REAMP BOX (original) - Fixed with schematic

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I suspect the novelty is more in the process of reamping than in the exact circuit configuration. Did nobody reamp before 1994? (the date of the patent).

Cheers

Ian

Sure, they just used a direct box and an XLR turnaround, combined with a console fader.
 
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?
 
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.
 
I don't know what that means.

Cheers

Ian

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:
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% of the times.

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.
 
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
 
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.
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:
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!
 
This video seems to do a good job comparing some diff reamp options:


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.
 
Back
Top