DEMO Two Milfs- flanger on flanger

[Paradox916]

Haha, I wish we had that much influence . We have been down that path before with Coolaudio and Xvive. Unless you hand them a PO for some very large quantities, they are not going to invest in a new chip. (In fact, Coolaudio will not do it unless Behringer needs it).

But it does occur to me that the CT3680 has an MN3004 (=V3204) emulation mode. And with the flip of a switch, V3207 emulation. So a single module could be use to build a pedal that could switch between the two designs. One of the design goals of the CT3680 was to enable building designs like this that need obsolete BBD chips.

We have on our bench right now an experiment to more-or-less replace a BBD in an existing design (chorus in this case) with the CT3680. Obviously there is a bit of electrical and mechanical adaptation needed, but should be possible without total redesign.

so it’s in the realm of possibility to make a CT3680 retrofit module to replace a 3204? Is that what you are telling me?

Edit: I just looked at that thing, I didn’t realize the size of that beast.

 

[Cabintech]

so it’s in the realm of possibility to make a CT3680 retrofit module to replace a 3204? Is that what you are telling me?

Edit: I just looked at that thing, I didn’t realize the size of that beast.

"to replace a 3204". Yes and no. There are 2 scenarios:

1. If you are creating a new design you can choose a CT3680 as the delay element instead of a BBD chip. The rest of the design looks a lot like a traditional BBD circuit with feedback paths, filters, modulation, etc. So yes you can use the 3680 instead of a 3204.

2. You have an existing design and want to replace the BBD with the CT3680. It is not a drop in replacement... you have to consider:
a. The BBD uses the frequency of a clock to set the delay time. The CT3680 uses a control voltage. So you need a frequency-to-voltage converter (not too hard).
b. The BBD uses input/output signal voltages from 5-18V depending on the design. The CT3680 analog input is 2.5V max and produces similar analog outputs. You will need to scale the input down to 2.5V, and add gain on the output to bring it back up. (Not too hard)
c. Physically the CT3680 is larger with lots more pins than the BBD chip, so the mechanical design and PCB layout are completely different. How hard depends on the current mechanical and PCB design.

We are doing some experiments now to get a feel for the difficulty level of #2.

BTW, make sure you are looking at the production module which is about 1.5" x 0.9". If you are looking at the old prototype modules, they were more than twice that size.

 

[Paradox916]

"to replace a 3204". Yes and no. There are 2 scenarios:

1. If you are creating a new design you can choose a CT3680 as the delay element instead of a BBD chip. The rest of the design looks a lot like a traditional BBD circuit with feedback paths, filters, modulation, etc. So yes you can use the 3680 instead of a 3204.

2. You have an existing design and want to replace the BBD with the CT3680. It is not a drop in replacement... you have to consider:
a. The BBD uses the frequency of a clock to set the delay time. The CT3680 uses a control voltage. So you need a frequency-to-voltage converter (not too hard).
b. The BBD uses input/output signal voltages from 5-18V depending on the design. The CT3680 analog input is 2.5V max and produces similar analog outputs. You will need to scale the input down to 2.5V, and add gain on the output to bring it back up. (Not too hard)
c. Physically the CT3680 is larger with lots more pins than the BBD chip, so the mechanical design and PCB layout are completely different. How hard depends on the current mechanical and PCB design.

We are doing some experiments now to get a feel for the difficulty level of #2.

BTW, make sure you are looking at the production module which is about 1.5" x 0.9". If you are looking at the old prototype modules, they were more than twice that size.

Seems like a pretty cool component.

 

[Route14]

A double feature. I have been sitting on these boards since last summer with the plans to build them. I ordered the enclosures last fall. All the parts set aside since September. I finally got around to it. I have built both of these before but was tired of having to choose which one would be for bass or guitar so I now have one of each for my guitar and bass boards. LFG

The only real difference between the two circuits is the BBD IC. The Bf-2 uses the MN3207 and the HF-2 uses the MN3204. The 3204 has half the delay stages and therefore shifts the modulated frequencies higher and leaving lower frequencies unmodulated. This gives the HF-2 a more hifi integrated sound, and closer to a Mistress.

Are there any component changes from the BF-2 or just the chip? I thought you might have said last year that there were a few component changes.

 

[Guardians of the analog]

Are there any component changes from the BF-2 or just the chip? I thought you might have said last year that there were a few component changes.

There are a couple in value changes but I had two people online with original units take clock measurements and it's set up to the same frequency so the difference is super minimal. I wouldnt worry much about it and you could simply swap out the one IC.