Thanks for the useful and diverse answers!
I have a Carbon Copy mxr analog delay pedal - certainly there must be a kind of cheap lowpass in it to filter out the noise of the delay clock...
I guess it's a more complex kind of a problem.
What do you think about the pittsburgh modular analog delay
http://www.schneidersladen.de/en/pittsburgh-modular-analog-delay-2

András

--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , achtung_999 <heinrich.himmelwasser@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for this thread. I had forgotten why I was never interested in these
> BBD modules. Now I remember :D
> Anyway, talking low-fi delay, last week I received my A189-1 bit crusher. I
> find the delay functions in that module very amusing... Ultra low-fi but
> very entertaining!
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Zoë Blade <zoe@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > That explains a lot, thanks!
> >
> > I was considering eventually swapping out my 1024 BBD for a 4096 one in
> > the hope that the clock would be ultrasonic (at least when having an
> > audible delay length comparable to the 1024 at slower settings), and
> > therefore cut off by my breakout box's internal filter.
> >
> > At any rate, if you're recording into a DAW, then the cheapest and easiest
> > way to cut out the clock while preserving the other high frequency goodness
> > of the delay signal is to use a series of software notch filters with
> > realtime display, such as Reaper's ReaEQ. The clock signal seems to have a
> > few harmonics, but a handful of very thin notch filters can take them all
> > out. This works well as long as you don't change the speed of the BBD in
> > any given recording. By comparison, whenever I try lowpass filtering the
> > BBD, it takes out too much of the actual effect along with the clock signal.
> >
> > Hope that helps,
> > Zoë.
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>