Disclaimer: Call me hardheaded... I'm just not a fan of simulations. They have their application, but the number of threads that have been derailed because a simulation "proved" that a schematic couldn't possibly be accurate, only to find out that it was, just discourages me from sim discussions.
I hear ya. Simulations have to be grounded in reality. Without test data to back them up, simulations, or any other kind of circuit analysis, are questionable.
A discussion of SMT vs thru-hole is a topic for another day.
I'm totally fine with simulations to determine if a particular circuit or fragment "works", where I lose interest is when we start discussing the tonality based on some single-line visual graphs.
My comment about SMD/through-hole was more focused on the use of ceramics. Not opening that can of worms.
I just happened to see this and actually have no idea what capacitor is being referred to as MLCC. google search brings up a Monolithic Ceramic Disc, but also says Multi Layered Ceramic Disc. Do these builds want the small disc ? or the little box? I've only used the small discs for pf values. a 1uf MLCC? Can anyone advise?
50V MLCCs are not as reliable as 100V because the ceramic layers are so thin on the 50V parts that they frequently contain microscopic cracks that can develop into shorts.
Avoid disk ceramic capacitors, they can be noisy and unreliable.
Opinions on Military, MIL-PRF-39014, CKR05 ??
I know they aren't C0G or NP0 (BX temp coefficient) - I have thousands of these I inherited from when some of our RD labs shut down.
I have some I "inherited" also. They're pretty good for ceramic caps. Everything from tanks to satellites were built with MIL-PRF-39014 in them. They are no longer the preferred ceramic cap for hi-rel applications. Because they can be noisy & microphonic, I avoid using them in pedals.