tommypiper
Well-known member
Jim, we all appreciate your efforts already. Don't worry, man. This is good.
Regarding your dilemma, I understand the temptation to just design the passive EQ portion and insert it into Martin's circuit. It's tempting because martin's board is working and it eliminates all the design and testing he's had to go through and means that all the testing would be confined to the EQ board. That would probably work great.
But -- I think Chris' all-on-one-board approach may be better in the long run. It's comprehensive. It allows complete control and troubleshooting as one unit. It may be easier to build in the end as well.
Either is fine, but remember how time consuming these become.
Some questions which might help clarify what to do:
Chris, what is the status of your design? Could we just make some PCBs of it? What changes would you make?
Martin, what's your feeling about having an EQ made to mate with your boards? What issues and potential problems are there? It seems there would be some wiring involved.
cheers
:guinness:
Regarding your dilemma, I understand the temptation to just design the passive EQ portion and insert it into Martin's circuit. It's tempting because martin's board is working and it eliminates all the design and testing he's had to go through and means that all the testing would be confined to the EQ board. That would probably work great.
But -- I think Chris' all-on-one-board approach may be better in the long run. It's comprehensive. It allows complete control and troubleshooting as one unit. It may be easier to build in the end as well.
Either is fine, but remember how time consuming these become.
Some questions which might help clarify what to do:
Chris, what is the status of your design? Could we just make some PCBs of it? What changes would you make?
Martin, what's your feeling about having an EQ made to mate with your boards? What issues and potential problems are there? It seems there would be some wiring involved.
cheers
:guinness: