I don't know actually, I thought i did it, but I'm not sure. How can I check in Eagle?warpie said:no ground plane?
Wow, this is just embarrassing, that i hadn't even thought of that. Well, I guess i can rework it a lot, or start over.Humner said:the pots look to be board mounted and look rather close. Imagine what the front panel will look like and if you will have enough space around the knob for markings etc, you may need to allow additional space for this.
and further to this, the push switches may need to sit further back depending on how you plan on mounting it, once the cap goes on the switch can stick out a lot, so make considerations for this as well.
I will, when the corrections above are made.walter said:I am unable to open the board file with Cadence Allegro. If you attach a manufacturing file such as Gerber I could look at it with LPKF circuitpro. I also need practice running the Protolaser...
abbey road d enfer said:I'm coming a little late at the party, but I think you need at least one pair of electrolytic caps on the power rails, like 100 or 220uF.
I don't know why you favored the TL074's, maybe in order to make it period-accurate, but I don't like quads generally. Duals offer much more flexibility for opamp-rolling.
OPA 4134 could offer better THD/headroom performance, but not as much improvement in terms of noise as some bipolars.
Ideally, I would have used duals and a combination of OPA2134's and 5532's.
Agreed, TL074 is dirt-cheap, but OPA2134 is available at less than $4 from reputable vendors such as Farnell, Mouser, DigiKey... Now, it can be justified only by a desire to improve measurable performance over the genuine period-correct article.metalb00b00 said:I agree with you, but imho, TL074 is cheaper, easy to get, and very unlikely to be a counterfeit/fake, especially if not sourcing the OPA2134 from respectable vendors such as DigiKey-Mouser-etc.
Enter your email address to join: