Alternatives for PT2399?
- mictester
- Old Solderhand
Information
There are many echo / delay ICs available - both analogue (BBD) and digital. However, there's nothing wrong with the 2399 if you use it properly.
"Why is it humming?" "Because it doesn't know the words!"
- Intripped
- Cap Cooler
I'm interested in alternatives to the pt2399 as well
What I don't like of the pt2399 is the kind of white noise (shhhhh) that is audible with the repetitions, even at relatively short delay times. You can lower the intensity of this noise, but it's hard (or maybe impossible?) to get completely rid of it
I know there are some people who don't hear this noise, but I really do; probably is one of those things that once noted you cannot ignore anymore.
I know there is the FV1, but I've never experimented with this chip.
Does anyone here know how is the FV1 compared to the PT?
What I don't like of the pt2399 is the kind of white noise (shhhhh) that is audible with the repetitions, even at relatively short delay times. You can lower the intensity of this noise, but it's hard (or maybe impossible?) to get completely rid of it
I know there are some people who don't hear this noise, but I really do; probably is one of those things that once noted you cannot ignore anymore.
I know there is the FV1, but I've never experimented with this chip.
Does anyone here know how is the FV1 compared to the PT?
- ~arph
- Cap Cooler
Well, I do not think there are ICs available that are comparable with the PT2399 in regards to ease of use for the average DIY'er
The strong point of the PT2399 is that it is a simple IC. With easy delay time adjustment and can be used in a full analog environment.
Using BBD's is trickier, requires biasing and an external clock (I do not know how they compare price wise)
Using digital ics like the FV-1 requires coding, flashing and sometimes even eternal memory ics to store your program and/or audio data.
The PT2399 is in a very good niche.
The strong point of the PT2399 is that it is a simple IC. With easy delay time adjustment and can be used in a full analog environment.
Using BBD's is trickier, requires biasing and an external clock (I do not know how they compare price wise)
Using digital ics like the FV-1 requires coding, flashing and sometimes even eternal memory ics to store your program and/or audio data.
The PT2399 is in a very good niche.
In the quiet words of the virgin Mary: "Come again?"
- mictester
- Old Solderhand
Information
Do you mean one on top of another, wired pin for pin? No. I haven't tried it, and it's unlikely to work. It also wouldn't reduce the noise....
I've found that if you give about 150µs pre-emphasis on the way in and the corresponding de-emphasis on the way out, you reduce the noise significantly while retaining a (more or less) flat frequency response. It's also essential to avoid clipping in the IC (there are several ways to prevent that). I also use a compander to compress on the way in and expand on the way out. I don't much like the sound of a single delay line, so I use three or four in parallel, each with different delays, and with convoluted feedback paths so that I get a whole mess of delayed signals at different repeat rates. If the straight to echoed signal ratio is set sensibly, I get a truly lovely "hall" echo effect at longer delay settings and smaller room sounds at shorter settings. I ended up using some preset resistors for the delay times, and selected them with 4066 ICs. One pedal that I make and I really like the sound of has short, medium and long preset delays, variable straight to echo ratio on a from panel pot and a "master feedback" pot to vary the overall amount of recirculated echoes. It uses both noise reduction tricks, four 2399s and has "tails". I've built a few of them now and their owners adore them! I'll put the basic circuit up on this site shortly.
I've found that if you give about 150µs pre-emphasis on the way in and the corresponding de-emphasis on the way out, you reduce the noise significantly while retaining a (more or less) flat frequency response. It's also essential to avoid clipping in the IC (there are several ways to prevent that). I also use a compander to compress on the way in and expand on the way out. I don't much like the sound of a single delay line, so I use three or four in parallel, each with different delays, and with convoluted feedback paths so that I get a whole mess of delayed signals at different repeat rates. If the straight to echoed signal ratio is set sensibly, I get a truly lovely "hall" echo effect at longer delay settings and smaller room sounds at shorter settings. I ended up using some preset resistors for the delay times, and selected them with 4066 ICs. One pedal that I make and I really like the sound of has short, medium and long preset delays, variable straight to echo ratio on a from panel pot and a "master feedback" pot to vary the overall amount of recirculated echoes. It uses both noise reduction tricks, four 2399s and has "tails". I've built a few of them now and their owners adore them! I'll put the basic circuit up on this site shortly.
"Why is it humming?" "Because it doesn't know the words!"
mictester wrote:Do you mean one on top of another, wired pin for pin? No. I haven't tried it, and it's unlikely to work. It also wouldn't reduce the noise....
I've found that if you give about 150µs pre-emphasis on the way in and the corresponding de-emphasis on the way out, you reduce the noise significantly while retaining a (more or less) flat frequency response. It's also essential to avoid clipping in the IC (there are several ways to prevent that). I also use a compander to compress on the way in and expand on the way out. I don't much like the sound of a single delay line, so I use three or four in parallel, each with different delays, and with convoluted feedback paths so that I get a whole mess of delayed signals at different repeat rates. If the straight to echoed signal ratio is set sensibly, I get a truly lovely "hall" echo effect at longer delay settings and smaller room sounds at shorter settings. I ended up using some preset resistors for the delay times, and selected them with 4066 ICs. One pedal that I make and I really like the sound of has short, medium and long preset delays, variable straight to echo ratio on a from panel pot and a "master feedback" pot to vary the overall amount of recirculated echoes. It uses both noise reduction tricks, four 2399s and has "tails". I've built a few of them now and their owners adore them! I'll put the basic circuit up on this site shortly.
Well you're an expert with the PT2399, in my opinion has a sound medium quality is far from quality digital delay as Tc electronics, t rex or Strymon. It would be good if you can show us how to better sound.
thanks for your answer
- karul
- Cap Cooler
Deadastronaut jamming on his prototype with 4 PT2399 delay prototype on breadboard.
Another example is madbeans Zero Point SDX Delay
Another one: cpm's - delay over the top PT2399's
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_so ... ID=8355105
https://www.freestompboxes.org/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=9648
Haven't you noticed that there are lot of commercial delay/reverb pedals using belton brick(s) wich are nothing more than 3 PT2399's
Another example is madbeans Zero Point SDX Delay
Another one: cpm's - delay over the top PT2399's
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_so ... ID=8355105
https://www.freestompboxes.org/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=9648
Haven't you noticed that there are lot of commercial delay/reverb pedals using belton brick(s) wich are nothing more than 3 PT2399's
The sound quality is not the best, of course is not a dsp, but wondered why some intermediate alternative, other than the PT2399 or switch to a dsp for something better, in the middle there is nothing?karul wrote:Deadastronaut jamming on his prototype with 4 PT2399 delay prototype on breadboard.
Another example is madbeans Zero Point SDX Delay
Another one: cpm's - delay over the top PT2399's
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_so ... ID=8355105
https://www.freestompboxes.org/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=9648
Haven't you noticed that there are lot of commercial delay/reverb pedals using belton brick(s) wich are nothing more than 3 PT2399's
- karul
- Cap Cooler
Answer was already given.A1full wrote:but wondered why some intermediate alternative, other than the PT2399 or switch to a dsp for something better, in the middle there is nothing?
Search for BBD IC's.mictester wrote:There are many echo / delay ICs available - both analogue (BBD) and digital. However, there's nothing wrong with the 2399 if you use it properly.
For example, most common BBD chips come from Panasonic/Matsushita MN3xxx series:
http://www.electrosmash.com/mn3007-buck ... de-devices
MN3005 - Ibanez AD-80, BOSS DM-2, Electro Harmonix Memory Man, etc
-----------------------------------------
You may not like those pedals either.
- Mbas974
- Resistor Ronker
I think PT is still the best DIY solution fo a good delay.
..what I do not understand is the delay for work stacked PT;
I have on breadborad this http://postimg.org/image/zdho7og5z/
and I supposed to get min delay of 250ms (2x 125ms as per 6K8+1K resistence..) well the min delay is clearly under 100ns...
I'd like someone could explain how this "current mirror" circuit as well..THANKS
..what I do not understand is the delay for work stacked PT;
I have on breadborad this http://postimg.org/image/zdho7og5z/
and I supposed to get min delay of 250ms (2x 125ms as per 6K8+1K resistence..) well the min delay is clearly under 100ns...
I'd like someone could explain how this "current mirror" circuit as well..THANKS
- Dirk_Hendrik
- Old Solderhand
Information
Perhaps cascade the delaylines instead of physically placing em in parallel?
After that, that's not a current mirror. That's 2 transistors which sink current to ground. Because they happen to be connected to a similar source in the PT chip and are controled by the same pot they will sink similar currents.... but not as a mirrror.
(And can those who keep op soldering IC's in parallell please stop?)
After that, that's not a current mirror. That's 2 transistors which sink current to ground. Because they happen to be connected to a similar source in the PT chip and are controled by the same pot they will sink similar currents.... but not as a mirrror.
(And can those who keep op soldering IC's in parallell please stop?)
Information
you could maybe do something building on the belton brick and pt2399 idea. maybe take the schematic of the brick and twist it around a bit as a discrete unit rather than the stock brick. add another pt2399, put layers of dirt between them, or modulate one one way and the next another way to make a mutant brick. kind of as mictester was sugesting but take the standard brick schematic as your start point template and tweak it beyond recognition.
karul listed a couple of brick pedals above, another is the eqd ghost echo of which i'm a big fan. a massive space on tap.
karul listed a couple of brick pedals above, another is the eqd ghost echo of which i'm a big fan. a massive space on tap.
- matt239
- Solder Soldier
"150µs pre-emphasis?" What are you saying there?mictester wrote: I've found that if you give about 150µs pre-emphasis on the way in and the corresponding de-emphasis on the way out, you reduce the noise significantly while retaining a (more or less) flat frequency response. It's also essential to avoid clipping in the IC (there are several ways to prevent that). I also use a compander to compress on the way in and expand on the way out.
Care to share some of your other tricks for getting this chip to work well?
Thanks.
- Dirk_Hendrik
- Old Solderhand
Information
he's saying 150µs pre-emphasis.
1) find out what pre-and deemphasis is. Hint: every Boss and Ibanez analog delay show examples
2) find out why filters can be determined as having a delay time (hint: An allpass filter is delay-only)
1) find out what pre-and deemphasis is. Hint: every Boss and Ibanez analog delay show examples
2) find out why filters can be determined as having a delay time (hint: An allpass filter is delay-only)
- matt239
- Solder Soldier
I get the basic concept of pre & de-emphasis. I just didn't know why he was describing it in micro-seconds, and was hoping he would expand on that.
I was dimly aware that filters cause delay..
Alas, my filter kung fu is not strong..
I wasn't saying he was saying it wrong, just that I was not understanding.
I was dimly aware that filters cause delay..
Alas, my filter kung fu is not strong..
I wasn't saying he was saying it wrong, just that I was not understanding.
Information
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 14 Jul 2015, 21:00
- my favorite amplifier: Hartke KM60
- Completed builds: Repaired a wah-wah pedal for someone. Other than that - nothing! I had a lot of electronic components, but I lost 95% of them when my shed got flooded. I'm slowly replacing them
- Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
- Has thanked: 2 times
If you still want to stick with Bucket Brigade Devices, someone is STILL manufacturing Panasonic MN3102 and MN3207 chips. Try your luck at...
support@truetone.com
support@truetone.com
I like Stomp Boxes. I also like Pedals (which, to me, are different to Stomp Boxes) and Synthesisers (never say that with a lisp), BUT...
I LOVE MELLOTRONS!
I have an M400 Mellotron, serial number 360.
I LOVE MELLOTRONS!
I have an M400 Mellotron, serial number 360.
- matt239
- Solder Soldier
... filters have delay...
and that filters only filter because of time constants,
and that frequency = period, so it's a time thing.
It's just not the shorthand we normally use around here to describe simple stompboxes.
Why not just say it's 1kHz?
P.S.: it's (about) 1kHz.
- I'm only a simple un-frozen-caveman guitar player..
and that filters only filter because of time constants,
and that frequency = period, so it's a time thing.
It's just not the shorthand we normally use around here to describe simple stompboxes.
Why not just say it's 1kHz?
P.S.: it's (about) 1kHz.
- I'm only a simple un-frozen-caveman guitar player..