Should I use this with built in dlator?

[Tonegeek]

My Twin conversion will have a built in dlator. I looked at the network (see attached image) that #124 uses and can see why it might help preserve high end for an external loop where you have 4 cables, (to/from the dlator, to/from the effect), but not sure if I need it with the built in loop. Anyone else think this is worthwhile to include?

[dogears]

Scrap that network.

Also, it is out of circuit when the loop is being used!

[Structo]

Yeah, I had it in my amp for a while. I took it out.

[Tonegeek]

Scrap that network.

Also, it is out of circuit when the loop is being used!

I won't bother with it then.

Does that mean Odourboy's #124 scematic is wrong? That's where I lifted this from. Maybe I have an old version.
thanks

[Structo]

No #124 has it.
I just didn't feel the need for it.
I think it was to compensate for cable runs or something.
If you use quality low cap cables you don't need it.

[talbany]

this network has several functions

1 Helps with signal transfer
2 helps with the loading on the PI
3 shapes tone (low frequency response)
4 can have a smoothing effect

This is not to say that you will like it better without it but this is what it does in theory..You asked

Tony

[Structo]

Do you like it Tony?

[sergio]

Hi , maybe my questions is stupid , in the schematic #094 , the 220K/500Pf network before V1B is omitted the cap , this network has same function of the S/R loop ? why the cap is omitted there?
thanks

[dogears]

I believe that network is only in circuit when nothing is plugged into the jacks. So, it does nothing to restore highs when using cables. Not in the circuit.

It shapes the tone when nothing is plugged into the loop. Just a form of primitive EQ.

No #124 has it.
I just didn't feel the need for it.
I think it was to compensate for cable runs or something.
If you use quality low cap cables you don't need it.

[Tonegeek]

Scrap that network.

Also, it is out of circuit when the loop is being used!

Not to beat a dead horse, but don't you mean the opposite, that it is out of circuit when the loop is NOT being used? I have 2 schematics of #124 showing this. That's what I meant when I questioned that the schematic may be wrong, although to me it make sense that you would try to compensate for some high end loss when using the loop.

[Sonny ReVerb]

You're correct. By that schematic, when the loop is not being used (nothing plugged in) the circuit in question is bypassed.

However, Tony's layout shows the opposite as Dogears stated:

[img:307:223]http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/753/loopnetwork.jpg[/img]

[dogears]

As per Gil,

Now that's a good question, Teo. As it were, if you look carefully you will see that the little network you decribe is wired to the switching lug in the return loop jack. So, once you plug something into that jack, the network is disconnected. We tried it by bypassing the loop with a short patch cord and, as expected, found that it enhances the brightness ever so slightly. (note that the wording here is a little confusing, Gil meant that it was brighter without the cable, after comparing to the bypassed network with the patch cable)

Gil

So, indeed Tony and I are correct. It is only operational when nothing is plugged in. Furthermore, it operates as a minor highpass and would not be terribly effective at compensating for cabl eloss, even if it could be implemented in series when using the loop. Master bright cap is far more effective at that.

Scrap that network.

Also, it is out of circuit when the loop is being used!

Not to beat a dead horse, but don't you mean the opposite, that it is out of circuit when the loop is NOT being used? I have 2 schematics of #124 showing this. That's what I meant when I questioned that the schematic may be wrong, although to me it make sense that you would try to compensate for some high end loss when using the loop.

[Max]

Hi , maybe my questions is stupid , in the schematic #094 , the 220K/500Pf network before V1B is omitted the cap , this network has same function of the S/R loop ? why the cap is omitted there?
thanks

Interesting question. Does someone know the answer?

Here's the picture and the schematic of #094:

http://ampgarage.com/forum/download/file.php?id=5062

http://ampgarage.com/forum/files/094_sc ... 12_132.pdf

Cheers,

Max

[talbany]

You're correct. By that schematic, when the loop is not being used (nothing plugged in) the circuit in question is bypassed.

However, Tony's layout shows the opposite as Dogears stated:

[img:307:223]http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/753/loopnetwork.jpg[/img]

Sonny you need the updated version..

Revised.... Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:43 pm

[Sonny ReVerb]

I did have that one, Tony. Sorry, I just picked one out of the folder. I didn't know that particular area had been revised. It's hard to keep track. Love the layouts, though, excellent work.

[img:243:176]http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/1116 ... twork2.jpg[/img]

This one looks a little cleaner, without the whoop-de-doo.

[img:237:193]http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/1674/loopnetwork3.jpg[/img]

So the revised edition agrees with odourboy's schematic. The network is bypassed with the loop not in use (nothing plugged in).