multi effects board????

[Canucker]

do all of you put every effect you build into a separate box or have any of you built 2,3,4 or more into one box? Any advice on power supply for this? How many can you run off of one nine volt? I'm hoping at least two.

[haveyouseenhim]

I'm in the middle of a project like this. It's going to be from left to right: tuner with mute switch,rick's little angel chorus, sea urchin delay, madbeans ego driver, merlins equinox reverb, micro drive boost, and its going to have a volume roller on the side. i plan on making a power supply depending on how much current is needed.

I'm going to use this enclosure:

http://www.hammondmfg.com/pdf/1456PH1.pdf

[Canucker]

the pdf. didn't open for me for some reason but I'd love to see and hear about the results! I'd like to do a fuzz boost and tremolo in one box to save space, input jacks and patch chords. Plus I have a cake pan from the dollar store thats a good size for a three in one. I have a power supply pedal but didn't know if I could run things off of one input jack or needed to install three.

[haveyouseenhim]

Ill make a thread about it when i start boxing it.

heres a screenshot of the pdf

[Canucker]

love the slant! How much did it cost you?

[haveyouseenhim]

i havent ordered it yet

[Mark Hammer]

While those slant cabinets from Hammond are wonderful, note that they assume you will be switching and controlling with your hands, not your feet.  The folded aluminum IS sturdy, but not so thick that it won't bend a little when you step on it.

This recommends one or more of several courses of action:

1) Mounting any stompswitches as close to the front skirt of the chassis as possible.  The closer you are to either the front or the rear bend, the stiffer/more rigid the chassis is, so that it will withstand your bodyweight when stomping.

2) Use of soft-touch electronic switching, so that you don't have to lean in until you hear a click.

3) Use of internal "pillars" between the top and bottom halves to provide the extra structural rigidity.

FWIW, I had my first flanger in a chassis like that some 35 years ago and it worked fine as a floor box, but it was a smaller size, and less suceptible to "the bends" because of that.

[amptramp]

Putting the effects into one box assumes that you will never want to change the order in which the signal proceeds from one to the next.  If you are happy with that, then one box makes a lot of things simpler.  You will not have the unreliability and expense of jacks and cables.  It is possible to alter the order of effects by switching, but then you are getting into more complication, but this may be acceptable and the switch need not be a front-panel control.  If you are happy with the order and don't foresee making many changes that would affect the user interface like the number of controls, then go with it.

Power supplies can be a hassle if you have insufficient decoupling (such as a fuzz face which has none) and LFO tick may be a problem where it is used.  It would be strange to run multiple power supplies to one box, but one or more internal regulators may solve any feedback problems.  In fact, there is so much variability in DC power supplies that an AC supply using an AC wall wart or even a supply coming from a line cord may put more of the systems design under your control.  I prefer an AC wall wart because you have UL/CSA units that avoid the legal problems of building your own.

It seems a waste to have the typical AC-coupled inputs and outputs on each effect - it is possible to use buffers in such a way that the input impedance of each internal effect is high, so you may not need electrolytic capacitors at each output carrying signal.  This is another simplification and reliability improvement.

A single box containing all the effects you need would eliminate the pedalboard and reduce the weight needed and the setup time.  If you can live with the limitations, go with it - it will be convenient.

[haveyouseenhim]

3) Use of internal "pillars" between the top and bottom halves to provide the extra structural rigidity.

I planned on putting the switches as close to the front as i can and making 'ribs' like in airplane wings.


I'm doing this for a friend and hes pretty set on the order.

[artifus]

3) Use of internal "pillars" between the top and bottom halves to provide the extra structural rigidity.

I planned on putting the switches as close to the front as i can and making 'ribs' like in airplane wings.


I'm doing this for a friend and hes pretty set on the order.

40mm is about the size of a wine cork. i've used corks around switches in some tobacco tin builds for reinforcement.

[Mark Hammer]

There is no requirement to have any sort of complicated switching OR to have fixed order..

One simple solution is to use jumpers internally to connect circuit 1 to "switching station A", circuit 2 to switching station C, and circuit 3 to switching station B, or whatever.  You don't have to use jumpers, either, you can snag yourself some  dipswitches, or if you want to be able to switch order without having to disassemble the unit, just whip up a little patch panel in the back with RCA or mini-phone jacks/plugs.

The footswitches can still do what you need them to do, but you'll/he'll be able to have a more flexible unit.

[haveyouseenhim]

thanks for the idea mark. i think im going to make a separate board to order the effects. maybe have a little hatch kinda like a battery hatch where one could access the board. and ill use these:


it should keep the unit nice and tidy.

[Canucker]

Putting the effects into one box assumes that you will never want to change the order in which the signal proceeds from one to the next.  If you are happy with that, then one box makes a lot of things simpler.  You will not have the unreliability and expense of jacks and cables.  It is possible to alter the order of effects by switching, but then you are getting into more complication, but this may be acceptable and the switch need not be a front-panel control.  If you are happy with the order and don't foresee making many changes that would affect the user interface like the number of controls, then go with it.

Power supplies can be a hassle if you have insufficient decoupling (such as a fuzz face which has none) and LFO tick may be a problem where it is used.  It would be strange to run multiple power supplies to one box, but one or more internal regulators may solve any feedback problems.  In fact, there is so much variability in DC power supplies that an AC supply using an AC wall wart or even a supply coming from a line cord may put more of the systems design under your control.  I prefer an AC wall wart because you have UL/CSA units that avoid the legal problems of building your own.

It seems a waste to have the typical AC-coupled inputs and outputs on each effect - it is possible to use buffers in such a way that the input impedance of each internal effect is high, so you may not need electrolytic capacitors at each output carrying signal.  This is another simplification and reliability improvement.

A single box containing all the effects you need would eliminate the pedalboard and reduce the weight needed and the setup time.  If you can live with the limitations, go with it - it will be convenient.

A lot of that was over my head but I wouldn't want to change the order of my proposed project.... distortion then boost then trem... can't see a different order making any sense... for the time being I'll probably run it off of three inputs from the power supply (I can power up to 8 with mine...can't recall the name and its at the jam spot). With time I'm sure I'll learn more and get fancy. Still not sure if running two off of one 9 volt battery is an option?