Ceriatone Centura & The ‘Early Circuit’ – Part II

I’ve taken some time to go over the photos of the Rev 2 Centaur the Nik degooped and gone over his schematic in greater detail.

First, Nik’s schematic using the exact same component numbering as Martin Chittum’s, except for the LED and clipping diodes which are mixed up. For comparison:

 

 

From the photos, the real numbering on the Rev 2 PCB matches up exactly with the numbering on the KTR and the visible labels on all Centaurs I’ve been able to see (with the exception of the few parts added onto those boards).  R1B from the KTR and Rev 3 of the Centaur is also R1B here on this Rev 2:

Even though none of the photos show the underside of the PCB, the light shines through it enough to see that there is no ground pour. This confirms that Bill added it between Rev 2 and 3.

In the above photo, you can clearly see no ground pour on the opposite side of the board.

There is also no serial number. It’s not that it’s unclear, instead it appears as if it was never written. Not even a smudge. It should be in the lower left corner on the top side of the PCB. This is consistent even in the earliest Centaurs. Either Nik or torg removed in before these photos were taken, or it was never there. Torg mentioned, ‘Serial is unclear – it’s #200+ region ‘).

In the degooping, most of the electrolytic caps’ labels came off. The build doc says the two 4u7s were 1uF on this unit. I have to assume the 47uF caps stayed the same, so if we take Nik at his word, we have two 47uFs and  eight 1uFs. The 1uF tantalum looks like it got removed in the degooping, but the space for it looks like Bill intended for tantalum to go there.

 

As Nik stated, R11 is missing (R14B on the Centaur PCB). There are no solder pads for it. This comfirms it was added between Rev 2 and Rev 3, along with the ground pour.

 

There appears to be an extra jumper beneath the middle IC. This is not present on the Rev 3 board. It’s not clear which portions of the circuit it’s connecting. Also, this is the section of the PCB where R26, R27, and R28 (R29, R30, and R1C on the Centaur/KTR) should be on Rev 3.

 

 

Nik removed C4 (officially C13). This is where it should go. The Centura build doc calls for 27nF for the early circuit. I have my doubt, as this was not one of the changes mentioned by Bill and I suspect it was removed for measurement, as the goop usually leaves the labels illegible.

 

The 422k resistor is called for in both sets of the Centura specs, but the one in the photos does not look like 422k (yellow-red-red-orange-brown). Actually, never mind. It kind of looks like the yellow was scratched off, and then it’s red-red-orange-brown. The lighting makes it difficult to distinguish between red and brown. So this could easily be 422k.

 

 

Here is where things get shaken up. Compare this unit with S698 (the one Chittum degooped).

In the Rev 2, we have 392k, 100k, 100k, 27k, 47k. The corresponding row on S698 has 100k, 392k, 100k, 27k, 47k. The 392k switched places with one of the 100ks. On the bottom row, this Rev 2 has 27k, 100k, 1k5, 680R(?). S698 has 100k, 27k, 1k5, 1k. The 100k resistor moved again, this time switching with the 27k. We have to assume that they were simply rearranged due to the addition of the extra 100k and two 68ks in Rev 3 and that they are still located in the same parts of the circuit.

The 680R resistor is another thing Bill never mentioned. If Nik’s specs are correct, Bill went from a 680R metal film to a 1k carbon film between Rev 2 and 3. A 680R metal film resistor should read blue-grey-black-black-brown. The one in the photos is too damaged to read, but it does appear to have a black band. Not that that tells us much. A 1k metal film would also have two black bands (brown-black-black-brown-brown). With so much damage to the resistor bands and capacitor labels, Nik would likely have to measure the values of the parts.

 

Here’s a quick chart of the difference between Klon versions.

 

If we assume Nik’s values are correct for Rev 2, those values can be filled in for the missing values in Rev 1. If we take Nik’s Rev 2 to be anomalous, we can fill them in with the values from Rev 3 and should assume Rev 3 values for Rev 2 where, at the very least, Rev 2 has spots on the PCB for them.

 

If all of this just makes you more confused about the different revisions of the Klon, it probably should. There’s just too much BS out there and not enough degooping to confirm. We really need more degoopings.

What we know for sure, as of 2017:

• Rev 1 lacked solder pad W7. This connects to the clipping diodes. The top right lug of the stomp switch runs under the PCB instead.
• Rev 1 connects the stomp switch’s output lug (middle bottom) directly to the output jack.
• Rev 1 has no ground pour.
• Rev 2 adds R1B and W7. The stomp switch output lug still connects directly to the output jack, but the top right lug connects to W7.
• Rev 2 lacks the ground pour, R1C, R14B, R29, and R30.
• Rev 3 adds the ground pour, R1C, and R14B.  Also R29 and R30.
• The KTR ups R1 to 2M and adds R1D (2M) to maintain input impedance when in true bypass mode.
• The KTR’s polarity protection diode is 133ZHW and the charge pump diodes are S1AQ3. These are just SMD parts functionally equivalent to 1n4742 and 1n4001.

 

I still have the following things that I’m unsure about:

• Should Rev 1 and 2 have all 1uF electros? Nik’s Rev 2 has the labels damaged.
• Should C13 be 68nF or 27nF in Rev 1 and 2? If Nik’s unit is typical, we can assume Rev 1 also had 27nF. Unless Bill started with 68nF, changed it 27nF, then changed it back. If it’s not typical, 68nF should be correct for all versions.
• Should R6 be 680R or 1k? Just like C13, if Nik’s unit is typical, that means Bill either went back and forth on the values, or both Rev 1 and 2 had 680R. Otherwise, 1k is the correct value for all.
• Did Rev 1 have R29 and R30? It likely didn’t, but the different approaches in adding new part numbers makes me wonder if Bill had these in Rev 1 and took them off for Rev 2 before adding them back. Maybe they were on the schematic at some point before he started adding letters.

Not that I’m trying to accuse Nik of anything. I’m just wary due to false claims of alternate Klon specs that have surfaced in the past. That, combined with Bill mentioning some very specific changes (R14B, R1B, and the ground pour) but not mentioning the new values seen in Nik’s unit. And then there’s always the possibility that Nik’s unit was a custom job or just Bill messing around with different component values. Who knows? The lack of a serial number doesn’t inspire confidence in the idea that this Centaur is representative of all Rev 2s.

Ok, I’m really burned out on Klons.

 

Advertisements

Ceriatone Centura & The ‘Early Circuit’

I’ve been out of the Klon scene for awhile, but I recently checked in to look at the build doc for the Ceriatone Centura. Some interesting stuff for the Klon geek.

Nik got his hands on an early Klon unit, and sent it to torg to look it over before sending back to Nik in Malaysia. Torg posted about it here: http://www.madbeanpedals.com/forum/index.php?topic=23875.0

According to torg ‘The main differences are lack of 100k on the output and 2x68k divider on the switch. Other than that all electro’s are 1uF and 15k R11 is missing There’s two more changes but I was asked to keep them private for now. I’m sure Nik will make them public sooner or later… Serial is unclear – it’s #200+ region’. Torg also mentioned that there is no ground plane and he wasn’t sure if the big filter caps were 1uF or 47uF since the labeling was damaged.

It seems to be the 2nd revision of the PCB. This is the revision we know the least about. Now we can look at Nik’s build doc here where he gives us the ‘Early Circuit’: http://www.ceriatone.com/ceriatone/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Centura-Instruction-010717-Doc.pdf

• No 100k, 68k, 68k at the output
• The 4.7uF caps are both 1uF
• The 1k near the 390nF cap is 680R
• The mid-sweetening 15k is gone
• The 68nF  near the 390nF cap is 27nF

What is not clear is whether or not the 1uF tantulum was electrolytic or not.

There are more changes between these Rev 2 specs and the Rev 3 specs from the Chittum schematic than what Bill Finnegan has told us:

‘The fact is, under the hood they’re all basically the same. In 1995 I made three small changes: I added a resistor to give the circuit some protection against a static charge delivered to its input—a change that has no sonic effect. I also had the circuit board redesigned with a ground plane for better grounding—again, no sonic effect except the potential for a little less hum. And I added a resistor to give the circuit a very small amount of additional low-mid response—I wanted it to have a little more roundness when used with, say, a Strat into a Super Reverb. I made no other changes.’ (https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/20210-builder-profile-klons-bill-finnegan)

Bill missed one thing that I caught between Rev 1 and Rev 3 – the addition of the 100k resistor at the output. It’s such a minor addition that there’s no reason to assume he was trying to pull one over on us by not mentioning it. In all likelihood, he probably forgot about it during the interview. Additionally, the numbering on both the Rev 3 Centaur’s and the KTR’s PCBs have a letter tacked on to the labels of the input resistor and the additional output resistor, suggesting they were added after his initial draft of the schematic (sometime between Rev 1 and Rev 3). I’ve never had any reason to believe he changed any of the cap values, but it’s worth noting that they’re much more difficult to piece together from gutshots. I could also understand Bill not mentioning upping two 1uF caps to 4.7uF, simply because this lets more bass through and would not be noticeable unless you’ve got A LOT of bass in your signal. The 27nF is less forgivable as I’d expect it to have an impact on the tone.

I’m not sure what to make of all this. If the two 68ks were added at the same time as the 100k (this would have happened in Rev 3), then I’d expect Bill to have labeled them with letters. I’m genuinely surprised not to see them on Nik’s Rev 2 PCB, as I expected them to have been present on Rev 1 or at the very least have been added between Rev 1 and 2. As I said, I’m less forgiving about Bill not mentioning that 27nF cap than his other omissions, assuming Nik’s Early Circuit specs are accurate. The 680R doesn’t seem too significant, but it’s another surprise. We’ve also got clarification that the ground plane was added between Rev 2 and 3, something I had been curious about, and it looks like Bill added R14B on Rev 3 as it’s not present here. I used to think it had been added between 1 and 2.

I need to revisit all the gutshots of Rev 1 and 2 Centaurs I have saved. There are a few possibilities that we need to consider, and maybe something poking out of the goop will give us a clue.

• Does Rev 1 use 1uF electrolytics all around? Even where Rev 3 has tantalum?
• Are the 27nF cap and 680k resistor typical on earlier units, or is this one anomalous? A custom build / one-off for someone?
• Can we see either of the 68k resistors on the Rev 1 PCB? Is it possible Bill removed them on Rev 2 and re-added them on Rev 3?

 

Klone Models

I get a lot of questions about the differences between the klones I build, and whether or not I’m the same person here as I am on Reverb. So here is a handy run-down of each klone I make.

Clontarf Lapith

Specs: 1994

Enclosure: 1590XX (aka 1790NS),  145 x 121 x 40mm or 5.7″ x 4.7″ x 1.5″

Power Supply: 9v DC, Center-negative

Battery: Includes 9v battery holder

Footswitch: Carling DPDT (sometimes BLMS 3PDT)

Resistors: 6 1% metal film, rest 5% carbon film

Capacitors: Film for pF and nF values, electrolytic for 1uF+

Pots: Wired

PCB: Reproduction of the Centaur’s PCB

Diodes: Magic

 

Hylonome Klone

Specs: Post-1994

Enclosure: 1590BB, 119.5 x 94 x 34mm or 4.72″ x 3.71″ x 1.33″

Power Supply: 9v DC, Center-negative

Battery: Includes 9v battery snap

Footswitch: BMLS 3PDT

Resistors: 6 1% metal film, rest 5% carbon film

Capacitors: Film for pF and nF values, electrolytic for 1uF+

Pots: PCB-Mounted

PCB: Reproduction of the Centaur’s PCB with the daughterboard removed

Diodes: Magic

 

Klone (Old Model)

Specs: 1994 (Sometimes Post-1994, check listing for details)

Enclosure: 1590BB, 119.5 x 94 x 34mm or 4.72″ x 3.71″ x 1.33″

Power Supply: 9v DC, Center-negative

Battery: None, requires external power supply

Footswitch: BMLS 3PDT or DPDT

Resistors: All 1% metal film

Capacitors: Film for nF values, electrolytic for 1uF+, cermanic for pF due to size constraints

Pots: PCB-Mounted

PCB: Heavily modded version of Madbean SunKing

Diodes: Magic

 

—

The post-1994 specs are supposed to add lower mids, but I don’t hear any difference. I think a difference in resistor value could have been greater, so my own advice is to not worry about it. The post-1994 circuit also includes a little bit of extra switch popping protection, but it’s mostly overkill.

The Lapith is physically larger than the Hylonome and Old Modem Klone. It’s about the same size as an actually Centaur, while the latter two are the same size as a KTR oriented sideways.

All three pedals take a typical power supply (9v DC, center negative). The Lapith has enough space inside for a nice littler battery holder. The Hylonome has a baterry snap, but no holder. It might rattle around in there a little, so I recommend a bit of foam or tape to hold it in place if you’re going to use one. The Old Model Klone wasn’t designed to take a battery, and older units don’t have to correct type of jacks to allow a battery snap. More recent ones do, but I don’t add the snap unless someone asks for it. A battery may fit, bit risks damaging other components or shorting things.

The Lapith usually has a Carling DPDT footswitch, the same model the Centaur uses. Some units have a BMLS (Bitches Love My Switches) supplied 3PDT when I couldn’t find a reliable source for the Carlings. The switches can easily be swapped out on the Lapith if you want to upgrade, but not necessarily on the two smaller klones (not enough room inside). The Hylonome always has a BLMS 3PDT. The Old Model Klone used to have an X-Wing style DPDT for neater wiring, but I found that they had a high failure rate and now I use 3DPTs from BLMS in these too.

The real Centaur has a combination of 5% carbon film and 1% metal film resistors. I duplicate this in the Lapith and Hylonome. For the Old Model Klone, I just use all 1% metal film. In theory, metal film resistors are more consistently in-spec and less susceptible to noise. In practice, there are no audible differences with stompbox voltages.

For capacitors, the real Centaur does not use ceramic caps for pF values like most pedals do. Instead, the lowest values are film. The Lapith and Hylonome also use film. The Old Model Klone’s PCB doesn’t have space for larger film caps, so I use ceramic. I don’t think they sound different.

The Lapith’s potentiometers are connected via wires. This also allows the PCB to be mounted to the enclosure with standoffs. The Hylonome and Old Model Klone have PCB-mounted pots due to the tighter spacing inside the enclosure. Wiring the pots takes longer, but is less likely to break and easier to repair. Board-mounted pots look neater and are quicker to assemble, but would take more work to fix if they started to break at the solder joint.

The Lapith’s PCB is a reproduction of the Centaur’s. The first few Lapith units made use of the daughterboard that attaches to the Gain pot, but I thought running wires directly to the pot and using the daughterboard as a place to add an extra standoff made for a more stable build. All Lapiths after unit #010 are built this way. The Hylonome’s PCB omits the daughterboard to make it small enough to fit inside a 1590BB enclosure. Anything to the left of the daughterboard has been left intact. The Old Model Klone is built on a PCB that I based on the Madbean SunKing. I had built two klones with the SunKing PCB, but was not happy with the location of a few solder pads and traces, so I redrew everything to fix these issues. After a few dozen builds, I made a few more changes to fix common issues (potential solder bridges), and adapted it for PCB-mounting the pots.

All three klones come with the “magic” diodes. These are the most important component. Varying diodes are why so many different klones on the market sound different, particularly when they’re using current-production germanium diodes from China which are pretty inconsistent.  I bought as many of the magic diodes as I can find and should have enough for another year or two of building. Until I run out, all of my klones will come with these stock.

---

 

The TL;DR version:

The Lapith is the most accurate klone on the market, but is a bit too large for some guys’ pedal boards.

The Hylonome is smaller and only less accurate in that the PCB needed to be altered on one side to fit the enclosure.

The Old Model Klone is less accurate in that it’s built on a PCB that ISN’T a repro of the Centaur’s with less emphasis on choice of component type, though the circuit is the same. Same size as the Hylonome. The build style lets me put it together much more quickly, so I can offer it for a lower price.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A ManticoreFX Website That Is Not Mine

http://www.manticorefx.com/

That is not my website. I have no affiliation with this fellow.

Klon Buffers: They’re All Wrong

Why is it that, when it comes to the Klon circuit, misinformation is the norm? Every so-called Klon buffer schematic and layout I have seen on the net is wrong. And every single stand-alone Klon buffer seems to be built using those schematics and layouts. Did it never occur to anyone to cross reference the build docs with the actual Klon schematic?

Let’s talk about the real Klon buffer. It runs off the Klon’s 9v supply, which has a 47uF filter cap and a polarity protection diode to ground. Vref is made with two 27k resistors that form a voltage divider. The output cap is 4.7uF. All the supposed Klon buffer docs and builds use 100ks for the voltage divider, a 1uF output cap, and omit the filter cap and diode from the power supply. Ok, so the end result is the same. You get the same Vref, and the output cap is still large enough to make no real difference. We can live without the extra stuff in the 9v section of the circuit (but it’s a good idea to have them when the circuit is built on its own). Without the specific values, it’s not the Klon buffer. It’s a regular old op-amp buffer.

The first time I ever saw a schematic for a standalone Klon buffer was on Beavis Audio’s site (no longer active, but available cached here: http://web.archive.org/web/20110713081503/http://www.beavisaudio.com/techpages/Buffers/)

I have to assume that either that schematic swapped some parts’ values for more common ones to make it easier to build or that Beavis was looking at another schematic that had. Also, since buffers are typically incorporated into other builds, there’s no reason to include the extra parts stuff on the power section, since whatever you’re building the buffer into would already have that. But all it takes is one incorrect schematic and people are making layouts to share with other DIYers, then enterprising builders take that information and use the word Klon to market their builds, built exactly as the incorrect schematic shows. This tells us that they don’t really know what they’re doing and are more interested in the word ‘Klon’ than finding out if they’re building the right thing.

 

Here are more Klon buffer docs. All wrong. If you’re going to call it a Klon buffer, at least get the 27k’s and 4.7uF in there.

http://tagboardeffects.blogspot.com/2011/04/klon-buffer.html

http://turretboard.knucklehead.dk/2011/10/13/stripboard-klon-buffer/

http://revolutiondeux.blogspot.com/2012/02/klon-buffer.html

http://shop.pedalparts.co.uk/Klon_Buffer/p847124_6346591.aspx

http://147pedals.blogspot.com/2010/11/plon-fentaur-buffer.html

http://effectslayouts.blogspot.com/2014/11/klon-buffer.html

Bill reveals his diodes, and the myths won’t die.

Rockett and PGS release the Ikon, a klone supposedly based on the Gold Klon instead of the Silver. Someone posts gutshots and we see the the Ikon has D9Es. Bill chimes in and mentions that his diodes are 1N34As. Barely anyone notices. People keep repeating the same BS.

http://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/rockett-archer-ikon.1587262/page-5

The diode I have always used is a germanium diode with the part number 1N34A, but you should understand that this particular part has since the 1950s or so been manufactured by literally hundreds of different companies, and having listened to as many different ones as I have, I can say with confidence that they all sound somewhat different in my circuit, and often they sound VERY different.

This is surprising, because 1N34As are the most commonly used diode when germanium is called for in a pedal. No one expected it to be what everyone is already using. But there are some important points to keep in mind.

• When sousonic listed the diodes as 1N34A in his schematic of S 698, he has no way of knowing that that’s what they actually were. He was just suggesting the most readily available germaniums for clippers.
• For any part other diodes, I would probably say that brand doesn’t matter. The same parts from different manufacturers should be electronically equivalent. ‘Electrons aren’t bullshit dependent,’ as I’ve seen it written somewhere.
• Most DIYers and buyers of klones with 1N34As have reported that they sounded different than the real Centaur, so we had all reasoned that Bill’s diodes ARE NOT 1N34As.
• My experience is that germaniums of the same part number can sound a bit different not only across brands, but also within the same batch (presumably made in the same production run). The fV can even be about the same. I deliberately stock up on cheap Chinese-made 1N34As that are particularly inconsistent so that I can pick out the ones that match my Centaur and KTR. Batches that are more consistent seem to fall into the ‘less Klon-like’ camp.
• It’s possible Bill is lying to throw us off, but even if that’s the case, he’s still correct about brands sounding different. I do think they don’t sound AS different as he’s making them out to be, and with some auditioning, it’s not hard to find a pair of diodes that nails the same kind of clipping as the Centaur.
• Tolerance and drift are still a thing. Always remember.

The Rockett Archer Ikon

What a bunch of crap: “Features actual Klon “magic” diodes. That’s right—THE part”

Nope, the Ikon has D9Es. Just look inside one and see. This isn’t marketing BS, this is a flat out lie. D9Es are old soviet diodes. There’s no way Bill had access to them in 1990. And they’re easily identifiable by their blue and red bands. Bills diodes have a single black band marking the cathode (soviet manufacturers marked the anode, or both).

BYOC used the D9Es in the Silver Pony kit that came out last year. There was a lot of hullabaloo over whether or not they were the same as Bill’s, and it was immediately obvious that they weren’t. The PGS and Rockett guys are a year late to this.

Gold vs Silver

Here’s an interview with CVT from Rockett: http://tonereport.com/blogs/interviews/prepare-for-launch-an-interview-with-chris-van-tassel-of-j.rockett-audio-de

“Even yesterday, as we were working on the gold version of the Archer with Pro Guitar Shop, we wanted to test it against a gold Klon. And the gold and silver Klons were different.”

You’d expect a manufacturer to understand component tolerance. You’d also expect someone who has worked with Bill to know that the guts of the Silvers and Golds are identical. Same PCB, same components, same diodes. The first few hundred (out of ~< 4000) Golds left out a few resistors, and maybe the first hundred or so Silvers did as well, but beyond that they all have the exact same specs. This is a myth that just won’t die, and I suspect CVT is using it to market the Ikon.

More Tube Screamer Stuff

I’ve been doing a lot of looking into Tube Screamers in preparation for a project thats’ tentatively titled The Omni Screamer. An expansion on the old MohoMods MultiScreamer. Anyway, here’s a collection of my notes in a somewhat coherent format.

 

I don’t know how official this schematic is, but it looks like a factory schematic and not one some internet dudes drew, so I’ll take it as canon.

 

The Op-Amps

Ibanez/Maxon hasn’t always been consistent with what op-amps they use in all the TS variants. The factory schematic for the TS808 seems to call for an RC4558 (Texas Instruments?), but they mostly shipped with JRC4558s. Some other op-amps show up too, mostly 4558s from other manufacturers. The TS9 was all over the place, ‘seemingly random’ according to Analogman. For the reissues, Ibanez seem to have settled on the JRC4558D for the TS808, and the TA75558P for the TS9. This is likely to justify the higher price point of the TS808 and keep it mojotastic. Ultimately, the JRC4558 seem to be THE Tube Screamer IC. Yeah, there were other 4558s, but current production models only ship with the JRC or TA75558P.

The Output Resistors.

The TS808 has a 100R series resistor and 10k shunt resistor at the output. The TS9 and pretty much every other TS variant have a 470R series resistor and 100k shunt resistor. Does it matter? Honestly, I’ve played with these on switches and hear no difference. I’ll take either pair. But this does help us classify the circuits. Since the op-amps do vary, we can define a TS808 circuit as one with 100R/10k and a TS9 circuit as one with 470R/100k. Because those are the only parts that differ.

This thread has some discussion on whether or not they matter: http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=108501.0

The Clipping Diodes

The diodes don’t get a whole lot of discussion, as everyone is focused on the op-amps and output resistors when they do their 808-spec mods. Most DIY clones use 1N4148s or 1N914s, which should be similar to what come stock in real TS’s. Early TS808s seem to have has 1S1588s (orange with a blue stripe marking the cathode), though the schematic I posted above calls for MA150s. Most of the other TS variants, including Maxon’s current offerings, use MA150s or something that looks the same, orange with a white stripe. The TS5 is notable for having 1N4148s. The diodes are hard to identify because they’re not labeled on the body. We have to go by what the schematic calls for, and we know that they didn’t always use the specified parts when populating the PCBs at the factory. Or we go by appearance of the diode and take an educated guess. So I’m going to say the definitive TS diodes are 1S1588 and MA150.

Does this matter? I’d expect 1N4148s to have similar, if not identical, clipping characteristics. This is something I’ll have to experiment with.

The Input and Output Buffers

All official TS variants have input and output buffers. Even the OD9, which is true bypass, maintains the buffers. Some clones strip these off, because they’re unnecessary with TBP. The TS808 and TS9 buffer configuration is made up of two discrete transistors. That means that they’re individual parts. A very early version of the TS808 (the narrow box) used both sides of a dual op-amp for the buffers instead of individual transistors. The TS10 has an extra buffer coming off the input buffer. The ST9 and STL both use one half of a dual op-amp for the input buffer and the other half for the mid boost part of the circuit, then the output buffer is a discrete transistor. For the most part, all official TS variants have the same stuff between the buffers. Even the TS808/9 output resistors are part of the output buffer.

1979 TS808 Narrow Box / Original Maxon OD808 / TS808 35th Anniversary Reissue

These three pedals are all pretty much the same. They even share the same PCB layout. The input and output buffers are both halves of a dual op-amp instead of discrete transistors. If Matsumin’s schematic for the OD808 is to be believed (and expanded to include both TS808s), they have a 220R series resistor where the later 808s have 100R, but they do have the canonical 10k shunt resistor. Everything inbetween the buffers is the same as every other official TS, save for the op-amps. The OD808 and ’79 TS808 had two MC1458Ps, and the 35th Anniversary has two JRC4558Ds.

TS9 / TS9DX / TS7 / TS5

The things that define a TS9 in comparison with the TS808 are output resistors. Other TS versions are essentially TS9 variants, sharing the same output resistor values. I consider the TS9 the branching point for most of the other variants.

The TS9DX is exactly like a TS9 when the mode switch is set to the TS9 position. The earliest run of these pedals had the drive pot connected incorrectly, resulting in less gain than a typical stock TS9, but this was fixed on previous production runs. It uses the same PCB layout as the TS808 and TS9, with an additional daughter board for the parts that the switch controls. It seems to ship with the TA75558P most of the time, but units with JRC4558Ds have been known.

The TS7 is a TS9 circuit with a Hot switch. Despite being lower-end gear than the TS9, they usually come with JRC4558Ds straight from the factory. It has a B20k tone pot instead of the usual W20k or G20k (same thing). The PCB is unique to the TS family, as the ToneLok series of pedals have lots of daughter boards crammed into the box, with way more solder pads than are necessary so multiple circuits can be built on the same boards.

The TS5 comes with the TS75558P. While most of the other TS’s have what look like MA150s for clippers, this guy has 1N4148s. The tone pot is G20k, surprising for a cheaper pedal. I also found that the 51pF cap is 47pF. Not a big deal, it was probably just what the factory had on hand. I have gone over it enough to find any other differences, but it’s pretty much a cheaper TS9 in a crappy plastic enclosure. Some very early runs had metal enclosures.

TS10

The TS10 has always interested me because, for years, believe my OD808 reissue was actually a TS10 circuit. Well, the TS10 has the TS9 output resistors. Sometimes it shipped with an MC4558 and sometime with a JRC4558. It also has an extra transistor, an emitter follower off the input buffer going to the bypass. In the effect portion of the circuit, the only difference between a TS9 and TS10 is that the TS10 has a 220R resistor in series with the input of the op-amp.

Maxon OD808 Reissue / OD9

The OD808 reissue has the TS9 output resistors, not those of the TS808. Maxon claims they also reversed their positions to reduce noise levels. The IC is a JRC4558. There is no 220R from the TS10 circuit, though the input buffer does have the TS10 emitter follower tacked onto it. So we can call it a hybrid TS9/TS10, but the effect portion of the circuit is just a TS9.

The OD9 is a TS9 with a JRC4558D and true bypass. It shares its PCB layout with the TS808 and TS9, but leaves out all the switching circuitry.

When the pedals are on, the OD808 and OD9 are exactly the same. The only difference is in the bypass.

ST9 /STL / Maxon ST-01

Theses guys all have the same mid boost circuit spliced into the regular TS circuit. The mid boost includes one half of a dual op-amp, and the other half is used for the input buffer. A transistor is then used for the output buffer.

The ST9 has its Mid Boost circuitry in front of the clipping section of the TS circuit. On the STL, its after the clipping section. But the Mid Boost stuff is otherwise identical.

Both the ST9 and STL seem to mix the 808 and 9 output resistor values. They have a 470R series resistor and a 10k shunt resistor. The positions are reversed like in the OD808.

The ST9 has a G100k tone pot, according to Dirk Hendrik’s tracing. The STLs is the typical TS tone pot, G20k, according to the factory schematic.

I have no idea whether the Maxon ST-01 is an STL or ST9, but it seems to be one of the two.

OD9 Pro Plus / TS9B / TS808DX

I’m grouping these together because I don’t know what’s in ’em. The OD9 Pro seems to have some boost circuitry, and it sounds like there’s an internal charge pump. Rumor has it that the TS9B is not a true TS circuit, but I haven’t seen gutshots yet. The TS808DX also seems to have some charge pump stuff going on in it, in addition to boost circuitry.