Elco connectors..
Calrec PQ 1061
- Thread starter BuzAllen
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
TomWaterman
Well-known member
Thanks again buz!
I wondered how the staple looking contacts on the blocks fitted to the board.
Strange connectors those......I reckon pins will be just fine, either soldered in or in sockets.
I understand it may be a lot easier to put the blocks on the main pcbs....do you think ts a good idea to have them on satellite boards for servicing?
That way you could test amp blocks in one channel without having to build up loads of them?
Cheers Tom
I wondered how the staple looking contacts on the blocks fitted to the board.
Strange connectors those......I reckon pins will be just fine, either soldered in or in sockets.
I understand it may be a lot easier to put the blocks on the main pcbs....do you think ts a good idea to have them on satellite boards for servicing?
That way you could test amp blocks in one channel without having to build up loads of them?
Cheers Tom
you could build that on perf pretty easily. Pluging boards would be cool, it would make the most sense to do a layout so you can plugin any of the standard opamps. The ONLY reason calrec went with a plugin design like that was because of space limitations, which we wouldnt have, we should be smart about this...
As for front panel layout flexability goes, considering that we'll be using a switch and a pot for each band, there's really not going to be any room for creativity in a horizontal layout, I think we'll be lucky to fit everything on the panel in the first place. Id push for a pcb mount layout like the other gyraf projects, you could always just not mount your parts to the pcb if you want. Its my guess that by using pcb mount parts or not, we are all going to have very similar if not identical looking boxes, leaving off the filters, its 8 pots and switches and then toggles for phase, phantom, mic/line, and then filters if we do on/off/on toggles. Thats a lot to fit on a 19" rack panel. Im on the road right now so I cant even see if that will fit on a panel, can anyone eye that out?
dave
As for front panel layout flexability goes, considering that we'll be using a switch and a pot for each band, there's really not going to be any room for creativity in a horizontal layout, I think we'll be lucky to fit everything on the panel in the first place. Id push for a pcb mount layout like the other gyraf projects, you could always just not mount your parts to the pcb if you want. Its my guess that by using pcb mount parts or not, we are all going to have very similar if not identical looking boxes, leaving off the filters, its 8 pots and switches and then toggles for phase, phantom, mic/line, and then filters if we do on/off/on toggles. Thats a lot to fit on a 19" rack panel. Im on the road right now so I cant even see if that will fit on a panel, can anyone eye that out?
dave
It should fit no problem. Looking at my GSSL, there are 5 lorlin type switches and 2 pots with room to spare for a meter. The lorlins on the PCB could even be closer together if they had to be.
Ive actually seen a single rack unit with 2 of the calrec 1061's in it. It looked tight but it worked. So no problem with our needs.
Brian
Ive actually seen a single rack unit with 2 of the calrec 1061's in it. It looked tight but it worked. So no problem with our needs.
Brian
TomWaterman
Well-known member
The two 1061's in rack fit due to the concentric controls.....
But in a 1U rackmount box we have about twice the width of a module so it shouldn't be a real problem to fit in one channel.
Dave, what do you mean by 'any of the standard opamps' I'm confused - do you not want to use the original DOAs?
Cheers
But in a 1U rackmount box we have about twice the width of a module so it shouldn't be a real problem to fit in one channel.
Dave, what do you mean by 'any of the standard opamps' I'm confused - do you not want to use the original DOAs?
Cheers
If I was going to go through the trouble of making satellite boards, I would want to go with a standard footprint so then people could use whatever opamp they wanted. Use the calrec opamp, but lay it out so it fits the form factor of the standard DOA gain blocks. Fitting 8 switches and pots with enough comfortable space for a knob to turn on a 1/4" shaft with room for toggles could be a little challenging, can anyone eye this up? Lorlins have a fairly wide base compared to other switches. Its my guess that there isnt going to be a lot of room for play fitting a channel across a single rack panel.
I think the best thing to do is to forget the module that is posted here, forget all the artwork and just work forward from the schem on jakob's site and simply put together a project from that schem that will work for the group. To keep going back to matching the original module is really missing the point entirely of what Im suggesting doing. Those modules raw can be had between $800-$1200 and youve bought a vintage thing, so your investment is safe in the module. It just doesnt pay to try to replicate their design for the money we are gonna save building one. For the price of a real 1081, it is totally worthwhile to put the effort into that project that we are putting into it, for as expensive as that project is, its still intense savings over trying to buy a real 1081. The same logic completely does not apply to this one at all. If we cant build it cheap and easy, IMO, its not worth bothering with. simply stated, any way I look at this it needs to be redesigned making the original calrec art increasingly irrelevant.
Im just thinking of what works best as a group project and a project that someone with little experience can accomplish. If you want to make a clone, by all means go for it. I guess Ive just looked at this as a good springboard to get a discrete transistor EQ project in the hands of everyone based on the calrec eq vs. just doing a clone of the thing. We can take the EQ design, take the opamp design, take the transformer implementation but use these building blocks in a design that makes the most sense for us, in 2005, building it on our benches.
dave
I think the best thing to do is to forget the module that is posted here, forget all the artwork and just work forward from the schem on jakob's site and simply put together a project from that schem that will work for the group. To keep going back to matching the original module is really missing the point entirely of what Im suggesting doing. Those modules raw can be had between $800-$1200 and youve bought a vintage thing, so your investment is safe in the module. It just doesnt pay to try to replicate their design for the money we are gonna save building one. For the price of a real 1081, it is totally worthwhile to put the effort into that project that we are putting into it, for as expensive as that project is, its still intense savings over trying to buy a real 1081. The same logic completely does not apply to this one at all. If we cant build it cheap and easy, IMO, its not worth bothering with. simply stated, any way I look at this it needs to be redesigned making the original calrec art increasingly irrelevant.
Im just thinking of what works best as a group project and a project that someone with little experience can accomplish. If you want to make a clone, by all means go for it. I guess Ive just looked at this as a good springboard to get a discrete transistor EQ project in the hands of everyone based on the calrec eq vs. just doing a clone of the thing. We can take the EQ design, take the opamp design, take the transformer implementation but use these building blocks in a design that makes the most sense for us, in 2005, building it on our benches.
dave
I brought up the 2 1061's in one space thinking that if two of those fit with the 10 switches then we could fit ours. But those switches are smaller than many types.
So is this what your thinking of Dave? Looks like it will work. I tagged on an extra pot and threw some random switches on there, maybe pad, 48, HPF, 150/600 or whatever, there is room for more. All the switches layed out are either lorlins or larger at the base. It's tight but I've seen and done worse. Although the angle doesn't show it, there is about 3/4" to spare on each from the inside side wall of the rack.
I put about as big of knobs as I have on the switches, smaller could be used.
Brian
So is this what your thinking of Dave? Looks like it will work. I tagged on an extra pot and threw some random switches on there, maybe pad, 48, HPF, 150/600 or whatever, there is room for more. All the switches layed out are either lorlins or larger at the base. It's tight but I've seen and done worse. Although the angle doesn't show it, there is about 3/4" to spare on each from the inside side wall of the rack.
I put about as big of knobs as I have on the switches, smaller could be used.
Brian
TomWaterman
Well-known member
You're getting busy with that digicam eh Brian?! Looks cool.
The thing that held me back from the 1081 project was the price...so keeping it cheap is grat but I have to say I'm real interested in doing this with all grayhill switches - not as pricy as elma and smaller than the lorlins...
I actually started trying to layout the Calrec DOA in 990 footprint but I found it pretty hard. I know that the Calrec is a lot less parts than the 2520,990 etc but its a tight space to fit into without a lot of layout experience.
So I copied the layout of parts from the picture and drew my own traces, made it much easier.
I can't see any reason to use anything other than the Calrec transistor amp so why not go for a footprint similar to the original module? In fact the way that they did it, it appears to make the main board layout pretty cool. As far as I can see, the power rails run along the back of the module feeding each DOA, but the front 2/3 of the PCB are filled with the passive filter components.
It seems like a nice idea to not have power rails running all through the board or not?
Cheers Tom
The thing that held me back from the 1081 project was the price...so keeping it cheap is grat but I have to say I'm real interested in doing this with all grayhill switches - not as pricy as elma and smaller than the lorlins...
I actually started trying to layout the Calrec DOA in 990 footprint but I found it pretty hard. I know that the Calrec is a lot less parts than the 2520,990 etc but its a tight space to fit into without a lot of layout experience.
So I copied the layout of parts from the picture and drew my own traces, made it much easier.
I can't see any reason to use anything other than the Calrec transistor amp so why not go for a footprint similar to the original module? In fact the way that they did it, it appears to make the main board layout pretty cool. As far as I can see, the power rails run along the back of the module feeding each DOA, but the front 2/3 of the PCB are filled with the passive filter components.
It seems like a nice idea to not have power rails running all through the board or not?
Cheers Tom
[quote author="TomWaterman"]You're getting busy with that digicam eh Brian?! Looks cool.[/quote]
Production schedule just got delayed a week. Day off in the rain.... I'm not used to time off.....
As far as using the 'standard' DOA layout, I haven't really looked into it but it might not really make sense for this circuit anyway. The gain stage in the calrec does not use a differential input pair. It also appears that the feedback resistors are on the gain stage card itself, so it's not set up as a traditional opamp layout so the ability to swap opamps might not work here. If that is the case then I cant think of a reason to not use the calrec layout if it goes the way of separate cards for the gain stage.
Personally I'd like to see the gain stage cards done separately from the mainboards simply becauase having a couple of those and a xformer + switches and you could implement the pre on a proto board. Doesn't exactly turn this thing into a 'project' but it's an idea and it gets things rolling.
Brian
Production schedule just got delayed a week. Day off in the rain.... I'm not used to time off.....
As far as using the 'standard' DOA layout, I haven't really looked into it but it might not really make sense for this circuit anyway. The gain stage in the calrec does not use a differential input pair. It also appears that the feedback resistors are on the gain stage card itself, so it's not set up as a traditional opamp layout so the ability to swap opamps might not work here. If that is the case then I cant think of a reason to not use the calrec layout if it goes the way of separate cards for the gain stage.
Personally I'd like to see the gain stage cards done separately from the mainboards simply becauase having a couple of those and a xformer + switches and you could implement the pre on a proto board. Doesn't exactly turn this thing into a 'project' but it's an idea and it gets things rolling.
Brian
wow, looks cool. Depending on the package, sometimes you can fit 2 switches on top of each other, so we could mount 4 switches only 2 wide which frees up a little more panel space for an on/off switch and an LED indicator for the phantom power. I didnt suspect that there was going to be a lot of room on the panel.
You can use greyhill switches but I would still press to do a PCB mount layout for lorlins which cost $1 vs. the greyhill at $18. You could always use any kind of switch you like and just wire it to the PCB...
The main thing with those opamps are the elco edge connectors. You can still get those elco pins, but they might not be a very easy thing to get for everyone worldwide. Trying to keep this EASY for everyone, sure, elco's will work but if we could come up with a standard through hole part to mount the satellite opamp, I think it would be better for people. Sure, there is always that ONE part that is hard to find with every project, but maybe just providing a hole in the edge pad so you could at the very least use some buss wire and sockets instead of elco pins. Does anyone have a suggestion to work around using elco pins?
dave
You can use greyhill switches but I would still press to do a PCB mount layout for lorlins which cost $1 vs. the greyhill at $18. You could always use any kind of switch you like and just wire it to the PCB...
The main thing with those opamps are the elco edge connectors. You can still get those elco pins, but they might not be a very easy thing to get for everyone worldwide. Trying to keep this EASY for everyone, sure, elco's will work but if we could come up with a standard through hole part to mount the satellite opamp, I think it would be better for people. Sure, there is always that ONE part that is hard to find with every project, but maybe just providing a hole in the edge pad so you could at the very least use some buss wire and sockets instead of elco pins. Does anyone have a suggestion to work around using elco pins?
dave
MikoKensington
Well-known member
What about Mill-max pins? Like the JLM and Fabio's kit?
The spacing for the pins on the calrec gain stage are .1" so we could simply use standard 90deg .1 headers that fit right into standard .1 in-line sockets. This would allow the exact same layout for the gain stage as the calrec yielding less new work. Sounds like Tom might already be close. They're also very available and total cost for them would be a few dollars, if that.
We could use the 'double' stacked .1" headers for extra mounting strength. Looking at the gain stages I thing it would be a close fit since the elco connectors on the gain stage already have 2 soldier points each. I've done this before on other things and it does increase the strength. We could avoid those mounting poles on the sides of the pins that way.
Brian
We could use the 'double' stacked .1" headers for extra mounting strength. Looking at the gain stages I thing it would be a close fit since the elco connectors on the gain stage already have 2 soldier points each. I've done this before on other things and it does increase the strength. We could avoid those mounting poles on the sides of the pins that way.
Brian
TomWaterman
Well-known member
You're telling me it rains in SoCal? :wink: try living in the UK for while!?
Yep you're right about the DOA and its single ended input with tapped feedback resistors inside the layout.
I hadn't looked at it, started laying out in 990 footprint and realised why there were in fact 4 earth pins and 3 around the input and thats what caused me to stop and go with the original. Combine that with the way in which I guess the power rails run right along the back of the module and we could get a fairly neat mainboard layout close to the original.
The 0.1" pins will be just fine - that is what I have used in the layout so far - I'm not finished yet and I'm watching a movie in minute but tomorrow, I'll do it and find a place to host an image.
The new JLM modules use 0.1" spacing, thats is what I thought I'd use, and its a bonus that turns out to be the 1061s elco spacing as well.
We don't need to use any fancy pins just the 90deg ones as seen on the JLM board a few pages back. I tried looking at Farnell but actually couldn't find them only straight ones - but they must be freely available.
Maybe you're also right about double stacking the pins, I've never even used any thing like it - if you think it will add to the strength then I can add it......but there are around 7-10 pins to keep it stable....
The 0.1" spacing also means you could proto it on veroboard easily......
Cheers Tom
Yep you're right about the DOA and its single ended input with tapped feedback resistors inside the layout.
I hadn't looked at it, started laying out in 990 footprint and realised why there were in fact 4 earth pins and 3 around the input and thats what caused me to stop and go with the original. Combine that with the way in which I guess the power rails run right along the back of the module and we could get a fairly neat mainboard layout close to the original.
The 0.1" pins will be just fine - that is what I have used in the layout so far - I'm not finished yet and I'm watching a movie in minute but tomorrow, I'll do it and find a place to host an image.
The new JLM modules use 0.1" spacing, thats is what I thought I'd use, and its a bonus that turns out to be the 1061s elco spacing as well.
We don't need to use any fancy pins just the 90deg ones as seen on the JLM board a few pages back. I tried looking at Farnell but actually couldn't find them only straight ones - but they must be freely available.
Maybe you're also right about double stacking the pins, I've never even used any thing like it - if you think it will add to the strength then I can add it......but there are around 7-10 pins to keep it stable....
The 0.1" spacing also means you could proto it on veroboard easily......
Cheers Tom
TomWaterman
Well-known member
BTW anyone know the diameter of similar pins in mils? I need to get some datasheets etc.....
Tom
Tom
[quote author="TomWaterman"]You're telling me it rains in SoCal? :wink: try living in the UK for while!?
[/quote]
I did a few years in Oregon, it's one of the reasons I live here now. Come on let me whine a little it's not supposed to rain like this here! Though it is as green as I have ever seen it here in the low desert east of LA, beautiful...
This is what I was thinking of. Any brand of these, just so they plug into standard in-line sockets. The bottom of this digi-key catalog page has the rt. angle breakaways headers in 80 position for a few bucks. Either fig 2 or 4. Your probably right that we dont need the doubles since these won't be removed once their in place.
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T051/0134.pdf
There are definately fancier options but I don't think it's necesary. This will work and it's really cheap. A local surplus store has these kinds of things for pennies.
Here's a link to the specifics, digi-key has links to all the data sheets for the various manufacturers for these.
http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Amp/Web%20Data/103325.pdf
Brian
[/quote]
I did a few years in Oregon, it's one of the reasons I live here now. Come on let me whine a little it's not supposed to rain like this here! Though it is as green as I have ever seen it here in the low desert east of LA, beautiful...
This is what I was thinking of. Any brand of these, just so they plug into standard in-line sockets. The bottom of this digi-key catalog page has the rt. angle breakaways headers in 80 position for a few bucks. Either fig 2 or 4. Your probably right that we dont need the doubles since these won't be removed once their in place.
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T051/0134.pdf
There are definately fancier options but I don't think it's necesary. This will work and it's really cheap. A local surplus store has these kinds of things for pennies.
Here's a link to the specifics, digi-key has links to all the data sheets for the various manufacturers for these.
http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Amp/Web%20Data/103325.pdf
Brian
cannikin
Well-known member
This is going to be good!
I still think dividing this project in two would be a good idea. The insert i/o gives a good dividing point between the pre and the EQ (right after the second discrete gain stage). This way one could build a pre or an unbalanced line in/out discrete EQ. They could be placed in the same rack like the original with an insert point switch or one could put two EQ's in a box, or whatever. Throw xformers on the in or out to balance etc, if one wants. This breaks up the development and gives options.
It seems to me a good option. Cost would be lower if one just wanted to build either design making it more accesible, but at the same time if one wanted the pre/eq combo it would not be all that much more, just 2 pcbs instead of 1, but same basic component count as an all on one design.
I wouldn't want to change the signal path at all, just break the schematic in half.
Anybody out there reading this stuff want to throw in your ideas? What do you all think? What would you build from this?
Brian
It seems to me a good option. Cost would be lower if one just wanted to build either design making it more accesible, but at the same time if one wanted the pre/eq combo it would not be all that much more, just 2 pcbs instead of 1, but same basic component count as an all on one design.
I wouldn't want to change the signal path at all, just break the schematic in half.
Anybody out there reading this stuff want to throw in your ideas? What do you all think? What would you build from this?
Brian
brian, I think that is a pretty good idea if we can make it work. If we could approach this as a modular thing where the EQ easily plugs into an insert point wihtout degrading the sound of the whole thing, I think that would be pretty cool. Would also be easy for those of us building a small mixer to stay on the calrec platform for the whole thing, build a few EQ's and then use the insert point on two additional amps possibly as make up amps on a passive mix buss. Also gives the option of having a few channels in a mixer without an EQ section.
dave
dave
gang of elk
Well-known member
sounds like a good idea. i'm really attracted to the whole package but breaking it up may also help people like me get it off the ground quicker, lord knows i'm slow, and just learning, but understanding more every day.
i wish i could contribute something more than just my enthusiasm for this one. i always enjoy using my pal's 1061s. the thought of building a pair, or even like now just getting a better understanding of how they're made, as this thread goes onward, is very exciting.
i wish i could contribute something more than just my enthusiasm for this one. i always enjoy using my pal's 1061s. the thought of building a pair, or even like now just getting a better understanding of how they're made, as this thread goes onward, is very exciting.
To test the idea I just took a pair of line outs and ran one channel directly into my mixer, then the other channel into the insert return on the 1061 and then the 1061 output to the mixer. It works fine as a line in line out EQ. With the EQ off or on and set to no cut/boost the direct signal and the one through the EQ were the same level with the output control set to about 70%. So the insert point of the schematic is really the ideal place to break it.
This possibly makes a pre quite cheap to build. A xformer, two of those gain stages, 2 toggles, a gain switch and trim pot. Not bad considering I believe those gain stages will be really cheap parts wise. Throw in a JLM AC/DC PSU and a case and there we go.
The the eq can be a bit more involved project as we figure out things like the inductor and what caps to use etc.
EDIT: you know I had not played with this thing EQ-wise on a mixed musical source before. The low end EQ rocks at the 56hz setting. Good stuff.
Brian
This possibly makes a pre quite cheap to build. A xformer, two of those gain stages, 2 toggles, a gain switch and trim pot. Not bad considering I believe those gain stages will be really cheap parts wise. Throw in a JLM AC/DC PSU and a case and there we go.
The the eq can be a bit more involved project as we figure out things like the inductor and what caps to use etc.
EDIT: you know I had not played with this thing EQ-wise on a mixed musical source before. The low end EQ rocks at the 56hz setting. Good stuff.
Brian
