4krow

I'll have to find some of those boards that I am referring to. Yes the board material is better than the absolute crap way in the past, but there is just something about a damned near see through thin board that I want nothing to do with. When I accidentally order such a product it never gets built. Don't want my name on it. Funny though, they still find their way into important appliances and other equipment where they don't belong. Not just audio.

They don't make 'em like they used to (I am being faciscious). I am remembering those awkward little transistor radios along with everything else. I don't remember what the boards were like in the TV sets, but I do remember what the insides of my Marantz 1060 looked like. Not something to brag about, I will say that much. First time that I saw something beautiful inside of an amp it was made by Nakamichi. A Ca5 and PA5 set that I had. Blue circuit boards and heavy power supply rails? I mean copper rails. That was the late 80's (memory lapse).

Jim, I agree with so much of what you are saying about circuit boards in this thread. The 'but' is that even today there are those out there that use really crappy boards no matter how well designed, and it just seems that more people would jump on board with better quality boards. As far as I know Glassware Audio has made the finest boards that I have ever worked with. They ARE thick, the traces heavy and even look cool. Here is my issue>> if everything is place in the right orientation, and the right values are used, you are done and it will last a lifetime. OTOH if you have to remove a part for any reason, I can't ever seem to do it successfully. This is because of two things. Mostly it is the through hole plating that can come off right with the lead being removed! Secondly, the new designs have holes so small that apparently it makes removing solder much more difficult. And well hell let me bring another problem while I am at it. The fraking solder used from some factories, is unbelievably crappy! You have to heat it to 900 degrees with a rosebud torch to get it to melt. Now assuming that all of these troubles are taken care of before production begins, it is then that I completely agree with you. Point to point is really challenging at times, especially if you want it to look decent. The one thing that I do love about it is the ability to mechanically attach sockets right to the metal chassis. But when push comes to shove, a properly made board can do all of that.

I don't know where to start with such idiot acts like these. The setup couldn't be more dangerous. Blowing molten metal in the way of a giant 'herd' of batteries and thinking to do it again and again. Flammable material all over the area. I even see a propane tank in the background. Hell, looks like I could go on and on as he tries just about every chance with different materials just to see the sparks, smoke, and maybe even a cool explosion? So when he finally succeeds and burns down an entire area, I can't have sympathy for that. I quit watching halfway through.

Good to hear directly from the horse's mouth. Thanks. Good questions, and now an understanding of the difference in thinking that this man has. It makes me feel better about some of the things that I do in life. I don't always follow the rules (like way back in the day that I started to use 100% synthetic oil in my engines, and nobody agreed with that thinking around here at the time). It is also fine to be proven wrong at times as long as it isn't in some sort of attack. The audio world is just like the rest, holding on to some things because somebody in a lab said, "There, now see? This product doesn't measure up." Have you tried it in real iife? Nope.

AC/DC Back in Black--- CD vs MQA. This is my first experience with MQA. This music is being streamed over some music service, dunno dun care. Just want to say that so far it is obvious on my system that I prefer MQA. Much more dimensional. Keeps me wanting to hear more.

"its got a good beat and I can dance to it." I bet Dick Clark just wanted to slap them kids silly for saying that. But folks, really, it is all that we are wanting, right? I just want to hear something that I like. I am not so concerned as to what alleyway you came from to get it to me.

True enough. I look for older recordings just for that reason. This is not to say that many of the Mo-Fi stuff of mine doesn't sound great as well, but I have become leery of the 'now digitally remastered' crap whether on vinyl or CD or whatever.

When building my first DHT (3S4 tube) from BottleHead, I was so surprised that for about $130+ a bunch of other parts, you could build something that sounded way better than many more expensive units out there. The specs sucked if you were so inclined to read them. I built several more and sold each one to a very satisfied customer, one customer at a time. Several years later, I discovered yet another DHT (SP1 tube) made by Korg, and the result was pretty much the same. Specs sucked, sound was unbelievable. It is important to note that I have built two different designs for this SP1 tube, and the deciding factor is not the specs in each case but rather how the circuit itself is implemented. Yes, one sounds better than the other even though it is designed around the same tube. Same dirty specs but the difference being either using an IC or discreet transistors. Another difference is the power supply itself. One uses double the voltage and happens to be the better sounding unit to my ears. One more note: Each designer realized that the sound could be varied by means of an adjustment pot for the tube, resulting in quite a difference in sound. It increased or decreased different harmonics, either second or third order in relation to each other. The sweet spot is up to you. I usually leave it at a certain setting, resulting in the least amount of THD distortion (which is still close to 1%).

Don't fret AJ, I will send it along right after I have made some kind of improper connection, resulting in a fire. Then you wile get to see the circuitry after it is burned in.

Just remember to send it to me when you are done.

Thanks Jim! I have not ever seen that detailed information, since I am usually/always using my best guess with my hand on the drill press lever. You have to bite or else you will only increase heat and no cut. You have not to bite too much or else you will cause some kind of quick trouble. I tend to let off the bit here and there to release heat from the bit and then back into it I go. Choice of drill bit can also be influential. We could go on and on here, but it interests me. Diameter, feed rate, material, speed. Kind of like racing but carefully on a track.

In my shop, I have two drill presses. One is for power, the other for accuracy. 300-500 RPM is usually all I go with, but yes, then there are those cases that I am sure to want a higher speed. Kind of trying to get an idea about that. Seems like one of my presses will do 2700 RPM. Many times, I am using larger diameter bits or drill wood with a Forstner bit of 1/2" or more. Clamp it (with my hand, of course 😆) set the speed slow and have a bit of patience. With metals harder than brass that is when I will use some sort of proper lube just to save the bit. Was grinding down a shaft on an old Elma pot today. I don't what it was made of but it acted like stainless and took way longer to take a 32nd off of. Since the shaft was long, I could put it into a chuck of a hand drill held by a vise and then use a Dremel to work it down, finishing with a fine file and then diamond stone, it came out fine.

What speed does the machine run at to drill aluminum?

Maybe I should have worked for some kind assembly company, but the job would be different assembly every so often. Otherwise, no fun. It actually was that way at the phone company, going from building to building and doing a different kind of installation each time. I completely agree with the idea of a remote switcher though. It is the best way to compare. Have you ever bought something and took the top off (like everything that I have ever bought, right) and been amazed at the quality of workmanship? Take a picture and button it back. Nothing to be improved here. On many other occasions, you don't even want to touch anything under the hood, but for a different reason.

I couldn't appreciate your effort in this venture more. Very good. But this old guy has pretty much sworn off many SMD. I like to get components oriented physically when building just to have something that doesn't look like Hell. You have seen the type. Now I also am aware that this is 2023 and things will not be going my way from here on out in most cases. Think that I will stick with what I know, as I enjoy the C-9 from back in the day.

It is possible that I missed it somewhere, but I am curious as to what new chips will be used for the circuitry. I think that I have bought just about every kind of 4136 chip ever made. Likely a 2134 or similar chip could be put to good use. I even have tried 134 with Brown Dog adapters but needed more info about the way to satisfy some requirements of the chip. And then I remember someone actually tackled that with another little adapter board. We have been around the block with all of this.

There should also be a rotary knob, unlabeled. It may or may not make a difference. Sheez, once something good gets to be too complicated, then it becomes a rat chasing its own tail. Hit and miss. One appealing aspect of the original was its price.

Only one more switch to install. Next, chassis decision.

I really didn't expect to like the sound from my computer speakers when listening, but was very surprised at the sound at the beginning. Not even being that big of a fan of many guitar works, this really caught me off guard. And yes, it had something to do with maybe the combination of harmonics, the delay and the distortion. The later recordings were not at all impressive to me, but I could hear what they were going for. There is a different life present in this type of sound. Ok so how does that matter to the subject at hand? I will say that in my limited experience with such works, it usually just sounds more distorted than anything and quite annoying. Spikey and other things that only fit into heavy metal or something. No offense to those who love all that. This sound has heart. That is about all that I could really say as a difference. It is a touch of what I hear when using the Korg SP1 DHT in a preamp.

John S., About the 160-degree presentation of the C-9, yes, you are correct about that. In fact, it is one of those things that make me turn my head occasionally. The other device that I had heard in the past somehow went a bit beyond this and was too much of a good thing. It was rather impressive in its presentation, but not believable. Our brains will only accept so much as they will and filter out all the rest as BS. Maybe that is how I think of many things in life. We normally are hit daily with so much BS. Then again, just look at the number of sunsets that just don't 'look right'. I concur with your statement about improvements coming in the new C-9 design. You can bet that Bob is likely to be doing something in that sense. I still am pushing my idea of having a variable type of SH (like a volume control knob for SH) rather than 2-3 presets. Each recording probably has a 'best' amount of SH.

Crash Test Dummies. We need them for audio. We all got taken once or twice in love or audio. I am all in for home evaluations. I have had only two returns over the years, and one was legit. The other, well in a way was my fault for allowing a customer who 'knew a thing or two' to troubleshoot a C-9 unit. My eyes were widened by ham fisted 'repair work' that I couldn't even make up. It involved a hot glue gun replacing bolts and some really strange wiring. So it can go both ways if you let it.

What you need my friend is an H-9. That will keep you busy, guaranteed. I think that they are great, but I am strictly a 2 channel guy.

Did you ever hear Hughes AK100 unit? It came from a completely different approach to try and recreate 3D image. Honestly, I forget where they were coming from with research. I bought one just to hear, and dammit, the brain knows when it's trying to be fooled. So many IC in that thing too. Just rows of them.

Yes, that would make sense and the product that I was using (I think it was mini-DSP unit that is no longer sold) went way overboard with the effect to a degree that I didn't care for. Naturally, it is as you say and how this process is being implemented. When I listened to the Mini DSP product, it was simply unbelievable, I mean that literally. Don't doubt for a second it sounded incredible in its own way. Very impressive feat, but not one that was believable. Your attempt sounds to have a different approach for things like the injection ratio, and as you said frequency shaping. In other words a different tuning entirely. I applaud anyone who has gone out and used a proven technique to make the most of it.