Sure, they just used a direct box and an XLR turnaround, combined with a console fader.
REAMP BOX (original) - Fixed with schematic
- Thread starter Whoops
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Sure, they just used a direct box and an XLR turnaround, combined with a console fader.
Off course we did..
gsbe
Member
I’d love to see a comparison of all the inline preamp boxes (Cloudlifter, Royer, KlarkTeknik, Triton, sE, Soyuz, Crimson etc…).
Why are there so many - do they all have different designs? How can I determine which is “best” for the price?
Why are there so many - do they all have different designs? How can I determine which is “best” for the price?
ruffrecords
Well-known member
I'm guessing the pad isolates the XLR input from the xfmer so the RC snubber can keep resonances down for a fairly flat response.
A patent grants you the right to spend a lot of money to defend it in court.
A patent grants you the right to spend a lot of money to defend it in court.
You use a direct box backwards, use an XLR turnaround barrel to reverse the gender. etc
I think Doug forgot to say that a Passive DI was used backwards and not an Active DI.
You use the console fader to attenuate the signal (Line Level) going into the DI Mic input.
If you think about it it's exactly the same concept as described in the Reamp patent, first attenuation (Fader), then a step up isolation transformer (passive DI box).
As far as I'm concerned, I actually have 2 reamp boxes, but most of the times, and I've been doing this for years I don't use any device at all for reamping, I just use a balanced to unbalanced cable (Pin3 or Ring connected to sleeve) and go straight from the Line Output to the amplifier or stompbox input, I use the output fader for that line level out to attenuate the signal.
The only difference is that you don't have a transformer isolation neither a ground lift, but by my experience you don't need that 80% (maybe 90%) of the times.
Last edited:
If someone wants to build their own Reamp boxes, or Balanced Line Level to Instrument level interfaces, I recommend this 2 threads with 2 different but very inexpensive and simple circuits, that do the job quite well.
Both use transformers wired as Step-Down instead of the step up arrangement in the patent
NY Dave Reamp
https://groupdiy.com/threads/newyorkdave-reamp-box-with-edcor-transformer.78508/
Neutrik TX Reamp
https://groupdiy.com/threads/reamp-box-with-neutrik-10-3-transformer.75965/
Both use transformers wired as Step-Down instead of the step up arrangement in the patent
NY Dave Reamp
https://groupdiy.com/threads/newyorkdave-reamp-box-with-edcor-transformer.78508/
Neutrik TX Reamp
https://groupdiy.com/threads/reamp-box-with-neutrik-10-3-transformer.75965/
This. The whole reramp thing has become very overcomplicated imo. A simple setup does the job in the overwhelming number of cases. If going into a fuzzface type circuit that depends on a high Z source then okay. Otherwise no real issues imo.
For sure,
people have been connecting Line Outputs directly to instrument amplifier for ages without the need for any device, just a cable with the right connectors.
It always worked, and still works, very well
Bo Deadly
Well-known member
Indeed. A lot of problems can be completely solved by just making the right cable.
Take reamp for example. Make a short balanced cable with XLR in to 1/4" with U-pad attenuator soldered directly to the connector leads (like 2k2 series 470R shunt maybe). The series resistance combined with leaving the shield unconnected should just about eliminate hum from ground currents.
Just make sure you put a big label on it like "REAMP: 5k / -20dB-ish" so that you know what it is. I have a few cables like this and I have no idea what they do.
Last edited:
To summarize, the simplest, cheap and very practital reamp devices:
Do you guys think I can get a Patent for these inventions?
Do you guys think I can get a Patent for these inventions?
fwiw I favour sticking with TRS jacks and linking R and S internally as needed.
That's exactly what I do
I was working at Coast Recorders in San Francisco when the reamp was developed there by John Cuniberti and electronics designed by James Gangwer, it's my recollection that John(a very picky engineer) and Joe Satriani(again very picky) were trying to get satisfactory results reamping parts and the result of much experimenting was the reamp. I also recall discussions that included matching the input circuit of tube guitar amps without losing frequency response and be able to handle a +4 signal from a tape machine and in the case of Coast a Neve console...the final design was eventually deemed suitable by John etc after much trial and error(that's the only reason he went to the effort of a patent).
As an aside John came to me asking for any suggestions I had involving the design...I said it needed to be rock solid and wondered what would happen if we dropped it off the roof of Coast...it flew to pieces when it hit the sidewalk on Mission St and John redesigned the case!
As an aside John came to me asking for any suggestions I had involving the design...I said it needed to be rock solid and wondered what would happen if we dropped it off the roof of Coast...it flew to pieces when it hit the sidewalk on Mission St and John redesigned the case!
Thanks for the story, that's really interesting
gsbe
Member
This video seems to do a good job comparing some diff reamp options:
Estomagado
Active member
Interesting. Haven't thought of that.
When we were all analog, there was no problem riding the fader down to attenuate the signal, so you could improvise with any cable you had at hand. Now, in the box, you have to keep signals hot to keep the converters at maximum resolution. So padded cables, consciously made in advance (or the dreaded Reamp Box) are a must.
It's no big deal, we are at least at 24bits, I lower the output fader in Protools to attenuate the signal going out of the D/A converter straight into the amp it works great, no problems whatsoever with that
