Bogner - Ecstasy Red

General documentation, gut shot, schematic links, ongoing circuit tracing, deep thoughts ... all about boutique stompboxes.
MoonWatcher
Diode Debunker
Posts: 721
Joined: 28 Jul 2008, 13:27
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Post by MoonWatcher »

rs wrote:Thanks for yhe photos Ecstasy-789. :thumbsup
+1!

Thanks especially for pulling the goop candy bar off. Two sets of seven pins - interesting.

The whole assembly appears to have been dropped in a sort of shell that resembles a pickup cover or something, and then potted. Kinda like dead bug prototyping, but I'm assuming what is under the goop looks a little more pretty than that.

If each of the two sets of seven pins were traced out on the main board to what they connect to, it might give more ideas. At least one is probably "B+" since this thing apparently runs at higher than 9VDC.

The Red is supposed to have six discrete stages, right? So maybe the one pin connector is the inputs, and the other is the outputs? Just a guess.

If the gooped block is the only real difference between the 3 different pedals, that is pretty neat. Even if the main board has differences but overall is the same layout, that is smart, too.

User avatar
J0K3RX
Degoop Doctor
Posts: 1037
Joined: 29 Jun 2011, 02:25
Location: US Florida
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 525 times

Post by J0K3RX »

Looks like I see the tops of 4 transistors stuck in that candy bar... J201's perhaps? 2SK30A-R maybe?

IvIark
Tube Twister
Posts: 2297
Joined: 02 Jan 2008, 00:59
Location: Manchester UK
Has thanked: 599 times
Been thanked: 608 times
Contact:

Post by IvIark »

Yes excellent pics Ecstasy-789. So do we reckon 4 cascading JFET stages?
"If anyone is a 'genius' for putting jacks in such a pedal in the only spot where they could physically fit, then I assume I too am a genius for correctly inserting my legs into my pants this morning." - candletears7 - TGP

Angle Loss
Breadboard Brother
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Nov 2007, 19:43
Location: Southern California
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Post by Angle Loss »

From the Bogner website regarding stages:

"Reinhold designed the Ecstasy red pedal with five discrete Class A gain stages and with no op-amps or diode clipping, mirroring the circuitry of the Ecstasy amplifier’s red channel. This revolutionary approach provides clarity, touch sensitivity and note separation never before achieved in overdrive pedals."

User avatar
J0K3RX
Degoop Doctor
Posts: 1037
Joined: 29 Jun 2011, 02:25
Location: US Florida
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 525 times

Post by J0K3RX »

Angle Loss wrote:From the Bogner website regarding stages:

"Reinhold designed the Ecstasy red pedal with five discrete Class A gain stages and with no op-amps or diode clipping, mirroring the circuitry of the Ecstasy amplifier’s red channel. This revolutionary approach provides clarity, touch sensitivity and note separation never before achieved in overdrive pedals."

jfets... there must be another one buried alive inside the "tone cookie" or maybe a smd buffer on the circuit board somewhere? I am pretty damn sure those are jfets I see in that goop!

Angle Loss
Breadboard Brother
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Nov 2007, 19:43
Location: Southern California
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Post by Angle Loss »

I love the Uberschall pedal, but my Red is kind of congested sounding (like a real Ecstasy...did I just say that?). I'd like to revoice it more like a Soldano SLO. I'd be up for providing values when I get the chance to open it up. I love the whole package of the pedal (size, layout, options, etc), but would really like a better voicing with more upper mids. I'll see what I can do.

User avatar
J0K3RX
Degoop Doctor
Posts: 1037
Joined: 29 Jun 2011, 02:25
Location: US Florida
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 525 times

Post by J0K3RX »

Angle Loss wrote:I love the Uberschall pedal, but my Red is kind of congested sounding (like a real Ecstasy...did I just say that?). I'd like to revoice it more like a Soldano SLO. I'd be up for providing values when I get the chance to open it up. I love the whole package of the pedal (size, layout, options, etc), but would really like a better voicing with more upper mids. I'll see what I can do.

I am not against trying to reverse engineer one or all of these pedals but I ain't gonna buy one! I am really interested in the Uberschall out of all three of them!! Might be better to just use the actual tube amp schematics and try to build them from that unless somebody who spent BIG $$$ on one of these is up for digging into that candy bar to see whats inside??? :mrgreen:

User avatar
J0K3RX
Degoop Doctor
Posts: 1037
Joined: 29 Jun 2011, 02:25
Location: US Florida
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 525 times

Post by J0K3RX »

The board with the input/output jacks looks like mainly a power and switching board from what I can see.. pretty sure I see a MAX1044 on there?

The Ecstasy has been done by quite a few other pedal makers with pretty good results for example the Seventheaven which is amost a direct copy of the Bogner schematics not counting a few minor changes to make it work with jfets and the Wampler Ecstasy which is op-amp based if I'm not mistaken etc... Both of which have been traced. Still wouldn't mind seeing this one traced but hey..

Angle Loss
Breadboard Brother
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Nov 2007, 19:43
Location: Southern California
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Post by Angle Loss »

Do you guys think the tone stack caps are next to the pots on the audio board, or in the candy bar goop?

MoonWatcher
Diode Debunker
Posts: 721
Joined: 28 Jul 2008, 13:27
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Post by MoonWatcher »

Angle Loss wrote:Do you guys think the tone stack caps are next to the pots on the audio board, or in the candy bar goop?
Would make more sense not to have them in the goop. The components within it should probably just be limited to what is necessary to bias and "shape" each FET (assuming that is what it is). There could certainly be a different insertion point for the tone stack or other adjustable features, but it would seem to indicate poor design to put all that stuff inside the goop.

When done in this way, the tone stack, sag function, vintage/modern and similar controls don't have to be basically "remote adjustment," by keeping their corresponding circuitry in proximity to them.

Also, knowing how many gain stages are within the goop block may give an idea as to how its contents are "filled out." You might be able to work up a crude parts count of transistors and resistors, and possibly assume a rough number of interstage capacitors.

It might also be helpful to determine what the DC voltage is at the given connecting pins, including any negative voltages - Bogner might be using them to simulate some power amp biasing characteristics. It might actually be something that makes this pedal different from other FET amp emulations. Why not use a charge pump for all that it's worth?

User avatar
J0K3RX
Degoop Doctor
Posts: 1037
Joined: 29 Jun 2011, 02:25
Location: US Florida
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 525 times

Post by J0K3RX »

Doubt that the tone stack is in the goop! Most likely next to the pots, would be logical. The goop probably contains the gain stages... All together probably not much different than the actual amp schematics minus the tubes of course and replace them with jfets... Also probably a charge pump like you say since like I said before I think I see a MAX1044 chip on there.

As you can see in the schematic there are 4 gain stages and 2 buffer stages, one before and one after the tone stack which really shouldn't be considered "gain" stages...
Attachments
XTC.jpg
xtc schem.JPG

Angle Loss
Breadboard Brother
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Nov 2007, 19:43
Location: Southern California
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Post by Angle Loss »

I'm still loving the Uber, but the more I play the Red, the more I hate the EQ. It adds treble at a very high freq, and really needs more upper mids and probably less lower mids. Here are some of the values I saw when I opened up the Red the other day, starting roughly on the Vol/Treble side of the board and working toward the Bass control, if anyone is curious:

(volume)
C136 2200
R152 10k
(treble)
R160 2k
C201 .01
R153 100
C182 2200
(middle)
R158 390
C106 .22
C161 .1
R157 680
R129 680
C116 68n
resistor below C116 1.2k
(bass)
next to structure switch
--150
--470
--2200
next to pre-EQ (bright switch)
--1000
--470

Angle Loss
Breadboard Brother
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Nov 2007, 19:43
Location: Southern California
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Post by Angle Loss »

A couple more pics from different angles to supplement what has already been posted on the first page.
bogner1.jpg
bogner2.jpg
bogner3.jpg
bogner4.jpg

MoonWatcher
Diode Debunker
Posts: 721
Joined: 28 Jul 2008, 13:27
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Post by MoonWatcher »

Interesting. The Ub has goop in place of the toggles it seems. You would think it would just be hardwired jumpers, but maybe it's dip-switches or some type of mini switches? Maybe it's faster to solder them in than to run multi jumpers if it's a DPDT or something. I guess the goop would keep a switch mechanism from moving if it's essentially meant to be hardwired.

I wonder if the gooped bar block from one can be inserted in the other? Might give clues as to what is going on inside the block vs. at the controls and all.

User avatar
J0K3RX
Degoop Doctor
Posts: 1037
Joined: 29 Jun 2011, 02:25
Location: US Florida
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 525 times

Post by J0K3RX »

Well, unless somebody gets brave and attempts to degoop one of these then all we can do is speculate and make guesses... So, if 25% of the board/boards are gooped that leaves us with 100% uncertainty of these circuits and pointless to go any further in the guessing game, no?

A simple google search and you will find the actual schematics for both amps... That should be enough to build a FET version. As a matter of fact others have already done this with very good results... If somebody was to trace out what is not buried within the goop then we might be able to apply that information and fill in the blanks with what we can gather from the real amp schematics... That's all we can do at this point beside drool at the pretty pictures :mrgreen:

Angle Loss
Breadboard Brother
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Nov 2007, 19:43
Location: Southern California
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Post by Angle Loss »

Mods...can this be moved to the boutique stompbox area so that it can be discussed more? Thanks!

Angle Loss
Breadboard Brother
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Nov 2007, 19:43
Location: Southern California
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Post by Angle Loss »

Tried my hand at tracing the tone section...let me know if anyone finds mistakes. I'd really like to revoice it and would sure appreciate some help in knowing where to start. It doesn't match the real Ecstasy amp and is more complicated in the tone stack. I used one of Ecstasy-789's photos for help in tracing along with my unit. edit: the missing marking on the cap in the schematic is the 0.1u.
Attachments
bog2.jpg
bog1.jpg

User avatar
Ihunda
Breadboard Brother
Posts: 74
Joined: 16 Mar 2011, 11:39
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Post by Ihunda »

Whoismarykelly wrote:
atreidesheir wrote:
Whoismarykelly wrote:I have one and its excellent. Bogner really hit one out of the park with these pedals. The build quality is excellent and the tones are top notch.
So, how rich are you?
Not particularly. $300 pedals abound on this planet. Most of them have 20 parts and a stupid paint job. The Bogner pedals have more complexity than many 100-watt amp heads and they sound great. Probably the most worthwhile $300 pedal I own.
^this, $300 treble booster with one transistor, that's expensive.
That bogner pedal is cheap!

Eisy
Posts: 19
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 17:49
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post by Eisy »

Angle Loss wrote:Tried my hand at tracing the tone section...let me know if anyone finds mistakes. I'd really like to revoice it and would sure appreciate some help in knowing where to start. It doesn't match the real Ecstasy amp and is more complicated in the tone stack. I used one of Ecstasy-789's photos for help in tracing along with my unit. edit: the missing marking on the cap in the schematic is the 0.1u.
Tone section looks really similar to the one used in the early Marshall Guvnor...

MoonWatcher
Diode Debunker
Posts: 721
Joined: 28 Jul 2008, 13:27
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Post by MoonWatcher »

Eisy wrote:
Angle Loss wrote:Tried my hand at tracing the tone section...let me know if anyone finds mistakes. I'd really like to revoice it and would sure appreciate some help in knowing where to start. It doesn't match the real Ecstasy amp and is more complicated in the tone stack. I used one of Ecstasy-789's photos for help in tracing along with my unit. edit: the missing marking on the cap in the schematic is the 0.1u.
Tone section looks really similar to the one used in the early Marshall Guvnor...
That is what I started to think of also. I think the Shredmaster has a similar sort of tone circuit for bass and treble. Whenever I see 220nF caps I start thinking about some of those Marshall distortion pedals.

Post Reply