MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

129.8914mm is the new 3U
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Music Tech DIY  
Author 129.8914mm is the new 3U
EATyourGUITAR
while doing research for a case I am building, I found something interesting. doepfer construction details refer to 3U as 1U x 3. this can be 5.25in = 133.4mm according to doepfer. in reality it is actually 133.35mm if we are a bit more precise on inches to metric conversion. now lets talk about vector T strut such as TS600 for example. outside dimension is 0.291inches. the mounting holes for eurorack modules are aligned with the center of the T strut. if we build a 6U case, and the maximum doepfer panel size is 128.5mm, then if follows that there is no problem with 3U spacing of 129.8914mm. this puts the T strut from the bottom 3U in contact with the next T strut for the top 3U. we have lost the ability to mount modules in standard 19inch equipment racks but we gain what was air gaps and wasted space. we will now have a 1.3914mm gap between eurorack panels instead of 4.85mm gap between eurorack panels vertically.

NOTE: this is only for vector T strut. some people already do this. I am discovering it for the first time today.
ersatzplanet
This difference between panel size and the 3U standard is because like many cabinet makers, Doepfer uses a rail that has an outer decorative lip. If one was to measure the other dimensions of his rails, you would be at 3U. This is the same difference between the Pulp Logic and intellijel 1U tiles sizes. PL uses the full 1U size without the lip and intellijal used rails with lips (the same one they use on their 3U systems).

When using non-lipped rails like Vector and others, The easiest way to get sizing is to mount blank or modules in the rails and then measure the distance between the rail mounting holes. The Doepfer design can be used in BOTH 3U with lips and with non-lipped rails adjusted to compensate. If you were to strictly space the Vector rails to exactly 3U from outer edge to outer edge, they would not work with every Eurorack panel I know of. All the makers using Vector to other lip-less rails compensate for this difference. Those that use lipped rails don't have too. Since there are manufactures using both types of rail, there is no "new" 3U spec.

Basically the screw channel of the rails have to be in the correct places. This is the standard I follow (from the Doepfer mechanical page) and have never had a complaint -

EATyourGUITAR
I used that same information. My holes are 122.5mm. 129.8914mm is for people with vector T strut that do not care about standard 3U 5.25 inch OD. I have the drawing of the vector part here also sitting in CAD. Thinking about making myself some mounting brackets out of scrap aluminum. I have stainless but I don't want to cut stainless unless I need to.
diablojoy
I make my own end brackets for vector rails
using 50 x 5mm flat aluminium
you will run into a problem for 6u and up
the rails themselves will fit fine but the standard screws to join them to the bracket need room for the heads and they will conflict with each other if you mount the rails hard against each other , it is not by much but it is annoying you either need to leave a gap , obtain special fasteners with smaller heads or grind down the heads of the standard screws. last time I put the screws in my pedestal drill and used a mill file.
EATyourGUITAR
diablojoy wrote:
I make my own end brackets for vector rails
using 50 x 5mm flat aluminium
you will run into a problem for 6u and up
the rails themselves will fit fine but the standard screws to join them to the bracket need room for the heads and they will conflict with each other if you mount the rails hard against each other , it is not by much but it is annoying you either need to leave a gap , obtain special fasteners with smaller heads or grind down the heads of the standard screws. last time I put the screws in my pedestal drill and used a mill file.


I already had this happen in CAD. this is why I love engineering. I fixed it with a few mouse clicks. screws ordered, part designed. your head diameter for the countersunk screw is D <= 0.368 inches + 0.0 inches tolerance. It was way easier to find torx M5x0.8 thread in stainless than it was to find torx or allen key in 10-24.
Graham Hinton
EATyourGUITAR wrote:
doepfer construction details refer to 3U as 1U x 3. this can be 5.25in = 133.4mm according to doepfer. in reality it is actually 133.35mm if we are a bit more precise on inches to metric conversion.


Don't believe Doepfer's dimensions, work to IEC standards if you want to get it right.

3U is a rack space, not the size of the equipment mounted in it. The difference is that a clearance of 0.8mm and a tolerance of +/-0.4mm is part of the specification.
NU equipment height = (N x 44.45 - 0.8) +/- 0.4mm
so 3U height = 132.15mm min to 132.94mm max.

If you don't allow for this the equipment is an interference fit.

Quote:

now lets talk about vector T strut such as TS600 for example.


If you want to build an IEC 60297 frame use IEC 60297 parts otherwise you are reinventing the wheel and making it square. Eurorack was based on this standard because the parts were widely available and you don't have to know all the clearances and tolerances.
EATyourGUITAR
In 3U the holes repeat at 5.25 inches on center. In a quick and dirty way of speaking, your 3U chassis can never be larger than that. That is why I say OD. It is the absolute maximum outside dimension before tolerance for mounting and chassis dimension. I won't tell you what tolerance to use but I can repeat the process for vector rails and eurorack. I am familiar with IEC And others but I prefer doepfer spec for eurorack panels. If we are on a different spec then that would more closely resemble something else. I believe that the way I am doing things provides a benefit for people building cases but not mounting into IEC racks. It is a new standard although I am probably not the first person to do this with tstrut.
ersatzplanet
Graham Hinton wrote:

Don't believe Doepfer's dimensions, work to IEC standards if you want to get it right.


Doepfers spacings work perfectly for rails that use the decorative lips like Scroff, Tiptop, and many others. The extra material in the lips makes up for the height and brings the outer rail dimensions to the 3U standard height. The problem only come from people using Vector t-strut rails and space them with the outer dimensions of the rail to the full 3U distance. The screw slot positions then will not fit any eurorack module I know of which are designed with the decorative lip in mind. If not designed with that lip in mind, you won't be able to fit the panel in any cabinet that uses them (Doepfer, Analogue Systems, intellijel, TipTop and many others).

The important measurement when building your own cabinet using whatever rails you want to use, is not the outer dimensions but the slot to slot dimensions if you want panels to fit. You will have to adjust some rails to make this work unless you want to disregard every Eurorack panels out there.

The Doepfer panel dimensions given above basically are exactly the same as the ones Schroff uses for their system (holes are a little different spacing from the edge)-

Graham Hinton
ersatzplanet wrote:
The Doepfer panel dimensions given above basically are exactly the same as the ones Schroff uses for their system (holes are a little different spacing from the edge)-


I don't know where you copied that drawing from, but it is NOT the same as Doepfer's or IEC 60297. Unless it's a rear view. It would be the same as Analogue Systems panels because they made the same mistake.

The left fixing hole should be 0.3" from the left edge. This gets rounded to 7.62 or 7.5 or 7.45mm depending on who is doing it and whether they are allowing for the clearance on the left or right side.

This illustrates what happens when you copy information or try to deduce it or measure one example and don't go back to the source. Mistakes are made and like with AS you then have to pretend that you meant it and it's your standard.

For reference the vertical distance between the fixing points is 3 x 44.45 - 10.85 = 122.5mm
and the minimum distance between rails is 3 x 44.45 - 21.35 = 109mm.
Many cases, especially US ones, get this wrong.
ersatzplanet
Graham Hinton wrote:
ersatzplanet wrote:
The Doepfer panel dimensions given above basically are exactly the same as the ones Schroff uses for their system (holes are a little different spacing from the edge)-


I don't know where you copied that drawing from, but it is NOT the same as Doepfer's or IEC 60297. Unless it's a rear view. It would be the same as Analogue Systems panels because they made the same mistake.

The left fixing hole should be 0.3" from the left edge. This gets rounded to 7.62 or 7.5 or 7.45mm depending on who is doing it and whether they are allowing for the clearance on the left or right side.


I copied that image right off the data sheet on the nVent/Schroff site. The PDF file can be found here - https://schroff.nvent.com/wcsstore/ExtendedSitesCatalogAssetStore/Atta chment/SchroffAttachments/Documents/7_1_Frontplatten_e.pdf

I guess you didn't read the line "(holes are a little different spacing from the edge)" in my post. The horizontal distance from the edge is different from Doepfer's, but the vertical distances from the top and bottom edges are the same. These are the important dimensions when building your own cabinet and if you want to fit Eurorack panels into them. The distance between the top holes and the bottom holes have to match the slots in the rails. The OP was talking about how the spacing of Vector rails are not the full 3U when used with this dimension, and I tried to explain that the difference is that the Doepfer rails, like many other makers, are rails with decorative lips on them that add the missing space on the Vector rails. I agree that Doepfer VERY loose based his dimensions on the IEC 60297 standard but it IS different and if you want to make Eurorack panels fit, you better make them to Doepfer's dimensions. The Schroff panels follow the IEC60297-3-101/!EEE 1101.1/10 specs and their panels are 128.4mm high and have a hole spacing of 3mm from the top edge and bottom edge with a spacing of 122.4mm between them which is the same as Doepfer's (only 0.1mm different - about the size of the thickness of the paper in my laser printer).

Graham Hinton wrote:

This illustrates what happens when you copy information or try to deduce it or measure one example and don't go back to the source. Mistakes are made and like with AS you then have to pretend that you meant it and it's your standard.


The source was both from the largest makers of Eurorack modules and from the largest maker of IEC60297-3-101/!EEE 1101.1/10 standard cabinets I know of. AS did Deviate from Doepfer on the horizontal positioning, Doepfer and Schroff both use 7.5mm form the edge in the linked documents above. Even now AS is starting to make all their panels with slotted holes to accommodate both Doepfer and their own spacing. But as this thread was about the spacing of the rails, that doesn't matter. The 122.5mm distance is the one that matters when using whatever types of rails you are making the cabinet with.

Graham Hinton wrote:

For reference the vertical distance between the fixing points is 3 x 44.45 - 10.85 = 122.5mm
and the minimum distance between rails is 3 x 44.45 - 21.35 = 109mm.
Many cases, especially US ones, get this wrong.


Well if we are talking about Eurorack cases, ones that are made for Eurorack modules, like the original poster was talking about, I can't see how ANY cabinet maker, US or otherwise, could be making ANY 3U cabinets to ANY other dimension other than the ones Doepfer is using, and be able to sell a single cabinet to a Eurorack modular synthesizer user.

There are many different rail makers out there with many different profiles. The thicknesses vary. Some have lips and some do not. Some are symmetrical and some are not. They just have to be spaces so the screw slots, using threaded strips or not, are the correct distances apart. Many makers of modules make for the rails they have on hand and the inner dimensions between the rails, the space where the module goes, differs between rails. Makers have to leave plenty of leeway there and some do not and have problems with some rails in some cabinets.

This difference between rails is the whole problem in the 1U tile world. One maker used rails with lips on their 3U and 6U cabinets and used them for the 1U tiles they made. The other maker used lipless rails spaced to the full 1U height and hence their modules will not work in the other system and visa versa. The PCBs won't easily fit form the lipless version to the lipped ones either because the inner dimensions of the rails are that much closer. The 3U spacing in the Eurorack Modular Synthesizer world has always been with lipped rails in mind. Like I said before, ff you make a cabinet for use with Eurorack synthesizer modules, you have to space the rails so that the mounting screw slots are the correct distance.
ersatzplanet
If that link doesn't work (it may be a subscription only site), attached is the Schroff catalog it links to.
Graham Hinton
ersatzplanet wrote:
I copied that image right off the data sheet on the nVent/Schroff site. The PDF file can be found here - https://schroff.nvent.com/wcsstore/ExtendedSitesCatalogAssetStore/Atta chment/SchroffAttachments/Documents/7_1_Frontplatten_e.pdf


I don't see the image you posted in that catalogue, all the panels there have a nominal 7.45mm spacing.

Schroff have a Standards Summary available which is a better document to use as a reference. You can see where the numbers come from and which matter most rather than get distracted by unimportant differences.

Quote:

I guess you didn't read the line "(holes are a little different spacing from the edge)" in my post.


You guess wrong. 0.1" is not little in this context when the fixing holes are spaced 0.2" apart.

Quote:

I agree that Doepfer VERY loose based his dimensions on the IEC 60297 standard but it IS different and if you want to make Eurorack panels fit, you better make them to Doepfer's dimensions.


Doepfer's original 6U frames were standard IEC 60297 parts. If you want to make panels that fit you have to understand the clearances and tolerances and not just go on nominal measurements that were only intended as a description, not a definitive standard.

Quote:

The Schroff panels follow the IEC60297-3-101/!EEE 1101.1/10 specs and their panels are 128.4mm high and have a hole spacing of 3mm from the top edge and bottom edge with a spacing of 122.4mm between them which is the same as Doepfer's (only 0.1mm different - about the size of the thickness of the paper in my laser printer).


The IEC spec is 128.55 +/-0.15 so both are within spec. Stop talking as if Doepfer have their own spec, they only have an abridged description that gives no tolerances. It isn't somehow a different standard. If they had said that IEC 60297 forms part of the A100 standard then everything would be clear and all the details would be defined. The fact that they didn't say that doesn't change it being true.

Quote:

There are many different rail makers out there with many different profiles.


There are two types of rails. Those made for IEC 60297 and those made for something else. Many manufacturers make IEC 60297 frames, but they are only compatible at the frame level, you can't mix and match the parts.
ersatzplanet
Graham Hinton wrote:

I don't see the image you posted in that catalogue, all the panels there have a nominal 7.45mm spacing.

That image was from a webpage selling Schroff parts. Or claiming to. Only one mounting hole on it is not 7.45m from the edge, the one under the slot for the ejection handle. It was from this site - https://www.distrelec.ch/en/profile-front-panel-he-te-nvent-schroff-30 847-660/p/11018130

Graham Hinton wrote:

You guess wrong. 0.1" is not little in this context when the fixing holes are spaced 0.2" apart.


I never said to make them like the illustration EXCEPT for the dimension between the upper and lower holes which I said was the dimension to take note of if building your one cabinets. I have a mixed AS/everyone else system and am well aware of the differences. I have been manufacturing Eurorack modules for almost 10 years (not as long as you I guess) and am aware of how they work.

Graham Hinton wrote:

Doepfer's original 6U frames were standard IEC 60297 parts. If you want to make panels that fit you have to understand the clearances and tolerances and not just go on nominal measurements that were only intended as a description, not a definitive standard.


I don't recall calling it a "standard" of it's own, just if you make rail placement measurements based on them they will work with all the Eurorack panels I know of. They were a reference for rail spacing. We were not talking about making panels, just example of the dimensions used by most panel makers for RAIL spacing. The distance from the left or right sides is immaterial to rail spacing.

Graham Hinton wrote:

The IEC spec is 128.55 +/-0.15 so both are within spec. Stop talking as if Doepfer have their own spec, they only have an abridged description that gives no tolerances. It isn't somehow a different standard. If they had said that IEC 60297 forms part of the A100 standard then everything would be clear and all the details would be defined. The fact that they didn't say that doesn't change it being true.


I You are the only person bringing the IEC 60297 specs up. All I was pointing out were the dimensions for the rail spacing to make sure that a Eurorack Synthesizer module panel would be able to be mounted.

Graham Hinton wrote:

There are two types of rails. Those made for IEC 60297 and those made for something else. Many manufacturers make IEC 60297 frames, but they are only compatible at the frame level, you can't mix and match the parts.


Again - How many makers of cabinets out there are using IEC 60297 specs and rails? Not many I would suppose. I know of none who claim to be. I know of very few makers of Eurorack Synthesizer module compatible cabinets that use IEC spec'd metal frames, almost all are wood or plastic or custom. They all use rails but they can use Vector, Tip-top Z-rails, Gie-Tec, Schroff or others that all have different mounting end hole placement and profiles and require custom hole placement to make the screw slots match the ONE dimension that matters, the 122.5mm one I pointed out. They don't need rack ears, or a particular depth or any other of the specs I image are in the IEC 60297 specs and they will work.

It would be a beautiful world if the industry standards were followed but it isn't the case in this case (puns intended). Maybe I misread the purpose of this whole thread. I will have to read the original post more carefully. I thought the OP was talking about how Vector rails when pushed to the 3U standard height that the mounting holes of a "standard" (as in commonly made) Eurorack Synthesizer module panel will not line up with the slots in the rails. I tried to explain the difference between rails with lips and those without and how the Vector rails if mounted that way would be too far apart because they are narrower than rails with lips. The solution was to mount the rails - no matter which type of rail you used - so that the slots for the screws were spaced with their centers at 122.5mm apart. I still stand by that.
ricko
(Apologies is slightly off topic.)

About standards conformance.

When an engineer intends conformance, they will cite the Standard by number and use the conformance terminology of that Standard. (I have bern involved in severall ISO/IEC standard, including as Editor.) But when an engineer instead uses the general nickname, they are not making claims of conformance: they are saying there is some relationship to the technology.

It might be that they have a stricter "profile" (subset) of the Standard, or that some technical choice they made means that their modules will plug into conforming subframes without being tightly comforming themselves. It might mean it is constructed from bits that conform to the standard but, in total, it does not. When Doeofer dont cite the Standard, they are sending the right message: dont claim conformance if perhaps you dont.

Of course, if it is marketing material, it could mean anything. (Even the exact opposite: If you Google "analog synth" you will get pages on digital software grrr.)

But you have to be careful not to read too much in to Standards. For example, the (superseded) IEC 60297-3 gives the centrepoint for the 2.5mm holes and the height of the holes (<= 2.7mm) but it does not specify round holes in text anywhere: the diagram shows round but if it were a matter of conformance it would have a radius or horizontal measurement. So, I dont see that slots are non-conforming to the Standard. However, it does specify 2.5mm panel thickness.

(I think sliding nuts are strictly non-conforming, but they will accept confirming modules and are functional but not physical equivalents to fixed holes, so they are Eurorack-friendly if not actually conforming to the Standard. I dont gave access to the definitions section, so I cannot see if they have defined any conformance level for functional rather than physical equivalents, or if any profiles are predefined. But I like sliding nuts.)

(Btw. Standards are not Koranic texts handed down from high. Where you have an interpreration question, you can often ask (your national body) to ask the editor or committee for clatification. That can take time. But standards are an agreement by a community, so where there is some ambiguity you usually follow what the community or leading implementations do.)
ranix
It's true that the standard may have ambiguity but I'd question the wisdom of challenging those who wish to interpret the standard as strictly as possible. Strictly conforming to the standard entails no risk of incompatibilities, loosely conforming (i.e. non-conforming) entails risk.
EATyourGUITAR
This 109mm can change if you want to push it to the limit at your own risk. You just measure from the inside of an off the shelf doepfer case and add whatever tolerance you feel comfortable with. On a 2HP module it matters. You might want to know if you get 8 Jack's or 9. Vector actually allows for larger PCB but vector is not the doepfer standard. I have seen modules bigger than 109mm being sold but I think some of them are actually designed to cause problems for some users. This is eurorack. Shit happens that would never happen in the real world. Someone sold a module with insect eggs in a terrarium because it contained actual dirt not sterilized. It was fun to look at till they all suffocated or starved. Some of these module makers sell 10 units before they stop producing modules. These things work themselves out. People talk about shitty cases all the time. I don't want to scare anyone away from trying to build a case. I want to invite them to DIY.
Gandalf
Isn't this the difference between EuroRack and FracRack?
Both are 3U but not interchangeable within the racks.
That is the same argument for the debacle with the two 1U formats
Doepfer appear to have taken the recognised rack system and just cleaned up some things..:-
7.50mm for the left mounting holes instead of 7.47mm
M3 tapped screws instead of M2.5
Tweaks to the panel widths....
EATyourGUITAR
Gandalf wrote:
Isn't this the difference between EuroRack and FracRack?
Both are 3U but not interchangeable within the racks.
That is the same argument for the debacle with the two 1U formats
Doepfer appear to have taken the recognised rack system and just cleaned up some things..:-
7.50mm for the left mounting holes instead of 7.47mm
M3 tapped screws instead of M2.5
Tweaks to the panel widths....


panel widths! we are gonna need another thread for that one. you can do ok with doepfer spec for panel widths but if you want tighter tolerances you can go bigger. the 7.5mm is also dependent on panel width. but the doepfer panel widths are all over the place. the better way to think of it would be HP*0.2inch-(ABS(manufacturing_tolerance)+ABS(mounting_tolerance)). metric people can use 5.08mm = 0.2inch = HP. this will in theory decrease the gap between panels since there is no wasted space where there is no need to waste space.
Graham Hinton
ersatzplanet wrote:
I never said to make them like the illustration EXCEPT for the dimension between the upper and lower holes which I said was the dimension to take note of if building your one cabinets.


The drawing you posted was misleading and will mislead people who come across it in a search as long as you leave it there.

Quote:

I have been manufacturing Eurorack modules for almost 10 years (not as long as you I guess) and am aware of how they work.


I had been manufacturing products in the Eurocard format for decades before Eurorack came out so I recognised it for what it is. Using existing standard parts was the one smart thing that Doepfer did, unlike every other format that have mechanical dimensions without clearances and tolerances and need custom made frames.

Quote:

We were not talking about making panels, just example of the dimensions used by most panel makers for RAIL spacing. The distance from the left or right sides is immaterial to rail spacing.


The two are inseparable.


Quote:

All I was pointing out were the dimensions for the rail spacing to make sure that a Eurorack Synthesizer module panel would be able to be mounted.


To do that you need to state the tolerances. Just stating a number that happens to be in range without knowing where it is in that range doesn't help. Anything made to that information will have errors that might take it out of the correct range.

Quote:

How many makers of cabinets out there are using IEC 60297 specs and rails? Not many I would suppose. I know of none who claim to be.


The important point is that is where Doepfer started. Everything else is derivative and deviating.

Ricko wrote:
About standards conformance.


This is not about conformance it is about understanding clearances that are necessary in a modular system made by different sources. Eurorack is the only format that is based on a properly documented standard where all that is already thought out so that the user doesn't have to, but it still gets reduced to the inaccuracy of amateur formats by copying instances instead of referring to the source information.

Quote:
But you have to be careful not to read too much in to Standards. For example, the (superseded) IEC 60297-3 gives the centrepoint for the 2.5mm holes and the height of the holes (<= 2.7mm) but it does not specify round holes in text anywhere: the diagram shows round but if it were a matter of conformance it would have a radius or horizontal measurement.


The hole shape is not part of the standard. Slots are for use with captive screws and vary with manufacturer. Using them to butt up panels is only an accidental feature when you don't have to locate with card guides and mate with a backplane connector.

Gandalf wrote:
Isn't this the difference between EuroRack and FracRack?
Both are 3U but not interchangeable within the racks.


No. FracRack is an amateur format improperly specified so that the panel heights may be more than 3U rack space.
ersatzplanet
Graham Hinton wrote:

The drawing you posted was misleading and will mislead people who come across it in a search as long as you leave it there.


The Doepfer drawings are not misleading for those making panels for the current Eurorack market. The other drawing did have a disclaimer for those who would read it. I doubt seriously anyone would use that drawing to make a Eurorack panel since it obviously has features not present in any eurorack modules out there (like the slot for the ejection handle)

Graham Hinton wrote:

I had been manufacturing products in the Eurocard format for decades before Eurorack came out so I recognised it for what it is. Using existing standard parts was the one smart thing that Doepfer did, unlike every other format that have mechanical dimensions without clearances and tolerances and need custom made frames.


Yet you said "Don't believe Doepfer's dimensions..."

Graham Hinton wrote:

The two are inseparable.


For the decision of rail-to-rail distance calculation the vertical spacing is immaterial. That is why AS modules will rack in the same RAIL spacing as Doepfer (and everyone else) with only a gap between panels (on systems with threaded strips) as the only problem. They both fit between the rails just fine.

Graham Hinton wrote:

To do that you need to state the tolerances. Just stating a number that happens to be in range without knowing where it is in that range doesn't help. Anything made to that information will have errors that might take it out of the correct range.


The dimensions given should at least be in the middle of the +/- tolerance range (I believe I was close to that). You are correct that one could possibly make a rail spacing that would not work, but they would have to have be off with all the other parts of the system before that would happen. That is why I suggested mounting panels into rails and taking the measurements from that. I have made MANY cabinets and skiffs this way with no problems. I did not think we were not talking production of cabinets, just addressing the use of Vector rails and how they differed in this application. I doubt many home makers even understand tolerances in the first place let alone have equipment that would require that accuracy when making a cabinet. I have made all my skiffs and cabinets with a standard drill press and by eye and they ALL have worked.

Graham Hinton wrote:

The important point is that is where Doepfer started. Everything else is derivative and deviating.


I disagree with this. It doesn't matter at all where he got his ideas from or how much he may have diverted from those original standards. All that matters now is how you need to make them to work with what has BECOME the "standard" ("an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.") for Eurorack systems now.

This thread has been derailed from the original post which was ONLY about the usage of Vector rails in making a cabinet for use with Eurorack Modules. He was talking about the use of the full 3U space which WILL NOT WORK with Vector rails because of their dimensions. They have to be spaced accordingly and I went to show how to determine that spacing. I didn't mention tolerances. I doubt the OP has tools at the level where this matters for making the cabinet he was making for himself. He had a problem with the use of Vector rails and I gave him a solution. Your solution was to use different parts - "If you want to build an IEC 60297 frame use IEC 60297 parts otherwise you are reinventing the wheel and making it square." There are many, many usable cabinets made with Vector rails. They are not IEC60297 comment I'm sure, but they still work.

If one was manufacturing cabinets for production in quantities, to be sold pre-made, then these concerns would be different.
EATyourGUITAR
I actually have all the metrology equipment I need at work better than 0.001inch on a stone flat plate and dial gauge. Bolting up some panels to nut strips inserted in rails would not be my method for determining my desired dimensions. I work from doepfer dimensions since that is my only spec that matters for my application. My tolerances are based on my personal preference as well as my capability to machine parts on a thermwood CNC, a sport with trak CNC pendant, and the tolerances of all off the shelf parts bolted together. Tolerances add up. Tolerances are also dependant on people operating and measuring correctly. My best tolerance is better than what I notice or care about when using my synthesizer. I would say that everything is gonna be ok. I'm not some new guy doing this for the first time. I'm not really worried but I do read and learn here so I still appreciate Mr Hinton and others pointing out potential problems. These discussions are important. They help us learn. They make our products better.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Music Tech DIY  
Page 1 of 1
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group