Recent posts

#31

Open Discussion / Re: The secret M117 flanger

Last post by lars - June 06, 2026, 09:59:24 PM

Plus, if you're really missing said high content, you can make R22 & R25 6k2 on the madbean collosalus and it should more than compensate for the difference.

Thanks for the suggestion! I'll have to try that out on my Collosalus (2022 version) build. I'm still not quite happy with the performance with it. I've noticed that Q2-Q5 have a huge effect on the sound, so I've been swapping several different transistors types in those positions. Right now it sounds pretty good, and has the most eclectic combo of transistors in those positions.

#32

Open Discussion / Re: The secret M117 flanger

Last post by Scruffie - June 05, 2026, 03:23:05 PM

Yeah, I'd only really trace it just for completion, as you say, no MN3004 and I don't think there's anything majorly exciting hidden in there, just an interesting little piece of MXR history.
If you're up to de-soldering the pots I'll have a look over though when I get a chance, not impossible they've tweaked here and there.

The MN3004's have a minute amount of extra high frequency content over the MN3007 but then you're just trading benefit in one area for some negatives in another... at the time Panasonic had only stopped producing BBD's a few years earlier so the choice of chip may have just been what was practical to source.

Plus, if you're really missing said high content, you can make R22 & R25 6k2 on the madbean collosalus and it should more than compensate for the difference.

#33

Build Reports / Re: Polyphemus [One Knob Overd...

Last post by Aleph Null - June 04, 2026, 10:25:14 PM

Thanks! It's definitely easier to control the gain with my foot.

#34

Open Discussion / Re: The secret M117 flanger

Last post by museums - June 04, 2026, 07:57:29 PM

Yeah, the forum does appear to be having some issues, there's a note on the homepage up at the top right.

Yeah, it's been doing that a while now. Occasionally I get someone else's account on the main page...

Think the mystery is solved, still, might be interesting to trace and see if there was any other alterations to the circuit... I do notice an extra diode in the astable section area.

This is seriously cool. LMK if you need a donor. Not that there are any 3004s to build anew 

The thing is you wouldn't need MN3004s because this version is clocked low enough that you could use MN3007s and clock it at normal freqs and get the same results.

#35

Open Discussion / Re: The secret M117 flanger

Last post by jessenator - June 04, 2026, 07:23:50 PM

Yeah, the forum does appear to be having some issues, there's a note on the homepage up at the top right.

Yeah, it's been doing that a while now. Occasionally I get someone else's account on the main page...

Think the mystery is solved, still, might be interesting to trace and see if there was any other alterations to the circuit... I do notice an extra diode in the astable section area.

This is seriously cool. LMK if you need a donor. Not that there are any 3004s to build anew 

#36

Open Discussion / Re: The secret M117 flanger

Last post by Scruffie - June 04, 2026, 06:07:37 PM

There are two 4013s in the pedal, each with two flip flops. One of the 4013s dedicates one flip flop to each of the MN3004s to make the biphase clock pulses so each MN3004 has its own driver. Im honestly not sure this is even necessary considering the clock freqs (13KHz to 500KHz), which are roughly halved compared to an SAD1024 unit or generally any Panasonic BBD equipped flanger pedal. The other 4013 is the oscillator. Of the 4 flip flops available, I believe 3 are used.

I was reading the old schem wrong about the BBDs being in parallel. The input pins of the two MN3004s are connected in my unit and the clock phases are matched which IIRC is the differential operation shown in the SAD1024 datasheet. Maybe the folks at MXR looked at the performance of the Panasonic BBDs and traded super short delay times for better performance with differential configuration? The sound of the pedal is spectacular. Better than an SAD1024 MXR IMO.

The only DIY project I have seen that offered these alternate BBD configurations is the BYOC flanger, but Im pretty sure they were running parallel multiplex and calling it differential.

Side note - The lag here is like an hour or two for posts to appear. Never experienced that on another simple machines forum.

Thanks for that, so it's just using one half of each CD4013? What an odd design choice... Definitely not using the chip handling oscillator division in parallel? That might make a little more sense in lieu of a clock buffer, given the BBD's have equal clock capacitance to an MN3007.

The BBD's were in series in the original which it did look like was the direction it was heading in the gut shots Jessenator sent me, is parallel confirmed?

Are you able to measure the clock frequencies as well out of interest?

If someone posts some decent gut shots it shouldn't be too hard to trace and confirm seeing as we already have the 117 schematic.

I'll PM you. Let me know if you need different angles than what I captured.

Thanks, unfortunately to get a good look at the traces you'd need to unsolder the pots.

But, I thought of a much simpler solution... just test for continuity between pin 2 of both MN3004, if it beeps, they share the same clock.

If it doesn't beep, check pin 2 of one doesn't match to pin 12 of the other.

Still no beep? Then it's time to test the CD4013 for continuity.

Probed around in mine. One half of the inner 4013 handles generating the two phase pulses for each MN3004. The  outer 4013 is then the other half of the clock circuit although I believe based on photos earlier in the thread that there is a single oscillator feeding the two flipflops. BBDs are in parallel like the original design.

Ahhh, this is making much more sense, so they've parallel multiplexed (I assume unless there's an extra op-amp to achieve differential operation) and halved the clock to achieve the same delay times as the original probably, as you note regards SAD vs. Panasonic, to avoid the MN3004's heavy signal drop off at those higher clock frequencies and also so there's not a heavier high frequency roll off from running them in series.

No, parallel clocks was probably a little overkill but suppose it doesn't hurt, especially with the longer clock traces.

Also helps makes sense as to why the later version just uses a single MN3204 but with heavier noise reduction circuitry.

Think the mystery is solved, still, might be interesting to trace and see if there was any other alterations to the circuit... I do notice an extra diode in the astable section area.

Yeah, the forum does appear to be having some issues, there's a note on the homepage up at the top right.

#37

Open Discussion / Re: The secret M117 flanger

Last post by museums - June 04, 2026, 03:13:33 PM

There are two 4013s in the pedal, each with two flip flops. One of the 4013s dedicates one flip flop to each of the MN3004s to make the biphase clock pulses so each MN3004 has its own driver. Im honestly not sure this is even necessary considering the clock freqs (13KHz to 500KHz), which are roughly halved compared to an SAD1024 unit or generally any Panasonic BBD equipped flanger pedal. The other 4013 is the oscillator. Of the 4 flip flops available, I believe 3 are used.

I was reading the old schem wrong about the BBDs being in parallel. The input pins of the two MN3004s are connected in my unit and the clock phases are matched which IIRC is the differential operation shown in the SAD1024 datasheet. Maybe the folks at MXR looked at the performance of the Panasonic BBDs and traded super short delay times for better performance with differential configuration? The sound of the pedal is spectacular. Better than an SAD1024 MXR IMO.

The only DIY project I have seen that offered these alternate BBD configurations is the BYOC flanger, but Im pretty sure they were running parallel multiplex and calling it differential.

Side note - The lag here is like an hour or two for posts to appear. Never experienced that on another simple machines forum.

Thanks for that, so it's just using one half of each CD4013? What an odd design choice... Definitely not using the chip handling oscillator division in parallel? That might make a little more sense in lieu of a clock buffer, given the BBD's have equal clock capacitance to an MN3007.

The BBD's were in series in the original which it did look like was the direction it was heading in the gut shots Jessenator sent me, is parallel confirmed?

Are you able to measure the clock frequencies as well out of interest?

If someone posts some decent gut shots it shouldn't be too hard to trace and confirm seeing as we already have the 117 schematic.

I'll PM you. Let me know if you need different angles than what I captured.

Thanks, unfortunately to get a good look at the traces you'd need to unsolder the pots.

But, I thought of a much simpler solution... just test for continuity between pin 2 of both MN3004, if it beeps, they share the same clock.

If it doesn't beep, check pin 2 of one doesn't match to pin 12 of the other.

Still no beep? Then it's time to test the CD4013 for continuity.

Probed around in mine. One half of the inner 4013 handles generating the two phase pulses for each MN3004. The  outer 4013 is then the other half of the clock circuit although I believe based on photos earlier in the thread that there is a single oscillator feeding the two flipflops. BBDs are in parallel like the original design.

#38

Build Reports / Re: Polyphemus [One Knob Overd...

Last post by Devinimpson - June 04, 2026, 09:15:43 AM

This all started with Jessenator giving me the bullying me for building in 125B instead of 1590B. I threatened to put a mosfet boost in a 1590XX just to spite him. That's not where I ended up, but the idea for this circuit did come to me while contemplating mosfets and revenge.



Polyphemus is a one-knob overdrive/distortion with internal voicing options that allow it to be tailored to a variety of rigs and use cases. The idea was, to do all the dialing in up front, then screw the thing shut and just rock! As it's built around a Super Hard On of sorts, it only seemed appropriate to name it after the original one-eyed monster!



The circuit consists of three gain/eq stages. The first stage is a high shelf filter that boosts everything above a set frequency by 20dB. Everything below that frequency stays at unity gain. The second stage is a simple mosfet boost, which is pushed by the first stage into clipping. The final stage is a low shelf, set at a similar frequency to the first. This flattens out the eq again. This makes for a "transparent" overdrive that emphasizes harmonics and retains clarity, since higher frequencies are saturated more and sooner. It also greatly lowers the noise floor!



Switches 1 and 2 set the capacitance/cut-off frequency in the HPF stage. Switches 3 and 4 set the capacitance/cut-off frequency in the LPF stage. HPF and LPF interact to shape the character of the gain, as well as the frequency response. Flat, transparent overdrive, various kinds of mid boost or treble boost, mid scoop, even distortion/fuzz is achievable. Heat sets the range of the Gain control. This is so that the headroom can be adjusted to suit your pickups and maximize the range of the Gain Control. Output is a volume control. With Heat dialed in, there is a moderate change in volume from the lowest to the highest Gain setting (maybe 6dB). I like to set Output so that the lowest Gain setting is about unity with bypass, but you could attenuate or boost to taste.


Here's a demo:

geometry dash


There's a little dedication to Jessenator on the PCB. 😘 I built mine in a 125B, as is my preference, but it'll fit into a 1590B with top mount jacks. Side jacks are possible, but you'd have to push the Gain knob up to accommodate them. And, of course, it's in green, Jessenator's preferred solder mask color.


As always, I have extra PCBs. If you want one, DM me.

That is a really tidy build, and the internal voicing idea makes a lot of sense for a one knob pedal. I like the approach of setting the character once inside the enclosure, then keeping the outside simple enough to just plug in and play.

#39

Open Discussion / Re: The secret M117 flanger

Last post by Scruffie - June 03, 2026, 09:37:05 PM

Thanks for that, so it's just using one half of each CD4013? What an odd design choice... Definitely not using the chip handling oscillator division in parallel? That might make a little more sense in lieu of a clock buffer, given the BBD's have equal clock capacitance to an MN3007.

The BBD's were in series in the original which it did look like was the direction it was heading in the gut shots Jessenator sent me, is parallel confirmed?

Are you able to measure the clock frequencies as well out of interest?

If someone posts some decent gut shots it shouldn't be too hard to trace and confirm seeing as we already have the 117 schematic.

I'll PM you. Let me know if you need different angles than what I captured.

Thanks, unfortunately to get a good look at the traces you'd need to unsolder the pots.

But, I thought of a much simpler solution... just test for continuity between pin 2 of both MN3004, if it beeps, they share the same clock.

If it doesn't beep, check pin 2 of one doesn't match to pin 12 of the other.

Still no beep? Then it's time to test the CD4013 for continuity.

Probed around in mine. One half of the inner 4013 handles generating the two phase pulses for each MN3004. The  outer 4013 is then the other half of the clock circuit although I believe based on photos earlier in the thread that there is a single oscillator feeding the two flipflops. BBDs are in parallel like the original design.

#40

Open Discussion / Re: The secret M117 flanger

Last post by museums - June 03, 2026, 04:09:48 PM

If someone posts some decent gut shots it shouldn't be too hard to trace and confirm seeing as we already have the 117 schematic.

I'll PM you. Let me know if you need different angles than what I captured.

Thanks, unfortunately to get a good look at the traces you'd need to unsolder the pots.

But, I thought of a much simpler solution... just test for continuity between pin 2 of both MN3004, if it beeps, they share the same clock.

If it doesn't beep, check pin 2 of one doesn't match to pin 12 of the other.

Still no beep? Then it's time to test the CD4013 for continuity.

Probed around in mine. One half of the inner 4013 handles generating the two phase pulses for each MN3004. The  outer 4013 is then the other half of the clock circuit although I believe based on photos earlier in the thread that there is a single oscillator feeding the two flipflops. BBDs are in parallel like the original design.