Dotcomformat

on 9/23/04 4:38 AM, Terje Winther at terjewi@notam02.no wrote:

> Are you taking about the #901 standalone (originally triple-width
> front), or the
> #901A and #901B driver/oscillator (each on single-width fronts) pair?

No, A/B sets. Theres no real point in doing a 901 because its' really just a
901a/b pair with output attenuators.

> Will you update the old parts (trimmers, transistors)?

I've replaced the "weird" transistors with standard modern NPN/PNP parts on
the one I bread boarded and it worked just fine. I was able to find a small
cache of CA3019's, so no hacking in that regard. As far as tuning, it does
kinda suck. But that's 901's

> And what about front panels? Stooge to the rescue, I guess...

If Stooge has a supply for the metal. Larry?

BTW, don't know if I ever posted this...but this is what that VCADSR panel
looks like after silk-screening:

http://denonville.com/panel.jpg

> May I ask why you have choosen the 901 VCO and not the 921 VCO?

I'm looking for more of a "vintage" sound/behavior oscillators. We pretty
much have 921's in our dotcom systems already. Not to mention trying to get
around the ua726 issue.