Members chuckmoose Posted April 30, 2009 Members Share Posted April 30, 2009 Hi Folks, I'm working on a multi boost A/B pedal for use within my bands, and maybe to be able to offer to the public if it works out well. I'd like to see what you think of the two designs I have come up with, and how you might alter them for your use, so that I can make something as flexible as possible. It is designed to fit in a standard 1590NS box (my diagrams are to scale). Here's my basic need: I and a bandmate each use 2 electric guitars on stage, a Strat and a Les Paul. We like to bring the level of one or the other up or down to match them so we can use them with the same amp without radically changing settings. We have both decided we prefer to cut the LP level down to match the Strat level rather than boost the Strat, but I know most people do it the other way around. The pedal would have 2 boosts, one designed as a lead boost, possibly Mosfet based. The other would be able to act as a boost or a cut to bring the LP level down to Strat level, something like the EHX LPB. We also both use all true bypass pedals and are interested in getting a buffer in the signal chain, switchable on or off. So the first design I came up with looks like this: 2 inputs A/B for switching guitars > Boost 1 > Boost 2 > Buffer > Output My bandmate however asked about having the attenuating boost permanently assigned to one of the inputs so he doesn't have to switch it on and off. So input B would always go through the attenuating boost, negating the need for a footswtich. With this switch not needed, I realized I could add switchable outputs, useable for a muted tuner output, or even amp switching. It's conceivable I might even be able to squeeze another jack in there and make it a switchable true bypass loop!? So, design number 2: Input A/B (B goes to attenuating boost) > Boost 1 > Buffer > Output A/B Which design makes more sense to you? What you rather use three footswitches to control? What boost circuit would you like to see in the box? Clean Mosfet, LPB, Rangmaster, Treble Boost, etc? What would you do instead of all of these? The space does not seem to allow for a 9V battery so this is a 9V DC only pedal. Is that a deal breaker? And finally, how should the buffer work? Should it be switchable on or off all the time, and if so does it work better before or after the boosts? Or, should the buffer be on only when the boosts are bypassed and off when a boost is active? I have seen some pedals that do this, buffer when the pedal is bypassed but remove the buffer when the pedal is active. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dap99 Posted April 30, 2009 Members Share Posted April 30, 2009 What's the purpose of the buffer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members turnitto11 Posted April 30, 2009 Members Share Posted April 30, 2009 I like the first better. That's just me, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chuckmoose Posted April 30, 2009 Author Members Share Posted April 30, 2009 What's the purpose of the buffer? To drive long cable lengths without signal loss. Some pedals (Boss, Ibanez) have them built in, but I don't use any that do. By the time I get through up to 16 pedals on my board and about 30' of cable there is bound to be some signal loss. And in my design if you don't need it you can switch it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members distance21 Posted April 30, 2009 Members Share Posted April 30, 2009 I like the second. It's a better layout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jlantsberger Posted April 30, 2009 Members Share Posted April 30, 2009 It might be more practical (in terms of selling to people) to have the first design. I'm just thinking...what if I'm not switching strat/lp? What if I'm switching strat/lp some nights, but lp/tele other nights? I think it'd be better to have the B input boost be optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chuckmoose Posted April 30, 2009 Author Members Share Posted April 30, 2009 How's this? There is some concern about the room for effectively manipulating three footswitches on a 1590B. This allows for the footswitched clean boost and a toggle take the attenuator in and out of the B channel. I lose the output switching though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chuckmoose Posted May 1, 2009 Author Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 Anyone have any thoughts about the buffer issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoboPimp Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 I think your spam is boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members johanwastaken Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 In the first two designs, the 3 "sections" seem to be evenly spaced. So the footswitches have as much space between them as to the edge of the enclosure (I hope that makes sense). It would probably be easy to hit the switch you intend to if you add more space between the 3 switches and less space between the outer switches and the edge of the enclosure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chuckmoose Posted May 1, 2009 Author Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 I think your spam is boring I can understand how you might think this is intended to bring interest in my products, but I am simply, honestly interested in people's opinions about features. I haven't made up my own mind as to what I want for myself. people's opinions are useful, and these days I live in a sheltered area with very few gigging guitarists to have intelligent conversations with. I don't claim to have everything about putting together a guitar rig figured out even after a 20+ year professional career. I haven't tried every type of boost on the market, I don't claim to know that much about buffers, and I have never tried to manipulate 3 switches on a 1590 sized box. I find your complaints boring. I have taken my logo off of everything. This is a personal project as I stated above. Are you happy Robo? I want you to be happy. Do you have any constructive suggestions? I welcome them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoboPimp Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 you can't even look in the mirror and have an intelligent conversation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chuckmoose Posted May 1, 2009 Author Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 In the first two designs, the 3 "sections" seem to be evenly spaced. So the footswitches have as much space between them as to the edge of the enclosure (I hope that makes sense).It would probably be easy to hit the switch you intend to if you add more space between the 3 switches and less space between the outer switches and the edge of the enclosure. I know what you mean, but it has to do with the layout of the internal components, specifically the location of the jacks. I have plenty of room on one side of the box but not on the other, so I decided it made more sense to keep the symmetry intact. But you are right, I should revisit the layout though and see if I can squeeze out any more room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jhamnett Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 I like V2 the best so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.