Mark, thanks a lot for this explanation!! Your answer definitely improved my knowledge of clocking BBDs a lot 
Re assymetric versus symmetric TZF: personally I prefer to have the TZF points evenly distributed. However, moving the clock pot of the fixed delay to the pannel won't hurt for sure.
How does the SAD1024 compare to let's say BL3207 or BL3208 BBDs regarding clock noise??
Forgot to mention before: coupling caps and the 2-pole active lp filter I added for the fixed delay were designed to keep exactly the same frequency response (up to about 20 kHz) as for the "dry" signal in the Mistress. Don't know whether this is important though. I just wanted to change the frequency response of the Mistress as little as possible when switching to TZF.
Regards,
Markus
Don't thank me. Thank Mike Irwin. I can only hope I am doing his vast expertise justice.
The SAD1024 tends to be found in flangers that can sweep pretty high (i.e., to very shot delays) because it was intended for video sampling/processing purposes too, which meant that it came ready to handle very high clock speeds without the fancy interventions needed by the Matsushita chips. Fundamentally, it is not a "better" chip, merely more readily suited to certain applications. There are probably spec differences in S/N ratio, etc. but these are always predicated on certain conditions of use so I wouldn't turn to them as the last word on relative noisiness of the chips themselves.
That being said, the ability to use it as two 512-stage sections in parallel (like the MN3010) permits somewhat quieter operation via use of noise-cancelling techniques. The other thing is that if it was being used for higher clocking, the filtering requirements for keeping clock noise out of the audio path were more relaxed, so people associate it with greater bandwidth and less clock whine too.
