electro-music.com   Dedicated to experimental electro-acoustic
and electronic music
 
    Front Page  |  Articles  |  Radio
 |  Media  |  Forum  |  Wiki  |  Links  |  Store
Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
 FAQFAQ   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   LinksLinks
 RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in  Chat RoomChat Room 
 Forum index » DIY Hardware and Software » Thomas Henry designs
UD-1 . Just PCB or Full Kits ??
Post new topic   Reply to topic Moderators: Scott Stites
Page 2 of 2 [41 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: Previous 1, 2
Author Message
State Machine
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 2745
Location: New York
Audio files: 24

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Quote:
I'm liking the idea of more options besides just pcb. I'll probably get a ud-1 done long before my SN or PS3100


Yes, the prototype board took about 1.5 hours to stuff and solder. The wires took another 1/2 hour to strip, tin and solder. I usually use connectors but this is just a test board. The time consuming part will be mounting the pots, jacks and wiring those to the board leads.

In the future I plan to use the PCB mounted pots and place the pots right on the PCB like other companies do. I can also make various switch, jack, LED display, and potentiometer printed circuit assemblies of various sizes so that they can just jack into the main printed circuit board. This will save many hours of soldering to all these components.

The main theme I seem to get from all of this is that folks love to build, like myself, but also have busy lives and have limited time. I want to help change that. I want to start thinking about how I can design kit assemblies that will go together quickly so that people will be able to finish their projects and not have them pile up like I hear so many saying is happening to them.

Bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Wild Zebra



Joined: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Ohio
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Quote:
The main theme I seem to get from all of this is that folks love to build, like myself, but also have busy lives and have limited time. I want to help change that. I want to start thinking about how I can design kit assemblies that will go together quickly so that people will be able to finish their projects and not have them pile up like I hear so many saying is happening to them.


You da man.

how true. Thanks for your efforts a full kit will definately help me along. I gotta get in the basement soooo many things gathering dust. errrrrrrr

_________________
"your stripes are killer bro"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fonik



Joined: Jun 07, 2006
Posts: 3759
Location: Germany
Audio files: 23

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

State Machine wrote:
I want to start thinking about how I can design kit assemblies that will go together quickly so that people will be able to finish their projects and not have them pile up like I hear so many saying is happening to them.

that is the path of virtue, bill! one thing that would probably a trig is the multitude of module formats. you idea for an adapter would be a good thing here, i guess, very smart! (where do you take these ideas from? Very Happy) one would stack the main circuit board onto the appropriate adapter for his format... an adaptor for euro- and or frak-rack would be an easy thing to design, i think: just rows of 5 or 4 pots/sockets. but what about dotcom? would need more thinking...
such a great idea! thumright

_________________
Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.
cheers,
matthias
____________
fonitronik at
FlickR (pix) / SoundCloud (sounds) / YouTube (vids) / Vimeo (vids) / facebook (news)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
State Machine
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 2745
Location: New York
Audio files: 24

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Quote:
one would stack the main circuit board onto the appropriate adapter for his format... an adaptor for euro- and or frak-rack would be an easy thing to design, i think: just rows of 5 or 4 pots/sockets. but what about dotcom? would need more thinking...
such a great idea! thumright


For starters, I guess a very comprehensive database of the most common synthesizer mechanical formats would be good to have including power requirements and connector types. I believe you have done this Matthias, but to have several power connector footprint options on a single circuit board would help it's "universal" status. Like MTA headers vs some other type of header. The main idea I have though is to have a quick and easy way to mount and connect switches, potentiometers, displays, LED's, etc, from the front panel of a project to it's main circuit board. This way, project get done and don't lay around.

I personally like to build the circuit boards, and do the calibration and troubleshooting but do not enjoy the front panel wiring so this idea is partly driven by my own personal likes and dislikes about synthesizer DIY.

Bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tim Servo



Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Posts: 924
Location: Silicon Valley
Audio files: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:04 pm    Post subject: UD-1 options
Subject description: How about...
Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Hey State,

How about this: Design the main PCB with a 16 or 20-pin two row IDC socket. This is the connector style that uses commonly available connectors and ribbon cable (if you designed it right, you could maybe even use cheap, readily available ribbon cables from disk drives). This ribbon cable goes to another board or boards designed to mount the pots and other panel components. You could do one 5-row board for Frac and Euro, and another board for MOTM/Dot com. Of course, now you've got two or three boards to make (maybe put them all on one layout and snap them apart if your board house allows that), and no matter what pot spacing layout you use, it won't work for everybody's panels.

But maybe...

Whaddaya think?


Tim (got muh thinkin' hat on) Servo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Randaleem



Joined: May 17, 2007
Posts: 456
Location: Northern CA, USA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:11 pm    Post subject: Re: UD-1 options
Subject description: How about...
Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Hi,

Don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but...

This isn't a new idea. Here are a few examples of the ideas presented in this thread in actual practice in shipping modules and products. There are many others, but this should get the idea across.

It's really just basic DFM (Design For Manufacturing). Any mfr. planning to stay around will probably have a look at doing this with their offered products.
I agree that it hasn't been applied very well in most PCB's offered to the SDIY community. Which didn't make sense to me either.


Ken stone's EURO Synthacon filter:

http://www.cgs.synth.net/modules/cgs35_euro_vcf.html

EAR Plan B:

http://www.ear-group.net/model13pict.html#

Bananalogue (scroll to the bottom of the page):

http://www.analoguehaven.com/bananalogue/

Analogue Solutions (Scroll 3/4 down page):

http://www.cykong.com/Synths/AS%20Synapse/AS-Synapse.htm

Sequentix:

http://www.sequentix.com/build/cnst-inside.htm

I took a bit of extra time myself when laying out the THD Quad Function Generator boards. I wanted to be sure that the things I offer will be easy to build and yet provide additional places to mod and interact with them.

I even thought about pot placement on my board so that if an MOTM or dotcom person wants to use the panel mounted pots; he can. (Using every other panel mounted pot gives a spacing very near the MOTM standard. It's a good idea to think about which pots will be left off the board in this case so that the MOTM version panel still makes layout sense.)

Point is, it's a good idea to do this. But not new.

Nearly every manufactured electronic product for many years does some form of this multi PCB modularity to decrease assembly time and increase reliability.

Nice to see it hitting the SDIY arena!

Randal



Tim Servo wrote:
Hey State,

How about this: Design the main PCB with a 16 or 20-pin two row IDC socket. This is the connector style that uses commonly available connectors and ribbon cable (if you designed it right, you could maybe even use cheap, readily available ribbon cables from disk drives). This ribbon cable goes to another board or boards designed to mount the pots and other panel components. You could do one 5-row board for Frac and Euro, and another board for MOTM/Dot com. Of course, now you've got two or three boards to make (maybe put them all on one layout and snap them apart if your board house allows that), and no matter what pot spacing layout you use, it won't work for everybody's panels.

But maybe...

Whaddaya think?


Tim (got muh thinkin' hat on) Servo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
fonik



Joined: Jun 07, 2006
Posts: 3759
Location: Germany
Audio files: 23

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:36 pm    Post subject: Re: UD-1 options
Subject description: How about...
Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Tim Servo wrote:
Hey State,
How about this: Design the main PCB with a 16 or 20-pin two row IDC socket. This is the connector style that uses commonly available connectors and ribbon cable (if you designed it right, you could maybe even use cheap, readily available ribbon cables from disk drives). This ribbon cable goes to another board or boards designed to mount the pots and other panel components. You could do one 5-row board for Frac and Euro, and another board for MOTM/Dot com. Of course, now you've got two or three boards to make (maybe put them all on one layout and snap them apart if your board house allows that), and no matter what pot spacing layout you use, it won't work for everybody's panels.

that's exactly what i got on mind (just could not explain it that clearly...)

_________________
Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.
cheers,
matthias
____________
fonitronik at
FlickR (pix) / SoundCloud (sounds) / YouTube (vids) / Vimeo (vids) / facebook (news)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Randaleem



Joined: May 17, 2007
Posts: 456
Location: Northern CA, USA

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

State Machine wrote:

For starters, I guess a very comprehensive database of the most common synthesizer mechanical formats would be good to have including power requirements and connector types. I believe you have done this Matthias, but to have several power connector footprint options on a single circuit board would help it's "universal" status. Like MTA headers vs some other type of header.


State,

I tried to do this in the THD107. After extensive research, here's what I came up with:

The Doepfer 2x5 or 2x8 .100 header and the 4 pin MTA.156 for MOTM/Blacet take care of most everybody using standard power inputs. I wanted to accomodate Dotcom's as well but the board space already taken up by two input conectors, Blacet power protection circuitry and such is quite a lot on a 1/2 Euro board! In addition the written info at:

http://www.synthesizers.com/technical.html

doesn't appear to align with the picture. (Pic shows a 6pin MTA and header.) So I decided to stop with just the Doepfer 2x8 and MOTM/Blacet. I can make an adapter board for dotcoms that will plug into the doepfer portion. That same board could be used for most anyone who'd want to use non standard power and not solder direct to a PCB.

I DID go ahead and use the dotcom panel components wiring standards though. Which I think is a key item that would benefit many if others did the same. Here's why:

That way, even without the special panel mount part PCB's you've mentioned; it is still possible to make panel wiring easier. Because now you can wire up all pots and switches the same. You could even work ahead on panel components before you get boards! (Not to mention the ease of using these pre-wired panel components in breadboards.) Not having to remove all the parts to fix one jack/pot/LED/Switch which has failed, is probably another good thing?

After all, We are planning to have these synths for quite awhile.

The key to making this work though, is that the board must be designed to use the MTA.100 headers so that the pots, switches, and LEDs will just plug in. (It's not a bad idea to have grounds available near outputs anyways. A nice side benefit is that doing this means the board designer is responsible for handling ground paths and such. So a builder will get more repeatable, reliable results.

FWIW, we're having pots and switches and LED's made up with MTA's in bulk. So we could offer them inexpensively to people using other boards, if the board itself plans for their use.

Quote:

The main idea I have though is to have a quick and easy way to mount and connect switches, potentiometers, displays, LED's, etc, from the front panel of a project to it's main circuit board. This way, project get done and don't lay around.


Yes. I was influenced during this first THD layout by seeing several EM references to people having PCB's stacking up and not getting built.

The MTA approach is worth considering, IMO.
Because getting all the inputs and outputs in a single row as you have done with the UD-1 is not easy, and sometimes may not be good for the circuit. Breaking it into smaller pieces via individual MTA's for each panel part can be a good choice in some cases, I think.
(Of course it is also possible to achieve both goals if the single row is laid out with individual MTA's in mind along with the ribbon connector to daughter boards with panel mount parts. (The second row of a typical ribbon connector is all gnds anyways.) You'd end up with some un-needed duplicate GNDs if you planned for either MTAs or ribbon connect. But it could be worth it for a more universal board layout.)

Otherwise, we, or a board designer could make an interface/breakout board that would take the single wires from any given board and logically arrange for MTA's. In this way the hard stuff is still taken off the panel and put into a 2nd easily soldered PC board.

For fixed designs aimed at specific panels, the multi-board approach will always be better. But when you're trying to be all things to all people; IMO something's gotta give.

My choice is to standardise the panel components wiring (Thank you Roger Arrick!) and provide for this on the PCB design. Additionally all board mounted pots ALSO have the correct MTA footprint available so the pot does not have to be board mounted, and there is little "price' to pay if that is chosen. Now a person can build any panel design they wish, with any spacing and arrangement. And it's still easier than other approaches I've seen to this problem.

Randal

Quote:

I personally like to build the circuit boards, and do the calibration and troubleshooting but do not enjoy the front panel wiring so this idea is partly driven by my own personal likes and dislikes about synthesizer DIY. Bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
fonik



Joined: Jun 07, 2006
Posts: 3759
Location: Germany
Audio files: 23

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Randaleem wrote:
I DID go ahead and use the dotcom panel components wiring standards though. Which I think is a key item that would benefit many if others did the same. Here's why:
That way, even without the special panel mount part PCB's you've mentioned; it is still possible to make panel wiring easier. Because now you can wire up all pots and switches the same. You could even work ahead on panel components before you get boards! (Not to mention the ease of using these pre-wired panel components in breadboards.) Not having to remove all the parts to fix one jack/pot/LED/Switch which has failed, is probably another good thing?

good point.

Quote:
The key to making this work though, is that the board must be designed to use the MTA.100 headers so that the pots, switches, and LEDs will just plug in.

i tried to do this at least for the pots. but you are absolutely right: why not doing the same for all panel mount components?
thank you for pointing me to the dotcom specs. i will try to incorporate this into the super controller module...
BTW there are pre-wired MTA connectors available so one would not need to use crimp tools...
On the other hand this would probably lead to less flexibility in building options (different switch settings, output options, switching sockets...).

_________________
Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.
cheers,
matthias
____________
fonitronik at
FlickR (pix) / SoundCloud (sounds) / YouTube (vids) / Vimeo (vids) / facebook (news)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Randaleem



Joined: May 17, 2007
Posts: 456
Location: Northern CA, USA

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

fonik wrote:

i tried to do this at least for the pots. but you are absolutely right: why not doing the same for all panel mount components?
thank you for pointing me to the dotcom specs. i will try to incorporate this into the super controller module...
BTW there are pre-wired MTA connectors available so one would not need to use crimp tools...
On the other hand this would probably lead to less flexibility in building options (different switch settings, output options, switching sockets...).


Fonik,

Glad you like it! (Roger Arrick has sold millions of dollars worth of electronics over the years. Long before he was making the dotcom line he was figuring out how to deliver quality, durability, and repairability inexpensively.) FWIW, I think his power supply connector choices and distribution makes a lot of sense. I plan to incorporate that into our full synth offerings.

BTW, Using the MTA's doesn't inhibit doing anything you want with the panel parts. It just means that most everything is done at the board, instead of at the panel. (And the board can have pads to allow choices here too!)

So if you want to normal a jack, it has a 3 pin MTA. And although it's not listed as a spec at the dotcom site (because dotcom's don't have normalled jacks?); we can certainly decide to use pin 1 and 2 as described and then use pin3 as the "switched" leg of the jack.

When I type MTA it really doesn't have to be an MTA, it just means that the board has a header with .025" square pins on .100" centers. This ALLOWs for use of MTA's, but anyone can simply solder wire direct in the holes instead.

Now with 3 pin MTA's for any jack you want to normalize, you can do it on the board.
(If you look at my THD107 layout you'll see that there are three holes in a row at each of the 4 outputs. Although I've set it up to have these be additional outputs to a planned daughterboard doing VC-PWM; it would be very simple to cut the trace and then use the pin for a normaling, switching jack, function.
If I weren't already planning for the PWM sister module; I'd have put two pads, and then you wouldn't need to cut any trace to use the third pad of a switching jack however you like.)

Point is, we can still modify and adapt; it just happens away from the front panel! And it is up to board designer to make good choices to allow for the most flexibility.

There is nothing stopping anyone from using a wiring harness of their own design, or making connections AT the panel. We're just making it easier for the 80+% who will make and use the module as designed.

Which brings up one thing that is not so good about the 5 jacks on a PCB approach. Unless that PCB is planned for modifications; it will be much harder to accomodate such things than with individual (but standardised)
panel components.

A last point: There will be things which aren't currently defined that we may need to come to agreement about. Things like digit displays and multi-switches. But this is easy if we simply look for a dotcom standard first. If we don't find one, then we create a logical extension and make it public. Perhaps with a sticky on this site somewhere?

One such item that immediately comes to mind is a 7211 3 way switch...

(But we shouldn't let the exceptions draft the rule for the standard things IMO. Exceptions can be dealt with individually using whatever makes sense. After all, they ARE exceptions.

Randal

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
fonik



Joined: Jun 07, 2006
Posts: 3759
Location: Germany
Audio files: 23

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

BTW what's the difference between MTA and Molex? would Molex do?

what would this be?
Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.

_________________
Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.
cheers,
matthias
____________
fonitronik at
FlickR (pix) / SoundCloud (sounds) / YouTube (vids) / Vimeo (vids) / facebook (news)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Randaleem



Joined: May 17, 2007
Posts: 456
Location: Northern CA, USA

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Fonik,

MTA is a brand name of an AMP connector. (AMP the company)

Molex is a competitor company to AMP. Both are well known for their connector product lines. Each has many hundreds of types of connectors.

Yes, there are Molex connectors available which do work well with the .025square pins, and .100 spacing of the AMP MTA.100 series.

These insertable contact connectors have a plastic body and crimp contacts. The picture you sent is this type; but does not appear to be the size that is compatible with .025 headers on .100 centers.

Connectors like this often have a solder-able female connector(but designed for crimping, using inexpensive plier type tools) that is inserted into a plastic housing. The wires exit the top of the connector instead of pointing out the side as with the MTA's.

(You saw the White MTA's at the linked dotcom page, and the larger MTA is used by Blacet and MOTM.)

AMP MTA's are unitised and use IDC (Insulation Displacement Contacts) to make the connection. You don't have to strip the wire and you don't have tiny contacts to deal with.

Here's something which I think is important regarding the difference between these two types. MTA connectors have TWO contact surfaces which slide down the male pin. The Molex type only has ONE contact surface. IMO the MTA provides a better long-term connection, and will probably remain gas-tight and low resistance longer than a single contact plane type.

PANDUIT is another large connector company which makes an MTA copy. MY local surplus house has these by the thousands. Unfortunately they are just enough different that they don't fit into my expensive AMP MTA connector "pistol".

The connector in your photo looks to me like a 3 pin version of the type used for hooking up older CDROM drives in a PC. It usually fits snugly inside a boxlike plastic "corral" with pins. The ridge around the top near where the wires exit lets you separate it from the corral without pulling on the wires themselves.

I cannot say if it is a Molex brand or AMP brand connector. Or even some other type.

If it IS the same as the ones used in PC's to hook up the sound for a CDROM, then I can say that the pin size it mates to is smaller than what is desirable for our purposes. (which is .025" square)

fonik wrote:
BTW what's the difference between MTA and Molex? would Molex do?

what would this be?
Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
State Machine
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 2745
Location: New York
Audio files: 24

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Quote:
How about this: Design the main PCB with a 16 or 20-pin two row IDC socket. This is the connector style that uses commonly available connectors and ribbon cable (if you designed it right, you could maybe even use cheap, readily available ribbon cables from disk drives). This ribbon cable goes to another board or boards designed to mount the pots and other panel components. You could do one 5-row board for Frac and Euro, and another board for MOTM/Dot com. Of course, now you've got two or three boards to make (maybe put them all on one layout and snap them apart if your board house allows that), and no matter what pot spacing layout you use, it won't work for everybody's panels.


Yes, this is where I am heading! Thanks for the additional comments on connector types. The dual row 40 pin ribbon style interconnect is indeed popular in the PC industry and they are a dime a dozen for these connector/ribbon assemblies. The computer surplus market will be flooded with 40/80 conductor cables since the SATA hard drive connectors will soon replace these parallel interconnects.

Bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
State Machine
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 2745
Location: New York
Audio files: 24

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Quote:
Point is, it's a good idea to do this. But not new.

Nearly every manufactured electronic product for many years does some form of this multi PCB modularity to decrease assembly time and increase reliability.

Nice to see it hitting the SDIY arena!


Thanks for all your comments, ideas and research. Yes, agreed, none of the ideas are new but my post was not to present any new revolutionary ideas in electronics manufacturing. I just want to apply those techniques to SDIY. The point of the post was to prevent peoples projects from being incomplete because they had no time to finish them due to a complex build. The "DFM" or design for manufacture is the solution if applied to my products.

Thanks,
Bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Randaleem



Joined: May 17, 2007
Posts: 456
Location: Northern CA, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:09 pm    Post subject:
Subject description: molex example (Blacet power)
Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Fonik,

Here's a pic of the Molex functional equivalent to the MTA's, as used by Blacet in their power distribution.

http://www.analoguehaven.com/blacet/psconn2/

You can see the differences between these and the MTA's at the dotcom technical site (link posted earlier). This molex has a .156 spacing like MOTM, while the dotcom is .100. Otherwise the two types (in each MFRs. format) are the same. Means there is a .100 and .156 size in each mfrs. line sharing the same features. Size is the onl difference.

BTW, how does one move something like this which has clearly gone outside of the scope of "UD-1 just pcb or full kits"? It's not my intention to hijack the thread. I'm new here and still learning protocol.

Hope this helps,

Randal

fonik wrote:
BTW what's the difference between MTA and Molex? would Molex do?

what would this be? (Pic removed)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
State Machine
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 2745
Location: New York
Audio files: 24

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Quote:
BTW, how does one move something like this which has clearly gone outside of the scope of "UD-1 just pcb or full kits"? It's not my intention to hijack the thread. I'm new here and still learning protocol.


Just start a new thread in the DIY section and title it appropriately. Very Happy

Bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Moderators: Scott Stites
Page 2 of 2 [41 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Goto page: Previous 1, 2
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » DIY Hardware and Software » Thomas Henry designs
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
e-m mkii

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from
our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.


Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Copyright © 2003 through 2009 by electro-music.com - Conditions Of Use