need a dual channel submarine - builders?

Mr. Pickles · #1 09-18-2011, 06:28 PM

typing with 1 hand due to injury, so no caps for you! anyway, i have a schematic for an early version of the music electronix submarine (who are out of business). i love what it does for all manner of instruments and i think it would be amazing strapped to a mix bus. what i'd love to have built is a stereo/dual mono submarine that accepts bal/unbal signals from keys, mixers, bass, and whatnot and has balanced outputs. i'd like it also to be useable as a di box or even to drive a power amp, but it's main purpose would be to add some magic to a mix.

i've e-mailed max at sfx. can you think of anyone else who could handle this project? suggestions and advice are appreciated

oh, i've just scored an original sub on tgp and i'd be willing to send it out for additional reverse engineering.

neuman · #2 09-18-2011, 07:01 PM

Try Dan over at this1smyne

T1M EFFECTS

Mr. Pickles · #3 09-19-2011, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neuman

Try Dan over at this1smyne

T1M EFFECTS

i was thinking of him as well - good call

cybersnyder · #4 09-19-2011, 07:44 AM

The original Sub was a tone monster. Huge, huge, fat sound.

Oh, and a Submarine with a DI would be awesome!

Dazonbass · #5 09-20-2011, 05:57 AM

This is actually what I am working on at the moment. I trying to figure out the best use of parts to make a dual channel following a comment made by Cybersnyder.

I feel a little discomfort in making one though since I would rather have ordered it. However, I take some comfort in trying to improve it; 2 channels, is a start but I am pretty sure I will not improve on the tone. Need to experiment more with fingers crossed.

On a side note, if we have the same schematic as I, then getting 3nF and 2nF is not an easy task. I am using parrallel 1nF caps, since using 3.3nF and 2.2nF caps (standard values) shifts the crossover point down 35Hz, from ~420Hz to ~385Hz.

Best of luck

cybersnyder · #6 09-20-2011, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dazonbass

This is actually what I am working on at the moment. I trying to figure out the best use of parts to make a dual channel following a comment made by Cybersnyder.

I feel a little discomfort in making one though since I would rather have ordered it. However, I take some comfort in trying to improve it; 2 channels, is a start but I am pretty sure I will not improve on the tone. Need to experiment more with fingers crossed.

On a side note, if we have the same schematic as I, then getting 3nF and 2nF is not an easy task. I am using parrallel 1nF caps, since using 3.3nF and 2.2nF caps (standard values) shifts the crossover point down 35Hz, from ~420Hz to ~385Hz.

Best of luck

Don't feel too badly. I ordered one six months ago and after several promises I'm still waiting for the pedal. So consider your design to be using the licenese on the pedal that I'll never see.

CElton · #7 09-20-2011, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cybersnyder

The original Sub was a tone monster. Huge, huge, fat sound.

Oh, and a Submarine with a DI would be awesome!

+1000. One of the few pedals I regret selling. A Sub w/DI would be all I ever need.

Skrogh · #8 09-20-2011, 02:37 PM

Anyone mind sharing that schematic

bongomania · #9 09-20-2011, 02:43 PM

I've forgotten, have any of you directly A/B'ed the Sub with the [sfx] B^3? They have similar design goals, and certainly Max at [sfx] could make a dual-channel unit with DI, EQ, etc.

Mr. Pickles · #10 09-20-2011, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bongomania

I've forgotten, have any of you directly A/B'ed the Sub with the [sfx] B^3? They have similar design goals, and certainly Max at [sfx] could make a dual-channel unit with DI, EQ, etc.

I read one review (don't remember where...) comparing the B3 to the Sub and it wasn't favorable, but I haven't done a direct comparison myself.

The few builders I've spoken to aren't wholly comofortable putting someone else's circuit into a build, and understandably so.

The concept itself is simple enough- adding some 2nd order harmonics and distortion to a signal. It's seems pretty low tech, but Os's design did it so damn well. I just have a sense that it would kill strapped on my mix bus or drum submix and therefore make for an excellent studio tool.

cybersnyder · #11 09-20-2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

I read one review (don't remember where...) comparing the B3 to the Sub and it wasn't favorable, but I haven't done a direct comparison myself.

The few builders I've spoken to aren't wholly comofortable putting someone else's circuit into a build, and understandably so.

The concept itself is simple enough- adding some 2nd order harmonics and distortion to a signal. It's seems pretty low tech, but Os's design did it so damn well. I just have a sense that it would kill strapped on my mix bus or drum submix and therefore make for an excellent studio tool.

That was probably my review. The B^3 is close, but I felt that the Submarine had a bit more of the magic. In non-technical terms, it was like a tube amp that was biased hotter versus a tube amp meant for a bit cleaner tone. Then again, the original Submarine has 10x the mojo factor of the MkII Submarine but there are only a handful of those out there. Back to the hotter bias, maybe there's something to that because I got some hiss out of the Submarine, all versions and the B^3 was pretty quiet.

Max would definitely be able to make a dual B^3 with a DI and I'm sure it would be a great pedal. What would be kinda extra cool is if one channel was stock B^3 and one had something akin to the UltraBass switch on the latest Submarine MkIII (or is it MkIV?). Use the stock channel for slap and the UltraBass channel for finger style playing.