Bottlehead Forum

Bottlehead Kits => Legacy Kit Products => Quickie => Topic started by: syncro on May 01, 2016, 07:21:22 PM

Title: Manual v1.1 instructions don't match photos
Post by: syncro on May 01, 2016, 07:21:22 PM
Pin numbering seems clear, as do the instructions.  However, the photo of wiring does not match.  Wire is shown connected to pin #2, while the instructions state connection to pin #6.   Excerpts from Manual v1.1 appear below.   Please advise.


Title: Re: Manual v1.1 instructions don't match photos
Post by: mcandmar on May 02, 2016, 12:45:33 AM
Pin 2 is used on one side, and pin 6 on the other side.  They are both connected to the plate internally so it really doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Manual v1.1 instructions don't match photos
Post by: syncro on May 02, 2016, 06:16:46 AM
Thanks.  Mystery (the important one) solved.   Why the mismatch remains, remains.  Guess most bottleheads know these things about pins and plates.

I'll probably leave the wire soldered to #6, and cut the excess length from it.  Checking / testing the build tonight!
Title: Re: Manual v1.1 instructions don't match photos
Post by: Paul Birkeland on May 08, 2016, 08:33:24 AM
Which PDF reader are you using for this, and what is the date of publication of your manual (the date is in the file name).  Here is a screenshot of the manual we have, which shows the connections to B4 and B2, as well as the photograph that shows exactly this.

The mismatch becomes helpful when installing the PJCCS.
Title: Re: Manual v1.1 instructions don't match photos
Post by: syncro on July 22, 2016, 09:22:29 PM
Thanks for the clarification  and news that there is a corrected manual about.  I am not planning for the CSS upgrade, but I have not really put this pre-amp to task yet.  I find the tubes are very susceptible to noise if touched, but I have only been able to use it to try and troubleshoot a Dynaco ST-70 I am building.  May not be a good match....

"Quickie_1.1.pdf" is the name of the file I copied to my hard drive.  I will check the CD for any date, but I don't think I would have removed that from the filename.   (Every PDF I make in my work incorporates the date in the filename as well, so I understand the necessity for this!)