Are there any other sources connected to the Nait5i? Naim make the
signal ground to earth connection in the CDP, and the SB3 doesn't have
an earth; so it maybe that you just need to make an earth to signal
ground connection somewhere in the system.
The SB3 PSU is rated at 2A, but it only actuall
Hi all,
I intend to help a person, who has a Naim 5i integrated and a SB3.
There is a strange hum with the stock SB3 power supply and my thought
was to replace it with a linear PS. He sent me this link while
discussing the topic and browsing it I found that 1A, or 1.5A solutions
(like LT1086) are
sure, put the caps back in? how did you remove them, did you cut them,
or desolder? if the former, you can always replace them...
--
dorkus
dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373
View this t
So I think it's clear that I didn't either understand or know what I was
doing, so now is there any way to rectify my mistake ?
Buy another Squeezebox ?
I read the post and it seemed to make sense to me, but what I didn't
understand until later was that the caps were to be removed as part of
som
Patrick Dixon;167612 Wrote:
> If you short the coupling caps you will end up with DC on the output -
> which is not a great idea.
yeah, sorry about that - forgot all this stuff was single-rail. i just
looked back at the thread and it looks like this was all in the context
of bypassing the output
dorkus;167574 Wrote:
> i don't know which caps you are referring to but it sounds like you've
> removed the output coupling caps. when the person said "remove," what
> they really meant was "remove and replace with a short." so you need to
> stick a wire in there where the caps previously were. B
dorkus;167574 Wrote:
> BUT, i am just taking a guess here, i do not know what C43 and C45 are
> and don't have a schematic in front of me... i'm sure someone else here
> will chime in though.
It looks like c43 is part of the 9v power to the opamp.
--
Skunk
Colin Reilly;167535 Wrote:
> Is there anything I can do to restore the sound or am I wasting my
> time. I started off wanting to remove the Op Amp but realized I had
> bitten off more than I could chew. Serves me right.
You didn't need to remove the caps, just the opamp itself. But then you
Colin Reilly;167535 Wrote:
> Earlier in the thread someone mentioned removing C43 and C45 capacitors
> at the very least to improve the sound. I did this to my SB2 and now
> of course no sound.
i don't know which caps you are referring to but it sounds like you've
removed the output coupling ca
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned removing C43 and C45 capacitors
at the very least to improve the sound. I did this to my SB2 and now
of course no sound. I am assuming this is done to improve the quality
of the digital output in that case ? Is there anything I can do to
restore the sound
dorkus;167384 Wrote:
> i just came across that last night... it looks pretty similar to the
> other ones on the market, for better or worse (a little of both
> actually). but the price, while still too high IMO, is more reasonable
> than the alternatives.
>
> i'm currently in the process of bui
"as if that weren't bad enough, they throw in some total faux pas warned
against in said datasheet, like putting a 2 meter wire between the
regulator and load (squeezebox), or adding undamped "designer" film
bypass caps which are pretty much guaranteed to add a nice ringing to
the line when expose
Robin Bowes;167401 Wrote:
>
> and if you're doing the job properly, and replacing the internal
> supplies, not just the external wallwart, you'll be using multiple
> supplies rather than just one, so the current requirement for each one
> is less.
that would be nice, but it's not an option
Patrick Dixon wrote:
> dorkus;167384 Wrote:
>> ... unfortunately the Jung-based "super regs" are too low in current
>> (most top out around 300mA), and i'm too lazy/unskilled to figure out
>> how to modify it for increased current capacity without degrading
>> performance.
> Not so. The ALWSR (wh
dorkus;167384 Wrote:
> ... unfortunately the Jung-based "super regs" are too low in current
> (most top out around 300mA), and i'm too lazy/unskilled to figure out
> how to modify it for increased current capacity without degrading
> performance.
Not so. The ALWSR (which we sell on Andy's behalf
dpac996;167292 Wrote:
> On another note I bought a welborne labs squeezebox linear power supply.
i just came across that last night... it looks pretty similar to the
other ones on the market, for better or worse (a little of both
actually). but the price, while still too high IMO, is more reason
dpac996;167292 Wrote:
> Dorkus,
> Well said. I would like to add that usually (consumer level products in
> mind) designs are constrained in both cost and time to market. The item
> has to be (or should) profitable for a companies success. This means
> that selected parts, while appropriate for t
Dorkus,
Well said. I would like to add that usually (consumer level products in
mind) designs are constrained in both cost and time to market. The item
has to be (or should) profitable for a companies success. This means
that selected parts, while appropriate for the reliability, quality
controls,
dpac996;167121 Wrote:
> In the datasheet for the PCM1748 it states this device offers some post
> DAC low pass filtering internally, but it is not enough to attenuate
> out of band noise (artifacts from DAC process), and the recommendation
> is to employ additional low pass filtering.
that is tr
In the datasheet for the PCM1748 it states this device offers some post
DAC low pass filtering internally, but it is not enough to attenuate
out of band noise (artifacts from DAC process), and the recommendation
is to employ additional low pass filtering. Without looking at the SB3
schematic, or
Does anyone have a spare Scientific Conversions SC916-01 1:1 that they
are not using? I would love to complete these mods myself.
--
tf1216
tf1216's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6730
View this
randytsuch Wrote:
> I just looked at the beginning of the diyaudio thread, where Carlos
> refused to disclose his formula, but I didn't read the 55 pages of it
> to see if he changed his mind. Good luck with figuring it out, I have
> no idea how you would do it.
yeah, the S/N on that forum is r
dorkus Wrote:
> i'm still figuring that out. :) carlosfm claims to know, and he's
> generally a very helpful guy but he is kinda shadowy about it. i think
> he doesn't want DIYers getting too lazy and leaning on him too much. in
> any case, the first step is to figure out the equivalent output
>
randytsuch Wrote:
>
> My next, what should be obvious question, is how do you calculate the
> correct snubber value, if you know the output inpedance of the circuit
> you are adding the snubber to.
i'm still figuring that out. :) carlosfm claims to know, and he's
generally a very helpful guy bu
Hi Dorkus
Yes, ignorance is bliss, so much less to worry about if you don't know
any better.
OK, I get the snubber now, thanks for the links.
My next, what should be obvious question, is how do you calculate the
correct snubber value, if you know the output inpedance of the circuit
you are addin
randytsuch Wrote:
> Hi Dorkus
> When you said snubber, at first I thought you were talking about the
> putting RC's on each diode of the diode bridge. But, I think you are
> talking about a RC filter, either before or after the voltage
> regulator. I am guessing you put it before the regulator,
I may try some other regulators. I wonder if things sound better
because of "good" distortion or for some other reasons. The LT1085
sounds good to me, so I have little incentive at the moment to go back
into that PS and change regulators.
As for snubbers, I have usually heard that term in refer
dorkus Wrote:
> coincidentally i was just playing around with regulators today on my
> Sony SACD player DAC supply. i recently reworked the entire supply on a
> perfboard to get the impedance lower. i also added a RC "snubber", which
> made a very appreciable improvement in sound quality. my valu
mamsterla Wrote:
>
> I built a separate PS supply that is housed in project box and made up
> of:
>
> 1 LT1086ADJ regulator
>
coincidentally i was just playing around with regulators today on my
Sony SACD player DAC supply. i recently reworked the entire supply on a
perfboard to get the imped
Well, I decided to spend a couple of hours getting the ART DIO side of
the equation done. I put in the SC944-05 on that side following
GaryB's, Jim l'Hommideau, Graig's, and other's wisdom. I chose the
floating option outlined on the ART DIO downloads in the DIOMods group
on Yahoo.
It sounds ve
So, does it sound better with the digital transformer in it?
Randy
--
randytsuch
randytsuch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3783
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=
OK, for people who want to do this with an SB2 - the info is as
follows:
L1 is just a jumper on my SB2 board (a solder jumper at that). I left
it in place.
Remove L5 from the board. The southern pad will be your IN+ for the
transformer. I mounted the transformer using Blu-Tak in a dead bug
co
mamsterla Wrote:
> I just wanted to clarify what you meant by the "junction" of the
> resistors in your original post.
I use the word "junction" to refer to the point where the two resistors
are hooked together.
---Gary
--
GaryB
---
GaryB Wrote:
> Mike,
> You really need some understanding of the circuit to do this without
> destroying your squeezebox. The two inductors that I called L8 and L9
> in my post are hooked up directly to the SP/DIF digital output and
> provide a little bit of smoothing of the sharp digital outp
mamsterla Wrote:
> I thought it was too far from the digital out. Are the numbers on the
> SB2 and SB3 boards different?
>
> I assume that GaryB meant L1 and L5 on the SB2 board numbering...
Mike,
I thought I'd said it clearly before but my modifications were all to
the Squeezebox 3 and the bo
seanadams Wrote:
> That's because they're part of the CPU/wireless power supply - please
> put them back!!!
I thought it was too far from the digital out. Are the numbers on the
SB2 and SB3 boards different?
I assume that GaryB meant L1 and L5 on the SB2 board numbering...
--
mamsterla
---
mamsterla Wrote:
> I removed L8/L9 - you can see them in this pic right above the chip
> labeled "CPU/Wireless Power Supply".
That's because they're part of the CPU/wireless power supply - please
put them back!!!
--
seanadams
-
Checking to see if image is here...
--
mamsterla
mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822
Still have questions about wiring in the transformer. I removed L8/L9 -
you can see them in this pic right above the chip labeled "CPU/Wireless
Power Supply". Tracing back from them, the first thing is D4 from L8
and then is R22.
I measure from the L8 to GND is 9.6Kohm and from L9 to GND is 4.0
mamsterla Wrote:
> There are two sides, a two pin side and a three pin side. I am assuming
> that the two pin side is the input and that the 3 pin side is the
> output. The center pin on the three pin side appears to be a "shield"
> wire. Gary, what did you wire to this?
The 3 pin side is the
I just got the SC transformers this evening. I do not, however have the
datasheet. I wanted to hook up the SC916-01 to the SB2 if possible
tonight.
There are two sides, a two pin side and a three pin side. I am
assuming that the two pin side is the input and that the 3 pin side is
the output.
hi occam,
i think you may be reading a bit into my words.
occam Wrote:
> Dorkus,
> He nor I made any mention of ps decoupling of digital circuitry, only a
> reference to his rather well chosen (IMO) analog ps.
>
??? but in this case the PS is powering the SB, thereby making this a
digital app
Clarifications on what I have done:
There are two separate sets of mods I have done to the SB2:
1. Outboard PS - I will get some pics up. I took them and I have to
find them. I built a separate PS supply that is housed in project box
and made up of:
1 Volex 12AWG captive cord with keeper
1 12
Dorkus,
I do believe we are talking at cross purposes here. Please read
specifically what Mamsterla posted -
mamsterla Wrote:
> Gary:
> I forgot to mention that my SB2 is modded with a linear, LT1086ADJ
> regulated PS and has a new Rubycon ZA "big ass" cap with a 0.01uF
> Siemens stacked polyest
occam Wrote:
> The Siemens (now Epcos) stacked poly caps are known for their very low
> inductance, and are specifically used in ps bypass of high speed
> circuity.
interesting, can you show me an actual commercial application where
they are used as such?
> Go to digikey, and download the PDFs,
occam Wrote:
> The Siemens (now Epcos) stacked poly caps are known for their very low
> inductance, and are specifically used in ps bypass of high speed
> circuity. As to an objective/subjective preference for polypropolene
> over polyester, that may be but Epcos also makes these stacked
> ar
dorkus Wrote:
> you may want to try w/o that polyester film cap in there too. film caps
> actually aren't very good for supply bypassing in high-speed (e.g.
> digital) circuits. the parasitic inductance is much higher than
> eletrolytic or chip ceramic caps and can screw up the sound. YMMV, but
>
mamsterla Wrote:
> I forgot to mention that my SB2 is modded with a linear, LT1086ADJ
> regulated PS and has a new Rubycon ZA "big ass" cap with a 0.01uF
> Siemens stacked polyester bypass cap on it.
you may want to try w/o that polyester film cap in there too. film caps
actually aren't very goo
P Floding Wrote:
> Hi!
> Did you get my two emails?
> Regards
> Patrik
I will send an email out tonight with all the responses I have
received.
--
mamsterla
mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?
mamsterla Wrote:
> Hi:
>
> It looks like I have enough interest. What I need from people is the
> following info:
>
> 1. Part number and quantity - look here for info:
> http://www.scientificonversion.com/
> 2. Certainty - I do not want to float people if they are unsure
> 3. Agreement to cove
seanadams Wrote:
> They're better known as "ferrite beads" (search digikey). Basically a
> low Z for DC current but very high for 100MHZ+ - we use various ones
> for internal power as well as external EMI filtering.
Sean,
were L8 and L9 on a SB3 added to pass the FCC EMI test, or some
similiar t
seanadams Wrote:
> ... but not a high inductance (stored magnetic field)... for that you
> need a real coil.
Sorry. I know what they are - I just did not see anything I recognized
as one in the pictures here:
http://www.slimdevices.com/photos/inside_squeezebox2/
Good old Z - our friend imped
mamsterla Wrote:
>
> Also what are inductors labelled on the SB2? I am not familiar with
> SMD versions of things.
They're better known as "ferrite beads" (search digikey). Basically a
low Z for DC current but very high for 100MHZ+ - we use various ones
for internal power as well as external E
GaryB Wrote:
> I like to use 1:1 transformers on the sending side. A larger voltage
> swing on your digital cable isn't a good thing. The 1:2 transformers
> can be useful on the receiving side to give a larger signal to the
> receiver chips. You should remember that 1:2 transformer reflect
> i
mamsterla Wrote:
> I notice that you used a Scientific Conversions SC916-01 1:1 AES
> transformer in your mods even though it might appear that the SC9440-05
> 1:2 is the one that they recommend for SPDIF use. Any comments on your
> choice? Did you just want to keep the 1:1 impedence?
I like t
P Floding Wrote:
> I too would like to participate!
>
> I'm not 100% sure which ones I'll need. It will replace transformers on
> the TacT RCS 2.2x digital input card. (And, depending on price, perhaps
> on the output card as well.)
> I'll get one for the SB too.
>
> I'll have to get back with
mamsterla Wrote:
> Hi:
>
> It looks like I have enough interest. What I need from people is the
> following info:
>
> 1. Part number and quantity - look here for info:
> http://www.scientificonversion.com/
> 2. Certainty - I do not want to float people if they are unsure
> 3. Agreement to cove
Gary:
I notice that you used a Scientific Conversions SC916-01 1:1 AES
transformer in your mods even though it might appear that the SC9440-05
1:2 is the one that they recommend for SPDIF use. Any comments on your
choice? Did you just want to keep the 1:1 impedence?
--
mamsterla
Hi:
It looks like I have enough interest. What I need from people is the
following info:
1. Part number and quantity
2. Certainty - I do not want to float people if they are unsure
3. Agreement to cover costs including any Paypal fees and/or shipping
costs. I will do my best to minimize these
mamsrela, I sent you a PM on Friday , I'm in for two transfos
Chris
--
krzys
krzys's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2256
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822
___
If there's going to be a GB from Scientific Conversion I'd like to
participate, I need one SC944-05.
Regards,
John
--
nullspace
nullspace's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3781
View this thread: h
Hi Mike,
I'm in for 2 trafos, and there are some other interested parties on the
Pedja Rogic TDA1541A DAC pages at Yahoo. I tried to PM you a couple of
days ago, but I don't think it got through.
Please could you drop me a line if you are still up for a group buy?
All the best
Jon Clancy
--
GaryB Wrote:
> 1. No, I don't think you need to remove anything else.
> 2. From Scientific Conversions directly. They have a minimum order of
> $100 so you will need to find a few friends to share the cost. They
> charge ~$15 a transformer.
> 3. I like ext best.
>
> ---Gary
Thanks for the
mamsterla Wrote:
> A couple of quick questions:
>
> 1. Does it make sense to alter/remove anything else from the SB2 for
> its duties as a digital transport?
> 2. Where did you source your Scientific Conversions transformers?
> 3. What mode of the ArtDIO do you like best - 88.2/44.1/ext?
>
1.
GaryB Wrote:
> So my cover is blown - I am the same Gary from the Diomods board.
>
> And one final comment about digital output jacks - I think 75 ohm BNC
> jacks are the only way to go. They are cheap and their performance
> will be better than the best WBT RCA jack. You can buy very go
mamsterla Wrote:
> GaryB:
>
> I think I know your posts from the DIOMods Yahoo group.
>
> My question is would it be worth putting the transformer in on both
> sides - SB2 and ArtDIO.
>
> What other SB2 mods would you recommend for a digital only transport if
> that is the best for my setu
Pat Farrell said the following on 02/03/2006 04:00 AM:
> mamsterla wrote:
>
>>ArtDIO digital board only DAC - I basically removed the digital board,
>
>
> I'm not Gary, but is the ArtDIO DAC actually better than the SB3?
>
> When the Art DIO was released a while back, it was a budget pro-audio
mamsterla wrote:
> ArtDIO digital board only DAC - I basically removed the digital board,
I'm not Gary, but is the ArtDIO DAC actually better than the SB3?
When the Art DIO was released a while back, it was a budget pro-audio
product. Since time is quality in the chip/IC world, the SB3's
chip is
GaryB:
I think I know your posts from the DIOMods Yahoo group. I have a
ArtDIO digital board only DAC - I basically removed the digital board,
built 3 power supplies, +5V Digital, +5V analog and +-15V for my INA103
output. I was looking to do the Scientific Conversions transformer for
that DAC
If you look at the datasheet for the dac chip in the squeezebox
(pcm1748), you'll see that it is spec'd to drive a 5k load. With my
modified squeezebox where I take the output directly from the pcm1748,
bypassing the output stage, I find that the sound is much better IF you
are driving a high eno
I'm sure it will work (assuming you do it right), but it may sound
better still going through a good pre, because the pre output is a
better match for the power amp input.
But my point was, that the buffer stage IS actually doing something
useful - even though it can be improved upon.
--
Patri
ezkcdude Wrote:
> No, that's not necessarily true. I'm running the SB3 right now directly
> into my amp using the analog outputs. I'm only using a pair of passive
> attenuators, and they are usually dialed about half way to full, which
> is more than loud enough.
Is this with the opamp removed
AndyWright Wrote:
> So before I start hacking (probably literally!) - should I infer from
> this that the output direct from the DAC is insufficient to drive a
> power amp ? I'm using NuForce reference 8s, 47k Input, 26dB gain,
> without any pre-amp inbetween.
>
> Andy.
No, that's not necessar
Patrick Dixon Wrote:
> We implement our own output buffer (amongst other things), and it's a
> significant improvement on the built-in one. The buffer stage is there
> to provide post-DAC filtering and to increase gain to industry standard
> levels, as well as to drive power amps.
Thanks. So b
AndyWright Wrote:
> I'm giving some thought to having a go at this myself, but did wonder
> what the final amp is there for in the first place? is it just a buffer
> to lower the output impedance so the SB can drive into low-ish impedance
> power amps? Just wondering because people here who have
I'm giving some thought to having a go at this myself, but did wonder
what the final amp is there for in the first place? is it just a buffer
to lower the output impedance so the SB can drive into low-ish impedance
power amps? Just wondering because people here who have carried out the
mod talk of
I descided to just go with the flow; Threw away the opamp, removed some
caps, and added some blackgate's.
And I must say
SO much improvement! all sharpness & brightness is totally gone,
much more detail overall. A recommendation for everyone.
--
Heimiko
---
Heimiko Wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I would prefer leaving the headphone stage in
> tact, as my amp doesn't has a headphone-out. If I would leave the
> output stage in tact, but simply cut off the phono plugs, and take them
> directly to the DAC (with caps in between ofcorse) would I still hav
Heimiko Wrote:
> I am seriously considering applying the analog mod (removing opamp,
> replacing caps, etc.). However, i'm curious, this probably has an
> effect on the headphone output? If I take the left/right straight from
> the DAC chip, the headphone output probably fails to function. Am I
>
Thanks for the reply. I would prefer leaving the headphone stage in
tact, as my amp doesn't has a headphone-out. If I would leave the
output stage in tact, but simply cut off the phono plugs, and take them
directly to the DAC (with caps in between ofcorse) would I still have a
major improvement? i
I am seriously considering applying the analog mod (removing opamp,
replacing caps, etc.). However, i'm curious, this probably has an
effect on the headphone output? If I take the left/right straight from
the DAC chip, the headphone output probably fails to function. Am I
correct?
--
Heimiko
--
Skunk Wrote:
> Sean posted one. I'm afraid you'll have to search. I did to no avail
> (didn't see it linked from www.seanadams.com either)
http://www.seanadams.com/dac.pdf
--
occam
occam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevic
Jenks Wrote:
> Does anyone know a place I can order a KE version of the DAC chip?
If you are in the US, get them from Digikey.
---Gary
--
GaryB
GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169
View
tyler_durden Wrote:
>
> Do you have a schematic and board layout diagrams?
>
Sean posted one. I'm afraid you'll have to search. I did to no avail
(didn't see it linked from www.seanadams.com either)
--
Skunk
Skunk's Pr
My darling wife keeps using my wire cutters to cut the dog's toe_nails,
so when I tried them they failed. I will get some new ones. I put in
some cheap DC blocking caps and removed the ones from the board - which
is what I should have domne in the first place, and the sound is much
better balanc
Jenks Wrote:
> Ok, I looked at removing the output stage and it all looked too hard
> with my meagre skills and soldering iron.
Well removing the op amp isn't that hard. You can do it without
soldering at all. The output opamp (NJM2041) is a surface mount part
but there is a reasonable amount
Ok, I looked at removing the output stage and it all looked too hard
with my meagre skills and soldering iron. So I just removed the two
Caps C44 and C45 as suggested. The sound has improved significantly,
smoother through the mids and highs and more natural overall. I didn't
expect any noticea
I will have a go at disabling the output stage properly today and order
the caps.
I really appreciate the insights I got from this thread of yours.
I had been using a Meridian 568.2 as system preamp and to avoid the
external DAC too many boxes). I had my eye on getting an Audio Aero
Prima DAC t
Jenks Wrote:
> Hi Gary
>
> Can you please comment on what I have just done.
>
> I have got my drill out and attacked the SB2 board - cutting three
> links; between c7 and r37; between c39 and r39; and between the 5V
> supply and R41.
>
> I am assuming that cutting the link between the power
Question for you guys who are doing all this board cutting and
modifying-
Do you have a schematic and board layout diagrams?
Where can I get copies of them?
Thanks,
TD
--
tyler_durden
tyler_durden's Profile: http://for
Hi Gary
Can you please comment on what I have just done. I simply do not have
the equipment, let alone the experience, or even the eyesight, to play
too much with surface mount boards, so have figured out some simple
ways to go about it.
I have an SB2 but have housed it in a large enclosure tog
dorkus Wrote:
> p.s. GaryB, are you on diyaudio.com?
Yes I am - same userid.
---Gary
--
GaryB
GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showt
despite being a serious tinkerer and DIY-er myself (i took apart [and
broke] a nintendo portable game when i was 8 out of sheer curiousity),
i honestly believe any manufacturer has the right to void warranty if
you so much as open the device, much less make ANY changes - even
sticking some blue ta
davehg Wrote:
> .., he knows the gear, and has modded countless SB2's and SB3's.
> Plus, he backs up his work...
I know Wayne and respect his work. I think he is far more numerate than
you give him credit for.
--
occam
---
davehg Wrote:
>
> Why should Sean and his team spend their time determining what the
> problem is when it could be tied to a defective part on a mod?
No reason, I agree. I was just stating a fact, as I see the JD100 as
being more similar to a Squeezebox than a Saleen.
Fixed link to your arti
Until or unless they decide to certify these mods, or release their own
high end audiophile versions (unlikely), the risk is on us. Why should
Sean and his team spend their time determining what the problem is when
it could be tied to a defective part on a mod? That is why companies
like Dinan (B
seanadams Wrote:
> Once board-level mods have been made, we can not cover it under
> warranty.
>
I do know that Jolida mods by Response, for example, do not effect the
warranty in any way... I believe most of their mods are cleared through
the manufacturer.
--
Skunk
---
davehg Wrote:
> Of course, if the problem is traced to the SB3, not the modders work, an
> interesting dilemna, as Slim Devices may choose to void the warranty,
> even if the defect is not caused by the mod. Sean?
Once board-level mods have been made, we can not cover it under
warranty. If it w
Of course, if the problem is traced to the SB3, not the modders work, an
interesting dilemna, as Slim Devices may choose to void the warranty,
even if the defect is not caused by the mod. Sean?
--
davehg
davehg's Profile:
whistler Wrote:
> However, I wonder what the modders like eg. Bolder Cables do when a SB
> acts up. I suppose that Slim Devices will not grant a warranty repair
> on a modded SB?
>
> On the other hand, if they do, the modding I paid for will be lost when
> they replace it with a brand new. Any e
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
