# Small clone and nano clone choruses



## Spankin Allison (Jun 11, 2009)

I got a Nano clone chorus and really like it,but when turn on,it cuts alot on my volume..so its hard to manage switching on and off when perfoming live.
So i tought of buying a small clone chorus...Will i get the same volume issue with that device?
Thanks
Frank


----------



## exhausted (Feb 10, 2006)

no, the small clone is much better. no drop, less noise and much richer chorusing. the nano is a paperweight compared to it.


----------



## Spankin Allison (Jun 11, 2009)

Just as i tought,honestly ive not been impress by their "Nano" product.
I've tried a few and all end-up deffinitly not being a "keeper"...exept for my "soul preacher" compression/sustainer,that work's just great for me.

Frank


----------



## exhausted (Feb 10, 2006)

the nano stuff definitely hit or miss. there are bombs like the nano clone and then there are hits like the memory boy or the micro pog.

i need to get myself a "classic" small clone again before they stop making them.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

What's bizarre is that the switching scheme for the full-size Small Clone is, while clever, nothing special or anything that they would not replicate for cost reasons in the Nano box. The Nano series are not redesigned in any substantive way that I know of. They are simply a response to consumer demand, and expectations, for a pedalboard-friendly package. Happily, SMT components permit that. Is there anything particularly different about SMT components that people in the know have remarked on? No. Indeed, what goes into the chips takes up but a fraction of the space normally required for the epoxy package used to hold the actual guts and pins. So the exact same guts can fit in an SMT package quite easily without modification and without any decline in quality.

At the same time, it is easily conceivable that passive component variation (+/-5% for resistors; more for caps and the switching FET) results in imbalance. Unfortunately, though, the shortcoming of a surface-mount board is that it is hard for folks like us to mod them up to where we want/need them to be.


----------



## exhausted (Feb 10, 2006)

the nano clone does not use the same ICs etc. its definitely different. but it's build quality is also terrible compared to other nano/XO pedals i've seen. like they let their trainees build them or something.

the new XO sized memory man is supposed to be the same more or less as far as the circuit goes. same chips i've heard but i can't confirm.


----------



## Spankin Allison (Jun 11, 2009)

Any tought on the "Polychorus"?Shopping for a small clone i realize i forgot about the polychorus.
Is 65$ for a brand new smallclone is a fair price?
Thanks
Frank


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

exhausted said:


> the nano clone does not use the same ICs etc. its definitely different. but it's build quality is also terrible compared to other nano/XO pedals i've seen. like they let their trainees build them or something.
> 
> the new XO sized memory man is supposed to be the same more or less as far as the circuit goes. same chips i've heard but i can't confirm.


What do you mean "does not use the same ICs"? There is basically only one way to make a Small/Nano Clone, and little reason to change it. Yes, the chips are surface mount, not through-hole, but the same company that makes the through-hole makes the surface-mount (there are only two known manufacturers of the BBD chips these days, Coolaudio - a company whose principle client, and maybe even owner/bankroller, is Behringer - and Beiling). As for who "builds" them, they are largely machine-built. Final assembly into the right chassis, and any fine-tuning that has to be done (most BBD-based circuits will need a final bias adjustment via a trimpot on the board) will be done in New York by EHX staff, but if *we* can do those same things, then certainly their supervised "trainees" can do it better.

Now, are there aspects of the construction that may be different between standard and Nano? Yes. The jacks are different, but these are the same kinds of jacks one finds on mixing boards and amps the world over. Nothing wrong with plastic jacks. Are the switches different? A little, but everyone has their own tastes in how they want a switch to feel.

Certainly YMMV, but I personally see nothing to prevent the Nano boxes from doing exactly what the larger-chassis versions do, every bit as well. If the basic design has changed, that's one thing. But there are no signs that it has done so.


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

Spankin Allison said:


> Any tought on the "Polychorus"?Shopping for a small clone i realize i forgot about the polychorus.
> Is 65$ for a brand new smallclone is a fair price?
> Thanks
> Frank


Yeah that is a pretty fair price. The small clone is a great chorus, and heads above the nano series for sure.


----------



## exhausted (Feb 10, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Certainly YMMV, but I personally see nothing to prevent the Nano boxes from doing exactly what the larger-chassis versions do, every bit as well. If the basic design has changed, that's one thing. But there are no signs that it has done so.


other than it royally sucks in comparison.

the thing is nowhere near the classic small clone sound. it is not the same.

here's a picture of the guts. sorry for the size but it is all i can find.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I don't know what you mean by "royally sucks". Not trying to be a PITA, but your comments suggest there is some major change in the pedal...which there isn't. So what is different about the sound *for you*?

I will simply note that when it comes to choruses, one single capacitor tends to set the general "flavour", by setting the overall delay range. Very small variations in that cap can make a difference in feel, from light and swirly to thick and doubled. I have two Small Clones, one I made, and one of the big chassis ones with a mod I installed. I have a BMF Liquid Sky that I built and modded, a CE-2 clone I made and modded, a Washburn chorus I modded, plus a few others. I can get any of them to sound like any of the others by changing that one capacitor by as little as 30pf. Given the inherent wide tolerance in caps, unit to unit variation in that single cap could easily make the difference between that unit nailing what you loved about it...or not. Trust me, it is VERY easy for the design to be absolutely identical, yet not sound exactly the same.

An interview I read with Mike Matthews in a business mag had him saying that he could take 4 Big Muffs off the same assembly line, from the same issue, and they would all sound different, because of component variations. The challenge us users and consumers face is telling the difference between what is true of an issue, consistently across all units, and what is only tru of a unit within an issue. Generally speaking, few of us will ever try more than a few units of the same issue, and often not under the same conditions. Consequently, while I do not doubt that people hear what they hear, and do not doubt the sincerety of their disappointment for one second, unless I have reason to believe (i.e., evidence) that something fundamental about the design or critical components is different, my choice is to reserve judgment about whether a given issue represents true change in the product, as opposed to merely natural variation.

That's certainly not a jab at you, mrely a recognition that it is an easy trap for all of us to fall into, because none of us are going to ever sit down with 50 units of a product, listen to them under the same circumstances, and compare them against 50 units of a different version or a different product. And like I say, in the case of choruses, their unique "character" is often established by so little.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

I have a nano clone. It tends to have a high pitch hiss :/ not always, but often.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Also stemming from a few cap-value differences.

Choruses like the Small Clone use a pre-emphasis/de-emphasis scheme, in addition to lowpass filtering to keep hiss and clock noise down. Ideally, the clock noise will be juuust outside the bandwidth of the filtering such that you get as much usable bandwidth as possible. But it CAN happen that the clock cap is a little higher in value (=longer delay time and lower clock frequency), and the filter cap are a little smaller in value (=higher cutoff frequency, letting clock whine pass through unabated).

Just as an aside, one of the things I've noticed in some Behringer clones of "classic" pedals is that they elected to go with op-amps that used less current but had worse noise specs, where Boss elected to go with better noise specs and higher current draw.


----------



## exhausted (Feb 10, 2006)

mhammer said:


> I don't know what you mean by "royally sucks". Not trying to be a PITA, but your comments suggest there is some major change in the pedal...which there isn't. So what is different about the sound *for you*?



i don't know what to tell you. the effect has 

a) a massive volume drop
b) much weaker chorus, regardless of any adjustment in the trimpots.
c) huge amounts of hiss.
d) has a digital-eque slapback to it that the small clone does not.

and i've had 3 small clones. and will be building my own shortly in lieu of buying a new one. i've had CE-2s as well but prefer clones.

i haven't seen the schematic for the nano clone. it is not a small clone. even if the circuit was theoretically exactly the same, it's terribly executed and it's not due to component differences. 

apparently, things like the nano small stone (still called a "small clone" incidentally rather than a "nana stone") are actually quite good. something like the XO little big muff in spite of the SMT and everything, it's still a muff and retains the classic character.

but i'm sitting here looking at the schematic for the true small clone and there is no way the nano is anywhere near and SMT equivalent. i don't have the nano anymore, it got returned instantly, so i can't trace the circuit. but as sure as you'll say they're the same, i'll say they're not.

i'm kinda at a loss here. kkjq 

i'm trying my best to gain more and more understanding of various circuits and why things are the way they are so i'm behind the curve and defer to your knowledge but i'm sure on this one. there is no way to polish the nano clone into a small clone without major surgery involving a trip to the music store and $90.


----------



## Spankin Allison (Jun 11, 2009)

Well,i just got my "small clone" chorus in the mail box.I pluged it right away and guest what..there is NO volume drop or any of the issues i noticed on the nano version.
Frank


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

a) a massive volume drop - _That could be a switching issue. Small drops can be attributed to component tolerances. Big ones have different origins._
b) much weaker chorus, regardless of any adjustment in the trimpots. - _The trimpots do not adjust the intensity of the chorus effect, per se. On the other hand, a mis-adjusted bias trimpot could result in decreased and poorer-quality wet-signal, yielding a "weaker chorus". That can be improved by tweaking the trimpot yourself, until you hear a clearer delay sound. Tweaking it will not harm the pedal._
c) huge amounts of hiss. - _As noted in an earlier post, this could be a product of using different op-amps._
d) has a digital-eque slapback to it that the small clone does not. - _The normal delay in a chorus is not long enough to have a slap-back quality to it. Something is wrong here_.

But, being the empiricist I am, I have to accept that people hear what they hear much of the time. And while choruses are the sorts of things that are really only possible to build a few different ways (implying that there is no real reason for EHX to change the design between big packagae and Nano versions) I suppose it is always possible for them to have done so.

I'll put out some feelers and find out if indeed the design was changed in the transition between packages. I thought it hadn't but I've been wrong before.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I think you'll feel vindicated by this: http://www.ehx.com/forums/viewthread/1512/ Clearly you aren't alone in your sentiments about the Nano Clone. However, the source and remedy are not apparent from this thread. I'll explore further when time permits.


----------



## Deltadan1 (24 d ago)

Spankin Allison said:


> Just as i tought,honestly ive not been impress by their "Nano" product. I've tried a few and all end-up deffinitly not being a "keeper"...exept for my "soul preacher" compression/sustainer,that work's just great for me. Frank


 I tweaked the internal trim pots to 12 o'clock and had better results immediately.


----------

