expanoncolin
Administrator
phpBB Member
|
 |
« on: June 30, 2006, 01:36:59 PM » |
|
Here is the "finalized" version of the PU. It's much more stable, and all around more flexible and useable now. And it was so stable and flexible in the first place!   -Colin P.S. I drew this in designworks-quite a dense program but there are so many features! I am beginning to really like it. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 24, 2006, 11:32:58 PM by expanoncolin »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
whythisreason?
phpBB Junior Member
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2006, 07:43:24 AM » |
|
really cool stuff colin! I'll be building a PU again in the near future as part of a bigger multi noisemaker design, and this looks just like what I was thinking about. I'm currently working on an improved LM567 based noisemaker (a revised "noise 567" hemmo circuit) And just yesterday I wondered how I could wire it into a PU...  Anyway, thanks for keeping the PU up to date! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
yes. . .
|
|
|
expanoncolin
Administrator
phpBB Member
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2006, 09:48:07 AM » |
|
No problem-give it a little time though, as this design DOES have bugs right now. I will post the corrected version soon. (see if you can spot them  ) -Colin |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
simonm
phpBB Junior Member
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2006, 05:37:45 AM » |
|
... I know a lot of you were waiting for it. Colin - the PU is one of my favourite builds, I just love it - so I was wondering what motivated you to update it? This new one looks a bit complex for vero or perf (at my level anyways), but I do like the idea of the loop and active tone control. Simon |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
expanoncolin
Administrator
phpBB Member
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2006, 07:36:45 AM » |
|
The PU desperately needed input and output buffers. An input buffer allows a wider range of gain and the same results at any spot in the setup, behind any pedal or any length of cable, while the original PU varied when these things were changed. The output buffer allows the PU to be run at full volume, so now th eoutput level can go from quiet, to unity, to very loud, as opposed to quiet to unity. The original tone control drops a lot of the signal when you turn it down, so this tone control is an attempt to compensate for that and perhaps make it less extreme. The FX loop is just there for fun Many people, after building or buying it, requested that these things be fixed, so now they are. This schem is more complex for sure-but not too much for perf, I wouldn't say, if you really commit yourself. THe original PU is by no means now "obsolete", it's still an awesome simple noisebox. I still have yet to breadboard thet one control to verify this schem, but I will soon and will repost a proper schem. -Colin |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sponge
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2006, 02:15:55 PM » |
|
are the bugs the kind that will require extra components? if not, i'm gonna order the bits and breadboard it.
also, i suppose one of the effects loop jacks has to be switched, otherwise you would have to plug in a patch lead for the effect to work. is this one of the bugs???
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
simonm
phpBB Junior Member
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2006, 12:50:28 AM » |
|
The PU desperately needed input and output buffers. An input buffer allows a wider range of gain and the same results at any spot in the setup, behind any pedal or any length of cable, while the original PU varied when these things were changed.
-Colin Ok - I never noticed this because I don't have a pedal board, I tend to ony use a couple of effects at a time, and mostly for home recording + messing around. When I'm playing live I don't use many either - too much to go wrong /worry about /get right with unfamiliar amps etc. The buffer thing hasn't been an issue for me, I can live with tone sucking to some extent, but am thinking about making a discrete buffer box to experiment with positioning etc. Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to seeing the finished schematic and hearing some clips! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
expanoncolin
Administrator
phpBB Member
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2006, 09:43:44 AM » |
|
Ok - I never noticed this because I don't have a pedal board, I tend to ony use a couple of effects at a time, and mostly for home recording + messing around. When I'm playing live I don't use many either - too much to go wrong /worry about /get right with unfamiliar amps etc.
The buffer thing hasn't been an issue for me, I can live with tone sucking to some extent, but am thinking about making a discrete buffer box to experiment with positioning etc.
Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to seeing the finished schematic and hearing some clips! There is no tone sucking when the PU is bypassed, it's true bypassed. The buffers are to create a very low impedance output to be fed into the LM386, or at least, the same impedance no matter what's in front, so the pedal always works the same. -Colin |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
simonm
phpBB Junior Member
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2006, 03:07:59 PM » |
|
There is no tone sucking when the PU is bypassed, it's true bypassed. I meant the impedance mismatch kind of tone sucking (that isn't a probem for me, because I don't use a log chain of pedals), rather than bypass tone sucking - I guess there's another name for that? My PU is true bypass, anyway, yes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
expanoncolin
Administrator
phpBB Member
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2006, 08:56:05 PM » |
|
The schematic has been updated-using the active tone control proved to overcomplicate things without helping that much. So instead, there's just a noninverting buffer followed by a rendition of Mark Hammer's stupidly wonderful tone control. It now uses a dual op amp instead.
-Colin
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
danoisefactory
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2006, 01:23:56 AM » |
|
Wow Colin,
You must stop outdoing yourself, its almost no fun for us anymore!
The improved PU still looks easy enough to build, I was planning to build the original PU, but instead will go for this one directly.
One question about input buffers, i use a lot of effects in a long chain and use all sort of different brands and types. I read that, as long as I put one buffered effect (like a BOSS or Ibanez TS9) in front, i shouldn't have a problem, but i'm not so sure, especially since i build a Distortion++ which seems not to be as loud as expected. Have to say though, i'm not sure.
Is it wise (and is it easy) to give effects an input buffer, so theit input buffering is always the same? I realy don't get this buffering bit.
Anyone any enlightenment at hand?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
expanoncolin
Administrator
phpBB Member
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2006, 09:32:34 AM » |
|
Yes. Various buffers will work better and worse. For example, an NPN transistor buffer I tried didn't work at all. In this case, the input buffer is noninverting, so the input impedance is very high. It also has gain, which is very important.
-Colin
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
André
phpBB Junior Member
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2006, 04:53:38 AM » |
|
Hi!
Is there a stripboard layout of this somewhere? I found a topic on diystompboxes but the picture link was broken. I could just do one myself but I'm lazy.
And are the red lines that cross each other connected?
/André
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
expanoncolin
Administrator
phpBB Member
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2006, 07:27:18 AM » |
|
Hi!
Is there a stripboard layout of this somewhere? I found a topic on diystompboxes but the picture link was broken. I could just do one myself but I'm lazy.
And are the red lines that cross each other connected?
/André The diystompboxes one is the old version. No stripboard yet, sorry. Red lines that are crossed are only connected if there's a dot. -Colin |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
André
phpBB Junior Member
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2006, 07:37:12 AM » |
|
The diystompboxes one is the old version. No stripboard yet, sorry. Red lines that are crossed are only connected if there's a dot.
-Colin Ok. Then I'll do my own. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
