In Tom's defense. :)

[McElhatton, Pat]

Jorgen Bergfors writes:

Tony Clark writes:
>I think it is clear that there was obviously too much expectation on
>the part of certain individuals for mind blowing advances in circuit
>design.

Well the kicker here is that Tom created that expectation himself by   
writing
such things as "I keep looking for the perfect VCO. The VCO-3B almost   
fits
bill", "This is a GREAT VCO!", "This is worlds most dangerous VCF ".
It's fine to publish simpler circuits, that are easier and cheaper to   
build,
as

long as you clearly declare what they are and not pretend they are world
class.

The VCO-3B quote, IN CONTEXT, is:

  "The VCO-2A is a great oscillator but it uses a couple of hard to find   
parts
   and the layout, assembly and setup is more complicated than I would
  like it to be so, I keep looking for the perfect VCO.
  One that sounds as good as the 2A, it needs to be stable, easy to
  build and scale.

  The VCO-3B almost fits bill. If it just sounded as good as the 2A.   
Don't
  get me wrong it sounds very good and it's almost there... but not   
quite.
  You could compair it to the Octive Cat or Rogue oscillators sound wise.

  So what I have here with the VCO-3B is a really good sounding VCO
  that uses common parts, has a low parts count, is easy to build, it's
  very stable and setup is easy. But it's not a replacement. "

This doesn't sound like the blatant misrepresentation that you are
stating.  It explicitly points out that this is not as good sounding as
another design, but is easier to build.

The "worlds most dangerous filter" quote was (I think) referring to the
fact that the circuit went into resonance very easily, not that it is the
worlds best sounding filter.


I'm sure he has put a lot of effort into this, but think about how much   
time
DIYers around the world might waste if they build the circuits in the   
belief
that they really are the best you can find?
There is definitely a place for simplified circuits too, as long as they   
are
labeled as such.
I'm all for using cheap easy to get components and I think Tom's   
initiative
is
a very good one. It's just the prose on his web site that bothers me a   
bit.
And

I think suppliers of high quality kits like Paul Schreiber must be even   
more
bothered.
To build stable and reliable analog circuitry is not trivial. Even the   
pros
like Moog had problems with that. Beginners deserve to know what the   
pitfalls
are before they waste too much of their time.
I don't have all the answers myself but I listen to the other people on   
this
list and try to avoid making the mistakes that they have done. I also   
think I
should warn the others not to make the mistakes that I have done.
I like to check with the other people on the list what their opinion on a   

circuit is, before I try to build it. Why waste time if somebody else   
already
has found out that the circuit has problems? Or that a better one exists,
that
is just as simple to build?
Okay Jorgen, show me the VCO circuit that is "better", and as simple to   
build.

In your previous post you mentioned that he omitted temperature   
compensation
from the VCF-5A without mentioning it.  Wrong!  The circuit description
explicitly states that he left out the temperature compensation diodes.


/Jorgen

TomG: I appreciate your website.  I'm amazed at the amount of work you   
have put
  into collecting/designing and documenting these circuits.
Please keep up the good work.

Jorgen: I respectfully suggest you stuff a sock in your blow hole.

  Pat McElhatton