Wiardgroup

I worry a bit about a fiberglass face plate that incorporates certain components
(other than knobs, sliders, and jacks). Particularly surface mount components.
If I'm constantly plugging and unplugging patch cords to a module, I'm flexing
(maybe ever so slightly, but depending on the material, perhaps quite a bit
actually) the front of the module. Won't this stress the solder points of anything
mounted on the rear? This concept might work well for some types of
modules but for others, I'm not so sure. I have nothing against the use of
fiberglass (or plastic, or wood for that matter) for face plates, but I do
question over loading the functionality of it by putting the actual circuit 
layout on the rear of the plate.

My 2 cents.


--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "drmabuce" <drmabuce@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Matthew
> --- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "mritenburg" <mritenburg@> wrote:>  
> > I see no compelling reason why a person should not be able to 
> > request aluminum face plates if they are willing to incur the cost.  
> 
> i can envision a compelling reason. 
> Though at this early stage i concede that it is all speculation. 
> But if i understand Grant's original hypothesis, one scenario under
> consideration combines the circuit board and the panel. The components
> would occupy one side and the controls and jacks would protrude
> through the other side. This would obviously impart a lot of material
> and assembly savings. But some very innovative and unconventional
> engineering would be required to make it work (this time***)
> If that method was implemented there would be no discrete faceplate
> that could be customized. 
> Even if there were a partial implementation of such a scheme, i.e.
> some components on a fiberglass 'faceplate' and some on a separate
> PCB, Metal faceplates would be precluded.
> i'm curious to find out of if  this is indeed what Prof. Richter was
> considering. 
> 
> -doc
> 
> ***
> anybody remember the Alesis 1622 debacle? ruin a fader...discard the
> mixer!
>