| Author |
Message |
oldmanfury
Joined: Oct 20, 2006
Posts: 57
Location: CA
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject:
|
  |
|
| Peake wrote: |
Kudos on being ahead of the curve! You're still using the original tanks? Did yours require any adjustment? Mine is a bit heavier on the left channel. |
Yeah, I've had it for a year or two, and it's all original, still functioning well. It is an odd beast. Running stereo through it works great, but I haven't had a lot of luck running mono through a single channel. I found that I needed to split the mono and send through both channels, otherwise it didn't work. Not sure if it subtracts the common noise on both channels like the PAIA or what causes it to flake on a single channel.
I use a passive attenuator to knock down my modular levels prior to input. Usually run the output directly to a mixer, so I don't usually need to amplify the Pioneer output back up to mod. levels again. When I do want to amplify it (for gated reverb, for example), I use a Ken Stone effects interface unit... can't remember the P/N off the top of my head.
There are a number of vintage Hi-Fi BBD delays (many of which you listed) that show up at thrift stores regularly. Haven't bought one since I thrifted a good old Roland DC-20 that sounds beautiful. Add this one to your budget BBD list too.
-gerald |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
davemoog
Joined: Feb 23, 2008
Posts: 52
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| The pioneer does funny things with the channels. They cross: Right drives left springs and v.v., So right reverb gets mixed with left dry, etc. so if you plug into the right you have to listen to the left out to hear the wet reverb signal. This works OK in stereo but odd with a mono input. It's easy if you wish to simply want L -> L, R->R to rewire the signals going/coming to the tanks. I have a unit and somewhere I also have the complete schematics which show this wiring setup. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
germaniac
Joined: Aug 04, 2006
Posts: 200
Location: California
Audio files: 7
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Plus one on the TAPCO 4400, though mine doesn't have the "A" suffix in the number and the legending is slightly different. Got it for $40 bucks because one channel was intermittent--nothing but a loose Molex connector.
Internally it's all 4136 op amps, but honestly they sound pretty good. I did a few things to hot-rod the performance a bit, mostly adding lots of PS decoupling to all op amps, more filtering to the (unregulated) power supply, and a toroidal PS xfrmr. The tanks are Accutronics, two-spring types, and I added aluminum covers to the open sides of each tank for further shielding. IMHO, sounds good enough to justify the four rack spaces it takes up!
Regards,
Joe |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Peake
Joined: Jun 29, 2007
Posts: 1113
Location: Loss Angeles
Audio files: 3
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
germaniac
Joined: Aug 04, 2006
Posts: 200
Location: California
Audio files: 7
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:34 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Hm. Not to doubt this out-of-hand, since I haven't noticed or tested this aspect of the reverb, but OTOH nothing in the circuit topology indicates how this could be. The input passes through two op amp stages, and then the signal is split three ways: to the dry out, to the reverb amp, and to the meter driver. The meter driver is isolated from the other two signal paths by an AC-coupled transistor stage (common-emitter amp) feeding rectifier diodes, which then feeds DC to the meter. Schematically, there doesn't look to be any way this could influence or feedback into the signal path, though again, strange things do happen! I'm pretty happy with the way mine sounds now, but I guess I'll keep this in mind if I ever start to get disenchanted with it. . . .
Regards,
Joe |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Peake
Joined: Jun 29, 2007
Posts: 1113
Location: Loss Angeles
Audio files: 3
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:17 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| germaniac wrote: |
Hm. Not to doubt this out-of-hand, since I haven't noticed or tested this aspect of the reverb, but OTOH nothing in the circuit topology indicates how this could be. |
I didn't check the Tapco schematic but this didn't sound quite right  Perhaps he always slams the meters and was distracted by the crickety-clicking it produced. I don't know.
Good thread, lots of info. Thanks folks. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
rjd2
Joined: Sep 02, 2007
Posts: 236
Location: philly
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
figured i'd revive this thread instead of starting a new one.....
suppose one wanted to install a spring reverb tank inside a modular cabinet, and amplify it with a wet/dry control-would a standard VCA module(cgs,mfos,etc) be sufficient for this? im thinking of using the same size reverb tank from a fender twin, or 2600. they were relatively cheap on ebay last time i checked. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Luka
Joined: Jun 29, 2007
Posts: 1003
Location: Melb.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
hodad
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Posts: 41
Location: atlanta
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| I'll second the Tapco 4400 (noisy but nice for the price), add the EV/Tapco 4500 (nice mono unit, about 50 bucks or so last I looked), the Sound Workshop 242 (not always cheap, but a crazy beast). There are other hifi reverberators beyond those previously mentioned, but names escape me right now. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Forum index » DIY Hardware and Software
FAQ
Calendar
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Chat Room
