Messages

Damn, you got me beat be a couple years. 

Yeah, but you more than make up a couple of years in quality. But, you KNOW that!

I just remembered---my DIY journey began 10 years ago +2 days. I registered at DIYSB on Dec.13 2004 before building my first pedal. Man, it has gone quick! Looking back, I do feel some pride in what I have been able to accomplish in that time starting with knowing nothing at all about electronics or pedals. I still have a long way to go as far as learning the electronics, but I think I could design and build just about any analog pedal now. But really, the biggest thanks goes to DIYSB because I do not think I would have gotten started without it. And, the internet haha! So, thanks to Aron. And Tonepad, GGG, ROG, AMZ, FSB, and GEOFEX. Such amazing resources available to everyone for the cost of a internet connection. We are all truly are blessed with limitless knowledge these days.

It's coming along...

Personally I cannot compare the two never having played a CC. But, the ZPM is analog-modeled, so the repeats are certainly warmer than a straight digital delay. And, by warm we mean filtered. Analog delays are filtered to mask clock noise and PT2399 delays are filtered to mask both "digital artifact" and the relatively low frequency range it operates at. So, while the two will never sound identical they are at least more similar than say a straight up digital delay that does not attempt to mimic any kind of analog delay sound.

That said, any PT2399 delay is going to have diminishing returns once it is pushed past the limits that it is supposed to operate (which is EVERY pt2399 delay design out there). A single PT2399 has an ideal delay range of a few millisec up to around 300. It's actually pretty similar to an analog delay in that regard in that a single MN3005 (or v3205 or two BL3208) will give you serviceable delay up to about 350ms and no more. But, we all tend to push that range up to 600ms because a lot of the time you can still get pretty good sounding delay out of it if you have enough filtering.

Anyway, none of this really answers your question but maybe it will help to understand the differences between the two a bit better.

Yup, clip sounds great!

Try either increasing R33 to 47R or jumper it out altogether. That should solve the problem.

Easiest way to do this is to lower the output of that section. Socket R35 and gradually increase the value there. Try 2k up to 4k7.

Are you sure? You should be getting 5v at pin1 regardless of whether or not the PT2399 is in or not.

Other careers I would enjoy: general contractor (would be awesome to know how to build an actual house), astronomer (my original college major), film industry (in the background....like the production side of it). For a few years I was pretty serious about being a 3D artist in the movie or games industry. I'm really glad I did not follow through with that because artists in these fields are getting screwed really bad. Maybe game development instead...that would be some fun.

Jon wins the thread in any case!

The filters in the PT2399 are going to be the same. Passive filtering stages should be the same. The TL072 will be working the same. It'll have a bit more headroom, but that really isn't going to get you anything because it's not a limiting factor to start with.

If you are doing the V1 version of the ZPMicro, the LFO from the TL062 is likely going to need some modification. I'd have to sit down and really think about it, or simulate, or breadboard it, but I'd guess the output swing at the least is going to be greater so the resistor feeding the "TIME" control section, R19, might need some modification. There might need to be some other mods too in the LFO section to make it work as designed at 9V.

In this design, I do not think the LFO will need to be modified for two reasons: R19 is already quite high to limit the depth of modulation and the modulation itself keys off the higher than normal "stopper" resistor rather than the entire range over the Time pot (meaning a higher voltage supply won't make the modulation swing too far in this case). I would try it as is at 12v first before committing to any changes. Maybe socket R19 and/or R25 in case the Vr supply needed to modded to a lower voltage. But, I think it will be okay as is.

The inductor OR Q1 could be responsible for the noise. The amount of gain set on Q1 could also contribute. If you are using the stock 390R resistor, then that should be fine.

The buffer is less to with the sound of the wah and more to do with how it interacts with the pedals that follow it. In some setups it may be beneficial to have the output buffer going...it really just depends on the rig.

Probably the biggest complaint with v.1 was that people did not really like the Freq. control in it and felt that it made it harder to dial in. So, you could just forgo the trimpot there and stick either a 10n or 15n in C5 and omit C6.

I don't see anything obviously wrong with your build or the PCB itself. Have you tried remelting the solder joints on and around the PT2399? Possibly there could be a small solder bridge somewhere.

Also, I am curious to find this out: if after you remelt the joints and are still experiencing a problem, try pulling the PT2399 from its socket then take voltage measurements on pins 1 - 8.

Pins 4 - 10 are all off. Here's what you should be getting:

1. ~5v
2. 2.5
3. 0
4. ~0
5. >=2.5
6. 2.5
7. <1
8. <1
9.-16. 2.5

The fact that your regulator is hot means something is wrong. Are you using an LM78L05?

100% satisfied. The replacement has not caused any issues and I've desoldered hundreds of components with it at this point. The only small complaint is that the nozzle hole is too small to fit over a 16mm PCB pin. But, I have not looked to see if there are larger nozzles yet. So far I have been able to desolder those by going at them from the sides or using my old desolder gun.

Sure, the frequencies are as follows:

.047 -> 720 Hz
.082 -> 413 Hz
.15 -> 225 Hz
.27 -> 125 Hz

The Presence switch adds in a bump at 3.12kHz in parallel with the above.

If you ever want to calculate frequency poles just plug this into Excel or a calculator: f(Hz) = 1/(6.28*R*C) where C is in uF and R is in M-ohm.
So, for the 270n cap it is f = 1/(6.28 * .27 * .0047) = 125.48Hz