V1.03

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Anita Damelio

unread,

Aug 5, 2024, 11:11:05 AM8/5/24

to howdenisub

Ihave a used LulzBot Min v1.03 that I am selling off, I Just replaced the X-Axis Stepper with the NEW Moons Stepper. Super Quiet and Smooth. It runs Great, Works Great, Prints AWESOME !! I am ONLY selling it because this is printer 2 of 2, and really only every use one. It will need a PEI replacement or upgrade to bed Modular Bed, prints fine on the bed currently as is, NO ISSUES. There are NO Known issues, I have just run a few 7-8 hours prints on this printer with out a glitch, see Pictures Below, Printing anywhere from .15 to .30 layer Height, using Cura 21 that I downloaded from LulzBot Site.

I know that this card Multiface I, is no longer produced,

but I've quite a few and they all work well for years and still work well,

today I updated with new Windows drivers v4.03 and TotalMix FX v1.03,

everything seems to work correctly,

but the Mid/Side functionality is no longer present,

the possibility to set Pan Law is not present,

also there is no way to have control of the output Phone with midi,

selecting the columns, the midi symbol appears on each input, playback, and output, except for the Phone output.

Thanks for any clarification on this.

M/S processing is in each channel pair now, you can also individually switch channel polarities. Pan law was indeed removed....

As for Phones and MIDI, I'm not totally sure, this may be added later, if possible. Will have to find out.

The Multiface (like any interface from those times) does not support MS Processing at all, because it can not phase invert the signal. The MS Proc option in TM had not been disabled for those interfaces. All that happens is that you get a mono signal. I hope you did not use that before...as it never worked...

But I have some problems to select channels from my controller,

I'm not sure, however, that it is related to the mapping of the FaderPort:

when I use the buttons for channel selection, it activates the channel the first time,

the second time disables it and then goes to the next channel,

but it seems to work just to the right direction, while to the left direction, not disability the previous channel, leaving it active.

However,

I noticed that the snap, do not store the state of the group of midi channels selected and the corresponding channel to follow,

while in the previous old version stores these parameters.

Notice from the photos, the difference in capacitor brands. Both the v1.03 and v1.04 appear to have green Sanyo capacitors. The v1.04 clearly has Rubicon capacitors on it, but it is unclear of the other brand of v1.03 capacitors. Can anyone identify the differences?

Notice the difference in capacitor layout. For example, CE33 and CT2 are missing on the v1.03. Perhaps this has something to do with the additional ISA slot on the v1.03 or the additional PCI slot on the v1.04 at the other end of the board?

I thought maybe this information may be useful to someone who has an interest in these boards, and could possibly explain why such differences occur on these boards, whether that be related to the differences in either layout or the revision numbers?

My suspicion is that the differences in the VRM layout are related to the update to VRM 8.4 that occured during the v1.03 .

The ISA slot does not seem to have anything to do with it - I have a PCI version of the v1.03 here and it has the same VRM layout as the v1.03 in your photos.

The capacitor in location CE33 is not found on all boards. There are rev. 1.04 boards with and without it. Supposedly, it was a added as a fix for certain types of instabilities; there are even reworking guides to that purpose.

That is the 'official' interpretation but there must be a truckload of P3B-F boards rev 1.03 around in the wild with the 'old' VRM layout but that are accomodated with VRM 8.4 compliant voltage regulator chips. Both my PB3-F revision 1.03 boards for examplw are like that and support all Coppermines up to 1.1 Ghz.

And the rev 1.03 board in the photo posted by janskjaer has a Unisem 3007CW chip which is also VRM 8.4 compliant and that board will most likely also support all Coppermines.

(What is usually not officially documented by mainboard manufacturers is the maximum current draw their VRM implementation supports. They are probably designed with quite a bit of headroom, and I would guess the rev 1.04 implementation was improved in that regard as Intel released new processor steppings.)

Does that mean the instabilities were only evident on the v1.04 and not the v1.03?

As @PARKE has had first-hand experience at running higher specced Coppermines on a v1.03 with VRM 8.4, wouldn't that make them more reliable than the v1.04? Is that possible? For instance, what is the VRM version layout on the v1.04? Could it be in any way inferior to that of the v1.03?

That does not seem likely.

The first Coppermines (with voltages lower than 1.8v) were released october 1999.

The P3B-F rev. 1.01 dates from july 1999 and the P3B-F has seen several revisions since then.

So the earlier revisions of the P3B-F were not yet optimized for Coppermines with

Another aspect is that ASUS also catered for an overclocking audience and some of the later improvements may well have focused on those users. Think for example running a 1Ghz/133 cpu with 4x256Mb of PC133 SDRAM.

I didn't use a P3B-F back then, but from reading about the topic online my impression was that revision 1.03 boards were also affected. I don't know whether or not any of those were fitted with a capacitor at location CE33 from the factory, though. (Even earlier revisions of the board are said to be even more problematic, though I never saw one of those in person.)

Many people seem to have used 1.03 and 1.04 boards without noticable problems. It's likely that the stability problems only affected a subset of systems. Currently, I don't see any indication that a revision 1.04 board is inferior to a revision 1.03 board. Someone else might have different experiences, though.

When it comes down to comparing notes between individual fanciers it is imo anecdote. Even if somebody tells me that he has 2 or 3 P3B-F boards causing trouble with Coppermines it can still be the result of individual condition of the boards - or better: lack of condition.

I also have a P2B-S rev. 103 from 1998 and it runs a Coppermine Celeron 1100 just fine, go figure...

Definitely. My go-to board for PIII systems was (and is) the P3V4X, which was often derided for stability and driver problems, while I never encountered any glaring issues. It's really all down to the individual configuration.

My go-to board for PIII systems was (and is) the P3V4X, which was often derided for stability and driver problems, while I never encountered any glaring issues. It's really all down to the individual configuration.

Of course Asus did make one i8xx board that has it all: the Asus P3C-E, with native 133MHz FSB, performance on par with i440BX and an ISA slot too. But rare as hen's teeth as RDRAM, which these days is no more expensive than SDRAM, but 20 years back cost far, far more. I have one, but it's dead :'(

Edit: Maybe to clarify this a bit: When I was talking about a "sweet spot", this was purely from a personal standpoint. Obviously, there is no such thing as the perfect mainboard, and everyone has to settle for their own compromise. Having worked with virtual machines early on made chipsets with a high RAM limit attractive. RDRAM was prohibitively expensive, and pairing an i820 with an MTH to use affordable SDRAM meant basically losing the performance gain over earlier Intel chipsets or those of competitors. (And in any case, the RAM limitation stayed in place.)