Flawed Layouts Thread

[armdnrdy]

Let's go back to canucker's original post:

Ever come across a layout that didn't say "confirmed" or "unconfirmed" and you built it only to later discover something was wrong with it and not with your build?

Often something as simple as one component...installed backwards or of the wrong value.... I haven't seen this so I figured it was about time to put them all in one place so we could either give corrections, advise against building them or provide people with an alternate of the same project to build.

As I stated in an earlier post...I think the intentions are good and I am not opposed to weeding out flaws....
I think it is a great idea but...

This thread would have to be found by doing a bit of research...or you would have to know to search this thread for a particular build.
This is not the cure all database that will rid the world of bad schematics and layouts.

The same individual that grabs the first layout he finds, builds it, finds it doesn't work, and ends up here looking for help does not perform a proper search to find this thread. So...in essence...this will be akin to a well kept secret that gets passed on to newcomers just like the "what to do when it doesn't work" thread.

We are also back to the issue that R.G. mentioned. Who is going to verify all of the schematics and layouts? (PCB, Perf, and Vero)
Do we take someone's word for it because it's stamped "verified"?

[blackieNYC]

Two approaches could be taken - verified as working, and verified as wrong. Each would need to be confirmed by a second party. If two people confirm the cap is backwards AND works only when reversed, that would be a verification.
All science and medicine keeps a journal of discoveries and failures - who dares to say our science is of less significance?
(And seriously, armdnrdy - try the search I mentioned about the phase Royale.  You've bought it, built it, triple checked, and its distorting.  That's all you have to go with to begin you search)

[armdnrdy]

(And seriously, armdnrdy - try the search I mentioned about the phase Royale.  You've bought it, built it, triple checked, and its distorting.  That's all you have to go with to begin you search)

I believe you and I'm with you on this! but.....you just made my point....you have to search!

We know to search for flaws, mods, etc. before building a project, but this isn't going to help the individual that just grabs the layout, orders part, and away he goes to a non working build. This individual will never see this thread beforehand.

[Govmnt_Lacky]

And then there are the FACTORY schematics which some builders go to so they don't have to worry about flaws..... and soon after find flaws in that as well! 

cough... cough... EHX... cough... cough.. 

[Canucker]

Let's go back to canucker's original post:

Ever come across a layout that didn't say "confirmed" or "unconfirmed" and you built it only to later discover something was wrong with it and not with your build?

Often something as simple as one component...installed backwards or of the wrong value.... I haven't seen this so I figured it was about time to put them all in one place so we could either give corrections, advise against building them or provide people with an alternate of the same project to build.

As I stated in an earlier post...I think the intentions are good and I am not opposed to weeding out flaws....
I think it is a great idea but...

This thread would have to be found by doing a bit of research...or you would have to know to search this thread for a particular build.
This is not the cure all database that will rid the world of bad schematics and layouts.

The same individual that grabs the first layout he finds, builds it, finds it doesn't work, and ends up here looking for help does not perform a proper search to find this thread. So...in essence...this will be akin to a well kept secret that gets passed on to newcomers just like the "what to do when it doesn't work" thread.

We are also back to the issue that R.G. mentioned. Who is going to verify all of the schematics and layouts? (PCB, Perf, and Vero)
Do we take someone's word for it because it's stamped "verified"?

I thought it would be a bit bold to start off with "I think this thread should remain at the top of the page like the DEBUGGING-what to do when it doesn't work info" and seeing how much flack this is catching on its own maybe I'll set up a web site of my own and not worry what others feel about the idea.

[GGBB]

We are also back to the issue that R.G. mentioned. Who is going to verify all of the schematics and layouts? (PCB, Perf, and Vero)
Do we take someone's word for it because it's stamped "verified"?

We do it the way we currently do it - one at a time / build reports - just put the results in a common thread.  That's all this is about - a common place for what we've already been doing so it's easier to search.

[midwayfair]

As someone who does a bunch of layouts, some of which occasionally have flaws ... I also don't see any benefits to what the op is proposing.

The op wants a compendium of all the layouts that someone builds and finds a flaw in? What's the point of that? Just tell the person who made the layout so they can fix it. Otherwise it's like you're making fun of the person who made the layout for having a flaw. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get people to build a new design, much less be the first to take a plunge on a layout that's only been built by the originator? How about just having some understanding that people use their personal time to make your building experience at little easier?

The other major problem is that this forum doesn't permit posts to be edited after 24 hours. So you call out a layout in your thread, and for all eternity it shows up as a flawed layout, even after it's fixed. Should make things really easy on an inexperienced member trying to figure out whether they can build a project.  

EDIT: If I'm in a better mood less than 23hours from now, I will edit this not to make a fool of myself. Or will leave it for demonstration purposes. Who knows?

[GGBB]

The op wants a compendium of all the layouts that someone builds and finds a flaw in? What's the point of that? Just tell the person who made the layout so they can fix it. Otherwise it's like you're making fun of the person who made the layout for having a flaw.

I'm pretty sure the intention isn't to make fun of anyone.  But what else is one to do - not report their findings to the rest of the community?  Of course, try to contact the author - but that is very often in a public thread anyway where the layout was posted.  I don't see a point in adding those layouts to this kind of a thread since there would already be an ongoing thread for that particular project and more than likely a fix.  Whether there's a common thread or a thread for every individual build report, the mistake will almost always get reported publicly when the author shares their work publicly. 

The problem as I see it is not responsible authors like yourself Jon, rather the multitude of layouts that are here there and everywhere on the web (especially in Aron's gallery) that have no clear owner who can be contacted and responds.  Those are the culprits that slip through the cracks and don't get fixed - ever.  We need to track those.

I too have spent a lot of time on the layouts I've done and have also made mistakes.  Although it's a little embarrassing, I didn't mind having my mistake outed in public - it affords me the opportunity to publicly show that I am responsible when I quickly fix my own mistakes.

[R.G.]

I'm pretty sure the intention isn't to make fun of anyone.

That's certain.

But what else is one to do - not report their findings to the rest of the community?

Post something like "I tried this layout, and it doesn't work. I think the error is that [insert what you think you've found here]"

The problem as I see it is not responsible authors like yourself Jon, rather the multitude of layouts that are here there and everywhere on the web (especially in Aron's gallery) that have no clear owner who can be contacted and responds.  Those are the culprits that slip through the cracks and don't get fixed - ever.  We need to track those.

Seriously, it's like shoveling sand against the tide. We - whomever you define "we" to be - simply can't track the multitude of layouts here, there and everywhere on the web. "We" can't even find them all, let alone correct them.

This was a serious vexation to me back when I was one of a small set of people putting FX information on the web, period. No mistake could ever be corrected, because anything posted to the web was grabbed and stuffed into literally millions of independently owned machines all over the planet. Even if I issued a fix, it never went to the same set of machines as the previous one.  So the mistakes are permanent.

Another issue is that there is no "the community". Like everything on the web, effects diy stuff has split and multi-furcated up into many, many web sites as new geniuses come along, get miffed at something or enamored of how clever they are and everyone else is not and put up their own sites of The Word According to Me. I seem to remember another DIY effects site setting itself up famously a ways back. That's by no means the only one. Not even the only one in English.

I'll paraphrase a maxim I hold dear - it's better to light a single candle than develop a grandiose plan for eradicating the darkness.

We should do what we can to promote clarity and accuracy, but not get sidetracked and ultimately frustrated at not making everything perfect.

[blackieNYC]

The beauty of it would be that no matter what is out there on the web, there would be a growing list of reported errors, WITH a stipulation that each reported error be confirmed by a second builder.  Hopefully the fix is included, but maybe there isn't one, or it is not yet known. Under the topic title "Fuzztercluck, aka Vox Widget - error report" you would find one initial entry with a link or copy of an erroneous layout or schematic, with the statement "I built this and I know it's wrong because I fixed it by such n such, (and maybe even) and I found some vague reference to this error in this thread in the telecaster forum."  This would HAVE to be followed by a 2nd person stating "confirmed. I encountered the same problem and fixed it by the same/similar means."  Is there a danger here or an obvious flaw I'm not seeing?

I must say, I think my point about the phase Royale is unclear.  This particular search for error fixes was exhaustive, and should be made easier for the next person.  Maybe i'm not a Google Jedi Master, but imagine this:  If one bought the thing, and diligently pursued a reasonably thorough search, these faults would almost certainly not be found (until after the problem surfaced and could then be searched with more detail), the build would proceed, the distortion and bass loss that would have eluded a search very easily would reveal itself in the pedal, and one might see this as a bit unjust and think " hey, this shouldn't happen to me, or happen to the next guy- there should be a collection of confirmed errors!"   Confirmed successful builds might cause a little trouble, but confirmed errors and fixes can't really do much harm.  If the fix is offered, the design won't be cast into the world wide wastebasket as an outright reject.  We don't need to lynch someone for drawing a backwards cap.
So hard lessons (by 1) won't be repeated over and over again (by many more).
That said, the idea that posts discovered to be in error can be frozen in their original thread (besides multiplying faster than lil' bunnies) is disheartening.  Against the tide indeed.  Or maybe greater reason to create the list of errors.
OK - D'Astro's X Fuzz is next.  So, before I begin, are the builders thus far happy with the schematic on page 8?  Now that's some Lazyass Diligence.  Wait until someone else tries it first.

[nocentelli]

I'm struggling to see how this would work in practice. Let's say a person picks a layout from the net. They haven't bothered to check if it's verified, they haven't bothered to (or are unable to) check it against a schematic, try it out on the breadboard, or even post "does anyone know if this layout works/should work?" at a relevant website. They build the whole thing and discover it doesn't work, and they correctly assume the layout, and not their newby building skills is the cause of the fault. They type "flawed vero [insert schematic name]" and happen across this thread, that confirms that their circuit is indeed flawed. Is that the idea?

[R.G.]

Has anyone ever heard the phrase "herding cats"?

Humans are worse. Each individual human may act like a sheep, a rock, a house cat, a tiger, a cow, a Cape buffalo, or a mirror.

Herding cats is *easy*. Herding humans is *hard*.

[GGBB]

I'm struggling to see how this would work in practice. Let's say a person picks a layout from the net. They haven't bothered to check if it's verified, they haven't bothered to (or are unable to) check it against a schematic, try it out on the breadboard, or even post "does anyone know if this layout works/should work?" at a relevant website. They build the whole thing and discover it doesn't work, and they correctly assume the layout, and not their newby building skills is the cause of the fault. They type "flawed vero [insert schematic name]" and happen across this thread, that confirms that their circuit is indeed flawed. Is that the idea?

Not how I would imagine it.  Kind of the other way around.  A person wants to build X and finds a layout.  Because they are somewhat sane (at least for someone who builds pedals), they decide to attempt to verify it before building and find it listed here.  If they are convinced by whatever they find here, they would start looking for another layout.

As for the other side of the coin, people would report here after they have done due diligence to determine whether or not the error is their own or the layout's, have some third-party agreement (separate thread), and are unable to have it corrected by the originator (typically because they have effectively vanished).

Never going to be exhaustive, not bulletproof, but at least a bit of a 'candle' to use RG's term.  No worse than the way things are happening currently, and certainly better than nothing.

IMO - but I like to beat dead horses.

[nocentelli]

Well it sort of works: type "phase royale flawed layout" into google and this thread (including the fix) pops up. But i knew what to type. I hate to raise the spectre of the other place, but if i have an urge to build a clone from someone else's layout, i pop over there and find the relevant thread and the schematic is there often accompanied by layouts and build reports confirming thier veracity.

[J0K3RX]

Herding humans is *hard*??  nah, probably the easiest of all...