[sdiy] MN3207 and MN3102 Reissues

[harrybissell]

well if I (thats a capital 'I' like shouting... :^) were a heathen like you
all...

I would consider using a delay (can you say BBD ?) for the companding signal
as well.  It might not apply to a flanging application (a'la dimension D) but it

would help a lot in echo applications...

hmmm....

H^) harry

Scott Stites wrote:

> Thank you, Mike.  That explanation clears it up quite a bit.
>
> What threw me off was that it looked like switch 1 wasn't doing anything.
>
> For a long while I've been wanting to build an ensemble chorus.  Until you
> brought up what this is doing, it hadn't occurred to me that one could get
> rid of obvious movement with two BBD's and anti-phase modulation.  Guess
> I'll have to study JH's writings about the Dimension D a bit more now!
>
> I've got a couple of NE570's, but many more SA571's.  I know that the 570 is
> considered a superior device to the 571, but I may try both out when the
> time comes to pull out the BBD's again.  I've got some 572's that would take
> some reworking to fit into the circuit (no internal op amp, etc.).  I've got
> a nice article in Polyphony about using those.
>
> BTW, OnSemi's app sheet on the SA570/571 shows a method of using the 570/571
> with an external (better) op amp and emphasis/de-emphasis for improved
> operation (to eliminate breathing and pumping, etc.).  I don't recall seeing
> that in the Philip's docs, though that doesn't mean it wasn't there =0).
> Perhaps that might make the 571 perform acceptably.
>
> Cheers,
> Scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mirwin at qouest.net>
> To: "Scott Stites" <scottnoanh at peoplepc.com>
> Cc: <synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl>
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 12:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [sdiy] MN3207 and MN3102 Reissues
>
> > Scott (and list),
> > The pushbuttons  put in different resistor values for the LFO rate and
> > Depth - you could use two pots instead. This is the effect "that you
> > don't notice until it's turned off". What is most interesting is
> > that the LFO rate does not correspond to the "beat rate", the LFO
> > rate is much slower since what it is really controlling is the
> > amount of detuning. What they don't mention is that some filtering is
> > also applied in "bypass" mode.
> > Regards, Mike