• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

DIY blend question

F

flakeh

Inactive
Apr 21, 2007
2,492
4
Ontario, Canada
#1
First off, Yes, I have searched, but have not found the answer I need.

Ok, heres what I need/want

I wanted to bi-amp (ala tim C) but that is just to expensive and unpractical for me, So I want to have a 2 input, 1 output blender. on my board I have an EQ with 2 outs, this is the first thing in my chain as I use it for a boost. output 1 of this goes into my effects, while output 2 is unused. basically, I want a box with 2 inputs, a single output, with some kind of blend control to blend signal 1 with signal 2, and then go to my amp.


So, Can anyone send me or post a schematic for a simple, easy to use blend pedal?

BTW, this will be my second DIY electronic thing, So the simpler the better.
 
#4
Do you want to be able to control the signal from both inputs? Or just have it so that the split signal is just gelled together, with no measure of control. Basically if thats what you want to do, just build a reverse Y box.

EDIT: Yer the 2 links that Bongomania provided should do the trick.
 
#6
bongomania said:
Errr... they will do that. Just think of "return" as "input #2".
Click to expand...

...those blenders all have an input, an output, a send and a return, I need 2 inputs blended into 1 output.

Tomass - , basically a reverse Y box with a control on how much signal A is blended with signal B

Pretty much , I want Link Removed that, but with a blend control instead of a stompswitch

oh piss, It seems I have confused the hell out of myself. the B blender is practically it. Is there any simpler schematics out there? I am horribly lost in all the talk of opamps and junk.
 
#13
I don't like this passive idea. Depending on how your EQ is wired, you might have feedback problems and/or impedance problems.

I would do the B. Blender (I actually have the parts for 3 B. Blenders in transit to me) but omit the top left opamp and its 470K resistor and the send jack. Then think of the input as Input 1, and the Return as Input 2. Voila.

I know I'm sort of repeating what's been said, but I just want to throw my 2 cents in since I just had this same problem.
 
#14
speak_onion said:
I don't like this passive idea. Depending on how your EQ is wired, you might have feedback problems and/or impedance problems.

I would do the B. Blender (I actually have the parts for 3 B. Blenders in transit to me) but omit the top left opamp and its 470K resistor and the send jack. Then think of the input as Input 1, and the Return as Input 2. Voila.

I know I'm sort of repeating what's been said, but I just want to throw my 2 cents in since I just had this same problem.
Click to expand...

I would do that. But I am a major noob in the DIY electronics area. I've made a aby box, and a feedback loop box. Thats it. Opamps and that stuff confused me like made. If a simpler schemetic is available (not likely) then I could possibly do it.
 
#18
bongomania said:
Passive blending sucks the big one and is not a good idea. I strongly recommend you build the active blender (with opamps and all that) or buy a small mixer.
Click to expand...


That is a great explanation Bongo.

I might build the minimal version of the bblender, It needs one opamp or a FET transistor instead of opamp, And it seems not too too hard. If it fails then I'll get a cheapy mixer.
 
#19
Well, I don't know if it was any explanation ;) but it's my opinion anyway. An explanation would be that the two signals fed into a passive blender would be loaded down (their output impedance would no longer be optimal for the input impedance of the next device in line), probably resulting in a loss of highs and possibly also resulting in weaker signal levels or phase interference (from cancellation to doubling).
 
#20
bongomania said:
Well, I don't know if it was any explanation ;) but it's my opinion anyway. An explanation would be that the two signals fed into a passive blender would be loaded down (their output impedance would no longer be optimal for the input impedance of the next device in line), probably resulting in a loss of highs and possibly also resulting in weaker signal levels or phase interference (from cancellation to doubling).
Click to expand...

HERE'S an explanation :)

There's also the possibility of electronic feedback with passive blenders, no?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back