I'll play the tedious old guy who thinks he knows everything for a minute. The issue at hand is something I've done all my life. Overthinking the project before you've even started. Unfortunately that isn't how stuff works. Artists talk about the most difficult part of a drawing being putting the first line on the paper. You have to dive into the project, start putting it together and figure it out as you go, finding things that don't work (aka break some shit) and fixing them.
One reason I had a policy of strongly recommending Bottlehead kits (hard to shake saying "our" kits
) be built stock is that a completed, functional stock kit is the most stable stepping off point for modifying the kit into whatever you want. Yes, there is more work involved doing it this way. But you gain a much better understanding of how the kit functions and thus why you might want to modify the kit in a particular way - or maybe why you don't.
What goes through our minds as people ask questions about mods is consideration of whether the person asking is really aware of all of the aspects of the design that have made it into the format as delivered. This sounds overly dramatic but there are a lot of years of trial and error involved in a lot of really mundane construction details that have a big influence on noise floor, overall sonics, reliability and cost. Sometimes it's easy to explain, for example a capacitor needs a certain voltage rating for it not to fail. Sometimes it's way more obscure, like the exact orientation of the power transformer and output iron having been positioned based upon their radiated magnetic fields for minimal coupling. That's something you can guess at using theory, but the best answer comes when you test the actual inductors on a chassis where you can move them around and watch the hum on a scope.
That kind of thing - determining optimal function and reliability - requires a pragmatic approach. PJ and I used to chuckle that we kind of balanced each other because he could produce reams of notes clarifying the theory and I could cover the bench with a zillion parts and clip leads to get to the same conclusion by brute force and the occasional sparks. The best result came from our combining these approaches. PB would build anywhere from three to 10 (thinking of the big amp) prototypes with continually evolving solutions to the problems we would discover. The main rule we adhered to on the more difficult problems was to start with a working design, develop a theory for a change, change one thing at a time, and observe the result.
I race motorcycles at Bonneville. If there is one thing you hear in the pits again and again as racers swear and scratch their heads trying to wring out another mile per hour is someone saying to them "just change one thing at a time, so you know whether it's working or not." Same goes for these kits. You can't know if the change you make will result in something that satisfies you unless you try it yourself and only change one thing at a time.
There is another aspect of all of this which after 30 years I consider a minefield. That is recommending what "sounds best" to someone. My conclusion after 30 years is that I have no idea what you might like. I barely know what I might like. The logical conclusion to draw from this is that one has to try stuff themselves instead of listening to what someone else tells them is good for them. The kits offer a starting point for that, which you can take whatever direction you want to suit your own taste. Yes, that exploration will cost you time and money. Nearly everything in life that is worth it will consume a considerable quantity at least one of those things. After 30 years the experience of that exploration is more rewarding to me than the actual items produced. Hopefully Bottlehead customers will embrace that getting your hands a little dirty during the journey is just as important as the destination.
