Umm...is there a pedal, that can come close to the mxr 126 flanger/doubler?

[tone seeker]

 Sorry, if this is a no-brainer, dumb question. But
What I really want is that huge swooshing sound.
The same heard on Eric Johnson's
"High Landrons". I read there was some studio
Magic, using 2 effects at a time, and all kinds
Of crazy stuff. But I'm just looking for close! If I
Can't make it, I'll buy a flanger, but I would rather
Not spend a grand.

Any suggestions or builds I should check out?

[somnif]

In terms of flangey-ness, its clock signal and LFO looks similar to other Flanger (and pretty much most others use the cmos 4000 series chips for the job) but appears to use a different flavor of delay, so it wouldn't be exactly the same. One appears to be the SAD1024, which you can sorta-kinda swap for a MN3007 with some retooling. But the other chip is a "R5101" a CCD based delay that is wildly different from what we have to work with today.

So, as for re-making it exactly? Won't happen. The way the effect works is your signal is split. One half runs true, the other moved in and out of time with the first signal by the BBD, giving you that tasty constructive/destructive interference wooshy-ness of a flange. Flipping the "double" switch just turns off the LFO on the BBD line so you have one clean signal and one slightly delayed signal played along side, giving you a doubled sound. This is the CCD's job.

Thing is, most "modern" flangers only use a single delay chip for their work. To get the "doubled" sound you basically need to work up a single 2048 stage delay effect in the same box as a flanger. Possible, but it would get pretty bulky (and flangers aren't known for being tiny effects to begin with)

Probably some flavors of it out there, I just don't know them off the top of my head.

[HamSandwich]

Certainly the FV1 could do this with some coding, no?

[stringsthings]

Just youtubing the tune.  That is one nice effect.

[BuGG]

I have a PCB for a double tracker effect.  It's basically what was described above.

One clean path, one path with a stationary delay of a few ms (adjustable) and one path with a micro pitch shift (also adjustable)

http://www.pedalpcb.com/product/unison/

[blearyeyes]

It has a phonetic sound I haven't heard in a flanger. I built the  flanger Brian has a PCB for and flanges like that pretty much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blearyeyes]

It is based on the MXR if I'm not mistaken. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blearyeyes]

It is based on the MXR if I'm not mistaken. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Collosalus
http://www.madbeanpedals.com/projects/Collosalus2015/Collosalus2015.pdf
Based on the MXR117


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tone seeker]

Thanks, for input! I will do a little more homework, and see what I can
figure out!

[Govmnt_Lacky]

Despite what I have heard many, many times.... I have never heard an MN-based flanger sound as good (musically) as a SAD1024-based flanger. I have built quite a few (of all BBD types) and the best sounding MN-based flanger I have ever heard was the FL99.

Now, if you want to have a cool experimental flanger that is also very good musically, then the ?Flanger is best in my opinion.

[somnif]

Despite what I have heard many, many times.... I have never heard an MN-based flanger sound as good (musically) as a SAD1024-based flanger. I have built quite a few (of all BBD types) and the best sounding MN-based flanger I have ever heard was the FL99.

Now, if you want to have a cool experimental flanger that is also very good musically, then the ?Flanger is best in my opinion.

Theres two reasons for that. First, the SAD1024 had a lower input capacitance, so it could play with smaller "bits" of noise, letting you get a denser smush. (the 3007 has a 5ms minimum delay (on paper), the 1024 a 0.2ms delay (again, on paper))

Second, the SAD1024 was not 1024 stages!...well not 1024 like the MN3007 has. It was two 512 stages running in parallel! In most flangers I've seen the signal would be run in both delay lines simultaneously, getting some interesting multiplexing things going on.

The 3007 is similar, but alas, not the same creature. Its simply the best we can do with the materials at hand.

Edit:
In theory the best Panasonic replacement for the SAD1024 would have been the MN3001, not the 3007. However, from what I can tell the 3007 saw a LOT more use in cheap electronics (Karaoke machines, etc) so a ton more were produced and available for scavenging/surplus during the dark ages of BBD rarity.

Edit Again - I have been educated!

[Scruffie]

Despite what I have heard many, many times.... I have never heard an MN-based flanger sound as good (musically) as a SAD1024-based flanger. I have built quite a few (of all BBD types) and the best sounding MN-based flanger I have ever heard was the FL99.

Now, if you want to have a cool experimental flanger that is also very good musically, then the ?Flanger is best in my opinion.

Theres two reasons for that. First, the SAD1024 had a lower input capacitance, so it could play with smaller "bits" of noise, letting you get a denser smush. (the 3007 has a 5ms minimum delay (on paper), the 1024 a 0.2ms delay (again, on paper))

Second, the SAD1024 was not 1024 stages!...well not 1024 like the MN3007 has. It was two 512 stages running in parallel! In most flangers I've seen the signal would be run in both delay lines simultaneously, getting some interesting multiplexing things going on.

The 3007 is similar, but alas, not the same creature. Its simply the best we can do with the materials at hand.

Edit:
In theory the best Panasonic replacement for the SAD1024 would have been the MN3001, not the 3007. However, from what I can tell the 3007 saw a LOT more use in cheap electronics (Karaoke machines, etc) so a ton more were produced and available for scavenging/surplus during the dark ages of BBD rarity.

I gotta disagree on a few points...

The input capacitance is regards the clocks, the MN rolls off more highs the higher the clock frequency which does slightly affect the sound.

Parallel multiplexing doesn't add a sound (the MXR actually uses the 2 halves in series so it is 1024 stages) it just cuts noise through increasing the sampling rate, doubling the clock frequency to half the delay time of the 3007 also achieves much the same.

The MN3001 is pretty awful for flangers IMO even before the sourcing issue because of its large insertion loss, it's incredibly noisy once you bring the gain up for the 50/50 mix that creates a good flanger or you need a noise gate like the Tychobrahe or lots of filtering and most of the favourite flangers use very little filtering, plus it had a pain in the ass powering scheme.

Most of the reason the SAD1024 is 'better' comes down to gain vs clock frequency, a flanger sounds best with a 50/50 wet/dry mix to get the most comb filtering, the SAD has pretty even gain up to very high clock frequencies, all the MN chips start to cut gain the higher up they sweep.

A final point which is only a theory I have is that the SAD is has poorer noise specs than the MN and much like synths, a bit of noise can actually be a good thing for a 'thicker' sound, if you make a flanger too sterile, it looses something.

Pretty much all of these things can be overcome with good design but it doesn't lend to a drop in circuit and complicates the circuitry quite a bit.

[somnif]

This is why I love this board. So much hearsay and mythology I had been told over the years debunked in a single post 

[HamSandwich]

I gotta disagree on a few points...

The input capacitance is regards the clocks, the MN rolls off more highs the higher the clock frequency which does slightly affect the sound.

Parallel multiplexing doesn't add a sound (the MXR actually uses the 2 halves in series so it is 1024 stages) it just cuts noise through increasing the sampling rate, doubling the clock frequency to half the delay time of the 3007 also achieves much the same.

The MN3001 is pretty awful for flangers IMO even before the sourcing issue because of its large insertion loss, it's incredibly noisy once you bring the gain up for the 50/50 mix that creates a good flanger or you need a noise gate like the Tychobrahe or lots of filtering and most of the favourite flangers use very little filtering, plus it had a pain in the ass powering scheme.

Most of the reason the SAD1024 is 'better' comes down to gain vs clock frequency, a flanger sounds best with a 50/50 wet/dry mix to get the most comb filtering, the SAD has pretty even gain up to very high clock frequencies, all the MN chips start to cut gain the higher up they sweep.

A final point which is only a theory I have is that the SAD is has poorer noise specs than the MN and much like synths, a bit of noise can actually be a good thing for a 'thicker' sound, if you make a flanger too sterile, it looses something.

Pretty much all of these things can be overcome with good design but it doesn't lend to a drop in circuit and complicates the circuitry quite a bit.

[blearyeyes]

Scruffie rocks !!