[sdiy] "obsolete" 2N3906

[jhaible at debitel.net]

> now technically this may sound rediculous

Not ridiculous at all, IMO.

Remember, everything a musician likes about an instrument
is based on technical features in the end.
Whether these are easy to describe, or even whether they have
been designed-in intentionally, is a different story.

In case of "big may sound better", there are a few
technical factors that immediately come to mind:

Bigger instrument - larger distance between circuit
parts - less chance of VCOs to interlock because of
electric or magnetic fields.

Bigger instrument - less problem with power consumption
(heat!) - allows use of low noise and no-crossover-
distortion class A circuits

Less problems with power consumption also allows current
steering instead of more efficient switching - less problems
with spikes in your system.

And while we're at it: PSU can be linear and oversized
insteadof switched or linear&undersized. => less noise from
PSU

Also, high quality capacitors are rather big. This doesn't mean
that a large instrument must automatically contain the best
components, but it means that in the smaller instrument there
isn't even _room_ for the better ones!

And don't forget that one: If someone claims the small version
"contains the same circuit as the big version", this isn't 
always true. For example, if the Alesis A6 with its highly 
integrated circuits doesn't sound like a big Moog module, it
might not just be the same circuit downsized, but it might be
an entirely different circuit (and the designer might have
thought the difference unimportant, or the marketing might
have thought the marketing more important than the hardware ...
you get the idea.)

So, there are good reasons to "go big", if you can afford it!
(And there are other good reasons for going small, too. (;->) )

JH.


> 
> hey paul,
> 
>  this is where the musicians have a say as well as the techs..;-)
> i have always felt that one of the reasons old analogues sound better,
> fatter, more alive, etc is because of their big parts, so to speak. most
> seventies synths inside have big citcuit boards with thick traces, and
> enormous size parts compared to today. now technically this may sound
> rediculous, but i think there is a relationship between this and the sound
> of a synth. so making everything smaller in my view alters the sound, and
> generally not for the better.
> 
> ruud
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Maddox" <P.Maddox at signal.qinetiq.com>
> To: <synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl>
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [sdiy] "obsolete" 2N3906
> 
> 
> > Grant,
> >
> >
> > > You will notice those are both TO-92 packages. This is just a
> continuation
> > > of the process of eliminating through hole parts and forcing everyone to
> > > switch to surface mount. This was to be expected the day surface mount
> was
> > > announced.
> >
> > hehe, paranoia?
> >
> > > If you can sell 0.1 gram of plastic and 1 gram of plastic for the same
> > > price, your going to phase out the 1 gram part. Surface mount is much
> more
> > > profitable to the parts manufacturers because of the reduction of raw
> > > materials used while maintaining the same end selling price.
> >
> > agreed, it makes good business sense, but whats wrong with progress?
> >
> > Also from a DIY point of view with PCB costs based on area, does it not
> make
> > sense to switch to smaller parts?
> > Soldering surface mount parts is NOT hard, especially
> transistors/resistors
> > (go for the 1206 stuff to start).
> > Surface mount ICs can take a bit more effort, but with practice surface
> > mount soldering is a *LOT* quicker.
> > I can solder a 64pin TQFP in about an quarter of the time I can solder a
> > 40pin DIL.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> 
> 
> 




-------------------------------------------------
debitel.net Webmail