BOOST.. with a built in impedance buffer

Original effects with schematics, layouts and instructions, freely contributed by members or found in publications. Cannot be used for commercial purposes without the consent of the owners of the copyright.
User avatar
merlinb
Solder Soldier
Information
Posts: 176
Joined: 18 Nov 2010, 17:39
Been thanked: 160 times

Post by merlinb »

phatt wrote: Here is where I'm coming from.
Take your best low noise noninverting circuit and hang a hi Z circuit on the front. (a hi Z tone stack comes to mind).

The only way I found to circumvent this problem was to impliment a buffer to isolate the Hi Z and return it to a much lower Z and THEN apply some gain.
Phil, there seems to be some confusion here.

You're saying that if you feed a HiZ source into a noniverting amp (which has a HiZ input, remember), then external noise will be a problem? But you say that feeding the HiZ source into a buffer (which still has the same HiZ input!) and then feeding that into the noninverting amp will somehow stop this external noise?

Surely you can see from the above that the circuit inside the stompbox has exactly the same gain and HiZ input / LoZ output in both cases!* The added buffer does not change that, because the noninverting amp is also an an equally good buffer; a buffer followed by a buffer is no better than just one buffer! So there can be no difference in the sensitivity to external noise. All that is being changed is the noise generated by the stompbox itself. The extra buffer doesn't add much noise, but the potential dividers do. (I still don't understand why you added those dividers. You say you wanted to convert down to LoZ, but the 10k:10k divider just converts it right back up again to 5k...)

*Actually the circuit you posted has a rather HiZ output, created by the 22k series resistor, but maybe that was an error..?

User avatar
phatt
Transistor Tuner
Information
Posts: 1217
Joined: 04 Aug 2010, 05:17
Location: Morayfield SE Qld AU
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 338 times

Post by phatt »

Thanks, but mine is still quiter on my bench.

You said; "You say you wanted to convert down to LoZ, but the 10k:10k divider just converts it right back up again to 5k...)"

well 100's of circuits use Voltage division after the active component so if they were not needed I doubt they would be there?
In my (at times) limited understanding that 5K Z is still a heck of a lot lower than the first buffer input.

I think that V division also helps to wipe off the excessive bandwidth which is why the lack of hiss.

For my needs I needed about 20x gain and it was just NOT working and this is how I got around most of the hiss.
Just passing on my Real world experience with what is often a nightmare when using some Guitar Amps which are already high ish gain.
Cheers, Phil.

User avatar
merlinb
Solder Soldier
Information
Posts: 176
Joined: 18 Nov 2010, 17:39
Been thanked: 160 times

Post by merlinb »

phatt wrote: well 100's of circuits use Voltage division after the active component so if they were not needed I doubt they would be there?
There will be very particular reasons for that. If you linked to some example circuits, I'm sure explanations would be forthcoming!
In my (at times) limited understanding that 5K Z is still a heck of a lot lower than the first buffer input.
Both opamps have an input impedance that is a billion ohms or more, and an output impedance that is practically zero. 5k is a lot more than zero! :?
I think that V division also helps to wipe off the excessive bandwidth which is why the lack of hiss.
A voltage divider has no bandwidth limitations, it's not changing the bandwidth of the circuit. Your second stage has a large feedback resistor, however, so the 100pF cap across that causes HF loss. You could get exactly the same bandwidth with the simpler circuit if you used a 820pF feedback cap.

User avatar
earthtonesaudio
Transistor Tuner
Information
Posts: 1244
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 04:00
Completed builds: Metal Simplex, Fuzz Factory, two Fab Echos-modded, Noisy Cricket, Earth & Space Wah, TS-7-modded, passive xover/splitter box, opamp fuzz
Location: Bloomington, Indiana
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Post by earthtonesaudio »

In the Mesa V-Twin, which Phil mentioned earlier, there are op-amp voltage followers in several spots.

U1:A is necessary because it's feeding not only a 25k volume pot, but also a couple JFET switches and the grid resistor for V1:A. The volume pot is the biggest load here and in my opinion is the reason for the buffer.

U2 buffers the tonestack and drives the output, in addition to the headphone circuitry. This one has a voltage divider like Phil's circuit. However I suspect this is mostly for the reason that Q7 shunts the signal to ground after this op-amp. The series resistor ensures adequate attenuation of the signal and protects the op-amp (and the JFET) by limiting the current when Q7 is low-resistance. R27 possibly also helps prevent feedback through Q3/Q4 to avoid self-oscillation.

U3:A is curious. On one hand, it's a buffer feeding a high-gain stage, so it fits part of Phil's design criteria. On the other hand, why not take the signal from R30 directly?

U3:B is probably mainly to keep Q8 happy by isolating it from the inverting gain stage that follows.


While it's true that a resistor can be used to roll off high end, the primary reason for this is the Miller effect. The downside to using a big resistor for this purpose is that current through the resistor turns into thermal noise, or 1/f noise which means more noise as frequency decreases, down to DC. A larger feedback cap on the other hand cuts bandwidth where you want it but adds no noise, making it the better alternative.
rocklander wrote:hairsplitting and semantics aren't exactly the same thing though.. we may need two contests for that.

User avatar
phatt
Transistor Tuner
Information
Posts: 1217
Joined: 04 Aug 2010, 05:17
Location: Morayfield SE Qld AU
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 338 times

Post by phatt »

Thanks Earthstone,
Helps me to fill in some blanks about how that circuit works.

BTW, I did actually build a cut down VTwin circuit some years back.
It was only the *Clean Ch* and did not include all the extra line out stuff.
I did breadboard the Vtwin Hot channel but that did nothing for me.

So my signal path; U1a> Valves> Tone stack> U2> U3a > U1b> Poweramp out.
(also removed the top cut stuff before U2)
This makes for a straight forward little preamp build without the need for a lot of switching tricks.

It was the quitest thing I'd ever played through and I have no doubt that DC heaters on the AX7 helped the noise.
Needles to say I figured it worked well (for whatever reason) so why change it?

I also have an old *Nobels Sound studio* (SST1). Again the very first thing is a buffer stage THEN all the fancy stuff.

I believe my old Alesis Quadraverb had the same idea, memory is a bit hazy now.
Cheers, Phil.

User avatar
earthtonesaudio
Transistor Tuner
Information
Posts: 1244
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 04:00
Completed builds: Metal Simplex, Fuzz Factory, two Fab Echos-modded, Noisy Cricket, Earth & Space Wah, TS-7-modded, passive xover/splitter box, opamp fuzz
Location: Bloomington, Indiana
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Post by earthtonesaudio »

This thread has got me to think a little harder about op-amps and real-world performance. It can be foolish to rely too heavily on the ideal op-amp model, especially when it comes to guitar applications where we so frequently throw the rules out the window. I don't pretend to know it all but sometimes I am guilty of blindly trusting the assumptions of the ideal model and not trying things in the real world. It's good to get a dose of "have you verified that in real life?" sometimes. :thumbsup
rocklander wrote:hairsplitting and semantics aren't exactly the same thing though.. we may need two contests for that.

User avatar
merlinb
Solder Soldier
Information
Posts: 176
Joined: 18 Nov 2010, 17:39
Been thanked: 160 times

Post by merlinb »

phatt wrote:I also have an old *Nobels Sound studio* (SST1). Again the very first thing is a buffer stage THEN all the fancy stuff.
Yes, whenever there is a heavy load to be driven, you will find a buffer. But a non-inverting gain stage is not a heavy load, it is really just a buffer with gain, so you don't need an extra buffer to drive a buffer.

User avatar
phatt
Transistor Tuner
Information
Posts: 1217
Joined: 04 Aug 2010, 05:17
Location: Morayfield SE Qld AU
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 338 times

Post by phatt »

Hi Earthtone,
As I don't have the equipment nor the talent to prove yay or nay on the more complex stuff I can only point out that the text books say do this yet real world equipment often varies greatly from the ideal.
The learning schools do tend to hide behind a basic set of ideal knowns which are often never challenged.

Even with my limited knowledge common sense tells me there are limitations to computer simulations and I only use it as a refference. So an hour on the sim and 4 hours in the shed testing every possible situation the circuit has to work under.

In my eagerness and blind ignorance my early attempts at building circuits failed so many times because I simply assumed the geeks knew more than myself. Hence a lot of my early projects that come under the heading of "I Read this in a book and it looks like a good idea" have simply ended up in the spare parts bin.

Heck I spent close to 10 years just trying to perfect a stand alone Spring Reverb unit. Yikes! So call me slow.
I Read the books, the Magizines, Stumbled my way into the computer age come internet and built a heck of a lot of those reverb circuits you see on line. Most of them work!,,, just don't expect dripping wet tank slapping reverb from a couple of text book opamp current drive tricks. winky

I tested and built many reverb designs (I've lost count) but I always came up short changed as none worked as well as I wanted. I finally had some breakthrough, One being that most opamp reverbs rely heavily on Current drive techniques and they are often dead pan boring.
Truth is those little transducers need big voltage to get them excited. So easy to understand why it took so long because the books are saturated (even obsessed) with I drive techniques failing to point out that without Voltage all the current drive in the world won't fix it.

Most of the teck savvy folks would easy see there are mistakes in my Reverb circuit but for my ability at that time it was a darn good effort and even with design flaws few Spring Reverbs would be able to deliver such massive depth with *close to zero noise insertion*.

I have no doubt that someone will now point me to some obscure rare *I drive rev circuit* that can deliver but I never found it. In the end is was easier to just employ the old fashioned rule of send it some extra voltage and it will soon wake up. And Wow! Did it ever wake up.:)

@ *Merlin* I appreciate you are trying to help and I thank you for that but I've learnt enough to know it's not always so straight forward. (I was just trying to point that out)

In this particular example (the original circuit posted) you may well be right. I do at times wish I had all the gear to setup a real world test in a more scientific way so we could all reap more from these discussions.
But heck it's a hobby and I'm not in a position to purchase all the $$equipment$$ needed to do such research.
LOL,, even if I did,, I'd probably not have the skill to explain it. :oops:
If my rantings do nothing other than help the novice to sometimes question the Status Quo then I feel I've done a positive thing.
Phil.

User avatar
k1rkyd
Breadboard Brother
Information
Posts: 132
Joined: 26 Nov 2009, 12:40
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by k1rkyd »

What i want to know, is how you make a boost that doesn't make your guitar sound so damn sharp! I put the MXR micro amp into my guitar and it sounds too razor like!
Any suggestions on some good boosters? I think this would benefit us all!

I dont understand why people are so mad about true bypass and the fact that it takes a little top end off your sound!
Dont you think the origional stompboxes sounded better before everyone thought they could make it better? If it was such a good circuit in the first place, then why mess around with it?
Bit off track but nearly there..
I would quite like a mid boost?? I had the Eric Clapton mid boost by fender, but it wasn't like the Cornell.
Has anyone got the mid boost Cornell circuit anywhere?

Cheers guys, lots of questions and surely lots of answers!
K1RKYD
I stepped up on the platform; a man gave me the news; he said "You must be joking son, where did you get those shoes?"

User avatar
earthtonesaudio
Transistor Tuner
Information
Posts: 1244
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 04:00
Completed builds: Metal Simplex, Fuzz Factory, two Fab Echos-modded, Noisy Cricket, Earth & Space Wah, TS-7-modded, passive xover/splitter box, opamp fuzz
Location: Bloomington, Indiana
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Post by earthtonesaudio »

A bigger feedback cap in the Micro Amp would reduce the high frequency boost and make it less "razor like" I think.
rocklander wrote:hairsplitting and semantics aren't exactly the same thing though.. we may need two contests for that.

User avatar
phatt
Transistor Tuner
Information
Posts: 1217
Joined: 04 Aug 2010, 05:17
Location: Morayfield SE Qld AU
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 338 times

Post by phatt »

Your problem is thus;
A clean circuit with wide bandwidth can sound quite nice. Now add massive boost distortion and it will sound bloody awefull.
(Note how my circuit (the noisy one, wink) on previous page has much less bandwidth)
Bear in mind these are opamps and they are designed to be as hifi perfect as the technoligy allows. A Perfect circuit is the very reason you chaps have so much trouble because distortion and wide bandwidth is the last thing you need for great hard driven guitar tone. AVOID them LIKE THE PLAUGE!!! yucko!! pukass!!

Re the MXR cirtcuit;
I don't use the micro amp idea because it's playing with 2 paremeters at the same time and tends to be problematic. You are altering DC and AC at the same time. Ideally the cap really needs to be viariable as well especially at the high gain piont.
Notice how you need reverse taper pots it's a tricky thing to setup when a simple VR on the feedback works in a logical manner.

Tube screamers use a similar trick for the tone control and it can lead to insability and can make them needlessly harsh. I have no doubt it works but I found them to be a right royal pain. Just MO

Also;
your Clapton mid boost was likely passive whereas the other one is an active circuit I believe, which will make a difference.
I would be more interested in getting the out board circuitry working well as focusing on one Axe means it only works with that guitar, I see that as a major flaw in onboard stuff.

You have to consider the WHOLE Signal path not just the tone of one pedal or one guitar.
IMO (from 30 odd years experience),, tis far better to have very good control over a limited bandwidth than to simply shoot for more bandwidth.
Also, Pushing the mid up might seem like the obvious thing to do but more often than not it pushes up higher frequencies along with it and this Boosting effect will ad more circuit noise. You will get far better results if you invert your thinking on tone shaping.

If you desire better mid control start by cutting bass and treble.
And I'm not talking about tone control knobs as most are just there to fine tune, though set up well they certainly help but ONLY if the Signal chain as a whole is working together.

The secret to great tone is understanding how each part of a circuit builds the final outcome. More often than not each part of a circuit ends up fighting each other and you end up eternally frustrated.

Note the old TS9 styled circuit,, they have *bass-cut> dist> hi-cut* and even with that in place plugged into some clean channel amps (widebandwidth) they often sound extremely harsh. Take the same pedal and run it through an old tube amp with very limited bandwidth and it can sound quite nice.
This is why so many pedals may claim tone nervarda but Never give a hint to the fact that the result can vary greatly depending on what Amp and other gear it's plugged into.

Just one last point;
The kind of mid boost you chaps are probably chasing can't be done via one opamp stage.
That can only be achieved via a string of stages that are working together.
Earthtone's last comment Re a bigger FB Cap will help but I'd guess it won't be anywhere near enough for what you want.
You may have better luck trying out some of the Cab Sim circuits. Not as good as having a real old Vox but can help.
Phil.

Post Reply