BJFE - Dyna Red Distortion

soulsonic · Post by **soulsonic** » 08 Jun 2009, 08:24

neilnil wrote:Finished up this one a while ago. Highs seem boosted a bit too much. Maybe larger compensation cap would tame it? I don't know. Other than that, sounds pretty decent. I think I'm gonna let this do high-gain job for me for a while, instead of a LDO clone I've been using, which has less highs and more mids. And I recommend to try log taper for tone pot, that gave me better control.
Jun

High's boosted? That's not the impression I got!

neilnil · Post by **neilnil** » 08 Jun 2009, 18:02

soulsonic wrote:
neilnil wrote:Finished up this one a while ago. Highs seem boosted a bit too much. Maybe larger compensation cap would tame it? I don't know. Other than that, sounds pretty decent. I think I'm gonna let this do high-gain job for me for a while, instead of a LDO clone I've been using, which has less highs and more mids. And I recommend to try log taper for tone pot, that gave me better control.
Jun
High's boosted? That's not the impression I got!

Thanks! I guess a "stock" 100n cap in the feedback loop caused it. I put a socket in there and tried different values and it changed the tone drastically. 0.47u as in the reversed pedal was too much for me. I sticked a 200n and now I'm happy! Timmy bass control would be a great idea indeed.
Jun

grolschie · Post by **grolschie** » 09 Jun 2009, 02:45

soulsonic wrote:An LM308 is completely different inside than a CA3130. I expect they would sound worlds apart. For one thing, the CA3130 is almost entirely MOSFET, whereas the LM308 is entirely bipolar transisitor.....

After seeing the Dyna Red schematic, I bought a CA3130EZ and put that in my Rat2. Real nice. The LM308N that I put in a while back, won't be going back in (most likely at this stage).

picassochild · Post by **picassochild** » 09 Jun 2009, 09:14

grolschie wrote:
soulsonic wrote:An LM308 is completely different inside than a CA3130. I expect they would sound worlds apart. For one thing, the CA3130 is almost entirely MOSFET, whereas the LM308 is entirely bipolar transisitor.....
After seeing the Dyna Red schematic, I bought a CA3130EZ and put that in my Rat2. Real nice. The LM308N that I put in a while back, won't be going back in (most likely at this stage).

Could you explain differences in tone/gain with CA3130EZ instead of LM308? I'm gonna send few pedal for upgrade to Soulsonic and had idea to try CA3130EZ in RAT without scheme changes. Let us know about it.

Greg · Post by **Greg** » 09 Jun 2009, 09:24

The Gain is a function of the circuit design, not the opamp.

BennyBoop · Post by **BennyBoop** » 06 Jul 2009, 16:13

Is neilnil's layout the original version or the one with more low mids?
Sorry if it's already has been said, havn't been in here for a while.
Btw, wy are there double values on some components in the schematic?

Cheers/Ben

Bside2234 · Post by **Bside2234** » 06 Jul 2009, 17:53

There isn't double values in the schematic. What you are seeing is 10/16 being 10uf/16volts.

Duckman · Post by **Duckman** » 06 Jul 2009, 21:19

grolschie wrote:
soulsonic wrote:An LM308 is completely different inside than a CA3130. I expect they would sound worlds apart. For one thing, the CA3130 is almost entirely MOSFET, whereas the LM308 is entirely bipolar transisitor.....
After seeing the Dyna Red schematic, I bought a CA3130EZ and put that in my Rat2. Real nice. The LM308N that I put in a while back, won't be going back in (most likely at this stage).

So... since CA3130 and LM308 got same in/out, is that enough to switch between them? No other considerations need be made?

Please, tell us about the differences you ear/feel, if you don't mind.

BennyBoop · Post by **BennyBoop** » 06 Jul 2009, 21:36

Okay, thanks! That never occured to me. Sorry if the question was dumb, never seen the voltages written in a schematic before though (why would you do that btw? It wouldn't effect the sound, would it?)

grolschie · Post by **grolschie** » 06 Jul 2009, 21:47

picassochild wrote: Could you explain differences in tone/gain with CA3130EZ instead of LM308? I'm gonna send few pedal for upgrade to Soulsonic and had idea to try CA3130EZ in RAT without scheme changes. Let us know about it.

The sound is much more useable for me. Tighter, less messy on the bass. I really like it. I was having a problem where high output humbuckers would kinda overload the bottom-end when played hard. I modded the Rat slightly to reduce the bottom end slightly (and also another tweak), but swapping to this IC resolved the issue for me. I probably should try reverting the other mods now - but it sounds pretty good to me.

I reckon perhaps you could simply install an IC socket and try a CA3130EZ if you like.

TheLemon · Post by **TheLemon** » 23 Jul 2009, 03:14

On the original schematic what is the "Bias" that goes from the 22uf electrolytic cap?

soulsonic · Post by **soulsonic** » 23 Jul 2009, 04:58

TheLemon wrote:On the original schematic what is the "Bias" that goes from the 22uf electrolytic cap?

This is the artificial ground that is standard in single-supply opamp designs. You see this in the majority of stompbox designs.

TheLemon · Post by **TheLemon** » 23 Jul 2009, 06:39

soulsonic wrote:
TheLemon wrote:On the original schematic what is the "Bias" that goes from the 22uf electrolytic cap?
This is the artificial ground that is standard in single-supply opamp designs. You see this in the majority of stompbox designs.

How would this translate in the circuit? Would this go to ground? I've only made a few dirt boxes but none have had this.

Greg · Post by **Greg** » 23 Jul 2009, 06:52

TheLemon wrote:
soulsonic wrote:
TheLemon wrote:On the original schematic what is the "Bias" that goes from the 22uf electrolytic cap?
This is the artificial ground that is standard in single-supply opamp designs. You see this in the majority of stompbox designs.
How would this translate in the circuit? Would this go to ground? I've only made a few dirt boxes but none have had this.

It connects to the 360K resistor at the input.

candletears7 · Post by **candletears7** » 13 Oct 2009, 23:36

Is there any benefit in running this circuit at 18v, like, eg: an OCD? Can the originals take 18v+? I've not heard an original DRD so not sure if it would make a hell of a difference in headroom. Just thought I'd ask before I perf up that JL layout with lower voltage electrolytics....

Greg · Post by **Greg** » 14 Oct 2009, 00:01

candletears7 wrote:Is there any benefit in running this circuit at 18v, like, eg: an OCD? Can the originals take 18v+? I've not heard an original DRD so not sure if it would make a hell of a difference in headroom. Just thought I'd ask before I perf up that JL layout with lower voltage electrolytics....

NO.
Max supply voltage of the opamp is 16V.

candletears7 · Post by **candletears7** » 14 Oct 2009, 00:37

Greg_G wrote:
candletears7 wrote:Is there any benefit in running this circuit at 18v, like, eg: an OCD? Can the originals take 18v+? I've not heard an original DRD so not sure if it would make a hell of a difference in headroom. Just thought I'd ask before I perf up that JL layout with lower voltage electrolytics....
NO.
Max supply voltage of the opamp is 16V.

Cool! Thanks.

Was about to check out that opamp data sheet but i haven't had time to find it. Trying to do fun stuff at work is a bitch!

candletears7 · Post by **candletears7** » 19 Oct 2009, 12:13

quick question - on the JL layout, what does 'D23' up near R1 designate? Just curious...

Post by **Brink** » 19 Oct 2009, 12:33

candletears7 wrote:quick question - on the JL layout, what does 'D23' up near R1 designate? Just curious...

Attach to the wire going to lugs 2 and 3 of the drive pot.

candletears7 · Post by **candletears7** » 20 Oct 2009, 06:10

of course. oops.

BJFE - Dyna Red Distortion [traced]