|
Post by ozboomer on Jun 5, 2011 5:32:41 GMT -5
...and now, for the next exciting episode...Since I started actively working with these booster circuits, I've experimented with a few things, in terms of designs, switching and power options, etc... and at this stage, I've had another "simplify it!" moment... Therefore, I've decided to keep this booster pretty simple and still investigate how I might develop it more in simple, 'incremental' ways. I won't worry about the tone control and I'm not even sure about the effect- and power-switching on a 'final' version... but I'll keep experimenting.. and we'll see how it turns out. I guess I'm currently looking at fashioning something like an Xotic EP Booster or an MXR Micro Amp. To that end, I took the originally posted design and simply added a "de-thumping" capacitor ( read the details) and this weekend, I added a "gain capacitor" (bypassing the JFET source resistor) to give a significantly greater gain... and I added an output level pot, to provide some further control, depending on whether the unit is plugged into an amp or into a mixer or line-in on a soundcard in a computer. So, to some diagrams & photos... Revised Circuit: Revised Layout ('de-thump' cap and output level pot not shown): Stripboard as-built: Enclosure Interior (showing the leads to the new pot): The operation of the unit is much the same as it was originally, except that the maximum output level is a LOT greater. For example, I run my Squier Bullet Strat (with SimpleMod-h installed) into the booster and then through my Fender Frontman 15R. These days, I can run this guitar with it's volume on "3" or so and after it goes through the booster, I have the Frontman running on "2" and it sounds plenty loud enough in the bedroom. When use this modified booster, I can start with it with the output level pot set to about 40% of its rotation (it's a log pot, remember)... and that gave me the same sort of loudness as I had originally with this booster. I can then roll the output level pot up and have the windows and "nick nacks" around the room dancing and rattling like *heck!* and I'm only about 85% through the pot's rotation (Dang! it's LOUD).. and it's still sounding clean -- WAY! more than I'll need in my applications... ..and the unit also provides a good level going into the soundcards on the PCs (although I have to experiment with them still, now that the booster has this greater range of output level). The sound of the guitar hasn't really changed with the modifications to the booster, so JohnH's notes about using a 10uF capacitor passing most frequencies seems to be pretty right. Still, to give an idea of the range of output levels available now, here's a sound sample that illustrates the output level available (into the computer) from about 10-20% rotation through to 100% rotation and back down again, viz: Sound Level Demonstration (128kbps, 663kB) The next 'incremental' addition will probably be an LED to indicated power/effect "ON". That will change the current consumption from 0.3-0.5mA to maybe 1.5mA I think (using a 'modern', high-efficiency blue LED)... but I'll need to include some components to isolate the LED circuitry from the rest of the circuit, or else I'll get *Thumps!* back into the circuit again... Once I get this all finalized, I'm going to be sure to post the final design in the Effects Schematics and Diagrams sub-board. Still more to come, folks... John
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Jun 12, 2011 7:29:51 GMT -5
...and for one final update (for the prototype version, that is)... Nothing more than adding an LED this time... and the way it's set-up, we also 'see' how the "de-thumping" cap discharges -- in this case, prety slowly.. but it all works well. So, here are the obligatory drawings and photos:- Revised Circuit: Revised Layout: Revised Stripboard: Enclosure Interior (showing the leads to the new LED, etc): Enclosure Exterior (the LED is actually off; it's just the camera flash making it look like it's lit): Note that I had to 'bridge' across one of the previously cut strips; lesson to learn: only cut what's required(!) Also note that R5 is shown as 10k ... but in the actual build, I used a 20k value -- I still reckon the blue LED is still plenty bright enough... and in testing, it could almost go to 47k and the LED would still glow fairly well... but 20k seems to be a good compromise (and only hurts my eyes a little when I look directly at it). When the unit is on but not actually dealing with an input, it draws about 0.7mA... and when it's working with full output level, it barely draws 0.8mA. So, for an alkaline PP3/9V battery, we could get up to ~700 hours of erratic use before you need to change the battery. *Whee!* So, I've found out most of what I need, I think, to build the 'production' pedal... but I have another project or two to be working on first... John
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Jul 31, 2011 4:48:16 GMT -5
Since I've been experimenting with the pickup heights in my upgraded Squier Strat, I've noticed that a couple of my pedals are actually robbing the high-end from the sound of the new pickups (not unexpectedly, if truth be told). Now, I thought about one way to 'fix' it (if I need to 'fix' it at all)... and that was to try some EQ-ing of the sound after it comes from the effect pedal. Now, I've not REALLY done much EQ-ing at all in my time, so I'm only guessing at what I'm trying to do.. but still, here's a soundclip of my efforts. It has 2 segments to it:- - the normal sound of the guitar (middle pickup only) through the "Clean Boost" and the effect pedal with the effect turned "OFF"; followed by..
- the same sound source and connections but with the effect turned "ON"; although there is some reverb in there, hopefully you can hear the sound is close(-ish) to the one before (with only like 10 mins of trying to work on the EQ... *shrug*)...
Sound Clip: FRV-1_EQ_Testing.mp3The other alternative is to reduce the value of C4 in the design of the "Clean Boost" (probably via switching to a smaller cap), which would give some sort of "treble boost" to the signal before it went through the effect pedal. I'd appreciate any thoughts/opinions you might care to offer... Fanx! John
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Jul 31, 2011 7:25:12 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I've used an EQ on the bass, either in the amp or a stand alone rack mount, for over 25 years.
I never used a lot of effects with the bass, but I found that different venues created different challenges to the sound, so the EQ was a God send in that department.
I like the clean tone coming out of the booster. If it were me, I wouldn't screw with changing anything inside of the booster as it might possibly have a detrimental effect on your clean tone.
You can generally score a good used rack mount EQ for around $75.00-$100.00 US (68.00-91.00 AUD), and the sky's the limit on the pro stuff. There are also EQ pedals that run about the same price new, but my preference has always been for rack mounted units. Your mileage may vary...
As far as what and where to EQ, this depends on the room, the effects in the chain, the amp, the cabinet(s), the guitar or bass in question and exactly where you're going with your tone. There is a multitude of primers and guides out there on bass and guitar EQ to give you a good fundamental knowledge. Some Google time is in order here...
One last thing. If you're recording I've found it's best to EQ the original signal out of the amp to get it where you want it before you start recording. Trying to fix a bad track later with an EQ can be problematic, and generally does not yield as desirable a result.
Happy Trails -
Cynical One
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Jul 31, 2011 9:02:09 GMT -5
I'm still hearing a pretty noticeable difference in the effected signal, but with the reverb and volume difference (not to mention the crappy speakers I'm listening on) it's a little difficult to sort out.
Generally trying to add back treble after the effect is not the best choice. When you're cranking up the treble to get back your desired guitar signal you're also boosting the high frequency portion of any noise which may have been added in or after that pedal.
Better would probably be to have more treble going into the pedal, assuming it's got headroom enough that you won't causing undesired distortion. Not sure though that it's a great idea to change your booster just for this one application.
|
|
|
Post by roadtonever on Jul 31, 2011 11:09:19 GMT -5
Maybe stainless strings would give you more of what you like. Just an idea.
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Aug 1, 2011 0:53:51 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I've used an EQ on the bass, either in the amp or a stand alone rack mount, for over 25 years. Oh, Joy. Another ramping learning curve. ;D Nahh.. I well-understand that EQ and how to (not) use it is another major study... and as such, is probably beyond my scope for this lifetime... Following your Googling advice, though, I've fallen across the following (ambitious) bit of something... and it tries to explain the "language" some:- Interactive Frequency Chart...and that, in combination with something like "A General EQ Guide" might, at least, get me to a "ballpark" and an "expert" could further improve the sound, I expect... I'll see if I can find something understandable/practical/applicable... and I better have a look in the local library, too, i think.. Fanx! John
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 23, 2011 22:30:12 GMT -5
In preparation for another guitar (wiring) mod, I'm doing a little checking of the sounds of the guitar before I rip it apart... ...and I offer the following track, as an observation: mp3 File: Sound SampleThe first sound is the raw guitar sound (bridge pickup)... and the 2nd sound has been processed with a VST filter. Now, what's interesting is that if I listen to this "comparison" on the speakers in where the "music computer" is, I hear significant changes in the 'bass'/'boominess' of the 1st part compared to the 2nd part. ...but if I play the same file on my 'main' computer, both parts of the track sound the same and that's like the 2nd sound, with less boominess. So, I wonder if all these "boominess" problems I hear with the recordings and sound coming through the "music" computer are actually caused by the computer speakers?!? The "music" computer speakers: M-560KThe "normal" computer speakers: Genius SP-G16Note: The M-560K speakers reference are not quite right but I couldn't find anything else... and the SP-G16 speakers are too old and don't exist anywhere, that I can find. If you listen to thie above mp3, I'd be interested to learn if you hear both sounds sounding the same... and/or if the tracks sound "boomy" or not to you. Fanx! John
|
|
|
Post by roadtonever on Sept 23, 2011 23:41:04 GMT -5
I wouldn't say either sounds muddy, I'm listening through Beyerdynamic headphones. Sounds like the second half has some low mids cut and high mids boosted, sort of a typical EQ curve for a bright clean sound. I still think you should give the stainless steel strings a try, it might just be what you're looking for sound wise.
Happy tone chasing!
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 24, 2011 3:05:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Sept 24, 2011 21:23:03 GMT -5
John, those are my speakers!
I had the black ones years ago, but traded them to my brother for a white (now severely discolored) set where the LH satellite wires had broken loose. Opened it up and twisted the wires together and it works fine. I love them. Used them for general listening for years, mixed a couple albums on them, and am now using them at my home computer. And the price was right! $100 out the door in '98 when I bought mine. The set they replaced these with - at the same price point - is not quite so good. I have those in the back seat of my Metro for listening to my iPhone while driving.
Oh, the sample doesn't sound boomy to me - at lowish volumes anyway. Actually the unprocessed sounds a bit better to me, but the other might fit into a mix better. Would have to hear it in context and all that.
It might not be the speakers, either. Could be room acoustics. Have you tried swapping the speaker positions?
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 24, 2011 23:51:09 GMT -5
Oh, the sample doesn't sound boomy to me - at lowish volumes anyway. ... It might not be the speakers, either. Could be room acoustics. Have you tried swapping the speaker positions? I've always had some sort of issue with the 'boominess', I guess... Here's an old photo of the work area, which hasn't substantially changed... Having the 'bass' speaker on a 'hurdle' (shelf on two edge-on boards) shouldn't make it even boomier, I wouldn't think? Room Layout (left-click for the larger image - 1023x545, 110kB) :How d'you think the arrangement looks? Should I be moving the speakers.. or perhaps I should just headphone monitor, hmm?? Fanx! for the thoughts, everyone.. John Edit: A bit more polite now with the photo, sorry folks.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Sept 24, 2011 23:52:31 GMT -5
John, those are my speakers! Mine are 'beige', bought in a former century when they colour matched with piece of hardware you could get. They are running with their 4th pc now, and sound so good that I see no reason to change. sorry oz! now back to your thread....
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Sept 25, 2011 8:20:54 GMT -5
I don't think I would want the sub on a box like that. Not saying it's definitely your problem, but it could resonate or something. Is there a reason it's not just on the floor? Also, it looks like that sub is pretty far forward compared to the satellites, which would tend to make it seem louder. Inverse square law and stuff...
But I was talking more about the actual acoustic properties of the room. Unless that's a pretty big space or you've installed quite a bit of bass trapping (which I don't see in the pic) there will be standing waves and room modes and all that happy crap which can make it difficult to tell exactly what's going on in the bass region. Does the bass response vary a lot as you move around the room?
...Or it could be the speakers. Since I can't hear what you are actually hearing in the room, it's hard to say.
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Sept 25, 2011 11:13:12 GMT -5
I don't think I would want the sub on a box like that. Not saying it's definitely your problem, but it could resonate or something. Is there a reason it's not just on the floor? Oh? I understood to have a 'bass'-style speaker directly on the floor would definitely do things to over-emphasize the bass; the whole floor vibrating and such..? The 'hurdle' it's sitting on is like the bottom half of an 'H' -- so it's open, not an enclosed box, so it's only the "half-H" that would possibly vibrate; the sub is sufficiently isolated from the floor... I think(!) Good point.. but the little speakers seem to do alright with the highs.. *shrug*... Probably worth experimenting with the placement, tho... Understood. There's mainly a bed, carpet on the floor and bookcases around the room; nothing to soak-up sound much except for the carpet on the floor.. but it still sounds pretty 'dead' -- nothing like the bathroom, for example. ..and the response seems pretty constant - no significant changes in sound as I move around the room (bass - wise) -- the upper end changes a bit as those little speakers are, obviously, aimed in a direction... and bass frequencies don't 'care' about direction so much.. ...the assessments continue...
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Nov 2, 2011 6:15:54 GMT -5
A little article I fell across that's sort of relevant, given we've been talking/thinking about 'boominess'... [/url] [/ul]
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Apr 9, 2012 2:41:33 GMT -5
One of the small projects that I've been up to during Easter is to change over the audio interface on my PC. So now, I have only one audio interface, being a Lexicon Alpha Desktop Recording Studio. This replaces a 'hybrid' situation where I had the on-board/PC motherboard "sound card" for output and a Behringer UCA202 audio interface for my guitar input. The advantages of this setup are that I can adjust the playback level of the guitar as I'm recording it, while still getting a high input level into the DAW software (I didn't have that control with the UCA202 and I often had the monitoring level too loud.. *Ick!*)... and there is now zero latency, as the signal I hear from the interface is a direct copy of the input signal.. and that can be mixed with the playback signal coming from the DAW. At this stage, I'm just a little unsure about my signal levels, 'coz my ears aren't too flash sometimes. I'd appreciate if some of my fellow Nutz would please listen to this MP3 file and let me know what you think about the levels/distortion, please. The file contains 4 snippets: - a pattern with full barre chords;
- the same sequence of chords with 3-string triads;
- a 'lead' track, of sorts; and
- a basic mix of the 3 previous tracks.
Thanks for your help, folks... as always. John
|
|
|
Post by yakkmeister on Apr 9, 2012 10:54:25 GMT -5
My dad used to have those speakers ... they are pretty horrible. that is the ones in OzBoomer's pic. The Altec Lansing ones I have never seen ... though I used to have a set of Cambridge Audio that looked very similar. I have these: and they're absolutely wonderful. Oz, I suggest you score some better speakers, bro. If you're in Brisbane, I can probably hook you up with a decent bit of kit for nothing or chump-change. [EDIT] you're in Blackburn ... oh well. If you're ever up this way, look me up!
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Apr 9, 2012 11:18:51 GMT -5
Quick listen on the Kindle didn't reveal anything that sounded like unwanted distortion. What do you mean you're not sure about your levels? Isn't there metering in your DAW? Or are you unsure of how to use the meters?
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Apr 9, 2012 13:02:53 GMT -5
..What do you mean you're not sure about your levels? Isn't there metering in your DAW? Or are you unsure of how to use the meters? The guitar signal runs something like: Guitar -> my version of a JohnH clean boost -> other pedals (like FRV-1 '63 Fender Reverb, etc) -> Alpha -> SONAR X1 LE. When I play the guitar in this hookup, I thought I heard some nasty buzzing sometimes, although the metering in SONAR doesn't show any excessive level. I thought it might've been a dud battery in the booster (nope, that battery is under 18 months old and the sound is no different when I put a new battery in -- gotta love that JFET design)... If I bypass the FRV-1 it can sound cleaner (maybe the 'buzz' is the emulation of an over-driven spring?)... but not always. The 'Peak' LED on the Alpha is never lit (it might barely flash once in all the playing in that MP3).. and the track meters in SONAR are always that sickly yellow (and hardly ever get into the orange territory = -6dB or higher, I think they are). The MP3 was recorded using my Squier Affinity Strat (with Tonerider vintage pups).. but I thought I heard the 'worst' cases of the 'buzz' when I was playing another Strat (with GFS Mean 90 pups).. so maybe it was even the higher output from the P-90 -style pickups... although, I completely re-worked the levels when I used that guitar. Maybe it's all just in my head, looking for problems when there really aren't that many?!
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Apr 9, 2012 16:57:43 GMT -5
The way to track down the distortion is to start with just one pedal and then add until you find the culprit. My guess from your descriptions is that you're hitting that FRV-1 too hard. As a digital pedal, it's probably the headroom bottleneck.
Is there a reason you've got the booster first in line? Are you running OD/dist/amp sim or other analog pedals which actually do something useful (like tastefully overdrive more) when hit by the boosted signal?
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Apr 9, 2012 18:34:58 GMT -5
My guess from your descriptions is that you're hitting that FRV-1 too hard. As a digital pedal, it's probably the headroom bottleneck. Tha's what I was thinking, too.. It's just that I wanted some more ears listening to what I think is 'clean' and is a 'good recording' and to confirm that I'm (sometimes) imagining things.. The actual pedals are, in order: my JohnH clean boost -> PSM-5 Power Supply and Master Switch... and the effects loop that the PSM-5 switches comprises: TR-2 Tremolo -> FRV-1 '63 Fender Reverb -> RC-2 Loop Station... and return to the PSM-5. If I run the guitar straight into the Alpha, and have the guitar running 3 (single coil) pickups with the guitar volume on maximum, I need to have the Alpha's input level set on maximum to get a decent signal into SONAR -- in this case, the track level meters in SONAR occasionally get into the -6 dB to -3 dB range; I have no such problems when I put the booster in the line... and anyway, the booster is more about cleaning-up the tone, which I think we've agreed (earlier in this thread) it does very nicely (even though I'm only running 10-foot/3m cables between the guitar and the Alpha or pedals).
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Apr 9, 2012 19:44:42 GMT -5
I'm asking why you haven't got the booster after the other pedals. I'd think they'll be happier with regular guitar levels than with the line level signal you're trying to cram through them. I've never tried overdriving my TR-2, but I can't imagine it's anything to write home about. The loop station might have some provision for line levels, but they're all basically built for guitars, right?
I have (less than great) reasons to put my booster first in my pedal chain, but any clipping it might cause later in the chain gets masked by overdrive/distortion down the line. It's kinda part of the point of the booster in my case. You seem to want to avoid clipping anything on the way into the computer, so why put it before things that it might clip?
You should be shooting for average levels around -20 to -18 dbfs in the DAW. This is what equates to 0dbVU with most converters. I don't know what color that'll be in Sonar. Consistently peaking at -3 is probably more than you need. Consider that when mixing two tracks, if both hit -3 at the same time it'll add to +3 at the mix bus. Course, since it can't go over 0...
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Apr 9, 2012 21:58:48 GMT -5
First off, after much trial and error I have given up in a direct signal into my sequencer. Call it personal preference, but I have firmly receded back into my analog days of getting what I want out of the amp with a mic. One other thing. My eyes ain't what they used to be, and the meters inside of most sequencers take a hawks eye to use effectively. I can recommend a free plugin that works like a charm. Sonalksis FreeGWorks in Windows and MAC, 32 and 64 bit. I put this in every track and Send in the sequencer. It's got a small top end and you can read it without much effort...
For what it's worth, since I started playing around with the guitar I've developed the typical pedal addiction. Along with this addiction I've tripped up on the concept of gain stacking. I mention this, as using an overdrive, one fuzz and two different distortion pedals I've found that putting the overdrive first worked best for me. I follow that with the distortion pedals and finally the fuzz. I tried the fuzz, according to conventional wisdom, in front of the distortion pedals, but I liked it better last in line to the amp. I also liked the wah first in line, although that does take some tweaking to keep the levels consistent when engaged. The advantage of running multiple pedals like this is that you can turn the gain down to around 9:00 and get all the effect with a fraction of the noise that came from boosting the gain on just one pedal. Each preceding pedal colors the one next in line. The last one in line determines the output into the amp so you can get some involved effects at bedroom playing levels. Works good for recording when you don't want to meet the landlord halfway through the take... For reference, the chain looks like this into the amp: Guitar -> Ibanez WD-7 Wah -> Digitech Hardwire CM-2 Overdrive -> Digitech Hardwire TL-2 Distortion -> Visual Sound Son of Hyde Distortion -> DS-1 Clone Distortion -> Boss FZ-5 Fuzz -> Amp. I never run all of the front end simultaneously...well, I did once and it was friggin' horrible...but picking two or three with the gain down...and adding some fuzz at a low boost...can create some very interesting tones without turning into liquid mud. Playing around with the guitar's volume control adds another dimension. I know this flies in the face of conventional wisdom of turning the gain down on a distortion pedal, but ability to fine tune a tone without fighting the noise the higher gain settings introduce makes it an interesting theory to play around with. The effects send has all the flangers, chorus and delays. I have to admit, I wouldn't buy an amp without an effects send anymore. It may sound like a lot of wretched excess...but eBay is a great place to score used pedals if you're a patient...albeit cheap...sort of guy... Reminds me...I still need to score a good reverb... Happy Trails Cynical One
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Apr 9, 2012 23:10:47 GMT -5
I'm asking why you haven't got the booster after the other pedals. I'd think they'll be happier with regular guitar levels than with the line level signal you're trying to cram through them. Good point.. My original thinking was that if I placed the booster after all the other pedals, I'd be 'boosting' the noise from the pedals as well as the guitar signal... but I guess I should try out both arrangements, huh? Overall, for the sorts of things I'm looking to play, I'd say I'm never going to use any distorted sounds... so that's why I'm most interested in clean sounds.. and why I'm probably being a bit 'picky' about any distortion I (think I ) hear. I understood (I think) that I needed to be well under the 'clip' point on the individual track meters for exactly that reason of how they will combine on the mix bus... ..and thanks, c1... but I have already been resurrecting the Sonalksis FreeG, just to get a clearer idea of what 'elements' are generating what sorts of levels inside the computer.. Again, I wonder if I (we) are making things all the more complicated when they needn't be? ...
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Apr 10, 2012 6:02:59 GMT -5
I've been doing some further research and, as always, the ol' "your mileage my vary" (YMMV) maxim seems to apply here... Most of the articles, forums, books, etc I've been going through today advise to put the booster pedal at the end of the signal chain.. and they mention ash's note about 'overloading' the pedals if the booster is placed FIRST in the chain.. which might be what you want, when you're looking to get a certain overdrive sound, for example... ...but for the clean sounds, it seems the booster should be the last effect in the chain (except for a reverb, maybe). Hmm.... All these months (years!?) since I first built and started using the booster.. and perhaps, I've had it in the wrong place(!)... I note that all the pedals I'm using have an input impedance of 1M, so loading of the pickups won't probably be a big deal... and the length of the lead from the guitar to the pedals will only be short (3m or so).... As long as the booster is before any long lead to an amp or a computer, I'm probably going to be Ok for any noise/loss of high-end... Any thoughts, JohnH? I'm currently rearranging the pedalboard ...
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Apr 10, 2012 16:22:17 GMT -5
Your idea to avoid boosting excess noise was a good one in theory...
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Jan 11, 2022 6:17:55 GMT -5
Just a bit of trivia, more than anything... I admit I don't play with the unit very much (I haven't been recording much in recent years... and I mainly practice with my Micro BR BR-80), so the booster hasn't had a lot of use... but it's still working as well as it did back when I 'finalized' the design - see Reply #61 in this thread. So, that's over 10 years with the one battery.. and all the components are still clean/unleaky... As is often the case, a simple (minimal components) approach often works the best...
|
|