Phasers: the more stages the better ?

[Mark Hammer]

Just out of curiosity, I have seen phaser stages where all parts in each stage are identical (most of them) and some where there is a difference in capacitance (a few of them).  Does this make much difference and is it something to be pursued or something to be avoided?  I imagine they sound different but it is not clear which way would be "better".

Concentrating the phase shift in a specific area gets you more obvious notches and peaks.  Distributing the phase shift a little more broadly moves one in the direction of Uni-vibes, with broader shallower dips, rather than focussed notches.

[Phend]

The earliest-issue Small Stones (and possibly some later issues) used a clever trick to provide LFO waveforms that varied with the purpose/nature of the sweep.

I have one of these Small Stones in very good condition, plugged it in last night and it sounds great.
Quite flexible in the effect(s) it can produce.
Question: I wonder how close the Jfets were matched during production ? Did some "sound" better than other Small Stones from the same production lot ?
(I am going to build a Phase 45 and have learned that the closer the match the better the sound)
Here are some images, comments? , I bought it in 1978/79.

[Fender3D]

Your Small Stone does not use FETs, it has 4 CA3094 as filters, plus 2 more CAs as LFO.
I think, due to chips' closer manufacturing than FET's, there's not a great difference in sound between units... Altough bat-eared guitarists may found some...

[Phend]

Probably have seen this.....