madbeanpedals::forum

Do you have a preference? Why?

In my experience top-mounted jacks translate to space savings on the pedal board. Has anyone had any noise issues with certain circuits and jack arrangements?

Top mounted jacks for me!

Saves space and keeps my board looking clean.

I have also found that side mounted jacks and DC on the side works well if you do not have a board with a way to secure the pedals down. When I was younger and had a pedal with top mounted DC, I hated when I stepped on it and the pedal moved down some and unplugged it by accident. Talk about killing the moment. With Velcro and pedal boards this is no longer a huge problem.

Cody

I know it is possible to put in top mounted jacks on a 1590B it often is not practical.

Most of my bulls are 1590b size. I don't like messing with top jacks on that size enclosure. I've done a few 125b size with top mounted jacks but I find myself wishing the jacks were just on the side. Don't know why but top jacks on small boxes don't look right to me.

I've done a few horizontal bb sized effects and those work great with top mounted jacks.

Quote from: Matmosphere on May 27, 2016, 12:34:42 AM
Most of my bulls are 1590b size. I don't like messing with top jacks on that size enclosure. I've done a few 125b size with top mounted jacks but I find myself wishing the jacks were just on the side. Don't know why but top jacks on small boxes don't look right to me.

I've done a few horizontal bb sized effects and those work great with top mounted jacks.

Agreed.

With BB and 1790NS enclosures, top mounted jacks are okay, provided you're not having to excessively monkey around with the PCB and pots to get it to work.

Too much of a cram for me in 1590B and 125B size.

I like them on the top, and have plenty of 1590Bs with this arrangement.
I have never had a problem with noise, but most are not particularly high gain. Realistically, there is only 1-2" more wire from jack to footswitch, and if you are worried, screened wire is easy enough to come by.

To me the 125B with top mounts is sooooooooooooooo much more pedal board efficient then a 1590B with side mounts. I can cram more pedals onto my board with top mounts, I don't have to wrestle with those damn jacks on the side to find the most efficient layout. Side mounts eats up way more pedal board estate that I find it puzzling why so many people still go for them. To each his own however and whatever works for you would be the optimal solution. I just wish all the PCB designers would keep this in mind as most PCB's are still laid out for side mounts only. Which means most of the time I can't use PCB mounted pots and still have to use wires. There should be a little jumper option on the PCB to reverse the signal between the outer holes for each pot connection. Like no jumper for standard side mounts, with jumper you can reverse the pots and do top mounting. Everybody happy!

For me too, 125B with topmounted jacks beat 1590B with sidemounted every time. comfortable routing and more pedal board estate. I myself design everthing this way. You can still wire it for side mounts without a problem anyways.

Quote from: Muadzin on May 27, 2016, 09:19:06 AM
To me the 125B with top mounts is sooooooooooooooo much more pedal board efficient then a 1590B with side mounts.

I find them actually even more efficient than 1590A's with side mounted jacks

Thinking about this more I realized that part of the reason I don't like top mounted jacks on smaller boxes is my wide feet. No Chuck Taylor's for me, my feet don't fit in most standard width shoes. If the pedals move to closely together I can't stomp on one without hitting another, so trying to make the board that tight would make it unable for me. It's hard for me to hit just one switch on a bb size that is verticle with two switches.

I'm going to say top for all the reasons listed

Side mount, partially because of wide feet, partially because most of the production pedals still in my collection have side mount so it's easier to go from production to DIY and back without snaking a pile of cables, partially because I tend to like buildings in the 1590B range, and partially cause I hate the look of top mounts.

Side, because I can't get top jacks on a 1590A.

Quote from: Matmosphere on May 27, 2016, 12:11:49 PM
Thinking about this more I realized that part of the reason I don't like top mounted jacks on smaller boxes is my wide feet. No Chuck Taylor's for me, my feet don't fit in most standard width shoes. If the pedals move to closely together I can't stomp on one without hitting another, so trying to make the board that tight would make it unable for me. It's hard for me to hit just one switch on a bb size that is verticle with two switches.

A valid point. Which is why I stopped wearing army boots when playing guitar and always make sure I have a pair of old converse sneakers at the ready. My feet are wide too, but being able to cram a few extra pedals on a pedal board is more then enough to make up for it. And slim shoes help a lot too. Besides, humans are adaptable. Given time they can get used to almost anything.

Quote from: drolo on May 27, 2016, 11:56:07 AM

Quote from: Muadzin on May 27, 2016, 09:19:06 AM
To me the 125B with top mounts is sooooooooooooooo much more pedal board efficient then a 1590B with side mounts.

I find them actually even more efficient than 1590A's with side mounted jacks

1590As are slightly less wide than 125Bs if you use pancake jacks. The problem I have with 1590As is the lack of surface area for velcro impairs pedal board adhesion.

I don't have large feet,  but I will agree that sometimes enclosure size is limited more by ergonomics than the size of the circuit. That's why this build didn't work out:

(https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7615/27013059140_18b842f8b7_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Ha3ZmY)

Quote from: Aleph Null on May 27, 2016, 04:34:12 PM

Quote from: drolo on May 27, 2016, 11:56:07 AM

Quote from: Muadzin on May 27, 2016, 09:19:06 AM
To me the 125B with top mounts is sooooooooooooooo much more pedal board efficient then a 1590B with side mounts.

I find them actually even more efficient than 1590A's with side mounted jacks

1590As are slightly less wide than 125Bs if you use pancake jacks. The problem I have with 1590As is the lack of surface area for velcro impairs pedal board adhesion.

I don't have large feet,  but I will agree that sometimes enclosure size is limited more by ergonomics than the size of the circuit. That's why this build didn't work out:

choosing between a 1590A side-mounted and 125B with top-mounted jacks would be hard I guess. they can be comparable in space consumption but the 125B also has the advantage that there's more space between pots and other exterior controls.

Quote from: Aleph Null on May 27, 2016, 04:34:12 PM

Quote from: drolo on May 27, 2016, 11:56:07 AM

Quote from: Muadzin on May 27, 2016, 09:19:06 AM
To me the 125B with top mounts is sooooooooooooooo much more pedal board efficient then a 1590B with side mounts.

I find them actually even more efficient than 1590A's with side mounted jacks

1590As are slightly less wide than 125Bs if you use pancake jacks. The problem I have with 1590As is the lack of surface area for velcro impairs pedal board adhesion.

I don't have large feet,  but I will agree that sometimes enclosure size is limited more by ergonomics than the size of the circuit. That's why this build didn't work out:

(https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7615/27013059140_18b842f8b7_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Ha3ZmY)

May not have worked out but it certainly looks cool.

I use 125B's and 125BB's for most of my builds these days, and opt for top mounted jacks.  Like many other, I think the board looks cleaner like that.

If I'm building into something bigger (like the 1590DD that's housing my Sagan Delay) I put the jacks wherever they can fit.

Quote from: midwayfair on May 27, 2016, 12:44:12 PM
Side, because I can't get top jacks on a 1590A.

What if you turned it lengthwise?

Quote from: Muadzin on May 27, 2016, 01:12:45 PM
A valid point. Which is why I stopped wearing army boots when playing guitar and always make sure I have a pair of old converse sneakers at the ready. My feet are wide too, but being able to cram a few extra pedals on a pedal board is more then enough to make up for it. And slim shoes help a lot too. Besides, humans are adaptable. Given time they can get used to almost anything.

Winkelpickers of the world, play guitar pedals!

Ill tell ya what i do hate, power jack on the side, uh, i have so many like this (no room sometimes!). Its a big ol' pain to wire power up on the pedal board. Def want those on top.

I do just about everything in 1590Bs with top DC and side jacks. This always seemed like the most 'right' way since that's the Boss/Ibanez convention.

Top-jacked 125s are definitely more space efficient and I get why people prefer them. Just form over utility for me :)

I prefer side mount for 1590a and top mount for 125b and 1590bb.

I almost never use 1590b; if it can't get into a 1590a, I bump up to a 125b with top jacks.

Has anyone tried top mounting jacks on a 1590B? Seems like you could get a 1590A PCB into a 1590B and still have room at the top for jacks.

Has anyone tried top mounting jacks on a 1590B?

Yes. You can get 2 1/4" jacks and DC jack in the top if you use jacks with smallish footprints and/or trim the lip on the lid/bottom.

Not my neatest builds, but probably those with the most stuffed into a 1590B:

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11996927/LSC_top.jpg) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11996927/Tilt_Preamp_face_photo.jpg) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11996927/Tilt_Preamp_guts_photo.jpg) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11996927/SaT_photos.png) etc

Quote from: samhay on June 02, 2016, 07:41:40 PM
Has anyone tried top mounting jacks on a 1590B?

Yes. You can get 2 1/4" jacks and DC jack in the top if you use jacks with smallish footprints and/or trim the lip on the lid/bottom.

Not my neatest builds, but probably those with the most stuffed into a 1590B:

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11996927/LSC_top.jpg) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11996927/Tilt_Preamp_face_photo.jpg) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11996927/Tilt_Preamp_guts_photo.jpg) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11996927/SaT_photos.png) etc

That's impressive! Almost looks like more of a pain than trying to cram stuff into a 1590A, though... :-\

I guess it's a little different that you're used to, but having done plenty of 1590As, I think these offer enough advantages that I will rarely do anything with a 1590A anymore.

Also, there is no way any of the 3 builds I showed would fit in a 1590A - one has a rotary switch, another has a 10 LED vu, while the 3rd has 2 relays, 2 dual op-amps, an 8-pin pic, a PT2399 and a BTDR-2 reverb brick.

Give it a try (maybe with a smaller circuit). The most you will lose is an enclosure and a few hours of your time...

Quote from: samhay on June 03, 2016, 08:46:03 AM
Give it a try (maybe with a smaller circuit). The most you will lose is an enclosure and a few hours of your time...

The plan is to build a 4:1 into a 1590B with top mounted jacks. It might put the knobs closer to the foot switch, but I'm ok with that.

Quote from: Matmosphere on May 27, 2016, 06:07:23 PM

(https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7615/27013059140_18b842f8b7_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Ha3ZmY)

May not have worked out but it certainly looks cool.

Thanks! I rebuilt this pedal in a 1590BB. Tried to keep the catawampus look. Top-mount jacks of coarse. Build report is forthcoming.

(https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7567/26833195893_353903edac_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GTa9hv)2016-06-03_11-21-03 (https://flic.kr/p/GTa9hv)

1590B- Lundberg jacks and 16mm Alpha pots.
dave

Quote from: davent on June 03, 2016, 10:17:34 PM
1590B- Lundberg jacks and 16mm Alpha pots.

dave

So...the trick seems to be Lundberf jacks.

Lundberg jacks do look much better. Because they are so small they don't force the controls down towards the middle of the pedal where my aforementioned giant feet would stomp on them all the time.

Quote from: Aleph Null on June 04, 2016, 01:55:48 PM

Quote from: davent on June 03, 2016, 10:17:34 PM
1590B- Lundberg jacks and 16mm Alpha pots.

dave

So...the trick seems to be Lundberf jacks.

Another trick appears to be the layout of the PCB. That one has the pots hanging off of the top of the PCB so that the jacks just have to clear the pots. Most PCBs with board mounted pots cover the whole back side of the pot, requiring a little extra clearance and then also have capacitors and such sticking up.

I'm about to experiment with top mounted jacks (switchraft if I can get away with it but I ordered a few lumberjacks in case I need them) in a 125B and 1590BBM (the 1.55" thick one) with a fully populated PCB right up to the top.  If it works out I will post the results here. Not that it is an unheard of feat in those thicker enclosures but it will still be quite a squeeze without the PCBs and the placement of them designed to accommodate top-mounted jacks.

That pcb has provisions for pcb mount pots oriented with the pots under the board, i didn't use pcb pots or mount the pots under the board. The regular pots position's was in no way determined by the pcb layout in fact the enclosure was done a year before i even knew what i was going to put in it.

Provisions PCB mounted pots has no bearing on where i mount the pots in the enclosure.

dave

Quote from: Aleph Null on June 04, 2016, 01:55:48 PM

So...the trick seems to be Lundberf jacks.

These Kobiconn jacks at Mouser are also pretty compact.

http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Kobiconn/161-MJ160M-EX (http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Kobiconn/161-MJ160M-EX)

(http://www.mouser.com/images/kobiconn/lrg/161-MJ160M-EX.jpg)

If you're dead set on using top mounts (as I am) you might as well save yourself the hassle and not bother with 1590's and lundberg jacks. 125B's are not that much bigger, half a centimeter basically in width and length, which is an insignificant increase compared to having side mounted jacks, and the extra height allows for easier to wire jacks. Lundbergs, while smaller, are a pain in the ass to hook up if you want to use shielded wire (as I do). I just did a 1590B with top mounts and it's probably I'm never going to bother using these abominations ever again.

Quote from: EBRAddict on June 04, 2016, 09:51:19 PM

Quote from: Aleph Null on June 04, 2016, 01:55:48 PM

So...the trick seems to be Lundberf jacks.

These Kobiconn jacks at Mouser are also pretty compact.

http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Kobiconn/161-MJ160M-EX (http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Kobiconn/161-MJ160M-EX)

(http://www.mouser.com/images/kobiconn/lrg/161-MJ160M-EX.jpg)

From what I've heard, The a Kobiconn's (which I lead a group buy for) are identical to the lumberg's pictured above.

(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160605/773b1a33bfbd1047f74bd27405542ef1.jpg)

I like top mount in 1590b or side on 1590a.  I use the Lumberg jacks too, it's not really difficult to fit it in, although it's usually better to have pots above the PCB so the knobs can go a little higher if there are more than one row of them.

Main reason for this is the obvious space saving but also I can use the Eddystone equivalents of the boxes which are cheaper!

Marcus

Has anyone tried this approach?

(http://www.trocmusic.com/images/annonces/upload/264934.jpg)

Lovetone did!

I'll clarify my previous post to add that the chief, main, burning reason I don't do top mount jacks very often is because I simply can't be arsed with doing anything resembling precise metalwork.

Quote from: Aleph Null on June 06, 2016, 12:40:39 AM
Has anyone tried this approach?

I've done it with loopers out of sheer necessity, but regular pedals, no. It probably works when you only have a single row of pedals, which was always the case with the Boss pedal boards for which the PSM-5 was designed, but when you have a 2nd tier, or even a 3rd tier of pedals behind the first standing up jacks are not something you want to have when you're trying to stomp on pedals behind them.

On a side note I had two PSM-5's when you had a whole series of 5 Boss pedals in their loops you could hear a difference/tone suck when you deactivated the loop.