Pete Cornish - Bypass buffer [traced]
- andregarcia57
- Cap Cooler
bc239c will work well in this circuit?
which the correct value resistor to last? 51R or 51k
thanks
which the correct value resistor to last? 51R or 51k
thanks
- monkeyxx
- Resistor Ronker
Just use one of the verified layouts. They're a little different for some reason, maybe traced from different pedals?
I bet BC239c would work just fine
https://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/ ... 199.0;wap2
(scroll down to RG Keen post)
I bet BC239c would work just fine
https://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/ ... 199.0;wap2
(scroll down to RG Keen post)
- andregarcia57
- Cap Cooler
I do not have 50k!
Here I put 47k or 51k? which would be better?
thanks
Here I put 47k or 51k? which would be better?
thanks
- marshmellow
- Cap Cooler
Leave it out, it's not necessary if you build the buffer as standalone. If you decide you still want it either value is fine, it won't change a thing.
- clintrubber
- Breadboard Brother
Information
Wondering about that too! Any ideas about this meanwhile?monkeyxx wrote: I would also love some insight to why Cornish would use two buffers in a row in a circuit like the G2, one for bypass, and one on the circuit input before the actual effect.
The second buffer seems redundant.
Thanks / Bye
- clintrubber
- Breadboard Brother
Information
OK, I saw there's a thread about this:clintrubber wrote:Wondering about that too! Any ideas about this meanwhile?monkeyxx wrote: I would also love some insight to why Cornish would use two buffers in a row in a circuit like the G2, one for bypass, and one on the circuit input before the actual effect.
The second buffer seems redundant.
https://www.freestompboxes.org/viewtopic ... 10&t=23823
- Skreddy
- Resistor Ronker
Information
The redundant buffers are there because even with the buffered bypass, the input is still technically "sucking" tone unless its impedance is also raised with a buffer.
- clintrubber
- Breadboard Brother
Information
That would indeed make sense if one was to address say 'second order' influences.Skreddy wrote:The redundant buffers are there because even with the buffered bypass, the input is still technically "sucking" tone unless its impedance is also raised with a buffer.
But if I'm looking at the correct circuits, then:
* the input-'Z' of the actual distortion circuit (after the second seemingly redundant buffer) is at least 39k
* the input buffer itself is loaded by 20k (R7) after the AC-coupling
So one could say that the second buffer could be removed, R7 could be increased to 39k as well and the loading of the input-buffer would be at least as high as before.
But I understood from other messages (DH?) that mr. C is a strict traditionalist so other reasons may come into play. I could agree with that to a certain extend, if it's proven & everybody is satisfied then all is OK - but it can sure confuse a proper understanding of a circuit
Sure interested to hear other ideas for this, I remain curious to the why - so far & in all respect I'd say it doesn't hurt to use two buffers (it's a distortion box!), but with this dimensioning it doesn't make sense either.
Best regards
- Skreddy
- Resistor Ronker
Information
clintrubber wrote:That would indeed make sense if one was to address say 'second order' influences.Skreddy wrote:The redundant buffers are there because even with the buffered bypass, the input is still technically "sucking" tone unless its impedance is also raised with a buffer.
But if I'm looking at the correct circuits, then:
* the input-'Z' of the actual distortion circuit (after the second seemingly redundant buffer) is at least 39k
* the input buffer itself is loaded by 20k (R7) after the AC-coupling
So one could say that the second buffer could be removed, R7 could be increased to 39k as well and the loading of the input-buffer would be at least as high as before.
But I understood from other messages (DH?) that mr. C is a strict traditionalist so other reasons may come into play. I could agree with that to a certain extend, if it's proven & everybody is satisfied then all is OK - but it can sure confuse a proper understanding of a circuit
Sure interested to hear other ideas for this, I remain curious to the why - so far & in all respect I'd say it doesn't hurt to use two buffers (it's a distortion box!), but with this dimensioning it doesn't make sense either.
Best regards
The input Z of the distortion circuit isn't just resistance to ground like the buffer's output stage; it's resistance to ground through an input cap, which would pull down the high end. The buffer at the input before the switch handles the input impedance for the whole circuit, and the buffer in front of the distortion stage prevents tone suck when in bypass.
Myself, I would prefer just simple true bypass and zero added buffers. I see buffers as a tool to use when needed, not something every circuit needs all the time. But that's just me. People seem happy with Cornish's stuff, and at least he gets a little more reliability out of his 3PDT switches by ganging up 2 switches for his non-true-bypass switching. So there's that.
- clintrubber
- Breadboard Brother
Information
Hi,Skreddy wrote: The input Z of the distortion circuit isn't just resistance to ground like the buffer's output stage; it's resistance to ground through an input cap, which would pull down the high end. The buffer at the input before the switch handles the input impedance for the whole circuit, and the buffer in front of the distortion stage prevents tone suck when in bypass.
I'm referring to the 39k resistors on page 2 of this thread (R13 or R15, depending on the schematic you look at).
The load of the second buffer is higher than, but at least never no nothing below that 39k (as seen from the output of the preceeding ('second') buffer.
Bye
- Skreddy
- Resistor Ronker
Information
Yep; I was looking at the G2 schematic. Without the buffer on the distortion front end, it would suck tone through the 47n capacitor, since the bypass would keep the input hanging onto the signal in bypass. Probably not horrible given the input buffer driving the signal, but still a tone suck nonetheless. Big Muff inputs are one of the 2 most famous tone suckers when not true bypassed (or buffered), 2nd only to wah pedals.clintrubber wrote:Hi,Skreddy wrote: The input Z of the distortion circuit isn't just resistance to ground like the buffer's output stage; it's resistance to ground through an input cap, which would pull down the high end. The buffer at the input before the switch handles the input impedance for the whole circuit, and the buffer in front of the distortion stage prevents tone suck when in bypass.
I'm referring to the 39k resistors on page 2 of this thread (R13 or R15, depending on the schematic you look at).
The load of the second buffer is higher than, but at least never no nothing below that 39k (as seen from the output of the preceeding ('second') buffer.
Bye
- clintrubber
- Breadboard Brother
Information
Hi Skreddy,Skreddy wrote:Yep; I was looking at the G2 schematic. Without the buffer on the distortion front end, it would suck tone through the 47n capacitor, since the bypass would keep the input hanging onto the signal in bypass. Probably not horrible given the input buffer driving the signal, but still a tone suck nonetheless. Big Muff inputs are one of the 2 most famous tone suckers when not true bypassed (or buffered), 2nd only to wah pedals.clintrubber wrote:Hi,Skreddy wrote: The input Z of the distortion circuit isn't just resistance to ground like the buffer's output stage; it's resistance to ground through an input cap, which would pull down the high end. The buffer at the input before the switch handles the input impedance for the whole circuit, and the buffer in front of the distortion stage prevents tone suck when in bypass.
I'm referring to the 39k resistors on page 2 of this thread (R13 or R15, depending on the schematic you look at).
The load of the second buffer is higher than, but at least never no nothing below that 39k (as seen from the output of the preceeding ('second') buffer.
Bye
The 47n you mention, that's C8 in the G2-schematic and is in series with the 39k, correct? The tone suck you mention will indeed happen for a 'naked' Big Muff circuit (due to the mid-to-high output impedance of a (passive) guitar & the relatively low input impedance of the Big Muff circuit.
BUT since the first input buffer in the Cornish setup already completely isolates these two, the second buffer is in my understanding not necessary anymore in view of tone sucking.
That's what I meant by those figures: the 39k is ~double in value w.r.t. the 'dummy load' 20k resistor of the first buffer.
So imho it makes little sense [A] to have a first buffer, give that a 20k 'dummy-load' and [C] then to prevent any loading by a next circuit that has at least 39k input impedance (it's higher, but let's set an absolute lower limit here for now) one adds a second buffer. Other reasons than technical may exist, but it's not straightforward.
(Note that the 47n in series with the 39k could be considered just a thing that determines for which frequencies the 39k 'applies'. In other words: it doesn't lower the 39k in any way, since it's in series.)
Bye
- Skreddy
- Resistor Ronker
Information
clintrubber wrote:Hi Skreddy,Skreddy wrote:Yep; I was looking at the G2 schematic. Without the buffer on the distortion front end, it would suck tone through the 47n capacitor, since the bypass would keep the input hanging onto the signal in bypass. Probably not horrible given the input buffer driving the signal, but still a tone suck nonetheless. Big Muff inputs are one of the 2 most famous tone suckers when not true bypassed (or buffered), 2nd only to wah pedals.clintrubber wrote:Hi,Skreddy wrote: The input Z of the distortion circuit isn't just resistance to ground like the buffer's output stage; it's resistance to ground through an input cap, which would pull down the high end. The buffer at the input before the switch handles the input impedance for the whole circuit, and the buffer in front of the distortion stage prevents tone suck when in bypass.
I'm referring to the 39k resistors on page 2 of this thread (R13 or R15, depending on the schematic you look at).
The load of the second buffer is higher than, but at least never no nothing below that 39k (as seen from the output of the preceeding ('second') buffer.
Bye
The 47n you mention, that's C8 in the G2-schematic and is in series with the 39k, correct? The tone suck you mention will indeed happen for a 'naked' Big Muff circuit (due to the mid-to-high output impedance of a (passive) guitar & the relatively low input impedance of the Big Muff circuit.
BUT since the first input buffer in the Cornish setup already completely isolates these two, the second buffer is in my understanding not necessary anymore in view of tone sucking.
That's what I meant by those figures: the 39k is ~double in value w.r.t. the 'dummy load' 20k resistor of the first buffer.
So imho it makes little sense [A] to have a first buffer, give that a 20k 'dummy-load' and [C] then to prevent any loading by a next circuit that has at least 39k input impedance (it's higher, but let's set an absolute lower limit here for now) one adds a second buffer. Other reasons than technical may exist, but it's not straightforward.
(Note that the 47n in series with the 39k could be considered just a thing that determines for which frequencies the 39k 'applies'. In other words: it doesn't lower the 39k in any way, since it's in series.)
Bye
We're both repeating the same 2 arguments back and forth. Let me make clear, I am not talking about resistance to ground interacting with the guitar. I am talking about 47n through some resistance to ground creating a low-pass filter. It's not a very powerful low-pass filter, but it is a tone suck nonetheless. I already said that the buffer would likely minimize this effect, but it is still there. A low-pass filter is a low-pass filter. That's why we like to true-bypass Big Muffs. Yes, driving a low-pass filter with a buffer will minimize it (maybe you wouldn't even hear it?). But it is still there.
39k in series with a 100k to ground, 470k to negative feedback resistor, and 680R x ~300 Hfe equals about 97,721.22 ohms. Take any circuit and hang a 47n to 100k resistor to ground onto its output, and you've got yourself a (weak) low-pass filter. Myself, I would probably INCLUDE some amount of low-pass filtering IN MY BUFFER DESIGN to keep it from over-brightening the signal. But not that much. Not 47n to 100k to ground. I'd be working more like in the 1M region to just gently curve that high end down a bit and use smaller capacitors than 47n.
I'm not defending Pete Cornish's design philosophy; I have made the same exact criticism of it myself. I am just explaining why he did it this way.
Last edited by Skreddy on 31 Mar 2015, 14:45, edited 1 time in total.
- clintrubber
- Breadboard Brother
Information
Hi,
In all respect, I give up. I don't think your technical arguments are valid.
A 'filter' after 'just one' decent buffer instead of two cascaded decent buffers can not likely impart more 'tone suck' on the original source signal, unless a bizarre layout or some other unneeded non-technical influence has had its ways.
BTW, a coupling-cap followed by a resistor to ground is a highpass, not a lowpass.
Note these buffers are in series, so NOT connected to the same input-jack .... maybe that's what creating the confusion / different interpretations ?
(This was my last attempt, I'm out now. Like you say, we're both stubborn &^%'s who might perhaps better be spending time on playing guitar than spending time here OK, I stop. Bye)
In all respect, I give up. I don't think your technical arguments are valid.
A 'filter' after 'just one' decent buffer instead of two cascaded decent buffers can not likely impart more 'tone suck' on the original source signal, unless a bizarre layout or some other unneeded non-technical influence has had its ways.
BTW, a coupling-cap followed by a resistor to ground is a highpass, not a lowpass.
Note these buffers are in series, so NOT connected to the same input-jack .... maybe that's what creating the confusion / different interpretations ?
(This was my last attempt, I'm out now. Like you say, we're both stubborn &^%'s who might perhaps better be spending time on playing guitar than spending time here OK, I stop. Bye)
- Skreddy
- Resistor Ronker
Information
A coupling cap followed by a resistor to ground creates a highpass filter for the input of the circuit that follows, yes. But we are talking about a cap to resistance to ground's effect on the BYPASS, not the distortion circuit. The bypass sees that cap (to resistance) to ground hanging off it as a low-pass filter.clintrubber wrote:Hi,
In all respect, I give up. I don't think your technical arguments are valid.
A 'filter' after 'just one' decent buffer instead of two cascaded decent buffers can not likely impart more 'tone suck' on the original source signal, unless a bizarre layout or some other unneeded non-technical influence has had its ways.
BTW, a coupling-cap followed by a resistor to ground is a highpass, not a lowpass.
Note these buffers are in series, so NOT connected to the same input-jack .... maybe that's what creating the confusion / different interpretations ?
(This was my last attempt, I'm out now. Like you say, we're both stubborn &^%'s who might perhaps better be spending time on playing guitar than spending time here OK, I stop. Bye)
Build yourself a buffer. Then put a 47n to 100k to ground on its output and see if you can't hear the difference. Maybe you won't hear it? Maybe it'll be an improvement? At any rate, Pete wouldn't design a bypass that included that amount of tone suck hanging off of it--hence the extra buffer in front of the distortion circuit, even after the input buffer. Because, again, his bypass switching is not true bypass. It keeps the input of the distortion circuit connected when "off". So he buffers the distortion even after buffering the input.
Edit: You must be talking about the need for the 1st buffer, the "global" input buffer which is active all the time? Yeah, that's just Pete's design philosophy. Everything buffered all the time. Again, myself, I prefer simply true bypassing everything and then just using buffer(s) judiciously where needed.
- lolbou
- Old Solderhand
So basically the first one is for cable driving in bypass mode up to the next pedal or even the furthest amp, and the second one is to make sure that the cable driving is not affected by any effect input?
I get your point Skreddy (and it's well explained! ), but I have to try your buffer + 47n-100k network to ground to hear. I have a LD-1 clone here to help... I really would have thought that the first buffer was strong enough to cope for both loss though...
I'll definitely give it a try and report!
I get your point Skreddy (and it's well explained! ), but I have to try your buffer + 47n-100k network to ground to hear. I have a LD-1 clone here to help... I really would have thought that the first buffer was strong enough to cope for both loss though...
I'll definitely give it a try and report!
- Are you a mod or a rocker?
- Uh, no, I'm a mocker.
- Uh, no, I'm a mocker.
- Skreddy
- Resistor Ronker
Information
The point of the input buffer is to prevent signal loading at the input. The point of the "redundant" buffer is to prevent signal loading at the output. You may not hear the loading effect of a Big Muff input after a buffer, but that's not really the point. The point is not to leave any messiness in the signal chain at all when in bypass, because if you had 5 or 10 Cornish pedals on a pedalboard, there should not be any audible effect to the signal when they're all in bypass. In reality the cumulative effect of multiple active buffers will have some effect; the only arguable point is how much of an effect, is it audible, and is it acceptable if so (maybe it's an overall improvement?). But to leave the inputs of vintage-type distortion/fuzz boxes hanging on when in bypass would not be very good design quality just on principle alone. And apart from the low-pass filtering effect of a non-true-bypassed Big Muff, the hanging input will also impart a bit of clipping artifact to the signal as well.lolbou wrote:So basically the first one is for cable driving in bypass mode up to the next pedal or even the furthest amp, and the second one is to make sure that the cable driving is not affected by any effect input?
I get your point Skreddy (and it's well explained! ), but I have to try your buffer + 47n-100k network to ground to hear. I have a LD-1 clone here to help... I really would have thought that the first buffer was strong enough to cope for both loss though...
I'll definitely give it a try and report!
- clintrubber
- Breadboard Brother
Information
Hi,
I get all that. I see the mechanism of your point. But please do the math, look at the component values, and not just the topology.
The output impedance of the first buffer is say 38 (TR1) + 51 (R6) = 89 Ohm.
With that, the tone-suck attenuation would never be more than 0.020 dB ( 20*log(39k/39k089) )
My ears won't detect that. I bet yours neither.
And that's assuming the BigMuff-inp impedance is just that 39k, but it'll be even higher.
In addition, the corner frequency might be pretty low, so resulting in an even flatter attenuation for all guitar-frequencies.
(filter-curve transforms then in a flat attenuation)
Regards
I get all that. I see the mechanism of your point. But please do the math, look at the component values, and not just the topology.
The output impedance of the first buffer is say 38 (TR1) + 51 (R6) = 89 Ohm.
With that, the tone-suck attenuation would never be more than 0.020 dB ( 20*log(39k/39k089) )
My ears won't detect that. I bet yours neither.
And that's assuming the BigMuff-inp impedance is just that 39k, but it'll be even higher.
In addition, the corner frequency might be pretty low, so resulting in an even flatter attenuation for all guitar-frequencies.
(filter-curve transforms then in a flat attenuation)
Regards
- collingtech
- Breadboard Brother
so you must put one buffer in every effect input ? if i have a 12 diy pedal this means 12 buffers? and about impedance correction? someone could explain better the placing ?
thanks
thanks