|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 24, 2017 21:29:20 GMT -6
Thanks sideshow.
|
|
|
Post by BenjaminAshlin on May 25, 2017 1:31:44 GMT -6
I'm just a hacker/noob, I have a very hard time working on SMD. My hand is not steady enough for those tiny parts. I think it's better left to a wave soldering machine than me. I know some guys in town though, that like Brad, are comfortable with the re-work. Depending how much importance you put on your capacitors, I think your options would be very limited in SMD. As others have already pointed out. But caps are one of the small parts that make big differences to me in my audio constructions. My DBX 560A compressors, and my MXR GT-OD, both are SMD heavy boxes that sound great, so I am certain that it can be done well. I haven't had the need or opportunity to design anything with SMD but I agree with the capacitors. Good audio designers will use quality capacitors where they count. Even in SMD designs. Rupert neve designs come to mind.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 25, 2017 2:17:17 GMT -6
Guitar amp vibration plus heat will cause those parts to come loose or fail. NASA had problems with early surface mount from g forces. Glue the parts down and coat it all in conformal coating and it's pretty reliable, unless a part fails. My issues are super thin pcb traces that don't carry current and ceramic caps used for audio. Quality film caps are not available in surface mount. WIMA tried to make surface mount polypropylene film caps but they would melt during assembly. Resistors vary from crappola to Vishay bulk foil at $20 each. Chances are you get the cheap stuff instead. Assembly houses don't like to do mixed signal through hole plus surface mount but that is the only solution if you want to use the best stuff. Jim, I think in the year 2017 assembly shops are pretty well versed in doing both through hole and SMT on the same board. In my Silver Bullet design there is a mix of both stuff. All the SMT goes through the reflow process. Then some through hole is done using a selective solder machine. Then the remaining through hole stuff like transformers is done by hand. You are right--if you want the best stuff that's what you have to do. I do through hole for all audio path electrolytics and film caps. Brad I'd say it depends on the company. Some companies employ designers who take great care in doing a good layout. Some, shall we say "more cost conscious" companies feed the schematic into a computer and have done, as long as no obvious problems arise during basic testing.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 25, 2017 2:27:28 GMT -6
Well not a preamp, but this is surface mount. Modularized Minimoog circuits. Pretty fucking vibey! Interesting and very cool! But tonally is it really like an original Mini?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 25, 2017 3:12:33 GMT -6
As far as I can see, Bad Cat is not using SMC. They have a line of amps that use PCB boards instead of point-to-point. That's not SMC. No, it's definitely not. HOWEVER, it's still something of a real PITA for service techs compared to eyelet board, turret board, or even well laid out terminal strips and arguably not as robust under guitar amp conditions.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on May 25, 2017 5:57:21 GMT -6
Interesting and very cool! But tonally is it really like an original Mini? I think it's very close. One of the key aspects is the drifting oscillators. The vintage ones are very unstable, but if you tune them too tight now, you lose the fat character. Here's what clusterchord says. He's the resident cork sniffer on GS and the muffwiggler modular forum. "i agree this is the best sounding minimoog concept in eurorack. as far as accuracy goes it hits on the target much better than micromac (which also sounds wonderful). compared to my old oscillator board mini, my first impression is its just a tad more hifi - less hairy and saturated in low with a subtle tilt in the top end. but this is a very subtle impression, not night and day. for anyone who wants a minimoog and can't afford one, or maintain one, this is pretty much it." Btw micromac is through-hole. There is a through-hole reissue minimoog now, and it also sounds very close to the rev 2 original it replicates, but it can't do some of the things modular format offers. That said, having a beautiful self-contained instrument with wood panels and name Moog on it is what I'd choose, but I don't think SMD compromises the sound. Another comment from kipervarg on MW "I have the AJH modules (a full voice + ring sm). The AJH modules have a different tone and are based on the early RA Moog MK1 design which had different VCO and VCF circuits. I think Moog had trouble with stability and moved to a different design after the first few hundred were in production. The AJH modules are lovely enough in tone and CV functionality for things like pulse width, resonance, etc that I am going to keep both. When I purchased the reissued Minimoog I had in the back of my mind that I might sell off the AJH modules, but that went quickly out the window when I heard the new Minimoog. This is not a knock against the reissue, just acknowledgement that the tone between the very first Moogs and the model the reissue was based on are different in character. They sound wonderful together. If I have some free time this month, I will post a video comparing both of them. I can't say enough good things about both AJH and the reissued Minimoog. I am lucky to be able to afford both."
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,919
|
Post by ericn on May 25, 2017 6:21:03 GMT -6
Jim, I think in the year 2017 assembly shops are pretty well versed in doing both through hole and SMT on the same board. In my Silver Bullet design there is a mix of both stuff. All the SMT goes through the reflow process. Then some through hole is done using a selective solder machine. Then the remaining through hole stuff like transformers is done by hand. You are right--if you want the best stuff that's what you have to do. I do through hole for all audio path electrolytics and film caps. Brad I'd say it depends on the company. Some companies employ designers who take great care in doing a good layout. Some, shall we say "more cost conscious" companies feed the schematic into a computer and have done, as long as no obvious problems arise during basic testing. Too true, but in most cases you do get what you pay for.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on May 25, 2017 7:39:14 GMT -6
swurveman : A couple years back I was researching online about the differences between the Vintech X73 vs X73i. The X73i allegedly being considerably cheaper due partly to the automated build process. My takeaway was that the experiences people described with both left the surface-mount built X73i as sonically less desirable. I did the same and based my decision on what the information provided by Dallas Uptown-the owner of Vintech - who said, "The mic preamp transformers and circuits in the X73 and X73i are basically identical." I bought the X73i, but have not heard the X73. So, I couldn't tell you if they sound different. Have you heard both? I will say that I have had a few times, when recording female guitar players who played extremely softly, where I could have used the 10dB of gain the X73 has over the x73i.
|
|
|
Post by BradM on May 25, 2017 10:03:18 GMT -6
I'd say it depends on the company. Some companies employ designers who take great care in doing a good layout. Some, shall we say "more cost conscious" companies feed the schematic into a computer and have done, as long as no obvious problems arise during basic testing. I was referring to the assembly CM rather than the actual design team doing the layout. Layout definitely affects performance. I feel fortunate to have been able to work with a very talented team of PCB designers that have a long history in pro audio design. I'm especially grateful for the mentorship the late John Petrucelli has given me over the last 7 years. Brad
|
|