psw Posted September 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Hi there Axe2 and welcome to the sustainer thread, and Project Guitar! hey PSW, do you have a larger picture of YOUR schematic on this thread anywhere? I'd like to take a look at it and compare. Also (and this is to anyone) what kind of JFET is being used on the fetzer/ruby circuit? Edit: also has anyone thought of making one for 7-string. I have a stock pickup from my Ibanez that I'm dying to try this on!! Another thought I'm having is trying a dual-coil design (2x4ohm coils wired in series) thin and flat like PSW's but made to fit over both coils on a humbucker. Any toughts/suggestions on this? picture of YOUR schematic on this thread anywhere? arrgh!!!...no, sorry. I use a 2 transistor preamp with filtering and massive gain and the above circuit with some modifications some discussed above. I have made quite a few through the development and it evolved from a pair of kits which the above is the second LM386 part of it. The 100uF output cap mod, I only realized recently when I tried to get the values out of the actual guitar! There are a few photos here and there of various versions though...but nothing to go by I'm afraid. It would be difficult to make mine without the circuit board too, so it isn't really as practical as the f/r option for now (though I have some new thoughts - see below) I am not all-together happy even with my circuit but it does work (though there is a slight "pop" on switch off of the device) as does the fetzer / ruby apparently. Speaking of which... Also (and this is to anyone) what kind of JFET is being used on the fetzer/ruby circuit? In the lower right corner of the diagram there are a few options for Q1 ... J201, 2N5457, MPF102 So many questions...but all relevant to recent discussions, so.... also has anyone thought of making one for 7-string. No, not yet...but it should work fine. Lower, thicker strings are far easier to drive and I don't anticipate a problem with doing this at all really. You may have to adjust the output cap to tune the circuit a little lower...or you may get the neat octave effect I do on the lower strings, on more strings with the 100uF, not a bad thing either. The only problem is that the coil will be spread over a little more distance and may require a little more power...maybe. Member r00key who is still floating around somewhere, would be very interested if you were able to test the 7-string aspect of this project Another thought I'm having is trying a dual-coil design (2x4ohm coils wired in series) thin and flat like PSW's but made to fit over both coils on a humbucker. Any toughts/suggestions on this? Hmmmm...very topical lately...the dual core option. I discussed one problem that I see. I am an advocate of the thin core design (mine is 3mm) though it is still a theory. The Sustainiac appears (who really knows) to have very wide cores for instance. The real issue, I tried to raise with the diagram in my last post...below which I say... Like a wide core, two coils could try and push and pull the same mode of vibration and cancel eachother out...or incorrectly span a node. This is conjecture as no one has yet made a full sized dual coil humbucker for instance that would prove this point. By this I mean that a humbucker is very wide and is kind of the opposite to the thin core theory I think two bilateral coils (one over the lower strings, the other over the higher strings, one on each coil and RWRP to eachother but it is not known. The drive would be split to two 4 ohm coils and half the strings, so it's drive force may be diminished. Spazzy's rail idea is the size of a single coil and the blades very thin and close together, and the two coils can span all strings...so is a very different beasty...and a little more attractive a proposition. I hope my next generation version for the strat will be along these lines (if I ever get around to it. Dual coil designs are of interest but doubles the construction of the driver and I haven't really tried it out too much. My attraction to it is that the lower EMI could afford the possibility of relocating the driver to the centre position. Such a relocation could afford the expansion of sounds with the use of neck and bridge pickups and may even simplify implementation in some respects. The middle pickup could be added with the sustainer off if a pickup/driver combo were used. This is not possible with my current single coil driver and only a possibility. But, it is likely that there would also be some less desirable aspects. The siting of the driver away from the 24th fret (ish) area will effect the harmonics that the device drives at and Dizzy, who made a great mid driver with a far more sophisticated design (modeled after the Sustainiac Patent for the same) could not get the harmonic function (a great effect itself). It could be that even in normal mode, the note produced may not necessarily be the fundumental...quite a bit of testing is required for this, so don't get too excited by the prospects. (my hex designs had a radical six coil like design and did display significant EMI reduction...but then there were a lot of factors at work there). Primal did make a successful "humbucker" driver on his Les Paul...but it is really my thin driver made on one of the humbucker's bobbins...so a single coil design. It does not opperate as a pickup either, as it has now lost one of it's coils. Works well though I hear! I have some new thoughts...Circuit design I have yet to find a suitable "standard" difinitive circuit for this project. It is simply an amplifier with a non-loading preamp. There may be some refinements that are possible. Interesting ideas like the "Aussie Compressor" and wether the amount of preamp gain causing square-wave distortion/compression (like mine produces) is an advantage. So...if someone emerges who could assist in circuit development and circuitboard design.... Failing that, I recently came across a circuit/kit that looks ripe for modification (another Australian thingy...odd that comes up with all these things, as I am searching the world). It is about 2"x1" in size and has an onboard volume control as a trimmer that could be wired as the optional sensitivity control if that function is wanted. It would need some modification (mostly component substitution) but, as it is similar to my current circuit and the LM386 should be pretty easy to do. Now...I intend to get this at some time and work out if it is suitable, how to modify it and how much it would cost (probably built) if people wanted it. You would still need to make the driver and supply switches and do the guitar modifications, but it seems that the circuit construction seems to be a deterrent to building this. I might even be able to supply wire for this purpose, as some seem to be having trouble getting the right stuff. This will be some way off...partly because of my circumstances...but also because the circuit needs to be worked on and some kind of costing done on it. If it were built and tested as working, at least peeps would be assured of this part. How much would people feel this would be worth? So...hope that is of interest to reader's here. I have yet to find a fernandes or such to try out myself to compare with my guitar, but I can assure you that mine works fine and others have successfully made this based on variations of the thin driver principle...so at least this seems sound. Another long post...hope you all enjoy... pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axe_2_grind Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 An interesting era in the sustainer thread...100 pages, who would have thought! On one hand we have successful working DIY sustainers and a blueprint for future development that actually works in a practical way...and ont the other, a continued interest in development and pushing the boundries of the concept as a whole. This is very much the intention of the thread...Sustainer Ideas", keep them coming... pete Yes one could say that this thread seems to have infinite sustain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeiscosRock Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 I have a question about the sustainers - would there be any issues with trying to use active pickups? I would like to test the sustainer on my wiring guinea pig, but i would also, in the near future, be able to go from the stock pups to a single EMG in the bridge. Any foreseeable problems? Has this been tried? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted September 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 I have a question about the sustainers - would there be any issues with trying to use active pickups? I would like to test the sustainer on my wiring guinea pig, but i would also, in the near future, be able to go from the stock pups to a single EMG in the bridge. Any foreseeable problems? Has this been tried? No...in fact they would probably work better. A single bridge pickup is an easier install too! I don't think it has been tried but Tim/onelastgoodbye was doing some stuff with an EMG guitar. We discussed about the need for a preamp even on such pickups as, being active and low impedance, they wouldn't suffer the same loading effects as passives. You may still require it though for a bit of boost to the LM386, only a little experimenting will tell. It is not likely that you will want to drive it from the same battery however. The sustainer draws a lot of current and will flatten a battery pretty quick compared to a pickup. You don't want the guitar to go flat every couple of days of intensive use, so a dedicated battery is recomended for the sustainer. It is possible that you will have less problems with EMI too. You can make the driver pretty compact (3mm thick plus magnet) and it is possible to make a driver and fit the circuit into a neck humbuckers mounting hole I suspect. You'd still need to find room for the battery and switches of course. So...if you have a mind to, go for it...welcome aboard! pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeiscosRock Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Thanks! I've been pondering the building of my own sustainer for a while now, ever since i started reading this thread extensively. To be honest the only thing that's mocking me at this point is the Fetzer-ruby, as I have, despite having built several working effects pedal, had alot of trouble with building 386-based amps. I've attempted both a Ruby and a Little Gem, both have been failures, and I'm not entirely sure why. I suppose they could have been flukes, or whatever, but I don't think that all 5 of my 386 chips are bad . . . Perhaps it's my perfing skills. . . i may order a premade PCB if i get desperate. Anyway, on the subject of the EMGs - are you saying that with the lack of loading the active pups experience, I wouldn't ned the pre/power amp circuit at all? I will end up putting one in anyway (as I will complete the sustainer project before i have the cash to blow on an EMG, and need to run the sustainer off my current passive pups), but I think it would be interesting to experiment a little. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axe_2_grind Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Question on the fetzer/ruby circuit. there are 2 caps on there that have values in 'n' what does this mean? I'm not familiar with 'n' as any kind of abbreviation for capacitance. Are they just really low value capacitors? like say: 22n = 22pF ??? or something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samoht Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 check this out man.. http://www.electronicsteacher.com/capacitor-chart.php btw. i also built a working sustainer unit. using a old ibanez single coil pickup core.. thanks for the info!! next thing will be making one for my 2 string fretless bass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted September 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 samoht...welcome, so you made one...post some details for the others to benefit if you have the will. That is great to hear. I am sure there are a few that have been made behind the scenes for all the hundreds of visits this thread gets, often in a single day! Oh...and great information...I too get the values mixed up so that will help a lot... Are they just really low value capacitors? Yep, that's the general idea...they are also not electityic so they can go in either way like a resistor. The bigger ones you need to watch out for the +/-. To be honest the only thing that's mocking me at this point is the Fetzer-ruby, as I have, despite having built several working effects pedal, had alot of trouble with building 386-based amps. That's odd...I have never had a bad one or burnt one out...I have even soldered them in back to front and found the cuip itself fairly indestructable....hmmm I must say that I cheated and adapted kits, primarily because most of the parts are used anyway and saves me picking them out...and I get a circuit board. This is a hurdle that I would like to address in time as it seems to be what causes people the most anxiety and grief. Anyway, on the subject of the EMGs - are you saying that with the lack of loading the active pups experience, I wouldn't need the pre/power amp circuit at all? Quite possibly...the pickups themselves already have a preamp and are so pretty much set up to drive something like the LM386 directly. However, I don't know that it would produce enough power, and certainly not the gain my preamp puts out...but it may be similar to that of the fetzer part of the circuit. It certainly wont hurt to have another preamp in there and the fetzer/ruby certainly has worked for people. Actives present no problem, that's the main thing. Anyway, nothing I can do about it at the moment, but I am always on the look out for new circuits and especially circuit board equiped kits that will make the process easier. There are a lot of LM386 kits out there but none with a suitable preamp. There are some preamp kits that could be combined with them, but then the size starts to be a problem. Ironically, if someone were to make this type of circuit with SMD components, the whole thing would be smaller than one of the switches required...even with my current circuit...but to do this, then you'd have to be looking at volume production and would not really be feasible given the DIY nature of this project at it's present stage (I imagine the "sustainer" companies might have something to say about this via the patents office too!). Speaking of which, I really got into the patents early on in the thread in researching this stuff, but now I kind of resent the whole patent system. I believe that there is enough novelty and innovation in the ideas I have put forward (and you guys are refining) to justify a "commercial" product. But the market is small and the price of protection is so high with this system. I started to believe that by providing all the evidence of the development that I have done and encouraging others to follow and learn from my work and ideas...while I may not profit from them myself...at least it is being put to good use, and the ideas developed further. My hope is that by making public all this, there can not really be a dispute as to where ideas like the thin driver came from and will hopefully invalidate any attempt for others to patent it allowing anyone to make there own without fear. Interestingly, I have never heard from either of the two present makers of sustainer products, even calling it a "sustainer" breaks a trademark I believe. On the other hand, this thread regularly comes up high on the google search list and can only result in more awareness of the device, and more sales for those guys anyway. I have no idea what they would do if I were to make units based on my ideas and they popped up on ebay...what do you guys think? As it stands, anyone is free to make for themselves, prototypes based entirely on patents for research (not profit) purposes. The ideas presented here do approach it in a simpler and different design and are not explored in any patent (eg simple amplification, thin drivers, passive pickup/driver combos, etc)...anyway, just a few random thoughts on the subject Thanks for the interest, and keeping me interested... pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axe_2_grind Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 check this out man.. http://www.electronicsteacher.com/capacitor-chart.php Cool thanks, that cleared it up alot!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeiscosRock Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Hm . . I may try out the EMG directly into a power amp circuit. . . Anyway, another question: Might I possibly adapt an already constructed amp (say a small battery powered amplifier like the Fender Minis or Marshal MS2s) for the purposes of building a sustainer? Would these have built-in preamps? What controls would I need to remove? And one more for now: Is the fetzer-ruby combo as such that I could buy the premade PCB for the Ruby, and just connect it to a perfed Fetzer Valve circuit? How would I connect the two? This seems like it would do me better, as I seem to have no problem making analog effects (like the Fetzer), but i catch hell with perfing amps! Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Question on the fetzer/ruby circuit. there are 2 caps on there that have values in 'n' what does this mean? I'm not familiar with 'n' as any kind of abbreviation for capacitance. Are they just really low value capacitors? like say: 22n = 22pF ??? or something like that? 22n means 22 nanofarads. Therefore, a 22nF capacitor is equal to a 220pF capacitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted September 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Might I possibly adapt an already constructed amp (say a small battery powered amplifier like the Fender Minis or Marshal MS2s) for the purposes of building a sustainer? Would these have built-in preamps? What controls would I need to remove? Well...I don't know what is in them but I suspect that they are LM386 based (most things are). We are moving towards some new standards in class D amps that are becoming more common because of mobile phones and iPods, etc...but generally they are SMD and too tiny to work with, and difficult to get. So...yes, I imagine so, but they would take up a bit of space and be a bit of trouble to modify...not to mention expensive. Personally I think making the circuit would be easier... If you already have one, you could use it to experiment by hooking up the driver instead of the speaker and running the guitar to both this little amp, and the guitar amp, and seeing how it works. Now...for those not familiar with them ... the fetzer and ruby circuits were developed by www.runoffgroove.com. Galaga Mike in his tutorial based on this thread used the two in combination to get a very basic LM386 circuit and higher preamp gain. The perf board layouts are available and some circuits (like the ruby) have boards drawn up, but I don't see where you can buy them?! With an active EMG you may well be able to get the thing going with a simple Ruby circuit as is. They have great photos there for the perf layout and it should be easy enough. These circuits are analog and very simple. It is usually the transistor (not the IC) that cause trouble...very easy to get the legs wrong for different models and blow the thing (worth getting a few before you start, just in case). But...you don't presently have an EMG in the guitar, right? This all brings me back to the frustration of the circuit in general. Perhaps next year, if my move is successful, I will be able to do a little work on this. Potentially, I could make my circuit and supply it for hook up, but I don't have a costing on it. There is the problem of the "pop" on switch off, that may relate to the filtering caps in my design, or the device itself. How much of my design is overkill, I don't know as I have never tried the Ruby or similar circuits. I did, in early experiments though, use ansil's sustainer mod circuit which is essentially the chip and one cap...but this is not recommended for actual use and there is no preamp stage. One problem is that everyone will want something a little different from this. Fernandes simply puts the switches on the board and expect you to cut a huge hole in the back of the guitar and mount the switches where they fall through the top. Here is a virtual model made by a reader (sorry I forgot who) of the fetzer/ruby with onboard switching, etc... this was very well designed...but it is virtual, and never actually made...could be expensive as a one off! I also see some problems with the on/off/bypass switch...I needed a 4pdt while this uses 3pdt...hmmm What I had been considering was a circuit with offboard switching of your choice and wiring and an optional connection for the sensitivity control, maybe some trimmers for tweaking. The problem with boards are that you would have to make a few to make it worthwhile. Even if I were to make them, it would mean a trip down to the shop to get all the stuff, postage, etc...and I don't know that if that process would become too expensive to make the deal worth the effort. Perhaps, if I get back into the practical side of this, I will make some circuits and swap them in and out of my working guitar to see how simple a circuit can be (I really should build the f/r for instance to compare the two). While reading stuff about stompboxes at runoffgroove, etc you have to realize that these circuits (like the fetzer) are designed for tone. My circuit was designed for fidelity (before my mods) and audio (filtering out everything above and below that) while this project is not about either of these things...it is really about supplying an AC current to a driving coil to excite the strings...you don't really "hear" the circuit at all. What is important is stability (so that it doesn't go into oscillation) and excessive noise (that could produce unwanted EMI and signal interferance) that could effect the drive. Along those lines, my circuit is superior (I think) but as long as it does the job, it is doing what you ask of it, and that is the main thing. So...check out www.runoffgroove.com again and reconsider the perfboard option, looks pretty simple to me Otherwise...search for LM386 kits and see what you can come up with.(you will still need a preamp though). I found an interesting one in Canada a while back...but they wont sell to Australia...go figure. Meanwhile, there have been a few that I have found down here. The modifications are pretty simple for most of these things...increased gain (pins 1&8 of the IC), lower output cap (substitute 100uF or similar) and more gain in the preamp. I have always liked the idea of an IC opamp based preamp as you could get amazing gain and no trimmers, biasing or anything. Like you Mr T.R. I didn't have too much luck perfing these out...probably because I was designing them by trial and error. Discrete components like the fetzer are often used for their superior tone...but like I say, this is not necessarily of primary importance here! pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeiscosRock Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 The perf board layouts are available and some circuits (like the ruby) have boards drawn up, but I don't see where you can buy them?! You can purchase a premade PCB for the Ruby from www.GeneralGuitarGadgets.com Using this would simplifiy the matter of building the power amp (again, it's probably just me being overly unlucky about building the amps), but they don't offer a board for the Fetzer-Ruby. I would need to modify it. Could I just tack on the fetzer ruby circuit somehow? (i would perf it out). Question on the fetzer/ruby circuit. there are 2 caps on there that have values in 'n' what does this mean? I'm not familiar with 'n' as any kind of abbreviation for capacitance. Are they just really low value capacitors? like say: 22n = 22pF ??? or something like that? 22n means 22 nanofarads. Therefore, a 22nF capacitor is equal to a 220pF capacitor. Or if your ordering your parts from someone like SmallBear, you'd need the micro-farad (mF) value, which would be .022mF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axe_2_grind Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 Or if your ordering your parts from someone like SmallBear, you'd need the micro-farad (mF) value, which would be .022mF Yeah someone directed me to a website where they had the conversion chart because I needed to convert it to micro-farads. I don't know anyone in the U.S. that sells caps in 'nano' values. It's usually either 'micro' or 'pico'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeiscosRock Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 argh, another question from me. Im starting to annoy MYSELF with these! I remember reading in one of the threads that only one of the controls from the fetzer ruby were necesary, or something to that effect - which one is it, and what do i do with the other control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 Or if your ordering your parts from someone like SmallBear, you'd need the micro-farad (mF) value, which would be .022mF Yeah someone directed me to a website where they had the conversion chart because I needed to convert it to micro-farads. I don't know anyone in the U.S. that sells caps in 'nano' values. It's usually either 'micro' or 'pico'. It should be noted that mF caps are designated using the Greek letter Mu (µ). So, a 100mF cap will actually be labeled as 100µF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeiscosRock Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 Or if your ordering your parts from someone like SmallBear, you'd need the micro-farad (mF) value, which would be .022mF Yeah someone directed me to a website where they had the conversion chart because I needed to convert it to micro-farads. I don't know anyone in the U.S. that sells caps in 'nano' values. It's usually either 'micro' or 'pico'. It should be noted that mF caps are designated using the Greek letter Mu (µ). So, a 100mF cap will actually be labeled as 100µF. Yes that's a good point. I hadn't remembered to mention that because I was surfing SmallBear at the time, and they use "mF" as opposed to "µF". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted September 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 This is almost like a chat room lately... argh, another question from me. Im starting to annoy MYSELF with these! I remember reading in one of the threads that only one of the controls from the fetzer ruby were necesary, or something to that effect - which one is it, and what do i do with the other control? My guitar has a "sensitivity control"...basically a gain/volume control on the guitar to adjust the amount of drive. I always use it full on and adjust sensitivity via pick strength and technique (damping, etc). Primal seems to have a use for it though. This is the volume control between the fetzer and the ruby (the preamp and the amp). You can also use a 1k trimmer to adjust the "gain" of the LM386 by placing it between pins 1&8 to adjust gain between 20x and 200x. Again, I have no resistor (connected via a 10uf cap) and so maximum gain. The bias trimmer is there to set conditions for the transistor and is not to be adjusted once the correct voltage has been set. Both the above gain controls could be installed as internal trimmers (so as to tweak to your guitar) or even left off. Personally, I would leave off the sensitivity control on the outside of the guitar and just use an internal trimmer volume between the preamp/preamp to adjust for the guitar. Generally you would want maximum volume before EMI sets in...on my guitar full power is available without EMI, but then I use low powered singlecoils in a strat with a fair bit of separation between the driver and the bridge pickup. You can purchase a premade PCB for the Ruby from www.GeneralGuitarGadgets.com Ok...perhaps I will need to look into this a little further. Perhaps the ruby would work (though it has no gain in the preamp). I have a tendancy to stick on a few bells and whistles and this circuit is as simple as could be. Only the essentials for running the LM386 are included. My research shows a desirability for other caps, all of which I have included for stability (to avoid oscillation, such as the 10uF cap between 1&8 and the Zobel network on the output), filtering out ultra high frequencies and the like. Whether it needs them is open for experimentation. The importance of the preamp (over the ruby's buffer) if you say have a high powered bridge humbucker is up for experimentation too. I must check out the cost too, maybe I could compete with my circuit...how much would people be willing to pay anyway? (not that I could do anything right now...but perhaps in the future)... pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeiscosRock Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 (edited) Sweetness. . . I'll just set the thing to max gain all the time, but I think I might add an external control (the one between the fetzer and ruby) simply because I like bells n' whistles. That, and I want an excuse to change the wiring of my strat to master volume and tone Edited September 8, 2006 by TeiscosRock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 I would encourage you not to just decide to set the gain control to maximum. Its something you need to experiment with. Each guitar is different, so you may find out that yours needs a different gain setting. When I built my sustainer, I actually had problems with the LM386 chip overdriving with the gain set to max and thus squealed like no one's business (maybe my transistor amplified the signal more than your's, PSW?). Having a gain control on the PCB will allow you to set the max gain for clean operation (runoffgrooves even mentions how to do this) and max volume. Quite honestly, the volume knob will give you all the adjustment you would ever need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted September 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 Each guitar is different, so you may find out that yours needs a different gain setting. When I built my sustainer, I actually had problems with the LM386 chip overdriving with the gain set to max and thus squealed like no one's business (maybe my transistor amplified the signal more than your's, PSW?). Yes...every guitar is different...and some experimentation is needed. For instance my strat has low powered pickups with a lot of spacing because of their smaller width. A humbucker has quite a bit less. The humbucker has more power too. And then there is the driver construction, even though Primal's is modeled on the thin driver principle, the magnetic field is different. I have a large ceramic magnet on the bottom of a blade while the adapted humbucker has a different field and individual poles...all effect the EMI effects I'm sure. Yet, both work...it's all a matter of experimentation. I don't think it is a question of more gain is good...the total gain/current swing is limited by the power supply (mine being a low 9volt battery) after all...but a higher gain in the preamp will provide some overdrive and compression that may help things (maybe). You want it set up so that it wont "squeal" on the highest setting yet still sustain on lower settings. For this the trim between pins 1&8 is probably worth while. Don't put a control before the preamp, or you will be turning down the whole guitar! This is why you want the signal to go straight from the bridge pickup before the controls also. You want the sustain to work, even if the guitar's volume is off for volume swells and general instrument control. So...good point primal...every guitar is different...as has been every sustainer made so far it seems! pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
col Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 22n means 22 nanofarads. Therefore, a 22nF capacitor is equal to a 220pF capacitor. noooooooooooo 22nF = 22000pF mili -> micro -> nano -> pico... each one is 1000 times smaller than the last btw, hi all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 22n means 22 nanofarads. Therefore, a 22nF capacitor is equal to a 220pF capacitor. noooooooooooo 22nF = 22000pF mili -> micro -> nano -> pico... each one is 1000 times smaller than the last btw, hi all Ah, correct you are, sir! I know exactly what I did, too. I counted 3 decimal places as if it were .22nF, instead of 22nF. Oh well, I don't use the metric system enough to have really memorized it well, haha. And welcome to the thread/forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted September 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 btw, hi all Notice I didn't weigh in on this one...just too confusing!!!! Welcome Col, stay tuned we may need more of such help! pete Here is an example of a simple IC based preamp, enormous amounts of gain would be possible with such a circuit...for some reason, like TeiscosRock, I always seemed to have problems getting these things to work, go figure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeiscosRock Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 ..for some reason, like TeiscosRock, I always seemed to have problems getting these things to work, go figure... It's a conspiracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts