cool reverb apart from switch spdt 'pop' issue

[deadastronaut]

Yes it can, check out all star reverb ii think that's stereo...

but yeah the brick 5 6 pins are outputs ...

[samhay]

Hey Rob.. how hard would it be to turn this into a stereo reverb? The Belton Brick can do that, right?

As Rob said - not especially difficult. The application notes show how to do it. However, the signal coming out of the two outputs of the brick are, as far as I can tell, the same. So, you could turn it into a stereo reverb with a splitter cable and be no worse off.
If you want a stereo reverb where say one channel is dry and the other wet, than that might be more interesting (and is still quite easy to achieve).

[Valoosj]

Are there options to add a tails switch to the chasm reverb, killing the tails function (with a toggle) when no tails are desired? I don't mean that I want true bypass, I just want the option of having the tails selectable (as in the echo base).

[Jdansti]

You could replace the SPST switch with a stomp switch. Use a momentary switch if you only want tails while your foot is on the switch, or use a latching one if you want to take your foot off and keep the tails on. Does this sound like what you're asking?

Edit:
Maybe what I described only affects oscillation. I guess tails are a different animal.

[therealfindo]

Hey Rob.. how hard would it be to turn this into a stereo reverb? The Belton Brick can do that, right?

As Rob said - not especially difficult. The application notes show how to do it. However, the signal coming out of the two outputs of the brick are, as far as I can tell, the same. So, you could turn it into a stereo reverb with a splitter cable and be no worse off.
If you want a stereo reverb where say one channel is dry and the other wet, than that might be more interesting (and is still quite easy to achieve).

what about stereo input? e.g. running it after a stereo delay..

[therealfindo]

^ looking at R O trees schematic version it should be fine... the 33k swapped to 22k should osc like hell.

is your feedback pot ok?....is it doing anything?.

OK, finally got around to opening it up again...

I checked all the solder joints.. no change. I swapped the switch wiring, no change..

Now the interesting bit - I took the 33K (R13 in the layout: http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=101126.msg917324#msg917324) right out and no change. I still had the 22K in place of the 68K in the switch part, and that is no longer in the circuit either.. still no change.. Should I have heard a difference removing that 33K resistor?

I've looked over the traces a bunch of times and can't see any bad connections.. any other ideas?

[Valoosj]

You could replace the SPST switch with a stomp switch. Use a momentary switch if you only want tails while your foot is on the switch, or use a latching one if you want to take your foot off and keep the tails on. Does this sound like what you're asking?

Edit:
Maybe what I described only affects oscillation. I guess tails are a different animal.

Tails is indeed something else 

D'astro, do you have a final schematic? That would help me understand a bit more about the bypass and the wet signal and how to add a tails/no tails switch to this superb reverb.

[loylo]

You're welcome.

As far as I know the BTDR-1 and BTDR-2 are equivalent ICs in different packages. Shrinking the package in the BTDR-2 reduced the current consumption, but otherwise I would expect the two bricks to behave the same. I may be wrong, but I haven't heard anything to this effect.

So... the BTDR-1 should (but may not) work just fine in any of the circuits designed for the BTDR-2 and I see no problem using it in my 'Another BTDR reverb'. I would be interested to hear your experiences, and would encourage you to try it on the breadboard first.

A bit off topic, but after my test, the BTDR-1 seems to work exactly the same as the BTDR-2 is supposed to: the two outputs can also be summed up although the datasheet of the BTDR-1 don't mention it (the BTDR-2's datasheet do).
So the difference between the 2 versions of the brick is only the smaller package in favor of the 2nd version.

It's time for me to test the CHASM Reverb with my BTDR-1! 

[deadastronaut]

^ cool, let us know how you get on.

@yorick , pm'd.

[samhay]

You're welcome.

As far as I know the BTDR-1 and BTDR-2 are equivalent ICs in different packages. Shrinking the package in the BTDR-2 reduced the current consumption, but otherwise I would expect the two bricks to behave the same. I may be wrong, but I haven't heard anything to this effect.

So... the BTDR-1 should (but may not) work just fine in any of the circuits designed for the BTDR-2 and I see no problem using it in my 'Another BTDR reverb'. I would be interested to hear your experiences, and would encourage you to try it on the breadboard first.

A bit off topic, but after my test, the BTDR-1 seems to work exactly the same as the BTDR-2 is supposed to: the two outputs can also be summed up although the datasheet of the BTDR-1 don't mention it (the BTDR-2's datasheet do).
So the difference between the 2 versions of the brick is only the smaller package in favor of the 2nd version.

It's time for me to test the CHASM Reverb with my BTDR-1! 

good to know. Thanks.

[mth5044]

Hey Rob.. how hard would it be to turn this into a stereo reverb? The Belton Brick can do that, right?

As Rob said - not especially difficult. The application notes show how to do it. However, the signal coming out of the two outputs of the brick are, as far as I can tell, the same. So, you could turn it into a stereo reverb with a splitter cable and be no worse off.
If you want a stereo reverb where say one channel is dry and the other wet, than that might be more interesting (and is still quite easy to achieve).

what about stereo input? e.g. running it after a stereo delay..

The brick has only one, mono, input. If you run the reverb after a stereo delay, you will need to sum the stereo signals into one mono signal and send it through the brick, defeating the purpose of the stereo delay. You could tap both outputs of the brick, but it would be basically two mono outputs/no longer 'stereo' as the delay before it.

You would need to run two bricks to keep the audio stereo, one for each of the delays outputs. Then you wouldn't need to sum the signal and lose the stereoness.

[therealfindo]

Bump..

Now the interesting bit - I took the 33K (R13 in the layout: http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=101126.msg917324#msg917324) right out and no change. I still had the 22K in place of the 68K in the switch part, and that is no longer in the circuit either.. still no change.. Should I have heard a difference removing that 33K resistor?

I've looked over the traces a bunch of times and can't see any bad connections.. any other ideas?

Anyone?

[samhay]

Now the interesting bit - I took the 33K (R13 in the layout: http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=101126.msg917324#msg917324) right out and no change. I still had the 22K in place of the 68K in the switch part, and that is no longer in the circuit either.. still no change.. Should I have heard a difference removing that 33K resistor?

I've looked over the traces a bunch of times and can't see any bad connections.. any other ideas?

If you have replaced R13 with a 22k resistor and removed the OSC switch, then it will, if built and wired correctly, oscillate when the feedback pot is maxed out.
Does the feedback pot do anything? If not, are you sure that lug 1 is grounded?

[therealfindo]

If you have replaced R13 with a 22k resistor and removed the OSC switch, then it will, if built and wired correctly, oscillate when the feedback pot is maxed out.
Does the feedback pot do anything? If not, are you sure that lug 1 is grounded?

I've replaced R13 with a 22K and the switch is out of the circuit - still no oscillation. The Feedback pot IS working (to some degree at least) but no oscillation when it is maxed out.
Lug one of the Feedback pot is not grounded - as the board / layout doesn't ground it - and indeed, when I did ground it, it kills the signal..

[therealfindo]

 

I've made a terrible mistake.

I have actually labelled my Damp pot as the feedback - so the Damp is working, it seems.. but yeah, the feedback isn't doing anything (and you are right, the 1 lug should be grounded.. I was following the damp pot wires back to the board!!)

[deadastronaut]

are you  using the schemo/layout with the 33k/68k in parallel ?...

[therealfindo]

are you  using the schemo/layout with the 33k/68k in parallel ?...

Yep, v1.6 - but I've taken the switch out and swapped the 33k to a 22k for the moment, until I can figure out where the problem is...  I might have to just etch a new board and try again from the start if I can't find the problem..

[therealfindo]

Hey Rob,

if I was to use your new tails version, but wanted to keep the box I've got with a reverb pot and bright switch, would that be easy to do with your new pcb? e.g., replace a resistor with pot / switch?

[deadastronaut]

You could always build my original version layout with bright switch etc..

my pdf files are in the thread...just to save your box etc...just add a vol pot on the output...

[therealfindo]

You could always build my original version layout with bright switch etc..

my pdf files are in the thread...just to save your box etc...just add a vol pot on the output...

You mean without oscillation?