Author Topic: The Worlsd smallest flangers....  (Read 68633 times)

gigimarga

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #120 on: June 30, 2010, 12:51:43 AM »
I copied this post of oldschoolanalog from the thread "MN3007 ADA Flanger clone" to avoid confusions and to keep all the thing clean!

OK, first things first.
1: Would somebody/anybody please take the schematic this is based on (Charlie's) and relabel all the IC's & pin #'s (where applicable) to match the solderman layout designations? I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to rev. engineer the layout into schematic form. Having a properly designated schematic would go a long way to assist troubleshooting. Thank You.
2: IC2 Audio board. Pins 1, 2 & 3 should not be left floating. That op amp should be disabled. (Use the search function ;))
3: To avoid mass confusion at a later date I respectfully request that the troubleshooting posts for the solderman unit in this thread be moved to the "Worlsd Smallest Flangers" thread. Nice to keep all the info in it's proper place. Plus, there is already some good troubleshooting info there. :icon_cool:
The good news (without knowing how your controls are set) is your 4007, 4047, 4049 & 3007 are all within an acceptable range as compared to a working unit.
The bad news is I started to get a headache and had to stop for now. (See #1 above)
I'll have another go at it tomorrow.
All the Best!


1. I could try to relabel the ICs and pins, but I am not sure that it will be OK.
2. IC2 from the Audio board is added by solderman ("It’s any dual Op-Amp  TL072 etc. for producing Vb bias to the audio part and separate the Vb bias from the LFO to avoid LFO ticking"), so I think that it's OK to have the pins 1,2,3 unconnected (he used only a half of the dual op-amp).
3. Sorry for the inconvenience, I hope that I (partially) fixed my posting mistake (with a little help from an admin it could be fixed 100%).

I'm glad to hear the good news (my pots are set as you indicated in your post) and I'm sorry for the headache!

Thank you very very....very much!


oldschoolanalog

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #121 on: June 30, 2010, 01:01:01 AM »
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 01:04:31 AM by oldschoolanalog »
Mystery lounge. No tables, chairs or waiters here. In fact, we're all quite alone.

gigimarga

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #122 on: June 30, 2010, 02:45:03 AM »
Please read this:
http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/an/AN1957.pdf
Figure 3a.


Woow...very bad...what's the cure for this, something like in figure 1?  If yes, what value for R?

Thank you!
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 02:48:09 AM by gigimarga »

Cliff Schecht

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #123 on: June 30, 2010, 07:34:40 PM »
Please read this:
http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/an/AN1957.pdf
Figure 3a.

Kind of a simple minded app note. They do fail to mention that in Figure 3D if you are using bipolar power than this method works fine. It holds the output at a known state (0V) and consumes less power than the resistor divider method. Silly Maxim!

oldschoolanalog

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #124 on: June 30, 2010, 11:16:16 PM »
Kind of a simple minded app note. They do fail to mention that in Figure 3D if you are using bipolar power than this method works fine. It holds the output at a known state (0V) and consumes less power than the resistor divider method. Silly Maxim!
Actually it is mentioned in the paragraph above figure 1. ;)
Anybody have an idea how to calculate those R's?
Thanks!
Mystery lounge. No tables, chairs or waiters here. In fact, we're all quite alone.

Thomeeque

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #125 on: July 01, 2010, 06:00:27 AM »
Kind of a simple minded app note. They do fail to mention that in Figure 3D if you are using bipolar power than this method works fine. It holds the output at a known state (0V) and consumes less power than the resistor divider method. Silly Maxim!
Actually it is mentioned in the paragraph above figure 1. ;)
Anybody have an idea how to calculate those R's?
Thanks!

 I'm not sure how to "calculate" it, but I would probably choose something like 470k~2M2, you just need reference VCC/2 voltage for almost none load (just for one positive opamp input). Btw. IMO* if you have already Vref = VCC/2 bus in your circuit, you can omit R's and just hang positive opamp input to this Vref bus.

 T.

Edit: *It's in the text as well: "Additionally, the non-inverting terminal can be connected to another voltage elsewhere in the circuit that is within the input common-mode voltage range of the device, thereby eliminating the need for the two resistors in Figure 1."
« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 06:03:38 AM by Thomeeque »
Do you have a technical question? Please don't send private messages, use the FORUM!

solderman

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #126 on: July 01, 2010, 12:51:14 PM »
Hi gigimarga
I really admire your effort and attempts to get this one to work. I feel a bit guilty cause I have made the PCB layout. I never got my threshold to work so I cut the trace right under R29.
Here is a translation table between my boards and Charlie's. I hope it can help you together with the voltage/pin submitted by Oldschoolanalog. I have focus on the OP-Amps since the rest is quite obvious. The only Op-Apm not on the matrix is the Vb one (IC2 on my AUDIO board) but it should have ˝ +V that is aprox ~7.5V at pin 6 and 7.

    Charlie's      Solderman      
IC   Pin   IC   Pin   Board
1   1   1   7   AUDIO
1   2   1   6   AUDIO
1   3   1   5   AUDIO
1   4   POS   POS   AUDIO
1   5   1   3   AUDIO
1   6   1   2   AUDIO
1   7   1   1   AUDIO
1   8   1   14   AUDIO
1   9   1   13   AUDIO
1   10   1   12   AUDIO
1   11   GND   GND   AUDIO
1   12   1   10   AUDIO
1   13   1   9   AUDIO
1   14   1   8   AUDIO
            
2   1   1   13   LFO
2   2   1   14   LFO
2   3   1   12   LFO
2   4   POS      
2   5   4   5   AUDIO
2   6   4   6   AUDIO
2   7   4   7   AUDIO
2   8   4   1   AUDIO
2   9   4   2   AUDIO
2   10   4   3   AUDIO
2   11   GND      
2   12   2   5   LFO
2   13   2   6   LFO
2   14   2   7   LFO
            
3   1   3   7   AUDIO
3   2   3   6   AUDIO
3   3   3   5   AUDIO
3   4   POS      
3   5   3   3   AUDIO
3   6   3   2   AUDIO
3   7   3   1   AUDIO
3   8   2   1   LFO
3   9   2   2   LFO
3   10   2   3   LFO
3   11   GDN      
3   12   1   10   LFO
3   13   1   9   LFO
3   14   1   8   LFO
            
4   1   1   1   LFO
4   2   1   2   LFO
4   3   1   3   LFO
4   4   GND      
4   5   1   5   LFO
4   6   1   6   LFO
4   7   1   7   LFO
4   8   POS      
« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 12:55:13 PM by solderman »
The only bad sounding stomp box is an unbuilt stomp box. ;-)
//Take Care and build with passion

www.soldersound.com
xSolderman@soldersound.com (exlude x to mail)

Cliff Schecht

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #127 on: July 01, 2010, 06:09:57 PM »
Kind of a simple minded app note. They do fail to mention that in Figure 3D if you are using bipolar power than this method works fine. It holds the output at a known state (0V) and consumes less power than the resistor divider method. Silly Maxim!
Actually it is mentioned in the paragraph above figure 1. ;)
Anybody have an idea how to calculate those R's?
Thanks!

I figured it was in there somewhere, just couldn't find it :D.

For the R values, I'd go with something above 100k. Tomas has the right idea with the large resistor values he recommended. It's not so critical for us guitar players but for ultra-low power design, you'd go with large resistors to minimize power dissipated in the resistive divider. Since the IC's should be decoupled properly, induced noise in the resistors won't be a problem here.

gigimarga

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #128 on: July 01, 2010, 06:27:53 PM »
...............
I feel a bit guilty cause I have made the PCB layout.
...............

Hello solderman,

The remark above is the nicest that I heard this year :)
The only one which must to feel guilty it's me, because I stressed a couple of people with my questions and they lost their time due to my ignorance.

Today I had a very hard day at my job and the weekend seems to be likewise :(...so I don't know if I will have enough time to try to measure my voltages accordingly to your translations.

Anyway, I want to (re)thank a million times to all these fantastic people that help me, especially solderman and oldschoolanalog!

Best regards to all!

oldschoolanalog

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #129 on: July 01, 2010, 06:29:29 PM »
Thanks Tomas & Cliff.  :icon_cool:
Thank you solderman. That should help after the schematic is relabeled. Old farts like me need to work w/a schematic. Lists tend to make me dizzy. :icon_lol:
@ gigimarga: Stay cool. This will get done.
Mystery lounge. No tables, chairs or waiters here. In fact, we're all quite alone.

Cliff Schecht

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #130 on: July 01, 2010, 09:45:14 PM »
I built the Ibanez flanger from Tonepad years ago in the case of a broken Metal Zone. I spent a long time trying to get it working and it never did. The one I built recently and retrofitted in the same case worked the first time :-/. Turned out one of the pots I used was bad, and it was purchased new!

sugonidamaso

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #131 on: January 08, 2011, 03:08:41 AM »
Hello Mr. Solderman and Everyone,
I am fascinated by your work. I'm new regarding this matter. My question is what's the OFFBOARD LAYOUT for this project? Newbie here. Thank you very much! And more power!
" The greatest inspiration is often born out of desperation--so be DESPERATE! "

nordine

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #132 on: May 09, 2011, 11:12:18 PM »
props for the top notch work, man

hearing the samples of the Ultraflanger (esp "extreme" setting), i remembered about its crooked waveform, if that could be adressed, that would be a BADASS flanger... as it is, i think its unusable at lower speeds/jet maneuvers.... tried to fix it once, but didn't have the knowledge... last insights i had was that it might get loaded down (cause its like a ramp waveform on low speed) by the manual section, any thoughts on this topic?

Scruffie

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #133 on: April 17, 2012, 09:27:31 PM »
Thanks’ for the kind words. They are a big help and inspires me to go on. I will not quit until the threshold part also works. And I have made a couple of errors in the layout that is NOT corrected. So its not verified even if it “almost” works. The layout warnings are;

-The threshold part has some error. Cut the trace between Q1 and R36/37 and the rest will work.
-The the D9 diode on the PSU is ( or was ) turned wrong on the pic on page 3 . It should have the catod to 18V
- The speed, Range and Manual pot has lug 1&3 reversed. This is only a real problem and has to be fixed on speed since it’s a  rev log. The others work but  backwards.
- There is a no pad for the wire for the Vb to the Enhance pot on the Audio PCB  

I was having a look at this thinking it'd be nice if the layout was finished and verified as i'd quite like an A/DA in a 1590BB my self.

I've been checking over your threshold section, I don't think there is any problem, it all matches Charlies schematic (infact it even misses an error where the 2010 schematic shows D6 being shorted).

But... you said -

The JFET is oriented for use of a 2N3819

I dunno about yours but mine wasn't G,S,D like your layout when I built the Moosapotamus board, it was S,G,D so if you're not getting much with a J201 (which Bajaman said he didn't) perhaps the 2N3819 orientated correctly will work better, if you orientated it wrong at all that is.

lego4040

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #134 on: August 19, 2013, 11:32:07 AM »
Im going to be building this shortly, I just got a killer pcb etched by Haberdasher. Im looking at layout and it all seems pretty straight foward except a jumper im not sure about. I get the IC1,2 & 3 jumpers(Green colored) but there is a very light grey colored jumper wire from R33 to the positve leg of C19 is this a jumper or error on drawing? Id would hate to fry something

Scruffie

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #135 on: August 19, 2013, 04:01:31 PM »
Im going to be building this shortly, I just got a killer pcb etched by Haberdasher. Im looking at layout and it all seems pretty straight foward except a jumper im not sure about. I get the IC1,2 & 3 jumpers(Green colored) but there is a very light grey colored jumper wire from R33 to the positve leg of C19 is this a jumper or error on drawing? Id would hate to fry something
There's more than one flanger, which are you referring too? I can't see what you're saying on the A/DA one if you meant that though.

Brejna

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #136 on: October 20, 2013, 11:11:17 AM »
Hi, is there BOM for ADA flanger?

Brane

StephenGiles

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #137 on: October 20, 2013, 01:07:37 PM »
Probably, but easiest way is to write out a list from the circuit.
"I want my meat burned, like St Joan. Bring me pickles and vicious mustards to pierce the tongue like Cardigan's Lancers.".

leito79

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #138 on: February 17, 2016, 05:01:01 PM »
This looks very promising but the layout and pcb files from solderman are no longer available....Can anyone post a mirror or reupload them? Thank You

Bunyaman

Re: The Worlsd smallest flangers....
« Reply #139 on: November 03, 2017, 07:15:40 PM »
Helloo!! Have anyone a files from first post? Like it size!