection somewhere. Its effect should be obvious. No enhance implies that there's a break in the feedback loop somewhere (the circuitry surrounding IC1d and going to the enhance pot. Check continuity along the way with a multimeter.
My ADA flanger is almost there.
I feel like it's pretty close just calibrated by ear, but I would like to check my work.
So, I've got a question regarding the calibration procedure for min and max frequency of the clock circuit.
I have an oscilloscope and a tone generator, but NOT a frequency counter.
However, If I send a tone to the scope which is roughly 69.6 KHz i can easily locate the correct time window.
So it would seem that I should be able to tweak the trim pots until my clock squares up in the window...
Doing it this way should work, but it would help to know roughly the voltage I'm looking for.
If I calibrate my window for 1v p-p I'm not really catching the clock signal...
Or if I am I'm not sure what I'm looking at, for.
Does it ride up on top of the 12.3 - 9.2volts at pin 13 of the 4047 or should I look for something else?
Square wave? sin wave? Approximate voltage p-p? 1volt? 1mv? .01mv?
I'll have another look tomorrow evening, but I could sure use a little bit of guidance.
Thanks a ton.
Sleeper
4007 4047 3007 4049
1- 0.34 1- 12.2 - 9.1 1- 13.93 Pins 1 & 16- 14.25
2- 0.34 2- 0.7 - 3.9 2- ~6.3 Pin 8- 0
3- 0 3- 7.4 3- 7.99 Pin 13- NC
4- 0.04 4- 14.25 4- 0.87 ALL other pins- ~6.37
5- 0.04 5- 14.25 5- 0
6- 0 6- 14.25 6- ~6.26
7- 0 7- 0 7- 4.9 - 6.0
8- 0.05 8- 0 8- 4.9- 6.0
9- 0.37 9- 0
10- 5.1 - 3.7 10- 5.9- 7.2
11- 7.2 - 7.8 11- 5.9-7.2
12- 0.7 - 3.2 12- 0
13- 14.25 13- 12.3 - 9.2
14- 14.25 14- 14.1-14.5
IIRC, the clock should be a square wave which is 15V p-p at pins 2 and 6 of the MN3007.
Yes. 15V p-p. CMOS gives you the rails out. Also, you can use a 'scope and a bit of math to do f measurements. Not super exact, but certainly more than accurate enough for this project.
Thanks OSA and 12Bass
I was a bit under on my voltage range... ::)
Tis no wonder that I missed seeing it.
I'll have another go this evening.
Thanks!
hello again i managed to get the enhance pot working (one pad not soldered!) woohoo!
will maybe do another YouTube. got the calibration pretty easy, now its working prop, using freq thingy on dmm
just looking at doing some mods (only usable ones0, could someone perhaps suggest whats worth doing and not?
i was looking at the stereo mod, but came across some "bounce" mod etc.
anyone had experience with any additions?
If you have not a specific objective to reach, even yellow knobs are an interesting mod :icon_mrgreen:
more interested in getting an eclosure like this than knobs
http://notinteractive.com/stuff/guitar/fx/ada-flanger/front.jpg
i quickly put together this little circuit i found somewhere in here for the stereo mod
http://s999.photobucket.com/albums/af111/njkmonty/?action=view¤t=ADAstereoout-3.jpg
, but didn't work then i came across this at moosapotomus's site
Stereo outputs mod
The idea for this mod is to feed a clean signal to a second output jack, and install a toggle switch to remove the clean signal that is mixed into the main output. The clean signal can be tapped directly from the input (direct thru), or from the output of the first input buffer stage (Pad A). The toggle switch should be installed to make/break a connection between the two pads at Pad C. Note that when the toggle breaks the Pad C connection, some regen will also be cut out of the output. Alternatively, a switching type jack could be used for the second output jack to break the connection between the two pads at Pad C when a plug is inserted.
can anyone whos actually done advise????
i found this, can anyone help????
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=49929.400
reply no# 74
Re: A/DA Flanger does TZF?
(http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af111/njkmonty/ScreenHunter_01Oct021845.jpg)
it looks different to the earlier version,
i tried the tonepad chorus add on stereo mod, but didnt sound right
Semi-necro post :icon_eek:
Just wondering if this unit can be run (with the LT1054 charge pump) from a 9V battery.
Using the recommended components from the moosapotomus build notes (LM324s, LT1054 charge pump, etc.) would it kill a 9V quick or is it a viable addition?
Opinions or experiences?? ;D
Quote from: Govmnt_Lacky on January 23, 2012, 01:06:31 PM
Semi-necro post :icon_eek:
Just wondering if this unit can be run (with the LT1054 charge pump) from a 9V battery.
Using the recommended components from the moosapotomus build notes (LM324s, LT1054 charge pump, etc.) would it kill a 9V quick or is it a viable addition?
Opinions or experiences?? ;D
Current draw is around 30mA or something I think? Should last a while on a battery.
The LT1054 has a top limit of 100mA so it'll at least last a gig.
Quote from: Scruffie on January 23, 2012, 01:24:47 PM
Current draw is around 30mA or something I think? Should last a while on a battery.
The LT1054 has a top limit of 100mA so it'll at least last a gig.
Good deal! Thanks ;)
I am just about done with building up the excellent board from Charlie and I have run into a problem that may not be a problem ;D
According to the schematic and layout, R71 is supposed to be a 14K resistor. I do not have that value handy at the moment but I DO have a 13K and a 15K.
Could I sub one of these values in there WITHOUT any ill effects to the circuit? I see that this resistor is between the V+ input on Pin 1 and the Vgg input on Pin 4 of the MN3007.
Could someone please verify that the 13K/15K would work here? I am thinking of the larger (15K) value to be safe.
Thanks ;)
P.S. I would like to NOT put 2 values together to make the 14K if at all possible.
You need 1/15 15Vcc @ Vgg. (~1V)
Any resistors providing the ratio will be OK (in my MXR clone I used 100K + 7K5)
Quote from: Fender3D on February 06, 2012, 10:51:11 AM
You need 1/15 15Vcc @ Vgg. (~1V)
Any resistors providing the ratio will be OK (in my MXR clone I used 100K + 7K5)
Fender to the rescue!! :P
That is what I was afraid of :icon_cry:
I can only assume that the 14K is essential to getting the right voltage into Pin 4 of the MN3007. According to the schemo, the V+ (+15V) from the regulator is passing through a 250 ohm resistor then it goes DIRECTLY into Pin 1 AND it goes through the 14K to Pin 4.
Now I am thinking that changing the value of R71 (to 15K or 13K) will effect that voltage level going into Pin 4.
I guess I will need to get me a 14K resistor OR ruin my picture perfect board with 2 resistors soldered in series :icon_cry:
Nope,
you just have to change R71/R70 ratio (14k/1k) 27k/2k or 33k/2k4 will be ok.
the 250 res. is there just to filter BBD's supply toghether with C36
Quote from: Govmnt_Lacky on February 06, 2012, 10:59:13 AM
Quote from: Fender3D on February 06, 2012, 10:51:11 AM
You need 1/15 15Vcc @ Vgg. (~1V)
Any resistors providing the ratio will be OK (in my MXR clone I used 100K + 7K5)
Fender to the rescue!! :P
That is what I was afraid of :icon_cry:
I can only assume that the 14K is essential to getting the right voltage into Pin 4 of the MN3007. According to the schemo, the V+ (+15V) from the regulator is passing through a 250 ohm resistor then it goes DIRECTLY into Pin 1 AND it goes through the 14K to Pin 4.
Now I am thinking that changing the value of R71 (to 15K or 13K) will effect that voltage level going into Pin 4.
I guess I will need to get me a 14K resistor OR ruin my picture perfect board with 2 resistors soldered in series :icon_cry:
15k - 5% Tollerance 14.25k is possible if you measure a few of your resistors, close enough.
Or... just use a 13 or 15k... I know it's
meant to be 14/15th Vdd but a lot of the time people ignore that straight out and just connect it to voltage or ground depending on 3007 or 3207, personally I always just use the diode drop, 0.6V is close enough 14/15th the majority of the time.
I've not had any issues having it be a bit off.
Or you could produce 14K by using a 220K resistor in parallel with the 15K.
Don't know if this has been brought up in this mammoth thread but I figured I would post this for all prospective builders of the Rev 5 MN3007 retro-fit boeards.
I noticed today that the external CV pedal wiring (JK3) is mis-labeled on the moose board. The wiring is labeled as Sw (switch), T (Tip), and S (sleeve) of the switching jack.
In actuality, it SHOULD be labeled Sw (switch), T (tip), and R (Ring). According to the schematics, the sleeve should be grounded and the RING should be connected to R53.
Am I correct in this?
You are correct, Sir! 8)
I can't believe that went unnoticed for ~3+ years! :D
Thanks!
~ Charlie
...just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water...
:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:
Here is my build of this FANTASTIC board and circuit from moosapotamus:
(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n541/redmangreg/FFlanger.jpg)
This is probably the best flanger I have built to date!
I do have one problem.... I cannot get the Threshold control to act properly.
Can anyone enlighten me on a good way to dial in the Threshold control? I am using a 2N4393 transistor.
I use the same gate in my MXRs clones actually... :icon_wink:
FET suffers the "phaser matching process" :icon_biggrin:
Carefully select a proper FET, or add a bias setting to FET's gate, instead of R32...
Otherwise, if it's a gain issue try playing with R28 and R27 (100 ohms is way too low...)
Quote from: Fender3D on February 23, 2012, 10:41:50 AM
Otherwise, if it's a gain issue try playing with R28 and R27 (100 ohms is way too low...)
OK. If I keep R28 at 1M5, and I were to install a trimmer pot for R27.... what value would you suggest? If 100 ohms is too low ;D
The series pot (Threshold pot) is only 10KB. Should I try a 100K multi-turn trimmer in place of R27?
What value are you using for the main threshold control? Increasing that from 10K up to 100K should help, if you haven't done that already.
Sweet looking build, BTW!
~ Charlie
Quote from: Govmnt_Lacky on February 23, 2012, 10:50:05 AM
OK. If I keep R28 at 1M5, and I were to install a trimmer pot for R27.... what value would you suggest? If 100 ohms is too low ;D
1K might be a nice start...
Quote from: Govmnt_Lacky on February 23, 2012, 10:50:05 AM
The series pot (Threshold pot) is only 10KB. Should I try a 100K multi-turn trimmer in place of R27?
Better a 50k-100k pot instead of 10k... :icon_wink:
EDIT:
lol
Charlie beats me by 12 seconds... my BBD is longer than his... :icon_mrgreen:
Quote from: moosapotamus on February 23, 2012, 10:57:41 AM
What value are you using for the main threshold control? Increasing that from 10K up to 100K should help, if you haven't done that already.
I am using the called-for 10KB pot. I have read about using a 100KB in place of it but, I really wanted to stay "true to form" to the original if at all possible. It's not looking that way though :-\ According to the factory alignment specs, there really is no "adjustment" for the Threshold level. It is basically a procedural op check with no reference as to what is next if the op check is BAD ::)
Quote
Sweet looking build, BTW!
Thanks Charlie! Great board to work with makes it all possible ;)
Quote from: Fender3D on February 23, 2012, 10:57:53 AM
1K might be a nice start...
Might be worth a try. Swapping out the Threshold pot now will be a bit of work as it will require digging out the PCB to get to it. This is all crammed into a 1590DD :icon_eek:
Quote from: Fender3D on February 23, 2012, 10:57:53 AM
lol
Charlie beats me by 12 seconds... my BBD is longer than his... :icon_mrgreen:
12 seconds!!! What took you so long? You're not even in BBD territory any more! :D
Quote from: Govmnt_Lacky on February 23, 2012, 11:07:10 AM
I have read about using a 100KB in place of it but, I really wanted to stay "true to form" to the original if at all possible. It's not looking that way though :-\ According to the factory alignment specs, there really is no "adjustment" for the Threshold level. It is basically a procedural op check with no reference as to what is next if the op check is BAD ::)
Yeah, "true to form" is a bit of a stretch with this circuit, anyway. I'm up to rev.5, and that's on top of all the previous "factory" revisions.
If it weren't for the hassle of disassembling your shiny new pedal, I'd still say that swapping in a 100K threshold pot would be your best bet.
There has been a bit of renewed interest in this circuit, lately, and there are a few things that could be updated in the documentation, too. Since I happen to be in the process of rebuilding/updating my website, I'm going to clean this stuff up, too. Might even have to order another batch of PCBs. 8)
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on February 23, 2012, 12:25:42 PM
Yeah, "true to form" is a bit of a stretch with this circuit, anyway. I'm up to rev.5, and that's on top of all the previous "factory" revisions.
Indeed! It sure would be interesting to know what the exact pot value was in the original AND re-issue versions of the A/DA Flanger :icon_cool:
Quote
If it weren't for the hassle of disassembling your shiny new pedal, I'd still say that swapping in a 100K threshold pot would be your best bet.
Might do just that! :icon_eek:
Quote
There has been a bit of renewed interest in this circuit, lately, and there are a few things that could be updated in the documentation, too. Since I happen to be in the process of rebuilding/updating my website, I'm going to clean this stuff up, too. Might even have to order another batch of PCBs. 8)
Let me know if you decide to do any small runs of the SAD1024 version ;)
Quote from: moosapotamus on February 23, 2012, 12:25:42 PM
12 seconds!!! What took you so long? You're not even in BBD territory any more! :D
lol
I got the longest SAD on Earth (1024*1024)
(http://www.wizardinside.it/foto/schemi/SAD1048576.jpg)
:icon_mrgreen:
What a curiosity! :P 8)
Quote from: moosapotamus on February 23, 2012, 12:25:42 PM
There has been a bit of renewed interest in this circuit, lately, and there are a few things that could be updated in the documentation, too. Since I happen to be in the process of rebuilding/updating my website, I'm going to clean this stuff up, too. Might even have to order another batch of PCBs. 8)
~ Charlie
I really should get back to this too. Only have to wire it up and then keep my fingers crossed that it works :D
Performed a successful surgical operation last night! ;D
Removed the 10K Threshold pot and replaced with a 100K.
Happy to report that the patient is fully recovered and that the patient reports an increased range of motion 8)
Definitely worth the risk!! :icon_lol:
Cheers, Lacky! 8)
~ Charlie
(http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af111/njkmonty/ScreenHunter_08Oct061939.jpg)
im about to build my second moosapotomus flanger but stuck on resistor 7
if you look at the above pic there are 4 holes in particular,
1 to the left of the "R" outside the R7 Rectangle
the 2 holes within the R7 Rectangle which are joined, and..
the hole on the right of the R7 Rectangle coming from the positive side of c5 can cap
where do i put resistor? the 2 holes outside the R7 Rectangle?
Quote from: njkmonty on October 06, 2012, 05:42:46 AMwhere do i put resistor? the 2 holes outside the R7 Rectangle?
On the schematic, R7 goes between pins 4 and 12 of IC2. So, that means that the left lead of R7 is inserted to the left of where you see R7 indicated on the parts layout picture, and the right lead of R7 is inserted to the left of where C5 is indicated. Happy flanging!
Thanks !
Hey all
Whats the best place to start troubleshooting if I have nothing at the output?
Ive got 7.5v at Vb (1/2 supply) and 15v ish on the main voltage rails to the ICs etc
I have LFO working, I have sound on various pins of the quad opamps... stumped.
Thanks
Quote from: LaceSensor on November 10, 2012, 02:17:53 PM
Hey all
Whats the best place to start troubleshooting if I have nothing at the output?
Ive got 7.5v at Vb (1/2 supply) and 15v ish on the main voltage rails to the ICs etc
I have LFO working, I have sound on various pins of the quad opamps... stumped.
Thanks
Hey Lace,
You might want to post a new debug thread with the applicable voltages from the "What to do when it doesn't work" thread.
Have you verified all your offboard stuff?
Get schematic, signal source, and audio probe/O'scope. Start probing at the output and work your way "backwards".
I know; sounds like the "simpleton" method. It does work however.
I do it like that but then again "simpleton" applies in my case... ;D
OK I can do that
Im just in a fudge right now. a lot of things arent working for me (inc personal stuff :/ )
Fixed. Output volume control was on the bit of perf that also connects to ground....IDIOT
haha
well at least it was an easy fix once I opened my eyes and mind
Ok, I'm back looking at tuning this in better, thanks to Charlie's excellent videos.
However, I'm not having much luck getting the frequencies tuned. I can obviously get one or the other but no matter what I do one remains out of range.
I think the closest I came last night was 2.9 Mhz and 69Khz.
I checked the power supply and found I was a little low too - 14.55V on the output of the regulator. I will investigate the power issue tonight, but is there any chance these two things are related?
Any ideas?
Hi Aston,
Are you refering to the adjustment of TR4 and TR5? If so I believe that I have a fix for you.
Interested to hear what you have in mind, Larry.
Aston - Instead of trying to nail specific numbers, how does it sound to you? 2.9Mhz is kind of high for my taste. Personally, I don't hear much effect above ~2.5Mhz. But there is a lot still going on below 69.6Khz. So I usually tune the whole range down a bit anyway. Are you able to try something similar? IMO, the sound is more important than the numbers. 8)
~ Charlie
QuoteTR4 and TR5?
Yep, would love to hear your fix Larry
QuoteInstead of trying to nail specific numbers, how does it sound to you?
I hear what you are saying. I'll try to complete the rest of the setup and go round a couple of times adjusting the range.
;)
Hey Aston and Charlie,
I built the SAD version based on the moosapotamus project files and numerous threads. I routed my own board and moved a few things around to where I was able to fit it in a 125BB enclosure.
http://www.aronnelson.com/gallery/main.php/v/diyuser/ADA+Flanger.jpg.html
When I tried to adjust TR4 and TR5 to the factory specs, just like so many have posted, I was unable to reach those values at the same time. I would adjust one trimmer to one point, and then adjust the other but it would change the original point! It just wasn't do able!
After reviewing the original factory schematics, I noticed a change that goes back to the Irwin/Giles MN3010 to SAD1024 retrofit schematic. This change doesn't seem to have anything to do with the BBD retrofit, so I changed the values to the factory drawing and was able to get the required set points.
If you look at the factory drawing Rev. 4 you'll see that C29 is 51pf (not 39pf) and R69 is 1M (not 2.2M)
Make the component changes and you'll be able to reach the factory set up specs.
Also, while we're on the subject.
I saw a lot of talk in the old threads about the Threshold not working correctly or at all......My fix....Use the proper JFET!
The 2N4393 is still available, as is the PN4393. I believe that the threshold circuit is designed around this particular JFET. I have switched JFETS and the only one that truly works is the 4393.
Hope this helps!
Quote from: armdnrdy on December 17, 2012, 01:37:51 PM
I built the SAD version based on the moosapotamus project files and numerous threads. I routed my own board and moved a few things around to where I was able to fit it in a 125BB enclosure.
http://www.aronnelson.com/gallery/main.php/v/diyuser/ADA+Flanger.jpg.html
Wow, cool! No guts, no glory. Let's see 'em. :icon_mrgreen:
Quote from: armdnrdy on December 17, 2012, 01:37:51 PM
When I tried to adjust TR4 and TR5 to the factory specs, just like so many have posted, I was unable to reach those values at the same time. I would adjust one trimmer to one point, and then adjust the other but it would change the original point! It just wasn't do able!
Thanks, Larry. I don't believe that changing C29/R69 values will change the interaction between TR4 and TR5, but if it helps dialing in a frequency range that is more pleasing to your ears, that's great!
I'd like to hear about the results if you try it, Aston.
Quote from: armdnrdy on December 17, 2012, 01:37:51 PM
Also, while we're on the subject.
I saw a lot of talk in the old threads about the Threshold not working correctly or at all......My fix....Use the proper JFET!
The 2N4393 is still available, as is the PN4393. I believe that the threshold circuit is designed around this particular JFET. I have switched JFETS and the only one that truly works is the 4393.
Yeah, kinda cool what happens when you use the right components. :D
The Threshold also works a lot better if you use a 100K pot instead of 10K. ;)
~ Charlie
I built my 3007 version according to moose specs EXCEPT with the 100K Threshold mod. I was able to dial in TR4 and TR5 to almost perfect! ;D
Did you try using multi turn pots for those values?
BTW... still have some 2N4393s on hand if anyone needs one for a build ;)
Quote from: moosapotamus on December 17, 2012, 02:01:47 PM
Wow, cool! No guts, no glory. Let's see 'em. :icon_mrgreen:
Thanks, Larry. I don't believe that changing C29/R69 values will change the interaction between TR4 and TR5,
I don't think that it changed the interaction between TR4 and TR5, I know it did! As I stated, I was unable to achieve the factory points until I changed those values. I wasn't even able to get close! After the change I achieved the points spot on!
Here's the glory!
http://www.aronnelson.com/gallery/main.php/v/diyuser/Flanger+1024+gut+shot.JPG.
@Larry,
Looks groovy! 8)
Any chance of sharing that layout?
What are the finished PCB dimensions?
Right, looks like I've got something to work with. Thanks a lot guys. I'm on it right after I get me some dinner.
Govmnt_Lacky,
Thanks for the compliment! But thanks should go the Charlie, Old school, Irwin, Giles, and anyone else who I'm forgetting for doing all of the heavy lifting!
Sure I'll share the layout. Do you use Eagle by any chance? The best thing for good quality, correct sized prints is to use the actual Eagle files. Let me know.
This is a double sided board. A few hits and misses with alignment and you'll get it. I tape the two board layouts on the double side copper clad board, drill alignment holes through both layouts and the board, and then use a straight pin in each corner to align for the transfer. You can usually tell by the alignment holes versus the printed holes if you're in the ball park. If not, wipe the toner with acetone and try it again. I have it down to a couple of attempts before I get it right.
The PCB dimensions are 4" X 3 1/4". The board fits on the bottom lid of the enclosure.
I almost forgot. Which version would you like? I have the SAD, the MN3007, and the original MN3010 worked up in files. I wanted to A/B the different builds. I have all of the components to build the other two versions but I keep getting caught up in other projects!
@Larry
Darn It!!!
Don't use Eagle, Don't do double sided boards!!! :'(
Share and share alike though. Someone may be able to benefit! (Maybe even me someday :icon_cool:)
I didn't do double sided boards either but.....
If somebody who reads this can give me some direction as to the best format and way to post usable files, I'll be glad to share.
I've downloaded too many board files that are just not usable. That's why I draw up a schematic and route ALL of my boards now. It also helps me to get acquainted with each individual build.
Quote from: armdnrdy on December 17, 2012, 03:04:12 PM
I didn't do double sided boards either but.....
Quote
This is a double sided board. A few hits and misses with alignment and you'll get it.
???
Quote from: armdnrdy on December 17, 2012, 03:04:12 PM
I didn't do double sided boards either but.....
Let me finish the sentence.
I didn't do double sided boards either but because there are some pretty cool builds out there that involve double sided boards,(Infinite Flanger) and to make the most out of the size of an enclosure, (shrinking build designs) I was compelled to figure it out.
Quote from: armdnrdy on December 17, 2012, 01:37:51 PMWhen I tried to adjust TR4 and TR5 to the factory specs, just like so many have posted, I was unable to reach those values at the same time. I would adjust one trimmer to one point, and then adjust the other but it would change the original point! It just wasn't do able!
After reviewing the original factory schematics, I noticed a change that goes back to the Irwin/Giles MN3010 to SAD1024 retrofit schematic. This change doesn't seem to have anything to do with the BBD retrofit, so I changed the values to the factory drawing and was able to get the required set points.
If you look at the factory drawing Rev. 4 you'll see that C29 is 51pf (not 39pf) and R69 is 1M (not 2.2M)
Make the component changes and you'll be able to reach the factory set up specs.
Interesting.... I also ended up having to make a board for the SAD1024A, though mine is basically the same as the original moosapotamus design. I used a 47 pF silver mica for the clock capacitor and have had no trouble dialing in the clock range using the moosapotamus schematic. In fact, there's still room for an even wider sweep if so desired.
Recently I made a couple of quick recordings of the sound of the top and bottom of the clock range but can't seem to find them. I'll post them as a reference for those who do not have access to the necessary test equipment.
Ok. Well props to Larry because that worked perfectly. I changed C29 to 47pF because that's what I had on hand and as noted above R69 became a 1M.
Bingo, I am now tuned :D
There still seems to be a lot of noise, so I'll continue following Charlie's video setup now.
Thank you
Aston
>There still seems to be a lot of noise...
Are you still getting 14.5V out of your 7815? Are you using the 1054 or a dedicated PS?
Fix any PS issues (that much under 15V is an issue) before doing anything else. Just trust me on this. Please. ;)
Quote from: Skruffyhound on December 17, 2012, 05:22:14 PM
Ok. Well props to Larry because that worked perfectly. I changed C29 to 47pF because that's what I had on hand and as noted above R69 became a 1M.
Bingo, I am now tuned :D
There still seems to be a lot of noise, so I'll continue following Charlie's video setup now.
Thank you
Aston
Great Aston,
I'm glad it worked out for you!
@Larry : :D
@Dave : I'm using the LT1054. I will be checking into power issues next.
Having said that, after completing the set up, it does seem to be doing what it is supposed to do.
I need to go off and have a listen to some samples to see if I'm heading in the right direction.
Thanks for today all :D
@Larry - sweet looking, compact layout. Almost looks like there aren't enough parts in there. :o Nice job!
I wouldn't mind having the Eagle files. Folks who want to etch their own would probably be fine with image files or pdf's.
Quote from: armdnrdy on December 17, 2012, 02:18:59 PM
Quote from: moosapotamus on December 17, 2012, 02:01:47 PM
I don't believe that changing C29/R69 values will change the interaction between TR4 and TR5,
I don't think that it changed the interaction between TR4 and TR5, I know it did! As I stated, I was unable to achieve the factory points until I changed those values. I wasn't even able to get close! After the change I achieved the points spot on!
I'm guessing that you mean the "degree" or "amount" of interaction? Yes?
Even with the factory rev4 values, you can not adjust the top end of the sweep without changing the bottom end of the sweep, or visa versa. Agree?
So there will always be some interaction. That's all I was trying to say.
I describe the interaction between TR4 and TR5 in more detail in the calibration video that I did.
And FWIW, I've used everything from 36pF to 51pF for C29 and had no problems dialing in the range.
@Aston - glad that worked for you!
I'll also echo what Dave W wrote - don't make the mistake of chasing audible issues before getting the power supply up to snuff. ;)
~ Charlie
Hey Charlie,
PM your email address and I'll send you the files. If you want to post them here or on your site, that's okay with me.
Also, what I was trying to say is that with the 51pf and the 2.2M I wasn't able to set the frequency to the factory calibration points.
It was like a see saw.
I spent quite some time trying for those two points. I never got close to both at the same time. After I changed those two components to the factory values, I nailed both of the points with a few turns of the trimmers in less than a minute.
Yeah, I couldn't get both points before I changed out those components, one or the other was outside the range. Now both are achievable in a couple of minutes. They are still inter-reactive.
Power is the next issue.
Thanks guys.
Quote from: Skruffyhound on December 18, 2012, 08:27:45 PM
Yeah, I couldn't get both points before I changed out those components, one or the other was outside the range. Now both are achievable in a couple of minutes. They are still inter-reactive.
Power is the next issue.
Thanks guys.
What is the voltage at the input of the 7815?
17-18vdc?
If the 1054 output is sagging under load the 7815 might be dropping out.
Once you get a solid 15V out of the reg you will see the clock f's will change and it will need to be re-calibrated.
Also, any strange noises will disappear.
hi !
i'm just putting toghether my 2nd mn3007 A/DA clone (my 4th counting the SAD1024 versions...). Could it be posible to use Vishay precision multiturn trim pots? like this one ?:
http://www.banzaimusic.com/Vishay-Trimpots/ (http://www.banzaimusic.com/Vishay-Trimpots/)
...in my others A/DA clones i used Piher mini trim pots as the leg spacing is 5 x 5 mm, but i found a little to difficult to adjust (although i got them working ).
Merry Christmas from Brussels !
Multiturn trimpots are my preferred choice for flangers. Just bend the legs carefully.
(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/ada4.jpg)
Moosapotamus A/DA clone. Rev. 01.
thanks Dave W !!!
I just ordered a some of those trim pots...
by the way, very nice build !!!, i wonder what all those switches do, and the extra pot?
Would it be possible for you to share those mods ? (i'm very interested !!)
(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w121/oldschoolanalog/ada7.jpg)
Thank you. LFO/Comb switches the wiper of the Range pot fully CCW for fast switching between swept & filter f/x. Very useful, especially when using a CV pedal for the Manual settings. S1/S2 switches between the 2 speed pots. S1 is the stock value for slow sweeps. S2 is a 250 or 150kC pot (don't remember :icon_lol:); optimized for faster sweeps. I still want to install RG's LERA circuit for ramp up/down between speed settings. This is a mod for another day and/or build. Res. Hi/Lo switches the wiper of the Res. (Regen) pot fully CCW for minimum regen. This is useful when switching to faster speed settings or going from extreme flange to a milder more chorus like sound. I did these mods "on the fly" and don't have any documentation. They are very easily figured out though. Worth a try and simple to reverse to stock if they aren't to one's liking. I have found them very useful. Especially in this "desktop" format where I have access to the controls without having to bend down a lot. All the other controls perform as in the build docs.
Happy Holidaze! :icon_cool:
i'll definitely give some of your mods a try !
I was thinking of put a footswitch (i'll keep mine as stompbox) to do a full regen (à la Paul Gilbert's airplane flanger) "take off"...not sure how to do that, and add this time the pedal switch, as i have a wha enclosure laying around that i've made myself...but again, i'm not sure on how to make the expression pedal... ???
Is it necessary to use a metal enclosure for this circuit? Can i build it into a modular synth form? (MOTM) That basically leaves the circuit naked.
(i am asking this because of thenoise issues)
I once installed a flanger into a cardboard box I cobbled together (rather like the flanger!!) and there was not as much noise as I would have expected.
I have flanger! :D
i'm in the process of boxing it up and i'm thinking about the volume drop issue and it's solution
referring to moosapotamus schematic (http://moosapotamus.net/images/FlangerClone_SCH_rev5_MN3007_jan2010.gif) rev. 05 jan 2010, 2 resistors R41 and R42 have been lowered from 68k to 27k and a 10k pot has been added at the output, wired as a typical volume pot.
I'm thinking about a different way:
i want to add a 250K pot, wired as a variable resistor, in parallel with R41 and R42 (back to 68K value)
doing this I would theoretically be able to set the volume, varying the amount of signal at the input of the last op-amp, without changing the output impedence (i don't even know if this is a plus anyway)
what do you think of this solution?
(http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/9066/adavolumemod.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/547/adavolumemod.png/)
R41&42 toghether with R43-R44-C20 form de-emphasis stage, if you change the ratio, you'll end with unbalanced treble (might be usefull though)...
and that pot, connected as per your schematic, will give you issues when fully CW
BTW
Quote from: intripped on February 01, 2013, 12:26:03 PM
I have flanger! :D
Bravo!!!
:icon_cool:
ok,
i was trying to preserve the ratio, with the variable resistor in parallel with both R41 and R42; another resistor in series with the pot would do the trick about the fully CW issue...
but probably this kind of solution it's not a good idea afterall. :icon_wink:
thanks for your reply Fender3d!
Quote from: Fender3D on February 01, 2013, 01:54:53 PM
Bravo!!!
:icon_cool:
grazie! ;)
Quote from: intripped on February 01, 2013, 12:26:03 PM
i'm thinking about the volume drop issue and it's solution
referring to moosapotamus schematic (http://moosapotamus.net/images/FlangerClone_SCH_rev5_MN3007_jan2010.gif) rev. 05 jan 2010, 2 resistors R41 and R42 have been lowered from 68k to 27k and a 10k pot has been added at the output, wired as a typical volume pot.
I got out my ver. 2009 MN3007 ADA Flanger clone last night after not playing it for nearly four years (built it right before I lost my job in March 2009 and then on to crisis mode for a couple of years). I'm still digging it. One issue I have though is that I think I have like a 50% drop in volume with the unit enagaged - painfully obvious with headphones on. I'm going to try something tonight to fix that. First thing I will try is changing the 100K voltage divider on the output. Maybe get rid of that 100K to ground altogether and see what that does for me. If that doesn't work, then I'll do a booster circuit at the output or something. Not sure why I'm even having this problem as it's built per the schematic and all...
EDIT: Hmm... I see on the latest schematic R41 & R42 were changed from 68K to 27K. Probably should try that first....
Paul, just modify your unit according to the last scheme from Moosapotamus linked above (change R41 and R42 to 27K and add a 10k pot (or trimmer) before the OUTPUT) - this fixes the volume drop issue.
i'm sorry for the confusion i have made: i knew that moosapotamus's solution was already tested and working, i was just curious about my alternative idea
Quote from: intripped on February 13, 2013, 06:58:33 PM
Paul, just modify your unit according to the last scheme from Moosapotamus linked above (change R41 and R42 to 27K and add a 10k pot (or trimmer) before the OUTPUT) - this fixes the volume drop issue.
i'm sorry for the confusion i have made: i knew that moosapotamus's solution was already tested and working, i was just curious about my alternative idea
No problem, I built the thing way back in Feb. 2009 on a Rev 1 board so a few things have changed since then. I also discovered that I used 2.2K resistors for R32 & R33 instead of 22K - I had conflicting information at the time and apparently the 2.2K resistors were not the right values to use, although my unit functioned OK with those values. Not sure if that can also affect the volume, might be something of a factor I suppose.
Anyway, I just fixed R32 & R33 and also changed R41 & R42 from the 33Ks I had in it to 27Ks instead. Now the unit appears to be about as loud when switched on as in bypass mode, with a 1kHz test signal. I will try it with my guitar rig in the morning and see how it does. I did read about the 10K volume pot, it's an option I'll take if it's too loud when switched on. While I was at it, the threshold pot I changed to a 50K from the 100K I put in it and I used a 250K linear pot for the speed control, not perfect but it works to my liking.
EDIT: To my dismay, I still have the 50% volume drop. I did notice this morning that I used a 47K for R10 instead of 27K, once again because of conflicting information I had at the time. So I'll fix that tonight and see if
that is the culprit.
(http://www.diyguitarist.com/Images/FC-Progress3.jpg)
(http://www.diyguitarist.com/Images/FC-Progress4.jpg)
(http://www.diyguitarist.com/Images/FC-Progress5.jpg)
(http://www.diyguitarist.com/Images/FC-Progress6.jpg)
(http://www.diyguitarist.com/Images/FC-Progress7.jpg)
(http://www.diyguitarist.com/Images/FC-Progress8.jpg)
(http://www.diyguitarist.com/Images/FC-Progress11.jpg)
(http://www.diyguitarist.com/Images/FC-Progress12.jpg)
Finally got the volume drop issue resolved, I even needed the 10K vol pot on the output. I had to change five more resistors. Apparently when I built it I used the values on the original ADA Flanger parts list instead of what was shown on the MN3007 schematic, which I guess was not the right thing to do. Anyway, I'm a very happy camper now. :icon_razz:
EDIT: Oh, and I also did the blinking LED thing. I think that is pretty cool. :icon_cool:
Glad you worked it out, Paul.
Is that snake skin? Awesome looking enclosure! 8)
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on February 15, 2013, 06:02:25 PM
Glad you worked it out, Paul.
Is that snake skin? Awesome looking enclosure! 8)
~ Charlie
Thanks, I do have agree that it is pretty cool. :icon_wink:
It's a snake skin imitation fabric that I got at a fabric store. I glued it on with white glue like I did with both of my DIY pedalboard cases. It works pretty well actually. Then a little super glue on the seams to keep them from coming apart.
I'm just happy that it's working like it's supposed to now. Shame it's been sitting in a drawer for four years, but it's a nice reunion. :icon_razz:
I had one of those enclosures when one of the forum guys were selling, but when I went to indent for drilling I must have hit it too hard and the enclosure came apart. Very upsetting. Yours looks killer, thougH!
Quote from: jmasciswannabe on February 16, 2013, 09:19:40 AM
I had one of those enclosures when one of the forum guys were selling, but when I went to indent for drilling I must have hit it too hard and the enclosure came apart. Very upsetting. Yours looks killer, thougH!
Oh yeah, I vaguely remember those enclosures. I wanted something that was pretty close to the original ADA enclosure. I decided to make it out of wood because it was the easiest route to go. I was originally going to do a Pete Cornish type of thing with it but then had the thought to do the snakeskin simply because I had it lying around and thought it might look cool.
Anyway, I was messing around with a chorus setting on it this morning. Wow, does that sound nice. :icon_eek:
I built one of these back in 09 with a BL3207. Never could get it to work right since I couldn't figure out the clocking. I didn't have a scope or freq meter then so I was just twiddling knobs. it would sweep up and when it came down there would be a huge pitch bend warble.
Got back to it yesterday and it turns out the clock was waaaay too slow. To begin with, as bajaman noted after I had shelved it, the clock needs to be doubled compared to sad1024. The stock clock didn't have enough range for me so I had to do some parts subbing.
I ended up decreasing the 82k after the range control to a 68k, and the 20k from T4 Max clock to ground I changed to an 8.2k. From here I could get the clock to go from about 66kHz to 2.7MHz. At the bbd with the range full clockwise it only sweeps from about 70k to 1.2MHz. Sounds pretty darn good though. It seems if I increase the T3 sweep range trimmer, the clock will swing down lower but then it freezes and won't sweep back up unless I turn the trimmer back down a smidge.
Hope this helps anyone trying to build with a BL3207!
I've built this with 1N5819 diodes (instead of 1N5817) in the voltage doubling circuit and now it probably causes problems.
I get 9V into the circuit but just around 16.5V-16.9V after the voltage doubler. The regulator would need at least 17V i think.
I get 14.6V after the regulator but that voltage varies with the sweep of the LFO, on he bottom of the sweep the supply voltage is around 14.3V on the top it is around 14.6V.
Is that normal?
(i am asking it since my LFO sounds weird, it is almost like two delayed sinewaves sweeping, definitely not normal but i have not calibrated the clock frequency yet)
I have never noticed the LFO sweep affecting the input voltage. Seems odd.
If you can get your hands on an 18VDC wall wart, try bypassing the whole voltage doubling circuit and feed the 18V directly to the voltage regulator. That should give you a solid 15V out to the whole circuit. Then, if you can calibrate and get everything sounding good, you will have confirmed that the issue is in the voltage doubler.
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on April 20, 2013, 11:19:51 AM
I have never noticed the LFO sweep affecting the input voltage. Seems odd.
If you can get your hands on an 18VDC wall wart, try bypassing the whole voltage doubling circuit and feed the 18V directly to the voltage regulator. That should give you a solid 15V out to the whole circuit. Then, if you can calibrate and get everything sounding good, you will have confirmed that the issue is in the voltage doubler.
~ Charlie
i can input (after the ADA's stabilizator) stabilized/filtered 15VDC from a synth power supply
i think i will try that and then see what happens.
Quote from: moosapotamus on April 20, 2013, 11:19:51 AM
I have never noticed the LFO sweep affecting the input voltage. Seems odd.
If you can get your hands on an 18VDC wall wart, try bypassing the whole voltage doubling circuit and feed the 18V directly to the voltage regulator. That should give you a solid 15V out to the whole circuit. Then, if you can calibrate and get everything sounding good, you will have confirmed that the issue is in the voltage doubler.
My SAD1024A A/DA flanger clone does not use the voltage doubler; it is powered by an 18 V adapter. However, I have also noticed that the DC voltage before the regulator does fluctuate with the LFO even if the depth is zero and the delay time is not being modulated. The regulator keeps things constant in the circuit. FWIW, I've measured a significant increase in current consumption as the clock is increased (for a short delay time).
Is there anyone who actually uses this from a 9V supply? (not 9.5V, not unregulated putting out more than 9V etc.)
I installed the right diodes but nothing changed. So i started to look at the datasheets.
Now i have trouble believing that this could work with the voltage doubler option.
Under this current consumption the LT1054 puts out around 17V and then you lost another ~0.4V on the reverse protection diode on the input of the regulator. Putting something like 16.6V into the 15V regulator should be not enough because the minimum dropout voltage should be around 2V-2.5V according to the datasheets.
I know that at this point i should just forget about the doubler but i invested too much time and brainpower into it. Now i am thinking about putting a jumper instead of that protecting diode or maybe getting a 9.5VDC supply (i think a Boss supply of mine used to put out that)
(i have a related story, once i tried to make a synth supply with 12VAC transformers so the DC voltage into the regulators came out somewhat under 17V (maybe around 16.5V) and i had all sorts of problems with the supply (noise, lower than 15V outptut etc.) and going with higher DC voltage into the regulators solved them)
I've built two of these using lt1054 both work great.
Quote from: TOPLEL on May 04, 2013, 04:35:50 AM
Is there anyone who actually uses this from a 9V supply? (not 9.5V, not unregulated putting out more than 9V etc.)
I installed the right diodes but nothing changed. So i started to look at the datasheets.
Now i have trouble believing that this could work with the voltage doubler option.
Under this current consumption the LT1054 puts out around 17V and then you lost another ~0.4V on the reverse protection diode on the input of the regulator. Putting something like 16.6V into the 15V regulator should be not enough because the minimum dropout voltage should be around 2V-2.5V according to the datasheets.
I know that at this point i should just forget about the doubler but i invested too much time and brainpower into it. Now i am thinking about putting a jumper instead of that protecting diode or maybe getting a 9.5VDC supply (i think a Boss supply of mine used to put out that)
(i have a related story, once i tried to make a synth supply with 12VAC transformers so the DC voltage into the regulators came out somewhat under 17V (maybe around 16.5V) and i had all sorts of problems with the supply (noise, lower than 15V outptut etc.) and going with higher DC voltage into the regulators solved them)
So jumper the reverse protection diode pads & wire it in parallel with the supply instead or using a diode with a lower fV drop.
Think I used the diode though and it still works.
...or, also try a LDO (low dropout) regulator. Something like...
Mouser pn 512-KA78R15CTU (http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Fairchild-Semiconductor/KA78R15CTU/?qs=%2fha2pyFadui3nT1T0ewuIoZUx1K0n6z5QBwLSEpfJFlKzFVUY1Hv8w%3d%3d)
~ Charlie
I digged up my ada flanger clone once again to get the right clock frequencies.
But I still can't get the freq. right.
Stock with know changes to the circuit i can go from 40 khz to 90khz
After changing the clock cap the range goes up from 200khz to 400khz
The voltages seems to be oke. What can I do here?
ROnaldB
Hmmm... What version do you have, SAD1024 or MN3007?
How are you measuring the low and high frequencies?
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on May 27, 2013, 10:26:11 PM
Hmmm... What version do you have, SAD1024 or MN3007?
How are you measuring the low and high frequencies?
~ Charlie
Hello,
I have the MN3007 version.
And I am measuring the frequencies with a DMM (fluke).
I have allready changed R64 from 20k to 8.2k since I read here someone had good results with that.
But my manual pot reacts very strange. When it's fully CW it now reads 200khz and when it's CCW it reads 400khz but it goes very fast to the 400khz range say after 10% rotation.
I will check all my resistors and caps form the LFO section and clock section just to make sure that good. Could it be a faulty 4007 or 4047? I read you had that problem to?
Thanks
RonaldB
Guys, tuning range frequency VCOs MN3007 clone ADA Flanger (drawn by Charlie Barth) should be 34 kHz - 1.3 MHz. Measurement is to be carried out on 2 or 6 pin MN3007. The handle of a potentiometer "Renge" in the top position of the scheme . Then LFO on the frequency of the VCO not affected by this. Frequency change is the handle of "Manual".
I feel like a complete idiot. :icon_confused:
I wired the Jack for the CV control wrong and did it right know it works ;)
Thanks in advance.
RonaldB
Glad you figured it out! 8)
~ Charlie
It seems like i eliminated my power supply problems, but the problem with the weird sweep remained.
Basically the sine like sweep sounds like this at some settings:
(http://i.imgur.com/kd31NfZ.png)
It kinda sounds like as if at some parts of the sweep the LFO wave voltage jumps quickly to the top or the bottom then continues it's normal sweep.
At test point H with maximum LFO depth (range was at max.) i measured ~4V at the bottom and ~12V at the top of the sweep and it looked kinda sine/triangle like on the DMM without the abrupt jumps.
I tried it with different MN3007s, interestingly the sweep sounds different on them but still defective.
Maybe the clock speed is calibrated super bad and that is the problem? (i don't have a freq counter)
Quote from: TOPLEL on June 05, 2013, 05:09:30 AM
It seems like i eliminated my power supply problems, but the problem with the weird sweep remained.
Basically the sine like sweep sounds like this at some settings:
(http://i.imgur.com/kd31NfZ.png)
It kinda sounds like as if at some parts of the sweep the LFO wave voltage jumps quickly to the top or the bottom then continues it's normal sweep.
At test point H with maximum LFO depth (range was at max.) i measured ~4V at the bottom and ~12V at the top of the sweep and it looked kinda sine/triangle like on the DMM without the abrupt jumps.
I tried it with different MN3007s, interestingly the sweep sounds different on them but still defective.
Maybe the clock speed is calibrated super bad and that is the problem? (i don't have a freq counter)
ok i made an arduino frequency counter, if i can believe it my max clock speed is around 300kHz which is almost 1/10 of what i need. probably this was the source of my problems although i can't trim it above 300k so i need to change some parts i think.
edit: C29 is 47p, R69 is 1M
edit: i measured clockspeed @
TP on the pcb
edit: i changed C29 to 4.7P and now the maximum frequency i can hit is around 660kHz
You have issues in you building, 'cause if you divide by 10 your cap, resulting clock should multiply by 10 as well.
What PCB is it?
Did you build it yourself, or you bought it anywhere?
~2MHz easily suffer from tracks issues, component leads or tin leftovers, flux on PCB and so on.
In MadBean words, this is not a "noob" or "cowboy" level building...
You say your max freq. is 300/660KHz, what's your min. freq.?
It should be around 2KHz if CMOS chips and "Range" voltage are working ok...
Otherwise check CV control as RonaldB suggested, or check your 4007
Quote from: Fender3D on June 05, 2013, 10:30:52 AM
You have issues in you building, 'cause if you divide by 10 your cap, resulting clock should multiply by 10 as well.
What PCB is it?
Did you build it yourself, or you bought it anywhere?
~2MHz easily suffer from tracks issues, component leads or tin leftovers, flux on PCB and so on.
In MadBean words, this is not a "noob" or "cowboy" level building...
You say your max freq. is 300/660KHz, what's your min. freq.?
It should be around 2KHz if CMOS chips and "Range" voltage are working ok...
Otherwise check CV control as RonaldB suggested, or check your 4007
it is a rev05 Moosapotamus PCB.
there are some flux spills around most of my solder joints but i was afraid to poke around the cap's solder joints with a knife (i don't want to cut the connected traces)
i think my next step will be replacing all the logic ic-s.
Your issue with the narrow sweep range sounds very similar to RonaldB (see above). Sure you have the CV input jack wired correctly?
Also, is it possible to post an audio clip of what that sweep/blip sounds like?
~ Charlie
Dont know if this STILL applies but, just in case it may help....
From my formative days of building this sweet pedal ;)
http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=74367.msg833788#msg833788
I'm back at my A/DA in a 1590B project (after 2 years or so of silence :icon_mrgreen:)
At the moment I have thrown away my previous layout and started again. This time I want to avoid as much as wiring as I can.
To prevent LFO bleed in the audio, I am again making two separate boards. But this raises a few questions.
In the Jan 2010 schematic, audio and LFO use the same quad opamp. I am not. Roughly halfway (horizontally) in the schematic I cut it in half. Leaving IC1, IC2c, IC2b, IC3a, IC3b and MN3007 in my audio segment. I have combined IC2c, IC2b, IC3a and IC3b into one LM324, relabelling the pins of IC2b to 12, 13 and 14. My main issue now is: what do I do with pin 4 of this quad? I see some similarities (47R to V+ and 22uF to GND) but no clear "that's what I have to do".
Having to sort this out in the audio section, I assume I will have to do something similar in the LFO section then as well at IC2a and IC3c, or can I just leave that parts as is on the schematic?
Or is what I am doing not possible and do I have to keep the ICs as they were?
Thanks in advance :)
Edit: Audio board is done, except for pin 4 ... :P (And tidying up the traces)
I also need to calculate if I can use 1/8W resistors everywhere. Everything higher than 5K6 should be fine, but the smaller ones I'll need to have a look at.
(http://ist1-2.filesor.com/pimpandhost.com/1/_/_/_/1/1/B/r/b/1Brbr/Flanger.png)
Allow me to visualise my intentions:
(http://ist1-2.filesor.com/pimpandhost.com/1/_/_/_/1/1/B/u/P/1BuPN/FlangerClone_SCH_rev5_MN3007_jan2010.gif)
First I divided the schematic in an audio section and an LFO section. (indicated with the red line).
Then I went on with the following adaptations.
A: remove this connection between the center of the diodes and pin 7. (Noticed this mistake is still in the schematic ;) )
B and C: these dotted lines will be wires running between the 2 boards.
D: Combine IC2a, IC2d, IC3c and IC3d in a quad (LM324). Remove R62 and C26, connect pin 4 to R6.
E: Combine IC2b, IC2c, IC3a and IC3b in a quad (LM324). Connect pin 4 to R62 and C26.
Now my question to you: is what I am doing in D and E correct? Or should I do this differently?
Point D will lead to no issues..
Since IC3a's gain is really huge, signal might bleed into other op-amp on the same chip...
I'd suggest 2 duals on point E...
I agree with Fender3D...
D: should be fine.
E: 2 duals would be a safe bet. But, in the original layout, the quad IC3 has one of its opamps going into the clock section. If the high gain in IC3a wasn't an issue there, it might also be a safe bet that sticking with a quad and switching them around as you are suggesting won't be an issue either.
~ Charlie
And what I am doing with the 47R resistor and 22uF cap is also not an issue? They just supply and filter power, but there are new connections made by me which I was concerned about.
I'll see if I can squeeze 2 duals in the place of the one quad I have now. It will be quite tight :icon_mrgreen:
Thanks guys!
I'm sure this has been asked or is written somewhere but what are the Dimensions of the PCB?
Just wondering if the Moosapotamus board will fit in a 1590XX Enclosure... might be a bit shallow with the board mounted pots though.
How you getting on Valoosj? :icon_mrgreen:
Quote from: Scruffie on September 16, 2013, 04:46:49 PM
Just wondering if the Moosapotamus board will fit in a 1590XX Enclosure...
Scruffie,
This one fit inside of a 125BB!
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53299166/DIYstompboxes/ADA%20Flanger.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53299166/DIYstompboxes/Flanger%201024%20gut%20shot.JPG)
Off board pot wiring and a double sided board.
@Scruffie - My flanger boards are 3.5" x 5.5", and the mounting holes for the pots are 0.45" in from the top edge.
I build it in a 1590DD, but I lay out the enclosure vertically (instead of horizontally) and do not use board mounted pots.
~ Charlie
Quote from: Scruffie on September 16, 2013, 04:46:49 PM
How you getting on Valoosj? :icon_mrgreen:
Right now I've got Rick's Causality 6 on my breadboard. Once I am pleased with that one, I'll get back to this flanger to make sure that my adaptations are good to go.
Then it's off to the fab company to make me some PCBs. The layout in itself is done, just need to doublecheck on the breadboard ...
Quote from: moosapotamus on September 16, 2013, 05:49:30 PM
@Scruffie - My flanger boards are 3.5" x 5.5", and the mounting holes for the pots are 0.45" in from the top edge.
I build it in a 1590DD, but I lay out the enclosure vertically (instead of horizontally) and do not use board mounted pots.
~ Charlie
Drats, too close for comfort for the XX size.
Yeah I used 16mm Right Angle Board Mount Alphas, mounted to the bottom of the board and bent the legs out to fit the mounting pads (speaking of, on future boards it might make more sense to space the pads for the 16mm Alphas Smallbear sell, just a suggestion) they poke out over the top of the board a bit and being on the back increase the height a bit so it'll probably need to be a D for the depth and be horizontal.
Quote from: Valoosj on September 16, 2013, 06:04:44 PM
Quote from: Scruffie on September 16, 2013, 04:46:49 PM
How you getting on Valoosj? :icon_mrgreen:
Right now I've got Rick's Causality 6 on my breadboard. Once I am pleased with that one, I'll get back to this flanger to make sure that my adaptations are good to go.
Then it's off to the fab company to make me some PCBs. The layout in itself is done, just need to doublecheck on the breadboard ...
Sweet! Looking forward to seeing how that pans out.
Quote from: armdnrdy on September 16, 2013, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: Scruffie on September 16, 2013, 04:46:49 PM
Just wondering if the Moosapotamus board will fit in a 1590XX Enclosure...
Scruffie,
This one fit inside of a 125BB!
Off board pot wiring and a double sided board.
Show off :P
Quote from: Scruffie on September 16, 2013, 06:16:11 PM
Show off :P
It was actually an offer for the files of a smaller version of a great flanger. :icon_wink:
Quote from: armdnrdy on September 16, 2013, 06:30:06 PM
Quote from: Scruffie on September 16, 2013, 06:16:11 PM
Show off :P
It was actually an offer for the files of a smaller version of a great flanger. :icon_wink:
Haha, I was only joking :D
Ahhh, no SAD1024 sadly and I have a board built up already :)
Cheers though.
Quote from: Scruffie on September 16, 2013, 07:00:09 PM
Quote from: armdnrdy on September 16, 2013, 06:30:06 PM
Quote from: Scruffie on September 16, 2013, 06:16:11 PM
Show off :P
It was actually an offer for the files of a smaller version of a great flanger. :icon_wink:
Haha, I was only joking :D
Ahhh, no SAD1024 sadly and I have a board built up already :)
Cheers though.
If you want it...I have the 3007 version as well...same size.
Quote from: Scruffie on September 16, 2013, 06:16:11 PM
Yeah I used 16mm Right Angle Board Mount Alphas, mounted to the bottom of the board and bent the legs out to fit the mounting pads (speaking of, on future boards it might make more sense to space the pads for the 16mm Alphas Smallbear sell, just a suggestion) they poke out over the top of the board a bit and being on the back increase the height a bit so it'll probably need to be a D for the depth and be horizontal.
I know, that's a good idea. Originally, I made the pot footprints for the 24mm Alpha...
http://www.mouser.com/ds/2/13/tw-700218-186266.pdf
...but maybe they could be made universal, to be able to accept either.
@Larry - did you eliminate the charge pump on that compact layout? Just use an 18VDC wallwart? Also, did you ever try anything different with the MN3007 output configuration, like we briefly discussed?
~ Charlie
Quote from: moosapotamus on September 17, 2013, 12:59:30 PM
@Larry - did you eliminate the charge pump on that compact layout? Just use an 18VDC wallwart? Also, did you ever try anything different with the MN3007 output configuration, like we briefly discussed?
~ Charlie
Hey Charlie,
Yes Sir.....no charge pump and 18VDC in.
I haven't gotten around to building the 3007 or the MN3010 version yet. (parts in a box) I've been too busy working on everything else!
I sent a PM to oldschool analog asking about the BBD output trimmer and how it came about.....haven't heard back.
If you take a look at the Mutron Flanger 3007 retrofit schematic, you'll see how I implemented the balance trimmer.
A lot of Ibanez effects use the same configuration. It's basically like the two resistor (same value) set up that you see in BBD data sheets but you can zero the two BBD outputs in closer with a scope.
Dang Larry!!!
Got all excited and then saw it was a double sided board :icon_eek: :icon_cry:
Would LOVE to build another one of these but, in a more compact layout/smaller box 8)
Quote from: Govmnt_Lacky on September 17, 2013, 01:35:58 PM
Dang Larry!!!
Got all excited and then saw it was a double sided board :icon_eek: :icon_cry:
Would LOVE to build another one of these but, in a more compact layout/smaller box 8)
GL,
It's actually not that difficult to do double sided boards!
It takes a little bit a patience.....and a little bit of trial and error.
The two sides are lined up with pins in alignment holes on the board.
You tape one side to the board, drill the alignment holes, insert the pins in the holes. Then pierce the second side at each printed alignment hole.
Iron one side on the board, then flip it and iron the next side.
Inspect your work and take measurements to check alignment.
If it's not right....you wash off the toner with acetone and try again.
I am down to two tries to get the alignment right.
Don't fear the double sided board! :icon_twisted:
Quote from: armdnrdy on September 17, 2013, 01:16:48 PM
If you take a look at the Mutron Flanger 3007 retrofit schematic, you'll see how I implemented the balance trimmer.
A lot of Ibanez effects use the same configuration. It's basically like the two resistor (same value) set up that you see in BBD data sheets but you can zero the two BBD outputs in closer with a scope.
Cool. I might try that on the ADA and see how it compares.
Thanks
~ Charlie
Quote from: armdnrdy on September 16, 2013, 07:02:30 PM
Quote from: Scruffie on September 16, 2013, 07:00:09 PM
Quote from: armdnrdy on September 16, 2013, 06:30:06 PM
Quote from: Scruffie on September 16, 2013, 06:16:11 PM
Show off :P
It was actually an offer for the files of a smaller version of a great flanger. :icon_wink:
Haha, I was only joking :D
Ahhh, no SAD1024 sadly and I have a board built up already :)
Cheers though.
If you want it...I have the 3007 version as well...same size.
I WANT IT!! PM'd!
Quote from: jmasciswannabe on September 20, 2013, 09:40:22 AM
Quote from: armdnrdy on September 16, 2013, 06:30:06 PM
If you want it...I have the 3007 version as well...same size.
I WANT IT!! PM'd!
A couple of members have PM'd me recently regarding the 125BB version of the ADA Flanger. There are a few things about this build that would need to be outlined......such as certain resistors being soldered on both sides (acting as a via) to bring continuity of a trace from one side of the board to the other.
I'll have to put a project file together that address this build's particular details. I won't be able to get to it right away...busy with the Mutron Flanger and this thing called work! UGG!
Quote from: armdnrdy on September 17, 2013, 01:52:36 PM
Quote from: Govmnt_Lacky on September 17, 2013, 01:35:58 PM
Dang Larry!!!
Got all excited and then saw it was a double sided board :icon_eek: :icon_cry:
Would LOVE to build another one of these but, in a more compact layout/smaller box 8)
GL,
It's actually not that difficult to do double sided boards!
It takes a little bit a patience.....and a little bit of trial and error.
The two sides are lined up with pins in alignment holes on the board.
You tape one side to the board, drill the alignment holes, insert the pins in the holes. Then pierce the second side at each printed alignment hole.
Iron one side on the board, then flip it and iron the next side.
Inspect your work and take measurements to check alignment.
If it's not right....you wash off the toner with acetone and try again.
I am down to two tries to get the alignment right.
Don't fear the double sided board! :icon_twisted:
Why not tape the two sides together forming a pocket so you can align them up against a back light and then insert the PCB in the pocket, secure in place with some tape and iron away? That's how I used to do photo etch PCBs double sided.
Here's an old example (although you can only see one side).
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=625627200794436&set=a.625627197461103.1073741825.163357953688032&type=1&theater
John,
I have never done it that way because.....I have never heard of that way!~
It sounds pretty good though!
What is your success rate with alignment?
Quote from: armdnrdy on September 21, 2013, 10:39:56 AM
John,
I have never done it that way because.....I have never heard of that way!~
It sounds pretty good though!
What is your success rate with alignment?
For stompbox size boards, 100%
The only time I have a problem is when the board size gets to be more than 6-7 inches. And that is only because the transparency from the laser printer stretches slightly so if you line up one corner of the board, the opposite corner doesn't line up and can be pretty far off. But for 4-5" boards it works every time.
After I get a few more projects out of the way I have to revisit the ADA Flanger trio that I have lined up.
I built the SAD version, and have the MN3010, and MN3007 versions to go.
They are all double sided boards....so I'll give the "pocket" a try.
I actually did a little photo essay of sorts back in 2000 of how I make a double sided PCB. I'll see if I can resurrect it.
damnit, i wanted to build this without annoying you guys, but i just need to see if this sounds about right, so here goes:
i've built the ADA Flanger on vero, because i'm scum with no cash for a PCB, and it seems to work okay for the most part - flanging, voltages within an acceptable margin of Earthtones' readings... i've not calibrated it properly yet (although i have made a working divide-by-1024 prescaler which may or may not make it feasible to do on my sound card), but i have tried to get a feel for everything else besides the clock.
here's my concern: there's a really narrow window of usability with the TR6 trimpot. too low, and the flanging is too weak. too high, and it produces too much echo. due to how they work, i expect that "room reverb"-esque sound in flangers, and i know that's the whole point in a BBD, but i just wanna see if this is behaviour is to be expected? how much is acceptable? there's a risk of it sounding like a really cheap reverb after a point. say you mute a string, pluck it really quickly and mute it again - will there always be a tiiiiny amount of obvious echo? it blends in much more when you're just picking normally, with more sustain etc.
sorry if i've not explained this properly. there's a thread about a slapback echo on the ADA where the OP had R68 and R69 mixed up, but those values (& C29, for which i've tried 47p and 33p) all seem fine for me. all ICs have been replaced once or twice, just in case.
TR2 is near-full, btw, as per the calibration videos, and TR1 is the best balance of flange & distortion i could find
cheers!
Edit: after trying with a Tube Screamer in front of it, the echo renders it unusable. it's either too prominent or the flange is too weak.
Hey there all! Great little discussion here on a classic pedal!
I am going to build one of these soon with the MN3007 but for that jfet (LS4393 / 2N4393 512-PN4393) Those are oboslete.
Any other jfets that I can use instead? or should I try my luck on ebay? I seen some metal 2N4393 TO-18's that are priced a little high but any help is greatly appreciated!
keep on Flanging!
I see on mouser that they have this one 610-2N4393 in stock still and is TO-18 package, hopefully it will work.
Jalmon, I used... er, something from Tayda. I forget what, sorry. But there is a cheap alternative (found it through forum combing, I think.)
Quote from: jalmonsalmon on January 06, 2014, 09:12:51 PM
Hey there all! Great little discussion here on a classic pedal!
I am going to build one of these soon with the MN3007 but for that jfet (LS4393 / 2N4393 512-PN4393) Those are oboslete.
Any other jfets that I can use instead? or should I try my luck on ebay? I seen some metal 2N4393 TO-18's that are priced a little high but any help is greatly appreciated!
keep on Flanging!
2n5457 works just fine
Nice! I have a big bag of 2N5457'S that I was using to dial in a DLS mkIII
thanks!
MrStab,
It would seem that your clock is running much slower than necessary. When properly calibrated, the longest delay produced by the flanger should be ~15 ms, which is too short to be perceived as an echo. I suspect that the clock on your build is roughly half of what it should be. Try using a timing capacitor around half the size to double the clock rate.
Quote from: 12Bass on January 08, 2014, 05:29:12 AM
MrStab,
It would seem that your clock is running much slower than necessary. When properly calibrated, the longest delay produced by the flanger should be ~15 ms, which is too short to be perceived as an echo. I suspect that the clock on your build is roughly half of what it should be. Try using a timing capacitor around half the size to double the clock rate.
I recall from building mine that the build doc doesnt account for this requirement, so yeah, adjust the clock cap or you wont get it in the ballpark needed to calibrate properly.
I ended up with 22pF in mine and it sounds amazing.
The original clock cap was 51pF from the schematics I see, so I don't know where 39pF was chosen from, guess we should use 25pF.
Quote from: Scruffie on January 08, 2014, 01:13:43 PM
The original clock cap was 51pF from the schematics I see, so I don't know where 39pF was chosen from, guess we should use 25pF.
Hence my 22pF.
It got me in the range required to get the clock frequencies accurate
I used a variable capacitor in mine.
Quote from: 12Bass on January 08, 2014, 05:29:12 AM
MrStab,
It would seem that your clock is running much slower than necessary. When properly calibrated, the longest delay produced by the flanger should be ~15 ms, which is too short to be perceived as an echo. I suspect that the clock on your build is roughly half of what it should be. Try using a timing capacitor around half the size to double the clock rate.
aha! that makes sense. i can't be sure if the prescaler i made is accurate or not, but (prior to reducing the cap from 47 to 33pF) the lowest end of the sweep i could get was like 55KHz. i couldn't get both 2.6MHz and 69.6K at the same time. i'll try sticking another cap in series to get to around 19pF or so and report back. cheers!
that helped some.. the delay time is now almost imperceptible, just sounds like a reeeeally fast "metal room"-type delay, which is only noticeable when you mute the strings and play staccato. think i should go even lower than ~19pF?
doesnt mean much until i get access to a proper frequency counter (although it seems to be the software that's lacking), but i'm a little bit closer to getting that 2.6M/6.9K range.
Edit: still sounds weird at 15pF. i wonder if something else is up. it flanges, all the pots work as they should, i just can't get the full intensity of the effect without this weird tank reverb sound. i ran out of 2.2M resistors so i used 2x1M - i thought the use of 2.2 was just because it's commonplace, but maybe that extra 200k could play a role? FWIW, i tried 1M on its own and that didn't improve much. hmm... out of ideas, i've had this lying around for ages now trying to make all these parts & man-hours usable. as i say the lower timing cap value has helped somewhat, though.
Quote from: MrStab on January 06, 2014, 03:52:18 AM
TR2 is near-full, btw, as per the calibration videos...
Calibration can have a big impact on how this circuit sounds.
Do you still have TR2 set near 100%? If so, I would back it off to at least 50% and see how TR6 behaves. There is a lot of interaction between TR2 and TR6. Looking at the scheme, TR6 adjusts the level of the wet signal, but it also affects the regeneration level. And adjusting the max regeneration via TR2 also affects the output volume because some of the regen signal gets added to the "dry" signal. So getting TR2/TR6 set is a little bit of a balancing act.
It would certainly make calibration easier if TR2 adjusted ONLY the max regeneration and TR6 adjusted ONLY the wet signal level. But, as I tried to describe, above, that's not the case. ;)
~ Charlie
Roger that it needs to be calibrated properly.
Get a DMm with freq counter as minimum...
Quote from: LaceSensor on January 10, 2014, 08:23:45 PM
Roger that it needs to be calibrated properly.
Get a DMm with freq counter as minimum...
+1. a dmm with a decent f counter can be found for a very reasonable price. owning or having access to a 'scope is a major plus too....
Quote from: moosapotamus on January 09, 2014, 02:22:22 PM
It would certainly make calibration easier if TR2 adjusted ONLY the max regeneration and TR6 adjusted ONLY the wet signal level. But, as I tried to describe, above, that's not the case. ;)
Calibration will come easier when you realize that the best flanging is when wet and dry are the same level.
Set T6 so that signal levels @ IC1's pins 7 and 8 are the same level (enhance fully CCW)... after that, set T2.
You'll find wet level depends on delay time, so you'll have to choose for "your" best compromise...
Quote from: moosapotamus on January 09, 2014, 02:22:22 PM
Do you still have TR2 set near 100%? If so, I would back it off to at least 50% and see how TR6 behaves. There is a lot of interaction between TR2 and TR6. Looking at the scheme, TR6 adjusts the level of the wet signal, but it also affects the regeneration level. And adjusting the max regeneration via TR2 also affects the output volume because some of the regen signal gets added to the "dry" signal. So getting TR2/TR6 set is a little bit of a balancing act.
i figured out that they were interactive at some point, but not how exactly, and amidst my confusion i just kinda blindly went with what the calibration video set T2 to and tried to measure +3dB difference with T6. i'll need to reinstall Cubase or something to do so properly, as the freeware apps i found didn't have enough adjustable resolution on their meters. i've just been arbitrarily messing around with T6 since then, aware that it wasn't the preferred 50-50 mix, but just short on ideas for things to try.
i'm gonna be busy over the next few days, but i'll get back to this and try to apply this new info. thanks!
just remembered: i think my TR4 pot may be damaged - it's a crappy one (even though i do have a couple of the more ideal multi-turn ones in there) and there's a sudden drop in the frequency at one point, as you turn it. i'll swap that out and see how it goes, unless that's expected behaviour.
I hope someone can help me troubleshoot my ADA flanger clone. I have the MN3007 Rev 1 board. I finally got a meter with a frequency counter. When I try to set the frequency following Moose's video my circuit won't stop sweeping. I have the enhance, speed, and range at 0 and threshold, manual at 100% like the video says. I've traced the manual and threshold pots and everything seems to be connected correctly. I have a jumper in place of C24 and have a 33uf in C25. I hope someone can give me some ideas to try. I'd really like this circuit to work correctly. I do get flanging but I'm sure something is off.
If it's not cool to post in this thread let me know and I can open a new one.
Quote from: fpaul on May 30, 2015, 06:47:36 PM
I hope someone can help me troubleshoot my ADA flanger clone. I have the MN3007 Rev 1 board. I finally got a meter with a frequency counter. When I try to set the frequency following Moose's video my circuit won't stop sweeping. I have the enhance, speed, and range at 0 and threshold, manual at 100% like the video says. I've traced the manual and threshold pots and everything seems to be connected correctly. I have a jumper in place of C24 and have a 33uf in C25. I hope someone can give me some ideas to try. I'd really like this circuit to work correctly. I do get flanging but I'm sure something is off.
If it's not cool to post in this thread let me know and I can open a new one.
The problem is around your range pot. One side of the pot should be DC the other side should be rising and falling in voltage. If the DC side is not connected then you will not be able to change, or turn off, the range.
Thanks John. I finally got some time to look at this. With enhance, speed, and range at zero(CCW) and manual, threshold at 100 (CW) the range pot pin 1 is fluctuating from 4.6-11.3v and pin 3 is fluctuating from 5.0-13.9v. The test point frequency is sweeping from 90K-2.3M hz.
If I turn the manual to 0 I get a stable 58K hz. I can slowly turn the manual up and get a stable 165K but if I go any higher it starts sweeping.
My first post said I traced the threshold pot but I meant to say I checked the continuity of the range and manual pots and the circuit in those areas and every thing seemed to be okay. Seems like something isn't but I'm hoping someone can point me to an area of the circuit I should focus my attention on. Most of the circuit seems to be working okay other than not being able to stop the sweep.
Quote from: fpaul on June 01, 2015, 08:55:35 PM
Thanks John. I finally got some time to look at this. With enhance, speed, and range at zero(CCW) and manual, threshold at 100 (CW) the range pot pin 1 is fluctuating from 4.6-11.3v and pin 3 is fluctuating from 5.0-13.9v. The test point frequency is sweeping from 90K-2.3M hz.
This isn't right. One pin of the range pot (that is connected to the output of the manual buffer) should always be a DC value. The other pin (1 or 3) that is connected to the sweep generator should be moving. That way the wiper pans between a DC value and a sweeping waveform.
Check the inputs to the manual buffer (pin 14 is connected to the range pot) and see if one of them is also sweeping. Both inputs should be DC.
Pretty sure that I had this problem as well and... don't take it for gospel but, I think the instructions in the video had an error.
If you look at the original A/DA Flanger manual, there is a strange interaction between the Range, Width, and Speed pots.
http://www.adaamps.com/Media/Original%20FLNGMAN.pdf
I am "pretty sure" that one of those pots is supposed to be turned in the opposite direction to get the sweep to stop.
(Of course... I could be TOTALLY wrong ya' know :icon_eek:)
Quote from: Govmnt_Lacky on June 02, 2015, 11:07:17 AM
Pretty sure that I had this problem as well and... don't take it for gospel but, I think the instructions in the video had an error.
If you look at the original A/DA Flanger manual, there is a strange interaction between the Range, Width, and Speed pots.
http://www.adaamps.com/Media/Original%20FLNGMAN.pdf
I am "pretty sure" that one of those pots is supposed to be turned in the opposite direction to get the sweep to stop.
(Of course... I could be TOTALLY wrong ya' know :icon_eek:)
The way I see it the interaction is the manual control sets the center point and the range sets the modulation above and below this center point. The range pot is a passive mixer that changes the ratio of mix between the two settings. So to get the actual modulation to stop, the range pot needs to be turned all the way down (I guess that means the manual side of the pot is pin 1) so the pot is shorted (0 ohms) to the manual side and max resistance to the sweep oscillator side. The opamp from the manual side should be low enough to stop any sweeping from being pushed back onto that pin. Unless the external manual sweep input jack isn't shorting the input to the internal pot as shown in the schematic. In that case the input to the opamp would be floating and would most likely want to follow the varying load on its output.
voltage was stable at input pin 12 and fluctuating at input pin 13 and output 14. There weren't any solder bridges or anything so I finally realized the LM324 must be bad. I swapped it out and the circuit is holding stead now at 2.6M. Just need to finish calibrating.
I really appreciate the help John. I'm not sure I would have ever figured this out without your help. This forum rocks!
Sorry for bumping an old thread... I've just built this on vero and I'm having trouble with calibration and I think there is a mistake which is affecting the manual pot.
When setting the frequency I can get it to 2.6 Mhz, but if the frequency moves anywhere outside approx 1.8Mhz - 3.0Mhz range, the meter shows 0. The second problem is that as I turn the manual pot down, the frequency actually goes up (until it peaks at 3 Mhz and then zeros out). There is no problem with the DMM here, it's a circuit issue.
I can change the trim pots to get a sort of phasing sound, but the wet signal clicks loudly and there is no proper flanging. It's not possible to calibrate as I am certain that I've made an error somewhere.
I have triple checked the following:
No solder bridges
trace cuts are good
reseated/replaced ICs and JFET
component orientation
Offboard wiring
trimpot values
I've even gone over the whole layout and checked each component.
I'm using a charge pump via testing breadboard to generate 18v so I'm not sure if that is the problem, but it doesn't explain the manual pot travel and frequency issue.
Any ideas which part of the circuit could be causing the issue? Pics to follow
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2vd4gmg.jpg)
Hi,
Years ago, i built the MN3007 version from moosapotamus.
I've found this flanger to be fantastic. But since calibrations time, I've always had an issue with my build. If i set the flange in the correct area (more or less), the flange sounds fantastic (as it should :D)) but there is an "electronic" sound we can clearly hear when the wave of the LFO is in the low part. It's like a sweeping sound in the mid/high frequency range. In different settings it can be loud (not as loud as the audio of the guitar but it's here and annoying). If the LFO is set at high speed, it can produce something like a police car if you see what I mean :). It's not hum (the flange is really quiet apart from that). Maybe some clock signal that bleeds into the audio part or something like this. I can get rid of this buy setting higher the maximum frequency (turning CW T4 trimpot) but then the flange sound is way too high and it does'nt sound as good.
I've never really used it because of this. It's a BIG shame since it's a project that needed time to be done. And of course, I do love the sound of this flange. It's so lush and beautiful.
But I've plugged it a few days ago and said to myself it was time to fix it.
So does anybody have any ideas to start with to help me getting rid of this issue?
thanks,
all the best,
Ed.
I expect it's a too low clock speed. Do you have the correct value capacitor connected between pins 1 and 3 of the 4047? I think I put a variable cap their when I built it.
If the unit has feedback that can often promote a whine.
But following StephenGiles' line of thinking, a low clock frequency can promote that as well.
One point is it seems OK at higher LFO settings. So one way you can get a low clock frequency at low LFO speeds but not high LFO speeds is when the filtering on the LFO (usually a cap to ground) is too heavy. When the LFO is at high speed the LFO filter limits the swing of the LFO that in turn prevents it modulating the clock down too far. But at low LFO speeds the LFO filter lets the full level of the sweep through and that in turn causes the clock to modulate down to a lower frequency. Beyond that the slower LFO might just be letting it stay in the lower clock frequencies long enough to be annoying.
QuoteOne point is it seems OK at higher LFO settings. So one way you can get a low clock frequency at low LFO speeds but not high LFO speeds is when the filtering on the LFO (usually a cap to ground) is too heavy. When the LFO is at high speed the LFO filter limits the swing of the LFO that in turn prevents it modulating the clock down too far. But at low LFO speeds the LFO filter lets the full level of the sweep through and that in turn causes the clock to modulate down to a lower frequency. Beyond that the slower LFO might just be letting it stay in the lower clock frequencies long enough to be annoying.
So if this is the ckt.
http://moosapotamus.net/files/ADA-MN3007-rev5-Jan2010-Documentation-rev20120225.pdf
The LFO filter is R66 and C28. The cut-off doesn't look low enough to cause the effect I mentioned.
C23 can also cause similar effects but that looks too small as well.
So it's got to be something else.
Hello Stephen and Rob,
thanks for your help.
The issue is not linked to the speed of the LFO. That sound occurs at low or high lfo levels. But it dissapears when I change the calibration range (69.6 KHz to 2.6 MHz for MN3007 version) : if I set it higher than 2,6 MHz (can't tell how much but it's quite big, maybe 5 or 6MHz), I don't hear it anymore but on the other hand, it changes the sound of the flanger in a drastic way : to get a decent sound, I have to put Range and Manual pots at the minimum, and i loose plenty of the possibilities this circuit offers.
I also suspect something in the clock timing section, since it is linked to the frequency range of calibration.
I'll check C29 value and let you know.
thanks,
Ed.
Hello,
i've tried with other caps for C29. I only have values higher than 39 pF. So I've tried 101pF and 150 pF. but it was even worse. I got really high frequencies and again had to turn up T4 trimpot to get rid of them. I don't know if it would be better with less than 39pF. One thing is sure, it sounds the best with 39pF. Trying to change R68 (linked to C29) would have an effect?
But i've noticed something that may be part of the issue : I just can't set the calibration at 69kHz for the minimum frequency. I can only have 50kHz or so. I used a scope for this. I've followed Moosapotamus instructions in his video. But once I set the high frequency at 2,8 MHz, I turn T5 trimpot to raise the lower frequency and I don't have enough room to raise the frequency. When I adjut T5, there is very very little change. Since the sweeping noise occurs mainly at the bottom of the wave of the LFO, I wonder if this is the issue : the lower frequency of the calibration is too low. Maybe it's the reason why I have a delay-like effect when I set manual knob at minimum. How could i fix this? Changing T5 and get one with higher resistance?
thanks,
Ed.
OK as far as the whine is concerned it's probably a simple case of the clock frequency going too low.
I think step one is to fix the 50kHz vs 69kHz problem. The simple solution would be to change C29 from 39pF to 27pF.
If you don't have 27pF you can use 39pF in series with 100pF as a temporary solution.
As to why you need to change the cap, it could be just tolerances in the CMOS gates. On the other hand it could
be a wrong resistor value somewhere. There's no check voltages on the circuit that I can see that confirms other parts of the circuit.
As far as problems go elsewhere in the circuit. If there is a DC offset error in the Manual circuit or the LFO then that's going to introduce a frequency shift in the VCO. Also the calibration procedure starts with the Manual circuit so if something is wrong there the whole procedure gets out of whack from the start.
From what I can work out the output of IC3d pin 14 should go from 2.36V to 12.30V when the manual pot is adjusted from one extreme to the other. It would be worth checking that. BTW, I worked out those voltages by hand so there's a chance I made a mistake - I *think* it's OK and the range looks believable.
So if the manual control looks more or less OK I'd probably reduce C29 as mentioned above.
Hello Rob,
thanks for your help.
I'll give it a try and let you know. I'll also check component values in these areas.
I've checked the power supply section and found values closed to what they should be (as Moosapotamus noticed in his video). I have 14,53V at positive rail.
Ed.
Hello,
OK i've checked ALL components (took me some time... :icon_confused:), caps, resistors, etc. All are correct. I've put out the PCB from the enclosure. I've changed R65 (between T5 clockrange trimpot and range pot) from 150K to 47K and I'm now able to calibrate the circuit in the good frequency range :). BUT, I still have this weird sound...I noticed that i can hear it more when manual and range pot are at low settings. I've tried with different values for C29 capacitor (clock) : 28pF, 33 pF... the best results are with the original value (39pF). Anyway i've spent HOURS with it and still have this sound. Maybe it's the way I wired the circuit, i' don't know. If anybody has an idea...you're welcome. ;)
I've got two ADAs on flintlock boards that I can't get distortion out of the top of the range of the sweep. Like you said, such a shame as everything else sounds amazing.
...anyway, Are you using the voltage doubler? I always had an oscillation noise in the sweep until I did away with the voltage doubler and ran it at 18v. Pop that sucker out and run a couple of 9v batteries in series to the regulator and you can eliminate that out of the equation if you havent already.
Good luck!
QuoteMaybe it's the way I wired the circuit, i' don't know. If anybody has an idea...you're welcome.
I think there two issues:
- The ability to set-up the unit to the factory specs. By that I mean setting it up according to the instructions
and getting 69kHz min clock frequency. If that can be done and the unit is set-up like that, do you get the sound?
and do other people get the sound?
- The second is setting the unit up for the sound *you like*. Maybe that's not the same as the factory spec.
Maybe you like the sound of longer delays. That's where you will get stuck since it's very likely
those longer delays are the cause of the noise.
It is normal to get more noise with longer delays. Normally you would need to compromise and drop the filter frequencies.
The doubler jmasciswannabe mentioned is worth looking at. You can remove it and temporarily use a external DC supply.
Just to be clear, when you don't play anything you might hear a slight noise but when you place the guitar you get a siren like whining noise?
Hello,
jmasciswannabe : yes, i've installed the voltage doubler. Thanks for the idea, i'll try without it. And yes, this unit sounds fantastic, it's very frustrating. :'(
Rob : by replacing R65 from 150K to 47K, I'm now able to calibrate the circuit from 69KHz to 2,6MHz. But the whining sound is still here. I've tried with another MN3007 and this sound is still here.
I understand what you say by "setting the unit up for the sound *you like*". Sound really depens on calibration in this circuit. I can get rid of this sound by calibrating the circuit way higher (about 8 MHz i think). I've noticed that : considering a cycle of the LFO, this whinning sound appears twice while the wave does its cycle. It's clearly something that has to do with CD4047. I'll try with another CD4047, who knows... Or maybe it's an interference in this part of the circuit. But I've checked solder joints and haven't seen anything wrong.
When I play rythm guitar it's OK, but if I play a nice arpeggio and let the sound ring...then we can hear that whining sound. In a recording situation, it will be heard. Vintage-style circuits do produce hum, i know. But this whining sound is not classic analog hum.
thanks for your help!
OK...i'm confused...
I've put the circuit on the floor, on a sheet of paper, on the carpet. Plugged it in the power supply of my pedal board instead of the BOSS AC/DC apdapter i used to power it with. And the whining sound dissapeared! :o
I then put the circuit on the table with my pedalboard and the whining sound was there again! :icon_eek: until I touched the circuit and lift it up quite a bit.
It's clearly a ground issue. So jmasciswannabe, you're probably right : it comes from the way it is powered. It will probably work with 2 9V batteries. Before getting rid of the voltage doubler (using 2 9V batteries is so ::)...), i'll make some other tests (plug the circuit in another wallmart plug, or test with other AC/DC adapter). It surely comes from the quality of the DC power supply that has to deliver the best filtered voltage possible for this circuit.
I'll tell you if I find the solution.
thanks!
have tried with different adapters and got the same results.
I'm starting to think of a different way to power it : with a 18V wallmart adapter (instead of 2 9V batteries) and pop the voltage doubler out. I've seen the charge pump of madebeans pedal and doubling voltage is not as easy as it seems : it does have limits.
http://music.codydeschenes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Charge-Pump-Madbean-RoadRage-TRANSFER.pdf
(http://music.codydeschenes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Charge-Pump-Madbean-RoadRage-TRANSFER.pdf)
Any suggestion of what type of adapter (max voltage?)? Will a universal (providing enough intensity) adapter be OK?
:icon_biggrin:
finally managed to make this clock sound disappear!
First, i've powered the circuit with 2 9V batteries. I could hear again that clock noise...
The last thing I could do was, still with the 2 batteries, swapping the 39pF cap with 28 pF (39p and 100p in series, as Rob suggested). Then recalibration (i've done this maybe 50 times ;) )Miracle! the clock sound disappeared!
To resume, there were 3 wrong things : the clock capacitor, the resistor before range pot (in order to properly calibrate the circuit) and the power section : i still don't know what is really wrong here: the voltage doubler itself or the quality of the tension delivered to the circuit. this design seems to be really sensitive to this.
This is so cool to be able to listen to this thing with no noise! it's an outstanding flanger.
Ok the drawback is the batteries... I'll try with a 18v adapter (i have to buy one). It would be great if it works.
thanks Rob, jmasciswannabe and Stephen
Ed.
QuoteTo resume, there were 3 wrong things : the clock capacitor, the resistor before range pot (in order to properly calibrate the circuit) and the power section : i still don't know what is really wrong here: the voltage doubler itself or the quality of the tension delivered to the circuit. this design seems to be really sensitive to this.
This is so cool to be able to listen to this thing with no noise! it's an outstanding flanger.
Excellent detective work. Thanks for posting the conclusions. (Sorry I haven't been here for a few days.)
FYI: Some doubler chips on the web seem to be fakes they are charge pumps with low clock frequencies.
Recent post confirmed it.
Maybe if you measured the switching frequency of the charge-pump chip you would know your chips have
a low switch frequency and *if* the chip had a higher switch frequency the circuit would work without
noise as drawn.
Hello Rob!
i'm happy when I can find the solution of issues in forums :), so if someone has the same kind of issues, he would have some ideas to start troubleshooting with.
about the voltage doubler : i measured frequency at pin 7 of LT1054 : 21,25 kHz. Is that a "low" frequency? I've read 1054 has a nominal frequency of 25 kHz.
I'll make some internet search because I really need to understand how voltage doubler works. I must admit that i don't understand what's going on here. More specifically : how the "switching thing" works?
thanks,
Quoteabout the voltage doubler : i measured frequency at pin 7 of LT1054 : 21,25 kHz. Is that a "low" frequency? I've read 1054 has a nominal frequency of 25 kHz.
That looks OK to me certainly within the board specs of the datasheet.
The low frequency units are around 5kHz and 10kHz, which is within the audio band and can be heard as a whine o whistle.
The reason why the LT1054 is better for audio is that 25kHz is above audio.
*However* with an analog delay the analog delay chips switch the waveform internally and they rely to some extent on the power supple being clean. So what I think is happening in your case is that process is demodulating the power supply ripple down into the audio band. It's basically the same processes used to demodulate AM radio signals into the audio band.
QuoteI'll make some internet search because I really need to understand how voltage doubler works. I must admit that i don't understand what's going on here. More specifically : how the "switching thing" works?
Normally the chips produce a negative voltage but with the added diodes you also get doubling.
From this circuit,
http://moosapotamus.net/files/ADA-MN3007-rev5-Jan2010-Documentation-rev20120225.pdf
Steps:
1) pin 2 is switched to ground, cap C39 gets charged to +9V (less diode and switch drop) through diode D8.
2) pin 2 is switched to +9V, that makes the cap (C39) voltage add to the +9V rail. The voltage on the positive
side of cap C39 is now at 9V + 9V (less drops) which is a bit less than 18V. At the same time
D8 becomes reversed bias and not long has an effect, and D11 becomes forward biased and the
18V (less diode and switch drops) at the positive terminal of C39 gets dumped into C40 via D11.
So C40 gets charge to just under 18V. The diode drops and switch drops at each of the steps
drops the voltage a bit from the full doubled voltage.
While in step 1, the charge in C40 holds the output at 18V. The load will cause discharge C40 and that causes
ripple on the output voltage. This is exactly the same way you get ripple on a rectified and filtered DC supply
which uses a transformer + diodes + filters caps.
Hello Rob,
thanks a lot for all these informations. Really appreciate!
While searching things about charge pumps and LT1054, i came accross this thread :
https://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=101135.40 (https://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=101135.40)
Charlie (Moosapotamus) said he had issues with the charge pump and had noise... i should have searched first for "LT1054" in this site before "ADA Flanger clone", I would have had the solution of my problem. :D
Anyway, trying, making tests, is always better because we have to think by ourselves and I now better understand what I've built ;D. The issue definitely comes from this charge pump. But i don't forget the clock cap. About the resistance before range pot...as you said, it's a matter of what we like to hear. And while tweaking again this calibration, i said to myself : "i don't think this thing has to go so low in the frequency range". 69kHz is a bit too low. It makes a delay-like effect in the first half of the range pot, too much dramatic when enhance pot full up (even if i didn't set the circuit to self-oscillate, but just right before). So I've raised again the resistor in order to get something close to 95KHz, keeping 2,6 MHz as the maximum. That's much better and musical to my ears.
thanks Rob!
Ed.
QuoteWhile searching things about charge pumps and LT1054, i came accross this thread :
https://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=101135.40
Good find. Charlie's comments convinced me it's some sort of demodulation.
A simple solution is to add an RC filter to the DC output of the charge pump,
Good starting values would be 2.2 ohm resistor and 100uF cap.
Large caps and larger resistors help filtering but larger resistors will drop the voltage.
The 2.2 ohm is a good value but if you were desperate to squeeze a bit more out you
could raise it to 4R7.
See around figure 9,
https://www.maximintegrated.com/en/design/technical-documents/tutorials/2/2027.html
The existing C40 of 100uF is a good large value to do some tests. However once you get the filter right
you could play games economizing trying to reduce C40 later on; too small will make things worse again.
QuoteAnd while tweaking again this calibration, i said to myself : "i don't think this thing has to go so low in the frequency range"
If you don't need the clock to go so low there's definitely benefits edging-up the clock. I was always playing with that on my first flanger ;D.
Hi Rob!
that's a really NICE link! thanks!
Just to be sure : i just have to insert a 2.2 Ohms resistor between C40 and D11(last diode of the charge pump, so output supply)? Because in fig9, they're talking about adding a RC filter to the input supply. So input or output supply?
And why Vout (pin 5) of LT1054 is linked to ground, regarding Charlie's schematic?
Ed
Quotethat's a really NICE link! thanks!
Just to be sure : i just have to insert a 2.2 Ohms resistor between C40 and D11(last diode of the charge pump, so output supply)? Because in fig9, they're talking about adding a RC filter to the input supply. So input or output supply?
Ahh. Something went wrong with my head the other day . Maybe the coffee had entered my mouth but the caffeine hadn't got to my brain yet.
There's two possible causes for the noise: Input ripple and Output ripple. The words in my post are about output ripple but the link I posted was for input ripple. Very confusing. At first I just wanted a picture.
Anyway, let me get it right this time!
For input ripple: The Charlie's schematic has a very small input cap C38 (2uF). Maybe beefing that upto 100uF might help and it's definitely worth trying. Beyond that you would need to go an input filter, like the previous link I gave.
For output ripple: So what might be happening with this circuit is the 18V rail is too close to the minimum voltage for IC7 and ripple is getting through to the output. The addition of D7 doesn't help. Perhaps *replace* D7 with a resistor say 1 ohm. The added 1 ohm and the existing large cap C31 should provide filtering of output ripple. That's what my previous post was about but changing D7 to a resistor is a better solution. If possible, measure the voltage drop across the added 1 ohm resistor. You want the voltage drop to be a small voltage, less than 0.3V.
One or both of these might help. If not we might have to increase C39 with the hope of increasing the output voltage a bit.
QuoteAnd why Vout (pin 5) of LT1054 is linked to ground, regarding Charlie's schematic?
I'm not 100% sure why they do that it looks redundant. However the connection comes
from the datasheet, figure 20,
https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lt1054.pdf
---------------------
Some more points about the regulator IC7.
When the input of the charge-pump doubler is 9V the output will be less than 18V, say 17V or less. The regulator IC7 needs about 17V to regulate. These numbers aren't exact as the exact voltage where IC7 stops regulating depends on the load current and also the tolerances of the IC7. The main point is the charge-pump output is very marginal in keeping IC regulating the voltage. If the input power supply was say 10V then that could help the cause. The point here being that because the regulation is marginal you can get varying results depending on your exact power supply voltage or the state of your battery.
Using larger caps around the charge pump and ditching D7 all help. You want to keep the voltage drop across the added resistor to a minimum.
Hi Rob,
OK thanks!
I'll try this since it doesn't involve lots of work. I have some paint job to do in my house (way less interesting than debugging a flanger ;D) so i won't be able to do this for some time. For the moment i can use the flanger with 18V (it works like a charm like this :) ).
I'll let you know when i try this.
again, thanks a lot Rob,
Ed.
I was looking for some info I got from somewhere about a depth control that you could add to this circuit, but couldn't find it in this loooong thread, so I must've found it somewhere else I guess. I have it scribbled onto a schematic but I am not sure what I have is correct... doesn't seem to make sense.
Anyway, I thought I'd post a link to a video I did a few years about my build where I used wood to make an enclosure similar to the one A/DA used but a little smaller and with a slightly different form factor. I still like using this for the really nice chorus like sounds I get with it.
Happy 13,000!
(https://i.postimg.cc/CzyY5RhP/Happy13000-42.gif) (https://postimg.cc/CzyY5RhP)
Quote from: PRR on September 02, 2020, 01:50:22 AM
Happy 13,000!
(https://i.postimg.cc/CzyY5RhP/Happy13000-42.gif) (https://postimg.cc/CzyY5RhP)
Gee thanks. I didn't even notice that.
Quote from: Paul Marossy on September 01, 2020, 05:03:16 PM
I was looking for some info I got from somewhere about a depth control that you could add to this circuit, but couldn't find it in this loooong thread, so I must've found it somewhere else I guess. I have it scribbled onto a schematic but I am not sure what I have is correct... doesn't seem to make sense.
The width control in conjunction with the manual already is a depth control, sometimes on modulation the wet level gets called depth though so it could be adjusting the mixing resistor?
ive got 4 PCB's i made for the ADA, I have populated it and it does work, ive just not got around to calibrating it. I am giving them away to you folks (just pay postage) in return I just ask that you also verify it and can calibrate it. Its made from the Flintlock schematic. Forgot to add a pin from the CD4047 to make the calibrating a bit easier.
Send me a message if you want to try one. Its designed to fit into a 1590BB Vertically, i do have drill template for it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zLyMdKGM/ADA.png) (https://postimg.cc/zLyMdKGM)
Quote from: Scruffie on September 02, 2020, 07:41:27 PM
Quote from: Paul Marossy on September 01, 2020, 05:03:16 PM
I was looking for some info I got from somewhere about a depth control that you could add to this circuit, but couldn't find it in this loooong thread, so I must've found it somewhere else I guess. I have it scribbled onto a schematic but I am not sure what I have is correct... doesn't seem to make sense.
The width control in conjunction with the manual already is a depth control, sometimes on modulation the wet level gets called depth though so it could be adjusting the mixing resistor?
I think I found what I was looking for, have a Word doc with it saved there. Not sure who is was directed to but this is what it said:
armdnrdy's suggestion:
I was looking at a few flanger designs when I thought of your need for a "depth" control.
I think that you can insert a pot (try a 100KB) between the output of IC4B, and the range trimmer.
Connect one lug of the depth pot to IC4B pin 7, the wiper to pin 3 of the Range trim (P4) and the other Depth pot lug to ground.
Instead of mixing between wet and dry this should control the LFO amplitude for a genuine Depth control.
Quote from: dfx_pedalpcbs on September 03, 2020, 10:00:58 AM
ive got 4 PCB's i made for the ADA, I have populated it and it does work, ive just not got around to calibrating it. I am giving them away to you folks (just pay postage) in return I just ask that you also verify it and can calibrate it. Its made from the Flintlock schematic. Forgot to add a pin from the CD4047 to make the calibrating a bit easier.
Send me a message if you want to try one. Its designed to fit into a 1590BB Vertically, i do have drill template for it.
I may not have any ownership over the A/DA Flanger circuit, but do you not think to post directly after me, referencing the project name that you freely admit you've worked directly from that is sold through a company you're well aware I work for, that you're asking for verification builds for a project to sell through your store, might be a bit less than the classiest of moves?
Quote from: Paul Marossy on September 03, 2020, 12:06:55 PM
Quote from: Scruffie on September 02, 2020, 07:41:27 PM
Quote from: Paul Marossy on September 01, 2020, 05:03:16 PM
I was looking for some info I got from somewhere about a depth control that you could add to this circuit, but couldn't find it in this loooong thread, so I must've found it somewhere else I guess. I have it scribbled onto a schematic but I am not sure what I have is correct... doesn't seem to make sense.
The width control in conjunction with the manual already is a depth control, sometimes on modulation the wet level gets called depth though so it could be adjusting the mixing resistor?
I think I found what I was looking for, have a Word doc with it saved there. Not sure who is was directed to but this is what it said:
armdnrdy's suggestion:
I was looking at a few flanger designs when I thought of your need for a "depth" control.
I think that you can insert a pot (try a 100KB) between the output of IC4B, and the range trimmer.
Connect one lug of the depth pot to IC4B pin 7, the wiper to pin 3 of the Range trim (P4) and the other Depth pot lug to ground.
Instead of mixing between wet and dry this should control the LFO amplitude for a genuine Depth control.
I see where he was coming from but that would just be another way to skin a cat and would make set up more complicated, the width control already is a divider before the range trim and achieves the same aim.
Quote from: dfx_pedalpcbs on September 03, 2020, 10:00:58 AM
ive got 4 PCB's i made for the ADA, I have populated it and it does work, ive just not got around to calibrating it. I am giving them away to you folks (just pay postage) in return I just ask that you also verify it and can calibrate it. Its made from the Flintlock schematic. Forgot to add a pin from the CD4047 to make the calibrating a bit easier.
Send me a message if you want to try one. Its designed to fit into a 1590BB Vertically, i do have drill template for it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zLyMdKGM/ADA.png) (https://postimg.cc/zLyMdKGM)
Well that's a slap in the face with my not-so-much-now upcoming a/da pcb giveaway :icon_rolleyes:
A competent enthusiast would test their own experiments before indulging others. Calibrate the darn thing!
The one I'm cooking up is more true to the original. But I can't imagine it sounding much different.
Guess I'll have to change things up and fit it into a 125B :icon_twisted:
-KM
I'm breaking down and finally posting after years of lurking because I just can't seem to get this darned thing to work! First of all, moosapotamus was sold out of boards when I first started working on this earlier this summer, so I went ahead and etched my own board. I made a single sided layout with all dual opamps instead of quads because that's what I have in my parts bins. I've checked this thing against the Rev5 schematic, and the questionable area around the transistor was triple checked against the veroboard layout floating around the web. I must have read this whole thread thrice, and a couple of posts "the other forum." Problem is, I can't get to the calibration step! I edited the power section of the board to omit the charge pump and replaced all that stuff with an LM317 (and necessary components, of course) because I have a reliable power supply I can get 18v out of.
I'm getting good power at about 14.6 volts on the regulator output. My bias voltage signal is stable and at a sensible spot somewhere around 7.2 volts. The LFO is giving a good signal, and the speed and range pots seem to be giving a decent control signal. My audio, however is blocked. Plugging in the MN3007 doesn't to do much of anything, and I've been leaving it out till I can make sure the rest of the circuit is working properly. I've stuck in a couple of times to see if that had any effect but it doesn't do anything so I leave it out as a safeguard. I traced the signal on my scope to the D5 and D6 diode pair, afterwards the signal exits the diodes with barely a blip of high frequency information in it left, which gets eaten up in the resistors, never making it to the transistor. I can get sound out of this if I put a jumper leading from the diodes to either collector or emitter of the transistor. Shorting to the base does nothing, which I suppose makes sense. What exactly do the opamps after the transistor do?
If anyone still has any boards for this that work, I'm game to try them out as I still have yet to get this thing workign after it hogging up my bench all summer. I even made a pretty box for it with a built in expression pedal out of oak to house it. I'll also attach my modified for dual opamps schematic and layout in case it's of any use to someone out there. I have some multisim and ultiboard files I can email anyone interested in them if it helps the community out.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HrGSth7C/ADA-Flanger-Dual-Op-Amp-Schem.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HrGSth7C)
(https://i.postimg.cc/xkntwNRx/ADA-Flanger-Dual-Op-Amp-Layout.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/xkntwNRx)
What's the difference between the flintlock and the moosapotamus versions?
You're misunderstanding the FET purpose...
It just shorts to ground the signal from BBD, thus acting as noise gate when you're not playing.
If you use one FET out of specifics it may remain shut, then you get no signal.
D5 and D6 are parts of the rectifier built around U5, you're not supposed to have a nice signal there...
You might as well pull off the FET just for test purpose (and leave it out if you don't need the noise gate :) )
Quote from: derationalize on September 03, 2020, 08:56:09 PM
What's the difference between the flintlock and the moosapotamus versions?
Circuit differences aside from the use of dual opamps all around instead of the quads, not much really - if any at all in the signal path.
The Flintlock has the option to use a MN3207. I don't believe anyone has done this yet.
On that note - I think a 15v clock pulse going to a 3207 would be damaging. For anyone to go that route, it would be ideal to cut the +15v trace at the 4049 and wire the pad to the BBD's +V. The 4049 can handle >+V at it's inputs and will only output as much as it's supply voltage.
-KM
Quote from: derationalize on September 03, 2020, 08:56:09 PM
What's the difference between the flintlock and the moosapotamus versions?
Apart from board mounting everything in a 1590BB, 3207 switching as Kevin says, a few value tweaks and the re-addition of BBD balancing resistors, not a whole lot.
Quote from: Kevin Mitchell on September 04, 2020, 08:26:29 AM
Quote from: derationalize on September 03, 2020, 08:56:09 PM
What's the difference between the flintlock and the moosapotamus versions?
Circuit differences aside from the use of dual opamps all around instead of the quads, not much really - if any at all in the signal path.
The Flintlock has the option to use a MN3207. I don't believe anyone has done this yet.
On that note - I think a 15v clock pulse going to a 3207 would be damaging. For anyone to go that route, it would be ideal to cut the +15v trace at the 4049 and wire the pad to the BBD's +V. The 4049 can handle >+V at it's inputs and will only output as much as it's supply voltage.
-KM
Let alone a 15V clock pulse not working, the BBD wouldn't take that! The intention was you'd just use a 9V regulator for the whole circuit if you went with the 3207 (although as you say, I'm not aware of anyone actually taking that route) I couldn't think of an elegant way of reducing the 4049 voltage that wouldn't require extra hoops for the 3007 build version at the time. It's probably time the circuit got an update.
Quote from: Scruffie on September 04, 2020, 11:23:39 AM
Let alone a 15V clock pulse not working, the BBD wouldn't take that! The intention was you'd just use a 9V regulator for the whole circuit if you went with the 3207 (although as you say, I'm not aware of anyone actually taking that route) I couldn't think of an elegant way of reducing the 4049 voltage that wouldn't require extra hoops for the 3007 build version at the time. It's probably time the circuit got an update.
Yeah that's a good point. You'd have to put more jumpers on the board. I don't blame the designer for leaving that to the builders discretion.
-KM
I took some voltages down in hopes that someone might be able to spot where the problem is at. I wrote down the approximate minimum and maximum voltages for these signals because I have an ancient analog scope that's hard to get accurate readings off of. U12 (MN3007) is absent from its socket for these readings, and U7 has been omitted since the LFO section looks fine under the scope.
U1
1: Square wave test signal 0v - 12v
2: Signal 3.5v - 10v
3: Signal -0.8v - 16v
4: 0v
5: 14.3v
6: Signal 11v - 13v
7: Signal 12v - 12.8v
8: 14.45v
U2
1: 13.1v
2: 7.2v
3: 7.2v
4: 0v
5: 13v
6: 13.1v
7: 13.1v
8: 14.4v
U3
1: 4.9v
2: 4.9v
3: 4.9v
4: 0v
5: 7.2v
6: Signal 12.6v - 13v
7: 0v
8: 14.4v
U4
1: 7.2v
2: 7.2v
3: 7.2v
4: 0v
5: 7.2v
6: 7.2v
7: 7.2v
8: 14.4v
U5
1: Signal 0v - 13v
2: 2.4v
3: Signal -0.8v - 15v
4: 0v
5: 7.2v
6: Signal 0v - 12v
7: Signal 0v - 12v
8: 14.5v
U6
1: High-Frequency 0v - 0.4v
2: High-Frequency 2.6v - 3v
3: 0v
4: 0v
5: 4v
6: 4v
7: 2.1v
8: 14.5v
U8 (CD4007UBE)
1: 0.1v
2: 0.1v
3: 0v
4: 0.1v
5: 0v
6: 0v
7: 0v
8: 0.2v
9: 4.2v
10: 14.5v
11: 6.9v
12: High-Frequency 0v-14.5v (7.31v)
13: 14.5v
14: 14.5v
U9 (CD4047BE)
1: High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.73v)
2: High-Frequency 0v-14v (6.50v)
3: High-Frequency 0.4v-13.6v (7.41v)
4: 14.2v
5: 14.2v
6: 14.2v
7: 0v
8: 0v
9: 0v
10: High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.25v)
11: High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.25v)
12: 0v
13: High-Frequency 0v-14v (8.04v)
14: 14.2v
U11 (CD4049UBE)
1: 14.2v
2: High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.22v)
3: High-Frequency 0v-14v (6.59v)
4: High-Frequency 0v-14v (6.59v)
5: High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.08v)
6: High-Frequency 0v-14v (6.91v)
7: High-Frequency 0v-14v (6.73v)
8: 0v
9: High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.25v)
10: High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.25v)
11: High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.25v)
11: High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.25v)
13: 0v
14: High-Frequency 0v-14v (6.60v)
15: High-Frequency 0v-14v (7.22v)
16: 0v
Your CMOS voltages seem okay but a lot of your op amp voltages seem out of whack.
Why is U3 pin 7 at ground? Same goes for U6 pin 3? The voltage swing is less helpful to read than where it's biased but U1 has a limited swing which suggests you haven't adjusted the bias trim or there's something wrong with that too.
Have you got pictures of your build? Too late in the evening to check through your PCB but if you have the time, it never hurts to quadruple check the layout.
All the trimpots are sitting midway. I can't get to the biasing and adjusting step. Here's some pics of my board. This was my first etch, so I've had to bolster the tracks with solder and in some places with snips of component leads. I've checked the traces for continuity / shorts and I can't seem to find the source(s) of my problem. The LFO has stopped functioning since my last post as well. Would removing all the ICs and then adding them one at a time make it easier to check voltages and root out any possible bad components? A lot of my components came from grab bags and cheap assortments off Amazon, so I think malfunctioning parts are in the realm of possibility.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nCfRrv8p/flangertop.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/nCfRrv8p)
(https://i.postimg.cc/G4qqXV4m/flangerback.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/G4qqXV4m)
(https://i.postimg.cc/sGYJ7NFy/flangerthru.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/sGYJ7NFy)
Tracks look like either too much thin or even not consistent (interrupted?)
I guess a second etch will save you from a long long debug...
Well if you think my board needs a better etch then I might as well rework the layout a bit and increase trace width. At that point, why not try one of the other boards that available for this now?
Well, you'll go over 2MHz on VCO section there...
Moreover this is a complex circuit, correct layout and clean soldering will avoid issues.
Flux between tracks on VCO may make it work at a different frequency from desired or make it not to work at all...
LFO issue suggest you have some continuity issue too.
There's the upper right side burned (it looks so...) I don't know if it's causing problems, but normal PCBs don't look like this...
EDIT:
Never mind. Nothing to see here.
-KM
I got this thing working, except for the dreaded threshold control. I was searching this thread, and it seems to me the voltages coming off the opamp by the threshold control (IC3) are out of whack. My voltages are:
IC3a Out: 0.1v
IC3a In - : 0.1v
IC3a In +: 7.3v
IC3b Out: 13.5v
IC3b In - : 6.8v
IC3b In +: 7.4v
Power and ground checks out fine. I have the threshold pot and the gate transistor replaced with leads to a breadboard to swap components around to try to get this working. It seems like fiddling with these does nothing. What's going on here?
I wanted to bump this thread because I recently built the Flintlock PCB version of this circuit, and it works an absolute treat other than having something of the issue that Ed22 had a couple pages back with the low end range of the clocking. I built mine with all the prescribed Flintlock components, which indicates a 27pF cap for C26 (the cap between pins 1 & 3 of the 4047), but I'll be darned if I can get the low end to clock any higher than around 55kHz no matter how I chase the C-Range and C-Max trimmers around (I put a multiturn in for C-Max as the build doc suggests for better control). The only somewhat negative aspect of this is that it has an asymmetrical sweep, where it stays up in the "high" (short delay) range for a lot longer and comes down more quickly, and I can only partially mitigate this with the Auto trimmer — at full anti-(counter-)clockwise it's better, but still lopsided. Does anyone think that taking that 27pF cap down somewhat might help that issue, as reducing the 39pF seemed to have done for Ed22, or is that already around the limits of the circuit's tolerances? Any potential utility to either increasing the Auto trimpot value or else changing the proportions of the resistors around it (R45 & R46), or even swapping those two with each other? Thought I'd ask before I dismantle and start swapping components willy-nilly.
Schematic for reference:
(https://i.postimg.cc/grX17DbQ/Flintlock-V-1-3-Schematic.png) (https://postimg.cc/grX17DbQ)
Quote from: pacealot on September 29, 2022, 12:24:12 AM
I wanted to bump this thread because I recently built the Flintlock PCB version of this circuit, and it works an absolute treat other than having something of the issue that Ed22 had a couple pages back with the low end range of the clocking. I built mine with all the prescribed Flintlock components, which indicates a 27pF cap for C26 (the cap between pins 1 & 3 of the 4047), but I'll be darned if I can get the low end to clock any higher than around 55kHz no matter how I chase the C-Range and C-Max trimmers around (I put a multiturn in for C-Max as the build doc suggests for better control). The only somewhat negative aspect of this is that it has an asymmetrical sweep, where it stays up in the "high" (short delay) range for a lot longer and comes down more quickly, and I can only partially mitigate this with the Auto trimmer — at full anti-(counter-)clockwise it's better, but still lopsided. Does anyone think that taking that 27pF cap down somewhat might help that issue, as reducing the 39pF seemed to have done for Ed22, or is that already around the limits of the circuit's tolerances? Any potential utility to either increasing the Auto trimpot value or else changing the proportions of the resistors around it (R45 & R46), or even swapping those two with each other? Thought I'd ask before I dismantle and start swapping components willy-nilly.
Schematic for reference:
(https://i.postimg.cc/grX17DbQ/Flintlock-V-1-3-Schematic.png) (https://postimg.cc/grX17DbQ)
You're not alone on this. I'd have to pull mine out of storage and take another look but I'm pretty sure I got stuck at the clock calibration as well. I recall it mostly working but having a massive low end thud because I couldn't dial it in properly with the suggest values and didn't want to immediately muck with the timing caps.
Thanks, Kevin – yes, I also didn't want to diddle around on the caps without receiving a bit more knowledgeable feedback first. For the moment (as I don't have any caps smaller than 27pF on hand yet), swapping the 68K and 82K resistors would be an easy thing to try, and reversible (as long as I go easy on them when desoldering), but it feels like that's not really the "correct" solution (though if it improves the sweep, I suppose that's all that matters).
Update: I did the resistor swap, and it did little besides kill the oscillation entirely on the lower half of the trimpot, and the sweep seems unchanged at the lowest oscillating setting. So back to stock it goes, provided I don't toast the resistors or something adjacent in the process (it was not the easiest of swaps, and I'm as hamfisted as it gets).
The good news is that, when the range is set to a more moderate sweep and the manual is around 3 o'clock or lower, the thing sounds just stunning, just as an A/DA should. It's only the more extreme sweep settings which really highlight the asymmetry – but of course those extreme settings are also ones I want to be able to use! :icon_wink:
(Final?) update: I got the clocking to the prescribed specs by actually adding slightly to the capacitance rather than decreasing it. A friend gave me a handful of very small pF ceramic caps to play with since I'm light on those, and I messed around in both directions until the numbers started getting in line. If I'd had a 33pF that probably would've been perfect; as it was, I tacked a 4pF onto the original 27pF which tested a little high (around 29pf). I did enough clumsy solder-related damage to some of them in the process to warn me off of swapping back the 68K and 82K resistors, but since I'm trimming the Auto as far anti-clockwise as I can before the osc collapses anyway, it ought to be fine for now. If I ever end up rehousing it in future, I might get in there and put in a fresh pair of 75Ks in just to still have a little extra room to trim in that direction, but for now, I'm calling it good/done. I swear the sweep still shoots down audibly faster than it goes up, but since the clock is solidly where it's meant to be now, I guess that's just how it is. It's still the most powerful and amazing sounding flanger circuit I've heard yet, so I'm calling it a win... :icon_mrgreen:
With a lot of BBD discussion around here lately, I was inspired to re-investigate my asymmetry issue with this pedal, as it's still been annoyingly evident. I noticed that, both on the Moosapotamus and Lectric-FX schemos, other ICs are indicated in addition to the 1458 for IC4, the LFO generator. So I did a simple swap of first a TL062 and then a TL072 for that 1458, and I found that, while it still doesn't want to be truly 100% symmetrical, and the closest it will get is just at the point of dropping the "auto" trimpot voltage divider as low as possible before collapsing the LFO entirely, I did get significantly better results with both chips than with the 1458. The TL072 got just a hair closer to my ear, so I'm leaving that one in. I also needed to leave the 68K and 82K resistors (R45 & R46) in the "wrong" places in order to get that voltage low enough (it reads ~6.07V before the LFO collapses). I still don't understand enough to know why it has to go so far out of spec in order to get the LFO even close to symmetrical, but at this point, I think I need to be actually done for real this time. I just wanted to update this thread in case anyone in the future has similar struggles.
Quote from: pacealot on October 29, 2022, 05:09:04 PM
With a lot of BBD discussion around here lately, I was inspired to re-investigate my asymmetry issue with this pedal, as it's still been annoyingly evident. I noticed that, both on the Moosapotamus and Lectric-FX schemos, other ICs are indicated in addition to the 1458 for IC4, the LFO generator. So I did a simple swap of first a TL062 and then a TL072 for that 1458, and I found that, while it still doesn't want to be truly 100% symmetrical, and the closest it will get is just at the point of dropping the "auto" trimpot voltage divider as low as possible before collapsing the LFO entirely, I did get significantly better results with both chips than with the 1458. The TL072 got just a hair closer to my ear, so I'm leaving that one in. I also needed to leave the 68K and 82K resistors (R45 & R46) in the "wrong" places in order to get that voltage low enough (it reads ~6.07V before the LFO collapses). I still don't understand enough to know why it has to go so far out of spec in order to get the LFO even close to symmetrical, but at this point, I think I need to be actually done for real this time. I just wanted to update this thread in case anyone in the future has similar struggles.
That's interesting. As I recall, on my early version of the Moosapotamus build, I was never able to get the clock frequency quite up to spec but to my ears it sounds fine. I never really use mine for heavy flanging but rather for a cool pseudo-chorusing sound that reminds me of the sounds on the Andy Summers-Robert Fripp "I Advance Masked" album.
That's what's so great about this circuit — when it's dialled in, it can do every flanger pedal sound I've ever wanted, from that milky Andy Summers-y Mistress-type sound you describe, to the whooshiest (now that's a word) Pat Travers/Paul Gilbert/EVH jet plane you've ever heard, and anything in between. It even does straight-up chorus perfectly well at the longer delay settings — nearly modulated slapback, even. It just takes some perseverance to get it there.
I do wish I was capable of understanding the circuit properly, but I can only just wrap my brain around anything even slightly more complex than a fuzzbox, so this was a complete paint-by-numbers job on my part — in well over my head here...
Quote from: pacealot on November 03, 2022, 11:50:41 AM
That's what's so great about this circuit — when it's dialled in, it can do every flanger pedal sound I've ever wanted, from that milky Andy Summers-y Mistress-type sound you describe, to the whooshiest (now that's a word) Pat Travers/Paul Gilbert/EVH jet plane you've ever heard, and anything in between. It even does straight-up chorus perfectly well at the longer delay settings — nearly modulated slapback, even. It just takes some perseverance to get it there.
I do wish I was capable of understanding the circuit properly, but I can only just wrap my brain around anything even slightly more complex than a fuzzbox, so this was a complete paint-by-numbers job on my part — in well over my head here...
lol having built stuff off and on since 2000 there are still a myriad of things I don't quite understand.