Author Topic: TZF - continued! (Read 6915 times)

StephenGiles · « **on:** July 23, 2007, 01:34:11 PM »

http://www.4shared.com/file/20491740/5cc1118b/TZF.html

Not as good as I would have liked but the TZF is just about there - 2 x MN3004, with one clock modulated by an inverted LFO with respect to the other.

foxfire · « **Reply #1 on:** July 23, 2007, 01:50:25 PM »

if you don't like it can i have it?

jonathan perez · « **Reply #2 on:** July 23, 2007, 02:16:29 PM »

very very cool

markusw · « **Reply #3 on:** July 23, 2007, 03:01:46 PM »

Quote

Insert Quote
if you don't like it can i have it?

Me too, me too

What is it you don't like about it?

BTW, what clock range/delay range do you run the delay lines? Any chance for a schemo?

Regards,

Markus

Arn C. · « **Reply #4 on:** July 23, 2007, 03:42:12 PM »

I think it sounds just great Stephen......

Peace!
Arn C.

StephenGiles · « **Reply #5 on:** July 23, 2007, 04:13:52 PM »

Quote from: markusw on July 23, 2007, 03:01:46 PM

Quote
Insert Quote
if you don't like it can i have it?

Me too, me too

What is it you don't like about it?

BTW, what clock range/delay range do you run the delay lines? Any chance for a schemo?

Regards,

Markus

Thanks for the nice comments. It's not that I don't like it, it's not as strong as I would like.
I have already posted the schematics on another TZF thread which I can't find at the moment.

stm · « **Reply #6 on:** July 24, 2007, 10:32:37 PM »

Hi Stephen,

It sounds quite good. Apparently you are adding the two delay line paths, which would give you flanging but not TZF. In order to have TZF you need to subtract the output from one delay line from the other (or equivalently, invert one and then add). This should give you the deep, mind blowing cancellation you are after.

mdh · « **Reply #7 on:** July 25, 2007, 01:22:04 AM »

I think this is the post with the schematic: http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=59065.msg461352#msg461352. I must admit, though, that I can't really see what's going on without a little more context. I.e., what's getting mixed at the output? Counterswept delays, or counterswept flangers? I think there's a difference, in that if you lift the dry signal (counterswept delays), it seems that you'll get a convincing symmetrical TZF, whereas if the dry signal is still there (counterswept flangers), maybe it's not so dramatic. Is this what you're getting at, Sebastian?

That said, I like the sound clip. But it doesn't quite seem like the oh-my-god-my-brain-is-turning-inside-out effect that I would expect of TZF.

StephenGiles · « **Reply #8 on:** July 25, 2007, 04:44:23 AM »

Quote from: stm on July 24, 2007, 10:32:37 PM

Hi Stephen,

It sounds quite good. Apparently you are adding the two delay line paths, which would give you flanging but not TZF. In order to have TZF you need to subtract the output from one delay line from the other (or equivalently, invert one and then add). This should give you the deep, mind blowing cancellation you are after.

Thanks Sebastian, I'll have to study the schematic and rewire as necessary, I can easily kill the dry signal.

StephenGiles · « **Reply #9 on:** July 25, 2007, 04:49:59 AM »

Quote from: mdh on July 25, 2007, 01:22:04 AM

I think this is the post with the schematic: http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=59065.msg461352#msg461352. I must admit, though, that I can't really see what's going on without a little more context. I.e., what's getting mixed at the output? Counterswept delays, or counterswept flangers? I think there's a difference, in that if you lift the dry signal (counterswept delays), it seems that you'll get a convincing symmetrical TZF, whereas if the dry signal is still there (counterswept flangers), maybe it's not so dramatic. Is this what you're getting at, Sebastian?

That said, I like the sound clip. But it doesn't quite seem like the oh-my-god-my-brain-is-turning-inside-out effect that I would expect of TZF.

Yes, counterswept is the word I have been trying to find! You're right in that the "oh-my-god-my-brain-is-turning-inside-out effect" is not there yet. Well, I just played with the controls until I got what appears in the sound sample - it had been gathering dust since about 1990! Feel free to mod the schematic - Paint is good for that!

stm · « **Reply #10 on:** July 25, 2007, 09:51:06 PM »

Stephen,

Looking at the Hyperflanger schems I notice they have everything you need to achieve the TZF. Proper setting would be:

1) Turn down the DRY LEVEL pot to kill entirely the dry signal
2) Turn up the EFFECT BALANCE pot up entirely
3) Toggle the PHASE REVERSE switch back and forth and you should identify which is the TZF position

QSQCaito · « **Reply #11 on:** July 25, 2007, 10:26:07 PM »

Sorry but, did a search and couln't find what does TZF means, or should sound like. Could anybody explain

?

Thanks a lot!

Bye bye

DAC

magikker · « **Reply #12 on:** July 26, 2007, 12:56:51 AM »

TZF = Through Zero Flanging...

It sounds like this... http://analogman.com/tzff.htm

Not to say that the pedal being talking about is this pedal.. but this is the only TZF that comes to mind...

StephenGiles · « **Reply #13 on:** July 26, 2007, 05:08:31 AM »

The WEM Hyperflanger was in fact a rackmount unit, in one of many piles of papers at home I have a sales flyer.

Quote from: stm on July 25, 2007, 09:51:06 PM

Stephen,

Looking at the Hyperflanger schems I notice they have everything you need to achieve the TZF. Proper setting would be:

1) Turn down the DRY LEVEL pot to kill entirely the dry signal
2) Turn up the EFFECT BALANCE pot up entirely
3) Toggle the PHASE REVERSE switch back and forth and you should identify which is the TZF position

Thanks Sebastian - buen diiiiiiiiiiiiia, (hotel cleaner in BA!) I think I'm still getting dry signal at the output even with the dry level pot turned off. More anon.

Bernardduur · « **Reply #14 on:** July 26, 2007, 06:00:36 AM »

Isn't TZF impossible pedalwise as the copy of the orginal had to come sooner then the original signal?

StephenGiles · « **Reply #15 on:** July 26, 2007, 08:04:29 AM »

It's there in the EH Hoax.

puretube · « **Reply #16 on:** July 26, 2007, 08:23:32 AM »

Quote from: Bernardduur on July 26, 2007, 06:00:36 AM

Isn't TZF impossible pedalwise as the copy of the orginal had to come sooner then the original signal?

the "copy of the original" (the usually modulated delay signal) comes sooner or later than the "original"
(the "dry" signal),
`cause this so-called dry signal is a fake-original: it is delayed itself (usually fixed),
such that it looks as if the delayed copy is either coming earlier or later...

Bernardduur · « **Reply #17 on:** July 26, 2007, 10:13:53 AM »

Quote from: puretube on July 26, 2007, 08:23:32 AM

Quote from: Bernardduur on July 26, 2007, 06:00:36 AM
Isn't TZF impossible pedalwise as the copy of the orginal had to come sooner then the original signal?

the "copy of the original" (the usually modulated delay signal) comes sooner or later than the "original"
(the "dry" signal),
`cause this so-called dry signal is a fake-original: it is delayed itself (usually fixed),
such that it looks as if the delayed copy is either coming earlier or later...

Very well thought of..........

magikker · « **Reply #18 on:** July 26, 2007, 11:14:39 AM »

Is the amount of delay on the dry signal noticable or is it somewhere in the 5ms range?

StephenGiles · « **Reply #19 on:** July 26, 2007, 04:22:23 PM »

WhatI also need to try us disconnecting the modulation from one of the BBD clocks.

News:

Author Topic: TZF - continued! (Read 6915 times)