Not what the title leads you to believe. With the release of the VFE DragonHound coming this week I started thinking a bit about blended circuits. The DragonHound puts the AlphaDog and PaleHorse in one box and lets you blend them in parallel (with the tone and level being shared by both). I've thought about this concept on and off for a few years but never really went anywhere with it. But, the DragonHound sounds great so I want to start tackling some other possibilities.
The two that I've already started drawing up are pretty solid ideas: An OCD and Zendrive (both using mosfet clipping, one hard one soft) and two of my favorite boosters - the AMZ MiniBoost and Mosfet boost. The boost one goes further in that it lets you run them in series (both ways) AND parallel.
Any suggestions on other blender circuits you might like? This could be another category of offerings at mbp.
I like both of those ideas. I just built an SPS DragonHound and really like it. I've been thinking that it'd be cool to have a deluxe DragonHound: separate fat controls for each circuit, clipping diodes on the Rat, and the ability to run the Rat/TS in series as well as parallel. Maybe a reach, but changing the order would cool too.
Two of my favorite circuits are parallel fuzz. The Spaceman Geminis 3&4, a silicon and germanium fuzz, and the DOD Punkifier, a fuzz and drive. They have pretty extreme tone controls that enhance the layers. I would love a parallel high gain distortion and octave down like the danelectro black licorice, but unshitty.
I've used this on a couple recordings. I made it for a PIFmas present a while back. It's basically a Big Muff with a clean blend, except that the clean blend is the compressor output, which is also the big muff's input stage.
(http://www.dropbox.com/s/yw31veukhqzh9q0/Swamp%20Comp%20Fuzz%20schematic.png?raw=1)
I would love to see an overdrive like the moar and the 4:1 compressor, i think that would be cool.
A delay and reverb would also make me extremely horny I mean wistful, wistful damn it!
Quote from: midwayfair on October 27, 2021, 08:42:17 PM
I've used this on a couple recordings. I made it for a PIFmas present a while back. It's basically a Big Muff with a clean blend, except that the clean blend is the compressor output, which is also the big muff's input stage.
Yeah, that is clever! It also makes me think about a distortion side with LED hard clippers which in turn optically trigger compression (as a low parts count hack).
Why not just do the split/mix circuit so everyone can mix and match as they please?
Quote from: Aentons on October 28, 2021, 06:46:18 AM
Why not just do the split/mix circuit so everyone can mix and match as they please?
I'd say size and circuit interactivity are the two benefits to the DragonHound method instead of two discrete circuits with a mixer. The FAT control, for example, is a dual gang pot so each circuit is affected. As mentioned above, another possibility is the ability to use an envelope detection block in one circuit to change a parameter in the other.
I'm not much of a fan of the rat but o would like a good crunchy overdrive and a distortion , soft clipping maybe?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The blueprint and bumblebee looked like a cool idea too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: benny_profane on October 28, 2021, 07:12:13 AM
Quote from: Aentons on October 28, 2021, 06:46:18 AM
Why not just do the split/mix circuit so everyone can mix and match as they please?
I'd say size and circuit interactivity are the two benefits to the DragonHound method instead of two discrete circuits with a mixer. The FAT control, for example, is a dual gang pot so each circuit is affected. As mentioned above, another possibility is the ability to use an envelope detection block in one circuit to change a parameter in the other.
Its all about having the options for me. I agree size could be a factor for some, but there is a wide selection of 1590a size projects you could cram together in an 1590bb box with a blender and/or order switcher. Any circuit interactivity could potentially be as easy as adding an extra jumper wire.
That Fat control is not a great example because it requires the special order, 5 legged, reverse taper mini pot. My preference for that particular circuit would be to have separate controls, but others may not.
If we are talking about special paired circuits with interactivity that require parts beyond normal then sure, a dedicated pcb make a lot of sense.
Quote from: Aentons on October 28, 2021, 06:46:18 AM
Why not just do the split/mix circuit so everyone can mix and match as they please?
Yeah I considered that too. I think I would also do a standalone switcher thing along with the blended circuit offerings. With the switcher, it would have some of the same options: series both ways and parallel. And, a phase correction switch if needed. It'd be really cool to add stereo output on top of that. I'll have to think a bit about it. I guess it starts to get in Klein Bottle territory with all that but maybe there is a simple version that would be useful.
Quote from: madbean on October 28, 2021, 08:11:35 AM
Quote from: Aentons on October 28, 2021, 06:46:18 AM
Why not just do the split/mix circuit so everyone can mix and match as they please?
Yeah I considered that too. I think I would also do a standalone switcher thing along with the blended circuit offerings. With the switcher, it would have some of the same options: series both ways and parallel. And, a phase correction switch if needed. It'd be really cool to add stereo output on top of that. I'll have to think a bit about it. I guess it starts to get in Klein Bottle territory with all that but maybe there is a simple version that would be useful.
I think this is a great idea. As much as I like what the DragonHound is trying to accomplish, for a DIY build, I was left feeling a bit constrained by some of the design choices. (I know that may seem like a crazy thing to say about a VFE circuit!) If you're looking to have a "Blender" projects page, I think it makes sense to have both designed parallel circuits as well as a utility board that would allow the builder to combine circuits themselves. The series/parallel switch with order switching is a great addition.
Quote from: Aentons on October 28, 2021, 07:49:47 AM
That Fat control is not a great example because it requires the special order, 5 legged, reverse taper mini pot. My preference for that particular circuit would be to have separate controls, but others may not.
I don't disagree with you: that's actually an issue I have with that particular circuit. It's just an example of how parameters for both circuits can be unified to create a cohesive single unit. Note that that custom pot can be avoided with value scaling. E.g., the SPS version uses a dual C1K 16mm pot which is certainly able to be made DIY if you can't find it for sale. The circuit could also be further modified to accept a standard part.
As a guy whose primary PCB sales are driven by a Test Rig and Parallel PCB tools - the key is found in an old RG-Keen article on blending. Most blend circuits I've seen don't actually blend. The good ones find a way to ground the circuit you blend out, to actually mix the two circuits accurately. That's the first thing I'd be reading if I were you Brian.
http://www.geofex.com/Article_Folders/panner.pdf (http://www.geofex.com/Article_Folders/panner.pdf)
Jacob
Quote from: jkokura on October 28, 2021, 08:29:47 AM
As a guy whose primary PCB sales are driven by a Test Rig and Parallel PCB tools - the key is found in an old RG-Keen article on blending. Most blend circuits I've seen don't actually blend. The good ones find a way to ground the circuit you blend out, to actually mix the two circuits accurately. That's the first thing I'd be reading if I were you Brian.
http://www.geofex.com/Article_Folders/panner.pdf (http://www.geofex.com/Article_Folders/panner.pdf)
Jacob
Very useful... Thanks for pointing that out!
I'd bet that is how the Boss LS2 A+B mix is done. It doesn't have the volume drop that some others have. One thing I like about the LS2 is that it has independent volumes on the returns, which the geofex circuit seems like it could easily accommodate without compromise.
I've always thought it would be great to have a sort of modular utility board with a single buffered send/return loop. That way you can parallel/chain them together to create a splitter/mixer with as many channels as you'd like. If you only need 1 to add a buffered effects loop, then great, if you want to try and recreate the Klien bottle with 3 of them... great, if you want to create an 12 channel mini mixer, it can do that too
Quote from: madbean on October 28, 2021, 08:11:35 AM
maybe there is a simple version that would be useful.
It occurred to me that if use the single channel board idea, you could sell them individually or as breakable panels of 10 or whatever
Only one little note - that Swamp Compressor schematic:
C17 has wrong polarity. There will be negative voltage at gate of j-fet. Proper detail is attached.
Some comments around attack-decay details are edited here.
Quote from: Zerro on October 28, 2021, 01:02:05 PM
Only one little note - that Swamp Compressor schematic:
C17 has wrong polarity. There will be negative voltage at gate of j-fet. Proper detail is attached.
Some comments around attack-decay details are edited here.
Thanks
To be honest I'm not even totally sure it was the version of the schematic I made the board from. I thought I had done something different with the threshold in this but I've reused that envelope detector so many times that it's hard to know.
Quote from: jkokura on October 28, 2021, 08:29:47 AM
As a guy whose primary PCB sales are driven by a Test Rig and Parallel PCB tools - the key is found in an old RG-Keen article on blending. Most blend circuits I've seen don't actually blend. The good ones find a way to ground the circuit you blend out, to actually mix the two circuits accurately. That's the first thing I'd be reading if I were you Brian.
http://www.geofex.com/Article_Folders/panner.pdf (http://www.geofex.com/Article_Folders/panner.pdf)
Jacob
Thanks, Jacob. I'll take a close look at that tomorrow.
Glad to see there's some interest in this topic. I drew up a bare bones AB scheme on how I think it could be accomplished with minimal components. This is what I came up with so far. Insofar as I can tell, including stereo outputs for all three options (A+B, B+A, A||B) using analog switching is not possible. Or, at least working through the logic of that escapes me so far. But, this schematic is a pretty straight-forward solution for the mono in and out implementation. The extra op-amp could be used to buffer Vb. Or, maybe use it on RTN2 and use a pot to blend its output from 0 to 180 phase. That might be cool.
Last note, maybe make R4 1M instead of 100k. That would ensure it has no influence on A+B and B+A modes.
The simple circuit is looking good. Series (AB / BA) with active parallel (A||B) (i.e., from Jacob's post above) would be a great utility box. Have you considered a CMOS switching solution?
Quote from: benny_profane on October 29, 2021, 08:37:51 AM
The simple circuit is looking good. Series (AB / BA) with active parallel (A||B) (i.e., from Jacob's post above) would be a great utility box. Have you considered a CMOS switching solution?
I don't think the parallel mode is active. Wouldn't it need a buffer before the split and some gain after the mix?
Quote from: Aentons on October 29, 2021, 09:11:54 AM
I don't think the parallel mode is active. Wouldn't it need a buffer before the split and some gain after the mix?
Since you are sending one signal to two separate devices (which we would assume are both active) I don't think input buffers are needed. But, you make a good point on the outputs. If both devices have volume controls directly mixing them means one could load down the other. So, that could be fixed by adding buffers on each output and then have one of those outputs select its phase (in case it's needed). Or, cover all the bases and have either output be able to select its output phase. Two ICs are all you plus two switches.
Quote from: madbean on October 29, 2021, 09:38:20 AM
Quote from: Aentons on October 29, 2021, 09:11:54 AM
I don't think the parallel mode is active. Wouldn't it need a buffer before the split and some gain after the mix?
Since you are sending one signal to two separate devices (which we would assume are both active) I don't think input buffers are needed. But, you make a good point on the outputs. If both devices have volume controls directly mixing them means one could load down the other. So, that could be fixed by adding buffers on each output and then have one of those outputs select its phase (in case it's needed). Or, cover all the bases and have either output be able to select its output phase. Two ICs are all you plus two switches.
If you are using the sends as a stereo splitter and have long cable runs to each amp you may want it buffered
Quote from: Aentons on October 29, 2021, 09:11:54 AM
Quote from: benny_profane on October 29, 2021, 08:37:51 AM
The simple circuit is looking good. Series (AB / BA) with active parallel (A||B) (i.e., from Jacob's post above) would be a great utility box. Have you considered a CMOS switching solution?
I don't think the parallel mode is active. Wouldn't it need a buffer before the split and some gain after the mix?
Sorry for the confusion. I meant to make a distinction between the posted 'simple' schematic and one with an active mixer for parallel circuits.
Quote from: Aentons on October 29, 2021, 09:59:06 AM
Quote from: madbean on October 29, 2021, 09:38:20 AM
Quote from: Aentons on October 29, 2021, 09:11:54 AM
I don't think the parallel mode is active. Wouldn't it need a buffer before the split and some gain after the mix?
Since you are sending one signal to two separate devices (which we would assume are both active) I don't think input buffers are needed. But, you make a good point on the outputs. If both devices have volume controls directly mixing them means one could load down the other. So, that could be fixed by adding buffers on each output and then have one of those outputs select its phase (in case it's needed). Or, cover all the bases and have either output be able to select its output phase. Two ICs are all you plus two switches.
If you are using the sends as a stereo splitter and have long cable runs to each amp you may want it buffered
I'd put that extra buffer right here so as not to interfere with order switching options. You could always jumper it if you wanted to build without it
Quote from: madbean on October 27, 2021, 05:28:16 PM
Not what the title leads you to believe. With the release of the VFE DragonHound coming this week I started thinking a bit about blended circuits. The DragonHound puts the AlphaDog and PaleHorse in one box and lets you blend them in parallel (with the tone and level being shared by both). I've thought about this concept on and off for a few years but never really went anywhere with it. But, the DragonHound sounds great so I want to start tackling some other possibilities.
The two that I've already started drawing up are pretty solid ideas: An OCD and Zendrive (both using mosfet clipping, one hard one soft) and two of my favorite boosters - the AMZ MiniBoost and Mosfet boost. The boost one goes further in that it lets you run them in series (both ways) AND parallel.
Any suggestions on other blender circuits you might like? This could be another category of offerings at mbp.
The DOD FX76 Punkifier is two blended circuits. The FX13 Gonkulator is too
sounds like the Boss OS-2
maybe worth checking that out?
Nice, I'd like to see more. I've asked around, and the OS2 was not very popular, but I'd like to judge for myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: jimilee on November 15, 2021, 02:45:04 PM
Nice, I'd like to see more. I've asked around, and the OS2 was not very popular, but I'd like to judge for myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The OS-2 is amazing
Quote from: LaceSensor on November 16, 2021, 02:39:07 PM
Quote from: jimilee on November 15, 2021, 02:45:04 PM
Nice, I'd like to see more. I've asked around, and the OS2 was not very popular, but I'd like to judge for myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The OS-2 is amazing
Is it possible to build it without it being huge and overly complicated?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: jimilee on November 16, 2021, 02:42:32 PM
Quote from: LaceSensor on November 16, 2021, 02:39:07 PM
Quote from: jimilee on November 15, 2021, 02:45:04 PM
Nice, I'd like to see more. I've asked around, and the OS2 was not very popular, but I'd like to judge for myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The OS-2 is amazing
Is it possible to build it without it being huge and overly complicated?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This doesn't look too bad
(https://0x4c.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/os-2_orig.png)
Quote from: Aentons on November 16, 2021, 04:39:51 PM
Quote from: jimilee on November 16, 2021, 02:42:32 PM
Quote from: LaceSensor on November 16, 2021, 02:39:07 PM
Quote from: jimilee on November 15, 2021, 02:45:04 PM
Nice, I'd like to see more. I've asked around, and the OS2 was not very popular, but I'd like to judge for myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The OS-2 is amazing
Is it possible to build it without it being huge and overly complicated?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This doesn't look too bad
(https://0x4c.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/os-2_orig.png)
No, not at all. Is it safe to assume the vcc/2 is the vref at 4.5? I'm slowly learning my way. I'd really like to may a PCB from this. The transistors look like 2n5088s if I'm not mistaken.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: jimilee on November 16, 2021, 05:23:54 PM
No, not at all. Is it safe to assume the vcc/2 is the vref at 4.5? I'm slowly learning my way. I'd really like to may a PCB from this. The transistors look like 2n5088s if I'm not mistaken.
Yes, I believe vcc2 is the 4.5v vref
I got that schematic from here. There is some other info that may be useful
https://electric-safari.com/2018/10/05/boss-os-2-overdrive-distortion-mod
And this too
https://www.roboticbeast.com/modification-de-la-boss-os-2/
Yeah, the OS-2 looks cool. That schem is missing the input and output buffers, though. I did a quick and dirty re-draw. Might be a cool one to pursue.
Notes: C2 and R5 probably not necessary, but I left them in.
Right, it said something about the flip flops and buffers were left out. I'm gonna have another look at this tomorrow. I'm seriously interested in laying it out on a board. Been practicing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: jimilee on November 16, 2021, 07:16:59 PM
Right, it said something about the flip flops and buffers were left out. I'm gonna have another look at this tomorrow. I'm seriously interested in laying it out on a board. Been practicing.
In this circuit the buffers will matter some. Esp. the JFET input. Without it, the input impedance of the two circuits is actually quite a bit lower than you typically would use. And the high pass filtering that results from them will have a bigger impact, I think. Not to say you couldn't tweak it to work fine without the input buffer, it'll just sound a little different.
You could probably get away without the output buffer but it's also so common to Boss there's really no reason not to use it.
Quote from: madbean on November 16, 2021, 07:53:30 PM
Quote from: jimilee on November 16, 2021, 07:16:59 PM
Right, it said something about the flip flops and buffers were left out. I'm gonna have another look at this tomorrow. I'm seriously interested in laying it out on a board. Been practicing.
In this circuit the buffers will matter some. Esp. the JFET input. Without it, the input impedance of the two circuits is actually quite a bit lower than you typically would use. And the high pass filtering that results from them will have a bigger impact, I think. Not to say you couldn't tweak it to work fine without the input buffer, it'll just sound a little different.
You could probably get away without the output buffer but it's also so common to Boss there's really no reason not to use it.
I was thinking they would be a good idea. I'm glad you put it back in. Did the original have a order reversal switch, is that what the flip flop was?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: jimilee on November 16, 2021, 07:56:34 PM
I was thinking they would be a good idea. I'm glad you put it back in. Did the original have a order reversal switch, is that what the flip flop was?
The flip flop is all about the bypass so it can be eliminated completely. Both circuits are run in parallel so there's no order switching. Not to say you couldn't dream up some switching scheme that puts them in series or parallel, etc. Honestly, I'm not quite sure how well the "blend" control works here since I've never tried the OS-2. There are other ways to do a parallel blend. You could even make a switching scheme where the dual gang pot changes function. For example, whether the gains work in parallel or inverted. So, when you turn the gain up of one circuit it turns down the gain of the other, etc.
But, that all gets really far away from the original. IOW, where DIY lives!
Quote from: madbean on November 16, 2021, 08:15:29 PM
Quote from: jimilee on November 16, 2021, 07:56:34 PM
I was thinking they would be a good idea. I'm glad you put it back in. Did the original have a order reversal switch, is that what the flip flop was?
The flip flop is all about the bypass so it can be eliminated completely. Both circuits are run in parallel so there's no order switching. Not to say you couldn't dream up some switching scheme that puts them in series or parallel, etc. Honestly, I'm not quite sure how well the "blend" control works here since I've never tried the OS-2. There are other ways to do a parallel blend. You could even make a switching scheme where the dual gang pot changes function. For example, whether the gains work in parallel or inverted. So, when you turn the gain up of one circuit it turns down the gain of the other, etc.
But, that all gets really far away from the original. IOW, where DIY lives!
This is sounding like quite the drive, a moar better drive!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: madbean on November 16, 2021, 07:10:54 PM
Yeah, the OS-2 looks cool. That schem is missing the input and output buffers, though. I did a quick and dirty re-draw. Might be a cool one to pursue.
Notes: C2 and R5 probably not necessary, but I left them in.
Mistake on my schem - R34 should be 1k, not "220n". However that happened...
Quote from: madbean on November 17, 2021, 06:46:23 AM
Quote from: madbean on November 16, 2021, 07:10:54 PM
Yeah, the OS-2 looks cool. That schem is missing the input and output buffers, though. I did a quick and dirty re-draw. Might be a cool one to pursue.
Notes: C2 and R5 probably not necessary, but I left them in.
Mistake on my schem - R34 should be 1k, not "220n". However that happened...
Bwahahahaha thanks man.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: madbean on November 16, 2021, 07:10:54 PM
Yeah, the OS-2 looks cool. That schem is missing the input and output buffers, though. I did a quick and dirty re-draw. Might be a cool one to pursue.
Notes: C2 and R5 probably not necessary, but I left them in.
I have a question about the schematic. What is Q1B doing, just hanging with Q1A?
Quote from: jimilee on November 19, 2021, 07:20:37 PM
I have a question about the schematic. What is Q1B doing, just hanging with Q1A?
It's the SMT version. So, you can populate either a through-hole or surface mount JFET. In light of JFETs being so expensive now I pretty much just use surface mount these days unless I have to use the other for some reason.
Quote from: madbean on November 19, 2021, 08:02:38 PM
Quote from: jimilee on November 19, 2021, 07:20:37 PM
I have a question about the schematic. What is Q1B doing, just hanging with Q1A?
It's the SMT version. So, you can populate either a through-hole or surface mount JFET. In light of JFETs being so expensive now I pretty much just use surface mount these days unless I have to use the other for some reason.
Yep, I've pretty much decided the same thing. As a matter of fact, I ordered some adapters for the boards that don't already accommodate them.
Quote from: jimilee on November 19, 2021, 08:05:16 PM
Quote from: madbean on November 19, 2021, 08:02:38 PM
Quote from: jimilee on November 19, 2021, 07:20:37 PM
I have a question about the schematic. What is Q1B doing, just hanging with Q1A?
It's the SMT version. So, you can populate either a through-hole or surface mount JFET. In light of JFETs being so expensive now I pretty much just use surface mount these days unless I have to use the other for some reason.
Yep, I've pretty much decided the same thing. As a matter of fact, I ordered some adapters for the boards that don't already accommodate them.
I don't even bother with the adapter boards. I just add the legs
Quote from: Aentons on November 20, 2021, 08:19:30 AM
Quote from: jimilee on November 19, 2021, 08:05:16 PM
Quote from: madbean on November 19, 2021, 08:02:38 PM
Quote from: jimilee on November 19, 2021, 07:20:37 PM
I have a question about the schematic. What is Q1B doing, just hanging with Q1A?
It's the SMT version. So, you can populate either a through-hole or surface mount JFET. In light of JFETs being so expensive now I pretty much just use surface mount these days unless I have to use the other for some reason.
Yep, I've pretty much decided the same thing. As a matter of fact, I ordered some adapters for the boards that don't already accommodate them.
I don't even bother with the adapter boards. I just add the legs
Good lord man, that's next level right there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk