|
Television Standards Converters, Modulators etc Standards converters, modulators anything else for providing signals to vintage televisions. |
|
Thread Tools |
9th Aug 2009, 10:09 am | #21 | |
Octode
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Newbury, Berkshire, UK.
Posts: 1,770
|
Re: Aurora converter possible design change
Quote:
Personally I wouldn't be that bothered about loosing the EQ pulse option.
__________________
Chris |
|
9th Aug 2009, 1:04 pm | #22 |
Hexode
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Michigan USA
Posts: 325
|
Re: Aurora converter possible design change
Thanks for the further feedback. This is very helpful in making the tough decisions.
While I also tend to prefer real switches over some convoluted (hopefully not button method, the fact that you have to keep removing the cover, and that the switches are miniscule complicates the decision. Alan's and Jeff's comments are well taken as I am also put off by some of these modern schemes to eliminate buttons which just seem overly complicated, and in the end trade off cost for complications. With a physical switch I have to install the full 6 position unit for economy during the build, but only use 3 of the positions which is not terribly efficient. Right now the only options for the 405 units would be Converter Bypass, Default Tone Disable and Sleep Disable. My guess is that the vast majority of users will never have a reason to change any of those settings in actual use. Perhaps a user might change the Tone or Sleep mode when they first get the unit, but I can't imagine why you would change it again after initial setup. Having the cost of the switch sitting there the rest of the time would not seem to benefit most users. Which brings me to this; given the initial assumptions of removing the option switch and making some internal changes to help during production, my calculations show a final price of $245 or perhaps $240 (around £140), down from the current $260. This is what makes the decision so hard. This is a substantial amount that would probably benefit more people than the option switch would. I hate these decisions as I don't want to make the wrong one! Darryl |
9th Aug 2009, 2:24 pm | #23 |
Nonode
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Lake District, Cumbria (CA20) - UK
Posts: 2,136
|
Re: Aurora converter possible design change
As a compromise, how about using pins and jumpers instead of switches?
I often use them myself and encounter them regularly in industrial instrumentation. They are cheap, conform to DIL pin spacing and are reliable for applications where selections are made and then not changed or changed infrequently. Regards,
__________________
Brian |
10th Aug 2009, 12:50 pm | #24 |
Hexode
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Michigan USA
Posts: 325
|
Re: Aurora converter possible design change
That's not a bad idea Brian. I did a quick trial to see if I could get a header on the board, but it doesn't look like it will fit. Neither a 0.1" nor a 2mm connector is small enough. The current switch is 0.050" pitch, so I would need a 0.050" or 1mm connector which aren't standard and jumpers are harder to come by so this isn't looking good.
Darryl |
10th Aug 2009, 5:23 pm | #25 |
Nonode
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Lake District, Cumbria (CA20) - UK
Posts: 2,136
|
Re: Aurora converter possible design change
Rats!
The ones I normally use are 2mm pitch. I have seen 1mm pitch but only rarely - and I'd have to make sure I was using the right glasses to see them!
__________________
Brian |
13th Aug 2009, 6:00 pm | #26 |
Hexode
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Michigan USA
Posts: 325
|
Re: Aurora converter possible design change
Well, after much fiddling about I think I've come up with a good solution. Since there is already a user accessible switch on the outside of the converter (RF Channel), why not use it for options as well? You can select the option you want on the switch and the front panel led will blink green or red to show if the option is on or off. By pressing the user push button you can toggle between on and off. This solves all the issues, and I think is even better than the current internal switch. The switch will still be used for RF channel, so nothing is lost, and no strange push button sequences are required.
Darryl |
13th Aug 2009, 7:39 pm | #27 |
Heptode
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Roscommon, Ireland
Posts: 732
|
Re: Aurora converter possible design change
Hi Darryl.
That's a great idea. Will it look exactly the same as the old one? Knowing me I would have it open before I discover that it's a new one. Frank |
13th Aug 2009, 8:26 pm | #28 |
Hexode
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Michigan USA
Posts: 325
|
Re: Aurora converter possible design change
Hi Frank,
Yes it will look outwardly the same as the current units. The front panel led will be a bi-color one instead of just red, and I'm going to move the pushbutton to the bottom side of the board to make it easier to get at when cables are plugged, but otherwise no big changes. The bottom label will always show what revision it is. Darryl |
14th Aug 2009, 9:24 pm | #29 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kilmarnock, Ayrshire, UK.
Posts: 5,420
|
Re: Aurora converter possible design change
Hi Darryl.
I don't use the sleep function at all, I always use the EQ option, my two NTSC auroras have the colour option on all the time and only ever use the modulator only function occasionally. I would buy one more very basic converter B&W with no options. I also would buy a switchable modulator with no standards conversion. PM also sent Cheers Trevor
__________________
Cheers, Trevor. MM0KJJ. RSGB, GQRP, WACRAL, K&LARC. Member |
18th Aug 2009, 8:14 pm | #30 |
Hexode
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Michigan USA
Posts: 325
|
Re: Aurora converter possible design change
I was leaning towards removing the equalization pulse option, but it seems enough people do use it so it will stay.
I got the final design in mind now, and I think I have covered all the possibilities. Because the user push button is used for other functions on some of the special units (like the mechanical ones), it would get confusing to add even more functionality to this single button. I decided to leave the functionality of the existing button alone, and just add another button right under the selector switch. This way the function of the two buttons is split, one being to set the options, and one for auxiliary functions as it is today. This comes out very clean from a user standpoint with the added bonus of I can now support up to 16 options Darryl |
21st Aug 2009, 11:56 pm | #31 |
Tetrode
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: CH3, Blaen Plwyf Transmitter, Aberystwyth, WALES
Posts: 72
|
Re: Aurora converter possible design change
Hello Darryl,
Good! I also use the Equaliser option, I'm all for using 405 at it's full potential so dispelling the myth that pictures weren't that good. On a 23" screen you need all the help you can get to encourage good interlace! Tim
__________________
405 line TV, 1936- 1985 2007.........to the present day |