A Word on
Buffering Guaranteeing good neighbour relations last update: Feb 27, 2012 Copyright 2010-25 by
H. Gragger. All Rights Reserved. All information
provided herein is destined for educational and
D.I.Y. purposes only. Commercial re-sale,
distribution or usage of artwork without explicit
written permission of the author is strictly
prohibited.The original units with their
associated trade-names are subject to the
copyright of the individual copyright owner. The
Author is by no means affiliated with any of those
companies. References to trade names are made for
educational purposes only.By reading the
information provided here you agree to the Terms
of
Use. The working language
is kept in English as an aid. Read here why.
|
||
MAIN PAGE>MUSIC STUFF>BUFFERS Index ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
With the couple
of stompbox clones I recently made I saw myself
frequently confronted with pretty bad designs from
a perspective of proper input/output impedance,
despite the simplicity to do it right.
It is not that the solution to this is unknown; it is thus fully justified that the kind reader asks: "Why does not every manufacturer do it right form a start?" This has several reasons which we will shed light upon in the following: Back To Index Early Pedals Had Technological Compromises Built Into Them Pedals were
coming into scope as soon as the first germanium
transistors appeared at reasonable prices.
Unfortunately little was known back then about the
processes involved in mass-production of
transistors compared to todayīs standards, so
transistors were spare, leaky, low gain, sensitive
and expensive.
Exotic schematics were devised to wring as much boost as possible out of as few devices as possible. Like in tube circuits, this lead (amongst other factors) to compromises in input impedance and/or output impedance. While those circuit topologies certainly contribute to a deviceīs signature sound, those lead to generic problems like treble loss, muffled sound, funny humps in control sweep and all sorts of incompatibility issues with other devices. Today, a semiconductor device costs nothing, so fixing this problem by putting a sonically transparent stage in front or after is no problem. Unfortunately, those designs never get revisited, they stay the same over the decades and keep their unique set of problems. Back To Index Analog Stomp Boxes Are Handmade I recently
bought a digital multi-effects device with
incredible functional power compared to what a
single effects device can do. Funnily both devices
may end up with the same price. How come?
The first one has one mass-produced PCB inside that has no more than a handful of VLSI chips on it that are being placed by automated processes. Despite the fact that they are built like a tank they come out extremely cheap compared to an analog pedal that can only do a diminishing fraction of the things. Analog pedals are a niche product usually made by small freak companies with an artist touch, not seldom by musicians with a green thumb. Components are often hand selected, hand wired and require fine-tuning. The designs are often rip-offs or close copies of existing designs. So the price goes up for every additional few components and again, the designs keep their problems. Back To Index Old Habits Are Hard To Change Of course them
pedals all work more
or less and people have gotten used to
the ball and chain on their legs. In fact some
even demand that the pedal stays the way it is,
although proper buffering only adds to the pedalīs
versatility.
Back To IndexA few examples:
Ignorance / Lacking Technical Knowledge And, last but
not least, some people just donīt know it better
or donīt care. It probably also depends on the
music type played, because some gear arrangements
just swamp everything coming into them.
Back To IndexDesign Objectives A
buffer wrapper to a stompbox device should
create ideal impedance relationships with the
successor and predecessor, while maintaining the
deviceīs virtues. In other words, it should help
the device to unleash itīs full potential
without any burden, while all the other devices
are kept happy too. Sometimes this involves some
additional simple circuitry (such as load or
drive resistors).This approach should
create constant conditions for the device to
operate reliably and repeatably in virtually all
environments and generally will mean not only a
vast improvement in tone, but also versatility.
When Is A Buffer Indicated? I do not
advocate general buffering. In fact half of the
stompbox renderings I have done get along without
extra buffer. Why?
Either because they are inherently well designed (such as the Great Cheddar) or they do not create apparent problems in my rig. But when you encounter problems such as:
you should
take a buffer into consideration. While you are
at it, look if the stompbox you have problems
with does proper bypass-switching, because this
may be another can of worms.
Can Buffering Cause Problems Or Make Things Worse? Theoretically a
buffer is transparent, meaning it has unity gain
and does not contribute any tonal coloration or
distortion. Now everything
you connect to a guitar changes tone in some way,
it is just a question whether this subjectively
improves something or not. As quantum theory has
it: "even looking at a system changes the way it
behaves..."
A j-fet buffer (my favorite), if biased correctly, has very little current draw, high input impedance, sufficiently good drive. It is also very low distortion (and if, second order), low noise, very fast, and very low cost. A BJT might be lower on the output impedance, but this is usually overkill and higher current draw. An op-amp also works perfect, but might take higher supply currents and might have speed issues. Also, op-amps are known for their coloration (have a look at all the tube screamer discussions...) although they should be transparent. This is an alley that has not been explored enough yet... And yes, MOSFETs work too... Look at Ray Marsdenīs 4 part series of "Fet Principles And Circuits". I agree that, like with all things, excessive buffering may be counter-productive, but creating correct impedance relations on the in- and outputs is not exaggerated. If somebody explicitly wants some of the effects that parasitic capacitance or wrong termination cause, one can always implement this as a switchable option. Remote Powering, a.k.a. "Phantom Powering" Initially I
used a buffer box next to my Stratocaster. The box
is attached to the guitar strap with an old mobile
phone bag. This is unobtrusive with an electric
guitar.
Later I wanted to use the buffer box with my lapsteel, because this suffers (like any guitar with a volume pot and a long cable) from tone-sucking when the volume gets turned down. Unfortunately the box is not that elegant dangling down the side of the lapsteel. I again looked into some remote powering schemes, a.k.a. phantom powering, although the latter already nails you to a quasi hardware standard. Don Tillman suggests a preamp cable that is remote powered (with the supply in a different enclosure...). While this is a crafty design, it suffers from a few substantial drawbacks:
A perfect remote powered buffering circuit would need to fulfill the following criteria:
Jensen produce a line of audio transformers for musical instruments use. Amongst their schematics they have AS-004 that describes the remote powering scheme for a buffer . This could be adapted to fulfill all of our criteria - except #3, #5 and #6. Note that this schematic would work for a +48 Volt remote power, but not if the remote supply were only 9V. The battery has to be close-by. Upshot: Remote powering is good, is desirable, but not all criteria for a good transparent buffer can be fulfilled without substantial sonic sacrifice. My lapsteel will have to live on with the dongle that cannot be remote powered... Sound Samples Some sound files that
demonstrate the merits of a buffer in front of a
heavily loading effects device and the merits of
true bypassing thereof. As effects device my
breadboarded (yet unbuffered) FTM clone was used.
The subsequent recordings have been done using the following setup:
(Names may be
copyrighted by the associated copyright
holder)
Note that on my breadboard a simple output-side effect switching (as it was customary in the early days) is implemented. This does no muting of the effect input as contemporary 3-pole switches do and the effect permanently loads the guitar, even in bypass mode. On the demos the FTM is always off, any crackling distortion you hear is due to heavy loading and bleed-through effects from the non-muted input. I have done recordings with the guitarīs volume up fully and about 1/4 reduced (always the same position), to demonstrate the effects of different volume drops due to loading effects. Sometimes the volume of the recorded track gets very low. This has not been equalized to demonstrate how much influence the load has. Please also note how much the tracks differ tonally. The direct to board recordings go straight into the RP-500, but have a long cable in between. Not too bad a loss, but audible. The buffer is attached directly to the guitar (strap). Update History
MAIN PAGE>MUSIC STUFF>BUFFERS |
||
MAIN PAGE | MUSIC STUFF | IMPRESSUM ![]() (c) 2010-25 AQUATAUR Musik & Elektronik |