Best Opto-coupler for Dyana-Ross compressor?

Feral Feline

Feral Feline

Well-known member
As a bass-player, I've avoided Dyana-Ross style compressors because I've always read that the Dyana-Rosie style compressors lose low-end;
I've often parroted and perpetuated that sentiment, but actually I've never built one!

So instead of being a stupid mynah-mimic and relaying hearsay and repeating what I've read online, I thought I'd build one and learn for myself first-hand whether it loses lows or not.
Having no experience with Dyana-Ross, I did a Google search to find out what type of compressor it is and what I'll need to build one...

DYNACOMP OPTO-mised 2025-06-02 .png
Subsequent searching... well, it was very hard to find any info about the DyanoComp's opto-coupler.

SO... What's the best vactrol or LED/LDR combo for the MXR DyanaComp / Ross comp?
Are the original opto-units for the DinoCompost still available?
If you've built this circuit, which opto-coupler did you use?

If I'm going to build one I want to build it right*!













*For whatever it's not worth, the Perplexity app came up with the correct OTA info.
;)
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I certainly no expert but I’ve never heard of a Dyna using Opto electronics. And I can’t find any layout for one on the Internet that says otherwise.

Edit add – goddamnit, now I think I get the joke. Don’t pull things that require reading comprehension on me without warning.
 
Yeah, I watched vid about truck-drivers getting drive-shafted in Texas by Aurora — and then did the search in the OP...
So I had to make a statement about AI in general, but...

We're going to trust AI with self-driving 18-Wheeler big-rig Trucks on our highways? Really?
 
That started off funny, then it got downright...


shrek-donkey-that-is-nasty-f0vvbf9tumr81jl9.gif


😸
 
Recently, a coworker presented a list of compounds for a research project and a list of ways they could each be chemically modified. I commented that it was from ChatGPT, so, likely fake. He said, yes it was from ChatGPT, but there were references for everything. I said, I stand corrected. When I started looking up the list of references he provided, every single one was fake! Not a wrong reference either, a completely made up one, with real journal names and made up authors!

ChatGPT is really good at presenting a VERY convincing answer even when it's total BS. Even the "hallucination" term is misleading, it's sycophancy. It's fine lying to you to get you to move on. It’s a huge time suck for me to constantly have to prove that it's fucked. It worries me about the future, look what social media has done to our perception of news and facts. Imagine when the next generation of researchers and doctors are walking around thinking AI can solve real problems... Curmudgeon rant over :cool:
 
Bio77 said:
Curmudgeon rant over
Click to expand...
not even curmudgeon.
legit this shit is a serious problem, and it does my fucken head in that not only the dumbass masses cheer it on, there are otherwise 'intelligent' peers around you that think all of this is completely fine and often participate in it.
and then unless you can be fucked turning off default settings on ios, browsers and other shit, it's everywhere.

ffs yesterday my mobile (cell) phone provider sent me a text offering a free 12 month subscription to some 'AI-powered search engine'. wtf. ew no.
 
I have used AI enough, I really wanted the AI that is accessible to the average person to be useful, but it’s not, and I can say this having spent a reasonable amount of time trying to make practical use of it, and to date it’s unreliable at best. What’s the point of a machine algorithm that you have to constantly check the work of just to find out it gave you garbage… hell just to get it to spit out a semi useable image is a task with at least a dozen tries… I’m over it. Although the privatized engines that are purpose built sound like they are capable of some crazy things.. but those aren’t the General BS everyone is using.
 
Bio77 said:
Recently, a coworker presented a list of compounds for a research project and a list of ways they could each be chemically modified. I commented that it was from ChatGPT, so, likely fake. He said, yes it was from ChatGPT, but there were references for everything. I said, I stand corrected. When I started looking up the list of references he provided, every single one was fake! Not a wrong reference either, a completely made up one, with real journal names and made up authors!

ChatGPT is really good at presenting a VERY convincing answer even when it's total BS. Even the "hallucination" term is misleading, it's sycophancy. It's fine lying to you to get you to move on. It’s a huge time suck for me to constantly have to prove that it's fucked. It worries me about the future, look what social media has done to our perception of news and facts. Imagine when the next generation of researchers and doctors are walking around thinking AI can solve real problems... Curmudgeon rant over :cool:
Click to expand...
Thank you for your advice and guidance, it is very helpful to me.
 
And we have people running institutes using it. What could go wrong? Yeah, it's been a few years of trying to avoid its bad info. How people treat it as gospel is terrifying.
 
I think big money investors and corporations invested so much money into AI now they have to force feed it to us. People on commercials talking to AI like its their friend. Does anyone actually do that? I do think AI can be useful. Like it could be used to find cures for cancer and diseases or better automation but at this point its just a marketing gimmick.
 
It can't even suss out that the Dynacomp is an OTA circuit, NOT optical, and you want it to find a cure for Cancer?

Okay ok, I know the AI used for Cancer Research will probably be more robust and specific to the task than Google's search-engine bot, but still...

Also, as mentioned in the OP, the Perplexity app on my wife's phone absolutely nailed correctly ALL aspects of the Dynacomp circuit including that it's OTA.

I'm still surprised the Google AI came up with "optical" — HOW?
I've NEVER in all my online meanderings come across anyone ever asserting (mistakenly or otherwise) that the circuit is optical-based.
 
I've used it to write stuff. And, when I say "write stuff," I mean it kick starts the process, but I have to ruthlessly edit to get something I like plus I wind up rewriting much of it anyway. It's like it poops out a bunch of clay in a shape that may or may not resemble the final object and I work it from there.

Sometimes the toughest thing is to just get started. Enter AI.

(It also generates some ducats for me to buy PCBs and parts...but, I won't get into that...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top