Gristleizer PCB group buy? Who's interested?

[Taylor]

Good idea, it should be jumberable if people want to.

I think you could just leave it out, since it goes to ground.

...in other news, I'm generally of the mind that everything should be jumberable. I recently jumbered over to the store to buy some turnips.

Here in the south, we write our P's upside-down.  

It occurs to me that "making something jumperable" doesn't really mean anything. Obviously, any part can be jumpered without any special PCB tricks. I really need to learn not to wake up and immediately post on this forum while I'm still half-dreaming.

Beware the jumberwok, my son...

[Taylor]

Good idea, it should be jumberable if people want to.

I think you could just leave it out, since it goes to ground.

...in other news, I'm generally of the mind that everything should be jumberable. I recently jumbered over to the store to buy some turnips.

Sorry for the derail, folks, but I have been chuckling about this all day since Josh drew my attention to my post. I had to put this in my signature, because it's one of the most hilariously dumb posts I've seen, and I don't have to worry about offending the poster.

[jacobyjd]

 

[Ripthorn]

Does making it jumberable have anything to do with jumberlaya?

[Taylor]

You know, this might get my New Orleanian card revoked, but I think I've eaten jumberlaya maybe once in my life.

[jacobyjd]

You know, this might get my New Orleanian card revoked, but I think I've eaten jumberlaya maybe once in my life.

It's delicious.

[Derringer]

less chit-chat

more gristleizer designing blease !!!

[thedefog]

Does anyone have any good suggestions for the rotary switch via Mouser? I found one on Mouser for around $4.30. Part #  105-14573
I want the Non-shorting contacts version, correct?

[Ripthorn]

You know, this might get my New Orleanian card revoked, but I think I've eaten jumberlaya maybe once in my life.

It's delicious.

Don't you mean qelicious?

[jacobyjd]

You know, this might get my New Orleanian card revoked, but I think I've eaten jumberlaya maybe once in my life.

It's delicious.

Don't you mean qelicious?

I don't live in the south 

Less talkey, more designey!

One thought I had was that expression outputs would be nice. Say, for speed.

[Ripthorn]

You could just wire the expression outs as switched jacks so that the on-board knob is used unless there is a cable plugged in to the expression pedal jack.

[Taylor]

So I've just heard from Markeebee that Roy's new design will involve an AVR micro doing the LFO. He'll release the code and sell programmed chips, but it seemed to me that this might kind of miss what a lot of people like about the Gristelizer, which is the low-tech design with all its peculiarities.

What does everybody think? Should we do the board using the new AVR design or make a board for the original, albeit with updated opamps? We don't know a timetable for the new design, but if we go with the Gaussmarkov schematic, I'll start the layout in the next day or so.

[jacobyjd]

So I've just heard from Markeebee that Roy's new design will involve an AVR micro doing the LFO. He'll release the code and sell programmed chips, but it seemed to me that this might kind of miss what a lot of people like about the Gristelizer, which is the low-tech design with all its peculiarities.

What does everybody think? Should we do the board using the new AVR design or make a board for the original, albeit with updated opamps? We don't know a timetable for the new design, but if we go with the Gaussmarkov schematic, I'll start the layout in the next day or so.

How about this for an idea: Put together the standard LFO section on the board, but add points where the AVR chip could added to the LFO input, so once the new design comes out, it won't be hard to just leave the analog LFO unpopulated, then put the AVR on a daughterboard. That gives both options, and you probably won't be talking much more space. Better yet, leave some spaces for standoff holes to mount the daughterboard straight to the main PCB.

Just an idea

*edit* Hah--now I fixed it, so anyone who reads your comment will just think you're crazy! 

[Ripthorn]

So I've just heard from Markeebee that Roy's new design will involve an AVR micro doing the LFO. He'll release the code and sell programmed chips, but it seemed to me that this might kind of miss what a lot of people like about the Gristelizer, which is the low-tech design with all its peculiarities.

What does everybody think? Should we do the board using the new AVR design or make a board for the original, albeit with updated opamps? We don't know a timetable for the new design, but if we go with the Gaussmarkov schematic, I'll start the layout in the next day or so.

How about this for an idea: Put together the standard LFO section on the board, but add points where the AVR chip could added to the LFO input, so once the new design comes out, it won't be hard to just leave the analog LFO unpopulated, then put the AVR on a daughterboard. That gives both options, and you probably won't be talking much more space. Better pet, leave some spaces for standoff holes to mount the daughterboard straight to the main PCB.

Just an idea

So do you write your "y"s like that in Indiana? \

In all seriousness, I like this idea.  Maybe the builder could put in a switch to switch between them. You could label it Hi/Lo Tech.

[Rectangular]

throwing an AVR in seems to defeat the whole purpose of using an handful of cheap opamps to get a nice noisey little effects box.  it also limits the people than can participate or build their own, because when someone digs up this thread in 4 years and wants to build one, they'll have to track down a avr, burner, and the code.  it just seems like a layer of obfuscation.  opamps are future proof (knock on wood)

[Taylor]

Hmm, very true. The future-proof thing hadn't occurred to me, although it does somewhat apply to the PCB as well - if someone wants to build this using the layout I'm doing, and I'm dead or in prison, they won't be able to get the PCB.

I'm currently leaning towards just doing the layout with opamps as originally planned, but I'd still be interested in hearing opposing views.

[Ben N]

Opamps. Hasn't Roy got some more input on the lo-tech design?

[Skruffyhound]

I like Josh's idea

[Taylor]

It's a good one, but I'm not really sure how to implement it until we see how the AVR LFO turns out. That's not the kind of stuff I have much knowledge about, so what exactly would be needed to interface them? I could just put a pad at the gate of the JFET - would that do the job? And standoff holes for the daughterboard.

[jacobyjd]

I want to believe that it would basically be an 'internal' CV input, so yeah...I mean, you're just running an LFO to the same place from two different sources. The goal would be to make them switchable...probably something like an ON-ON-ON so you could have one, the other, or both in parallel.

When set up like that on the board, it wouldn't be hard to wire it up for just one or the other, with no switch.