jessemhopkins
Member
There are a few FA-1 boards out there, none for the clover though with the added midrange pot.
Upvote
26
Boss FA-1/JHS Clover
- Thread starter jessemhopkins
- Start date
Elijah-Baley
Active member
No reason to start a new thread, so I ask here.
What a bout a schematic of a Boss FA-1 with switchable Mid control?
I'm not sure we can use a three band baxandall eq with mid control can be excluded to use just the original two band baxandall in the Boss FA-1.
A gutshot of the Clover shows three IC smd, of course.
Meanwhile. I found this FA-1 clone that sounds very similar to che three band Clover:
It includes a sort of drive mode, just slightly different, adding, I guess, two LED and a 1N4148.
Then I see a 1458 IC, I noticed even the Mid pot is a 50k (from Tayda!)
It has a master volume control, too.
If you have some idea about the Clover, and how we could manage the mid band... I'm waiting.
What a bout a schematic of a Boss FA-1 with switchable Mid control?
I'm not sure we can use a three band baxandall eq with mid control can be excluded to use just the original two band baxandall in the Boss FA-1.
A gutshot of the Clover shows three IC smd, of course.
Meanwhile. I found this FA-1 clone that sounds very similar to che three band Clover:
It includes a sort of drive mode, just slightly different, adding, I guess, two LED and a 1N4148.
Then I see a 1458 IC, I noticed even the Mid pot is a 50k (from Tayda!)
It has a master volume control, too.
If you have some idea about the Clover, and how we could manage the mid band... I'm waiting.
jessemhopkins
Member
That's interesting. Madbean and Aion both have a version of the FA-1, and one of them (I forget which) has a switchable diode clipping section like this in your picture, but not a midrange control. I may do some breadboarding to see what I can come up with.
Elijah-Baley
Active member
Aion: Two band, a real clone about the signal and an updated power supply section. Indicated 2N5457 and 1458.
MBP: Two band, with the clip mode, some difference in the gain stage and and an updated power section. Indicated J201 and 4580D.
I guess we could use a three band baxandall.
If I remember well I used to play around the schematic and computer emulation. While it should be easy to bypass the whole eq, I couldn't include the mid control without change the basic two band frequency. But, changing some value caps and resistors getting the same answer, the same frequency, of the Bass and Treble control in the original pedal, then excluding the Mid control I lost the original answer because the changed value. I should try it again to see if I just said it right.
The 1458 is a dual opamp, so one gain stage and one eq stage. Drunk Beaver pedal uses two IC. One 1458, I'd say one gain stage and the eq, at least two band. I can't see what's the second IC. I saw some newer version with some smd parts, and the second IC is smd, but no clue about the model.
I'm afraid JHS used a more complicated technic to do that. (3 ICs, 14 electrolytic caps, 4 transistors!
)
MBP: Two band, with the clip mode, some difference in the gain stage and and an updated power section. Indicated J201 and 4580D.
I guess we could use a three band baxandall.
If I remember well I used to play around the schematic and computer emulation. While it should be easy to bypass the whole eq, I couldn't include the mid control without change the basic two band frequency. But, changing some value caps and resistors getting the same answer, the same frequency, of the Bass and Treble control in the original pedal, then excluding the Mid control I lost the original answer because the changed value. I should try it again to see if I just said it right.
The 1458 is a dual opamp, so one gain stage and one eq stage. Drunk Beaver pedal uses two IC. One 1458, I'd say one gain stage and the eq, at least two band. I can't see what's the second IC. I saw some newer version with some smd parts, and the second IC is smd, but no clue about the model.
I'm afraid JHS used a more complicated technic to do that. (3 ICs, 14 electrolytic caps, 4 transistors!
)
ICTRock
Well-known member
The 1976 National Semiconductor Audio handbook section 2-49 is one approach to three band Bax. There are various DIY discussions on the topic including robbing three band James circuits from amps for inspiration but the FA-1 is Bax, not James and if you need a refresher on the differences I believe that's been covered elsewhere on here.
Elijah-Baley
Active member
I didn't know it! Now I got it.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Elijah-Baley
Active member
Well, I'm going to link the comparison video, too:
Clover Manual:
www.dropbox.com
Of course in the Clover IC could be for the charge pump, I thought about it.
A clue of the charge pump could be this indication on the manual: «Do not use more than 9V DC.» But it's true that is just a generic instruction of the most 9v pedal.
Actually, I guess the second IC in the Drunk Beaver is a TC1044S, now I can read it, even if I can't see any useful didoes for a charge pump, except just the black one. And a Q1, is that two diodes smd package?
Anyway, the Clover is one IC more.
Don't forget the Clover has an XLR output, too, with a ground lift, so maybe that needs an extra gain stage.
«GROUND LIFT - Dip switch on the left side of the pedal. When using the XLR output, if you experience a hum you can switch on the Ground Lift to remove the hum.» It's mentioned just "When using the XLR output", so maybe is it just for that?
«46mA consumption». Is that too much?
I can't find the consumption of the Drunk Beaver OverBoost.
The big mystery remain the swicthable mid control.
Anyway, at least listen the demo on youtube, there's no much difference in the sound with the Drunk Beaver pedal
Clover Manual:
Dropbox - File Deleted - Simplify your life
www.dropbox.com
Of course in the Clover IC could be for the charge pump, I thought about it.
A clue of the charge pump could be this indication on the manual: «Do not use more than 9V DC.» But it's true that is just a generic instruction of the most 9v pedal.
Actually, I guess the second IC in the Drunk Beaver is a TC1044S, now I can read it, even if I can't see any useful didoes for a charge pump, except just the black one. And a Q1, is that two diodes smd package?
Anyway, the Clover is one IC more.
Don't forget the Clover has an XLR output, too, with a ground lift, so maybe that needs an extra gain stage.
«GROUND LIFT - Dip switch on the left side of the pedal. When using the XLR output, if you experience a hum you can switch on the Ground Lift to remove the hum.» It's mentioned just "When using the XLR output", so maybe is it just for that?
«46mA consumption». Is that too much?
I can't find the consumption of the Drunk Beaver OverBoost.
The big mystery remain the swicthable mid control.
Anyway, at least listen the demo on youtube, there's no much difference in the sound with the Drunk Beaver pedal
bobrov1989
Member
Just found the post by accidentWell, I'm going to link the comparison video, too:
Clover Manual:
Dropbox - File Deleted - Simplify your life
Of course in the Clover IC could be for the charge pump, I thought about it.
A clue of the charge pump could be this indication on the manual: «Do not use more than 9V DC.» But it's true that is just a generic instruction of the most 9v pedal.
Actually, I guess the second IC in the Drunk Beaver is a TC1044S, now I can read it, even if I can't see any useful didoes for a charge pump, except just the black one. And a Q1, is that two diodes smd package?
Anyway, the Clover is one IC more.
Don't forget the Clover has an XLR output, too, with a ground lift, so maybe that needs an extra gain stage.
«GROUND LIFT - Dip switch on the left side of the pedal. When using the XLR output, if you experience a hum you can switch on the Ground Lift to remove the hum.» It's mentioned just "When using the XLR output", so maybe is it just for that?
«46mA consumption». Is that too much?
I can't find the consumption of the Drunk Beaver OverBoost.
The big mystery remain the swicthable mid control.
Anyway, at least listen the demo on youtube, there's no much difference in the sound with the Drunk Beaver pedal
I have no idea what's going on in Clover, but could share what's inside FET OverBooster. So the first thing it runs on bipolar +-9V power supply internally (see TC1044). Drive mode just adds orange LEDs in feedback loop clipping so it just a small bit of break up. The EQ section was completely replaced with modified EQ from Cornish CC-1.
UtilityBeltFX
Well-known member
Bump!
182julien44
Active member
Bump! I still think it would be a great project!
This chap does a number of FA-1 type pedals from stock build to Parametric EQ, leaves all the other clones redundant!???
Uses Rare Original OpAmps!
Look at the Prices!!!
Uses Rare Original OpAmps!
Look at the Prices!!!
Feral Feline
Well-known member
Oooo I like the ones with full para mids!
AND MIA (made in Australia!)
AND MIA (made in Australia!)
The downside is some are Side jacks with the para having dipswitches on top!
The Stock one has top jacks but the power jack is on the side???
Feral Feline
Well-known member
REHOUSE REHOUSE REHOUSE
ALARRRRMMMM! —TOPJACKS!— REEEEHOUUUUSE!
ALARRRRMMMM! —TOPJACKS!— REEEEHOUUUUSE!
Very cool, but I (quietly) have a problem with clones/variants that include MODEL NUMBERS OF THE ORIGINAL. That could easily be considered a trademark/registered circuit number by Roland/Boss' lawyers.
I'll happily put 'Super Overdrive', 'Phaser', 'Chorus Ensemble', etc, on my (personal) DIY clones, as those are technically just nouns. I leave off 'SD-1', 'PH-1R', 'CE-5', etc., because those are IP of a corporation.
That's all fine and good. I'm not saying anyone is a bad person, or I'm starting a protest against them or anything.
It's just that I wouldn't do it, I don't really see why others do, and it surprises me more than anything. Like I said, any problems I have are just on my side.
I'm sure there is probably a patent or licensing somewhere that has expired in the last 40yrs, so Roland/Boss is not bothering with it.
