Hand-soldered, complete with bodge resistor, because I forgot to order a 390ohm SMD resistor 
No idea if anything works yet, just finished assembly. The headers on it are just for testing. I’d use either all screw terminals or all connectors like the white ones at top.
Pete
Looks very professional! Will wait for video! 
The black pcb has a “darth vader” look 
love it !
@ Pete Brown -
Hand soldered? … incredible the analog world is not dead!
Provably be easy for you get a surgery licence LoL.
Also will wait for video 
Wow… That’s not a module, it’s a motherboard! Can’t wait to see what it does. It looks great!
Here it is under test.
All
May be a bit before I have a video. Attached shows the code written so far
Pete
Still waiting for the video
Not too far off, when you think of it. It’s a very smart synthesizer peripheral interface
Planned support in this version:
1 MIDI input
3 MIDI outputs
1 Roland/Korg DIN Sync Input
2 Roland/Korg DIN Sync Outputs
4 TRS +5v Analog Gate/Clock Outputs (so 8 total if you use T and R separately)
5 Unbuffered GPIOs for whatever
The idea is to let NETMF, on a regular mainboard (Gadgeteer with DaisyLink for this rev, Netduino with GoBus planned for a future rev) control UI and behavior while letting the on-board processor on this module handle all the low-level stuff and heavy lifting for all of these types of I/Os. How much is offloaded to this module is what I’ll figure out during development. The STM32F205 processor on this module can handle quite a bit. It’s basically one step down from what the Cerebus runs NETMF on (I could sub in the F4 on this if I decide I need the extra juice), and all the code on it is native C.
My previous MIDI module was just too slow to do anything serious. NETMF is not good at that type of near-real-time processing. This guy should be able to do much better by combining the ease of NETMF for coordination with on-module C for filtering and processing.
Intended projects for this rev 1 prototype
Pete
@ Pete Brown - looks very nice.
did you send a place codes here picky as it looks like the manufacture codes are still visible.
look forward to the full show and tell…
Great idea and great module !
Ahahah … FYI now there’s C V3.3.0 
No, I didn’t. This main board is a prototype. There are also things I’d do differently. The TRS and DIN boards are more production quality. Folks will have to live with the codes
They also didn’t do them in gold as requested, so I have an email into them for that.
Pete
Thanks. Strange thing was the “check for update” said I had the latest version, despite me knowing that was not the case.
Their boards and products are great, but their IDE is a complete mess. I’m spoiled by Visual Studio
Pete
@ Pete Brown - immersion or electric? I was talking to Lauren yesterday about them and he mentioned electric especially is very pale…
@ Pete - The corner hole keepouts are missing also.
@ ianlee
I leave them out because they’re ugly. Too much silk screen for my tastes.
I do keep the copper out of the required area, though.
@ Justin
Funny. Lauren and I just had a conversation about this. It may be that a board I had previously done with them as “electricity gold” was actually done as “immersion gold”, as it looked quite different. Look at the middle board (a previous batch) compared to the boards on either side of it.
Lauren said they’re going to remove the “electricity gold” option due to confusion about what it produces. I personally think the fab they use just does a really lightweight job on it, as I’ve seen electrolytic gold from other fabs and it’s not all that light.
I once had a PCB done with “Ormecon” finish. That was amazingly nice to solder on. It was a matte silver color, almost white. I’d like to see them do something similar for these high pin count packages where HASL isn’t going to cut it. This post shows some close ups (ignore the horrible layout etc. It was my first board )
Pete
There’s always a rebel in every group. As I’m sure you know, though, the Builder’s Guide does require them. For anyone listening in that’s thinking of making their own modules…
Maybe a peer review type thing maybe the go - might save a few o … moments after getting your/my latest shiny design back from fab only to realise you/me missed something obvious…
@ ianlee74
Remember: my first Gadgeteer module was blue, and has no keep-out silkscreen. It sold out
That said: I agree. They are required. If you want to comply with the standards and be a real Gadgeteer module, you need to stick with the module builder guide requirements.
If this turns into a regular Gadgeteer module (it’s a prototype at the moment), I’ll probably put them on, despite not liking that silkscreen
It was intentional on my part, but a peer review would definitely help with things folks miss.
Pete
I thought that’s what we were doing?
@ Pete I’m certainly not suggesting following the guide to the letter will effect sales in any way. But, I personally hate having to place another order just to fix cosmetic issues. So, I always nitpick hopefully for your benefit 