Recent content by jwin615

10n input is going to restrict a fair amount of lowend. Tone sweep is ~159hz to 1.5k. Should work on filtering lowend. Agree with FF, futzing with the MORE/C4 is about it, but I'm not sure you'll get it to bee much more mid forward.

Nordlock and Belleville washers are underutilized.

Nice build. I don't think that being light on the lows was a mistake. A Rickenbacker bass into a marshall super bass with the tone controls set at 0-10-0. That was Lemmy's tone.

Yes, or. https://www.pedalpcb.com/product/dcbreakout/ These fit non switched lumbergs, iirc https://lovemyswitches.com/thinline-lumberg-dc-power-jack-2-1mm

Yeah. Maybe the mlcc are derating due to DC? X7R don't derate much but Y5V, for instance, can derate to designed 20% capacitance at ~9 volts. IIRC, tants don't derate much. DC bias on mlcc can increase microphonic behavior as well.

A net moot.

Gotta have that millihertz bass

.32Hz vs .032Hz high pass filter A 33n there would give you a 33Hz HPF, which may actually be useful. Otherwise it's just blocking DC and contributing to output impedance.

@Stickman393 @Stickman393 @Stickman393 *poof*

If it's decades old, good chance it needs to be recapped regardless. especially if it was made from 99-07(the great capacitor plague). Regularly used gear is less likely to blow caps on first power cycle, but will have more wear on the switches buttons keyb3d etc. I wouldn't pay a premium for...

Sounds like they're feeding it saw cv and wine would sound better?

Mid bump shifted with different values

If you use the hoof values , you can decrease C1 and or increase C2 to add a mid bump Try 820p or so for C1 Increasing C2 will add more low mids as it gets larger Decreasing C1 adds more high mids This works because you have overlapped the two filters

Maybe the hoof variant? https://tonestack.yuriturov.com/

BC548 is the modern replacement for BC108 547, 549, 550 would work, 548 being low noise I'd use B or C variants.