Wiardgroup

I would like to add to Doc's eloquent incites that many devices, such
as the Sequentix P3 sequencer, (which has been a rather large success
in the thru-hole era), could not be converted to the newer technology
in a way that was econimically realistic for its market place - and,
because of the EU's ban on such leaded devices being manufactured, has
now ended production.

At the very least, conversion of the 300 series to SMD would be very
costly - period.  Grant has already employed this technology on his
more recent devices (1200 series) - I suspect that he will continue to
do this in the future.

As for the "archival" 300 Series Modules that exist, I think that it
would be safe to assume that even at twice the price for components, a
300 Series module is still more affordable to build today in its
existing design than turning it into a "TBD" module, pending the
costly and uncertain conversion to SMD, which would turn this cash cow
into a cash drain....

that''s just my opinion - I could be wrong.


gary





"drmabuce" <drmabuce@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all
> 
> --- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "tom_tav" <tom_tav@> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately if you want to service an instrument somedays you will
> sooner or later having 
> > problems to get something else then smd parts....
> > 
> 
> this is true, but the decision for a technological cottage industry is
> anything but clear right now...
> 
> a few questions about surface-mount technology are stacking up in my
> mailbox so here's my take:
> 
> background:
> SMD,SMT,SOIC are all jargon for pretty-much the same thing:
> itty bitty parts that you can move with a sneeze and don't have any
> nice bendy wires stickin' out of 'em.
> the wiki on this subject is pretty good  
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-mount_technology
> These things are made for the convenience of robots and not for human
> fingers.
> 
> More germane to this forum is the issue of reparability. It's true
> that the older DIP devices will suffer from a scarcity of replacement
> parts. But this evolutionary precipice in hardware is a bit unique in
> that the components are virtually identical electrically but they are
> physically much smaller.  In this way this is not like the migration
> from tubes to discrete transistors. The scale of physical
> miniaturization was comparable but  power environments moved from high
> voltage unipolar to lower voltage bipolar and the active components
> had VERY different electrical properties. 
> SMD is optimized for mass production by automated processes. Component
> level repairs are not part of the plan. The intention is to reduce the
> cost of the circuitboard to the point that replacement is cheaper than
> repair. This works pretty well for cell phones produced in production
> runs of 50,000 units but those scales do not favor small run esoteric
> devices. Small run SMD boards don't run cheap enough to garner the
> advantage of being disposable and replaceable.
> Component-level repairs to SMD are possible but significantly more
> difficult and time consuming .  i'd contend that the profile of
> increased risk and difficulty of SMD repair is different but
> equivalent to the tradeoffs inherent in through-hole (DIP) (ie. easier
> repairs but scarcer parts). In a pinch I think it is easier to adapt a
> smaller SMD chip to a through-hole application than the reverse.
> 
> The wiard designs (what's on the schematic) are very durable but  the
> technology available to realize these 'songs in solder' is in a real
> state of flux right now.*** The consequences of the choices that face
> Prof. Richter (and his colleagues) at this juncture are VERY serious,
> and there is no path that offers a CLEAR advantage right now.
> 
> aleatoric music is way more fun than aleatoric livelihoods.
> 
> -doc
> 
> PS
> apologies to the group for all the button-thrashing empty posts this
> morning
> 
> ***
> even  -i- don't KNOW if that pun was intended or not
>