ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

previous: Kent S. Re: Stellan's Tremolo -- 3/2/2000 4:17 PM

Suggestions for a community standard

3/6/2000 3:00 AM
Mark Hammer	Suggestions for a community standard RE: The posted tremolo schematic This is not the first time that posted schematics by well-intentioned generous folks have turned up with a possible glitch. There are some things that are easy to reverse engineer, and others that get a little bit tricky in the 40 minutes of flipping the board back and forth before the owner starts getting nervous and wants it back. Is it possible for this broader group to adopt a standard for posted schematics that will verify that the schematic is either: a) a manufacturer original (for servicing) b) a retouched original (e.g., more legible component values or series issue variations in component values) c) an original design that works as is. d) a redrawing that has been verified by a builder (i.e., someone who worked only from the posted schematic) e) an unverified schematic (e.g., a drawing from a friend of a friend) f) an incomplete schematic. This is not a complaint as such, merely a suggestion to help out those whose savvy is not enough for them to spot the errors or gaps in the schematic. It also means that if a corrected or verified version shows up somewhere, the user will be able to distinguish between the two on the basis of a formal indication (e.g., "Verified by 2nd party builder, 1999"). Nothing fancy. But if you are posting schematics and are able to "stamp" a standard message in the corner of the GIF or JPG, with any sort of phrasing that lets the lurker know where they stand, that would be appreciated by all, and most especially by the recent converts to the DIY cult. Thanks, Mark Ottawa, Canada

3/6/2000 3:00 AM

Mark Hammer

Suggestions for a community standard

RE: The posted tremolo schematic

This is not the first time that posted schematics by well-intentioned generous folks have turned up with a possible glitch. There are some things that are easy to reverse engineer, and others that get a little bit tricky in the 40 minutes of flipping the board back and forth before the owner starts getting nervous and wants it back.

Is it possible for this broader group to adopt a standard for posted schematics that will verify that the schematic is either:
a) a manufacturer original (for servicing)
b) a retouched original (e.g., more legible component values or series issue variations in component values)
c) an original design that works as is.
d) a redrawing that has been verified by a builder (i.e., someone who worked only from the posted schematic)
e) an unverified schematic (e.g., a drawing from a friend of a friend)
f) an incomplete schematic.

This is not a complaint as such, merely a suggestion to help out those whose savvy is not enough for them to spot the errors or gaps in the schematic. It also means that if a corrected or verified version shows up somewhere, the user will be able to distinguish between the two on the basis of a formal indication (e.g., "Verified by 2nd party builder, 1999").

Nothing fancy. But if you are posting schematics and are able to "stamp" a standard message in the corner of the GIF or JPG, with any sort of phrasing that lets the lurker know where they stand, that would be appreciated by all, and most especially by the recent converts to the DIY cult.

Thanks,
Mark
Ottawa, Canada

Replies:

Kent S. Mark,Hear, Hear! T... -- 3/6/2000 4:16 PM
Doc That's a great idea, Mark. As usual... -- 3/6/2000 5:38 PM
Gus Mark I try to do that on my hand dr... -- 3/6/2000 5:58 PM