Circuitmaker was one of the best ones out since the 90's put out by Microcode and then it was bought out by Altium in 2003 or so.
It can still be found on the web if you search for it.
It is quite outdated as far as today's packages.
But, I do like it when it comes to simple thru hole stuff and some SMD parts.
I have been using DIP Trace lately for today's packages.
Although Freehand drawing is extremely easy to do using Traxmaker down to a 1mil resolution.
jer
It can still be found on the web if you search for it.
It is quite outdated as far as today's packages.
But, I do like it when it comes to simple thru hole stuff and some SMD parts.
I have been using DIP Trace lately for today's packages.
Although Freehand drawing is extremely easy to do using Traxmaker down to a 1mil resolution.
jer
Last edited:
I don't see the connection as an undeniable truth. I have seen very ugly and not-according-the-rules PCB designs that were sounding great. Not that I like such designs but still...
To me error free designs are a challenge for me and not to be done by software, a bit like laying a kind of puzzle. And trying and testing and making new revisions etc. comes with that. You can't do that when it is your day job but when it's just a hobby, well why not ? And yes, there is always one error left when you paid attention, more when you didn't.
When I think of it, a lot of consumer electronic designs are cost optimized as most important feature and although the boards may be "professionally designed" they can be quite mediocre performing. One thing does not exclude the other. Just have a look at hardwiring
Not to mention some of the UK based cottage industry audio companies.
Last edited:
I got caught out a few years ago with a USB mixer circuit.
I just threw it together however the tracks came out in the autorouter.
I built up a pcb and got 1VAC hum on the output with shorted inputs !
When I looked around the circuit I spotted that the power supply smoothing capacitors ground was mixed in with the audio ground. The charging pulses into the smoothing capacitors were modulating the ground line and upsetting the audio.
I re-laid out the pcb this time keeping the audio and power supply grounds totally separate only connecting once at the pcb edge connector. This time there was almost zero hum.
This is why I no longer use an auto-router for audio.
I use auto placing software.
The software I use has auto-placer, rotational autoplacer and swap autoplacer.
The auto-placer mixes up the components searching for a shorter net length.
The rotational auto-placer rotates components looking for a shorter net length.
The swap auto-placer swaps pairs of components looking for a shorter net.
I find the swap auto-placer to give the best results in the shortest time.
Once done I can then proceed to route the tracks.
The software I use has auto-placer, rotational autoplacer and swap autoplacer.
The auto-placer mixes up the components searching for a shorter net length.
The rotational auto-placer rotates components looking for a shorter net length.
The swap auto-placer swaps pairs of components looking for a shorter net.
I find the swap auto-placer to give the best results in the shortest time.
Once done I can then proceed to route the tracks.
I started laying out PC boards when the only way to do it was tape on mylar then photographic reproduction. I had a darkroom that could do PCB artwork and large format color prints both from an old Durst enlarger that could handle a 5 X 7 INCH negative, that I got from a litho shop that went digital, way back in the 70's. Schematic capture.....not invented yet.
In 1992 I was asked to do a rather complicated mixed digital and analog PCB so I told the guys that I would need to adopt a PC based layout tool, and they would need to buy it for me. There were 3 PCB layout software companies within driving distance of me, so I went to visit them.
One company (don't remember the name, and they are out of business) had a rather impressive software suite that ran well on a 286 machine in DOS. I talked with the developer and he explained that it ran so fast because it was written entirely in assembly language, even the graphics. A software guy will understand what a maintenance nightmare this would becomes as the PC world evolved.
The second company, Logical Devices, also wrote a compiler for PAL and GAL chips. They are still in that business. I went to visit them, spent an hour in their waiting room talking to a guy telling me all about CUPL, the compiler, but the PCB guy hadn't showed up for work yet (about 10 AM) when my patience ran out, and I left.
The third company had a small office in a strip mall in Boca Raton. They were the US sales and support for a German outfit with their second generation DOS based PC board tools. Their tech guy could answer my questions, let me play with their software for most of a day, and I left after inputting a simple schematic, and using that to lay out a small board. That software was the DOS version of EAGLE. After discussing my findings with the principals, I forked over about $1000 of someone else's money for EAGLE 2.6. I have used it ever since, but I may be parting company with Eagle soon, if I can find something else that fits my needs.
I have done PC boards professionally for Motorola for the last 20 years of my 41 year career there. We used Mentor Graphics and Cadence design tools. I have learned that the schematic capture then PCB layout workflow is mandatory on complex designs that combine RF, analog, and digital circuitry on a single board. Imagine a cell phone layout with 650 components on a 2.5 by 3 inch 12 layer HDI board. A 4 tube audio amp is child's play, yet I still prefer the capture > PCB workflow because it eliminates the common errors that occur when making a PC board on a stand alone system. Believe me, Eagle is far easier than Mentor or Cadence to learn, and almost as powerful, although none of us need even 1/4 of it's capabilities.
I have seen people use AutoCAD, Visio, and even Powerpoint to design a PC board. There was a way to make a board without a schematic in the DOS version of Eagle, but I have never tried it in the Windows version.
There is a guy that is still at Motorola who refused to adopt the ways of modern workflow. He used a "polygon pusher" software system from Infinite Graphics Incorporated that was written for DOS but worked in Win XP. He could indeed produce a simple RF test board faster than any of us, but about one out of four of his boards would have a fatal error, usually a ground via through an important inner layer runner. We had an in house board shop, so he could fix it and get a new board in a day.
Why do I want to switch from Eagle after 20 years. Eagle evolved from a simple DOS based program capable of maybe 8 layers, into the full featured system that it is today. What was once a single version, is now three or four flavors, and I need the most expensive flavor because of the typical size of a tube amp PCB. Even with those constraints, I have been able to upgrade to the latest "professional" version for about $100 every year or two.......Until Newark / Farnell bought Cadsoft. This happened coincident with version 6.00. I called about upgrading 5.11 to 6.) and I was told that the upgrade would cost over $600. Nevermind that I have been using the software for 20 years, make two laver simple boards that happen to be large, and do not use the autorouter, $600! To make matters worse, the old 5.11 version will not read any library written since version 6.0.
I tried Design Spark when it first appeared, and decided that it wasn't quite ready for prime time, but perhaps it's time to try it again......the price is right!
In 1992 I was asked to do a rather complicated mixed digital and analog PCB so I told the guys that I would need to adopt a PC based layout tool, and they would need to buy it for me. There were 3 PCB layout software companies within driving distance of me, so I went to visit them.
One company (don't remember the name, and they are out of business) had a rather impressive software suite that ran well on a 286 machine in DOS. I talked with the developer and he explained that it ran so fast because it was written entirely in assembly language, even the graphics. A software guy will understand what a maintenance nightmare this would becomes as the PC world evolved.
The second company, Logical Devices, also wrote a compiler for PAL and GAL chips. They are still in that business. I went to visit them, spent an hour in their waiting room talking to a guy telling me all about CUPL, the compiler, but the PCB guy hadn't showed up for work yet (about 10 AM) when my patience ran out, and I left.
The third company had a small office in a strip mall in Boca Raton. They were the US sales and support for a German outfit with their second generation DOS based PC board tools. Their tech guy could answer my questions, let me play with their software for most of a day, and I left after inputting a simple schematic, and using that to lay out a small board. That software was the DOS version of EAGLE. After discussing my findings with the principals, I forked over about $1000 of someone else's money for EAGLE 2.6. I have used it ever since, but I may be parting company with Eagle soon, if I can find something else that fits my needs.
I have done PC boards professionally for Motorola for the last 20 years of my 41 year career there. We used Mentor Graphics and Cadence design tools. I have learned that the schematic capture then PCB layout workflow is mandatory on complex designs that combine RF, analog, and digital circuitry on a single board. Imagine a cell phone layout with 650 components on a 2.5 by 3 inch 12 layer HDI board. A 4 tube audio amp is child's play, yet I still prefer the capture > PCB workflow because it eliminates the common errors that occur when making a PC board on a stand alone system. Believe me, Eagle is far easier than Mentor or Cadence to learn, and almost as powerful, although none of us need even 1/4 of it's capabilities.
I have seen people use AutoCAD, Visio, and even Powerpoint to design a PC board. There was a way to make a board without a schematic in the DOS version of Eagle, but I have never tried it in the Windows version.
There is a guy that is still at Motorola who refused to adopt the ways of modern workflow. He used a "polygon pusher" software system from Infinite Graphics Incorporated that was written for DOS but worked in Win XP. He could indeed produce a simple RF test board faster than any of us, but about one out of four of his boards would have a fatal error, usually a ground via through an important inner layer runner. We had an in house board shop, so he could fix it and get a new board in a day.
Why do I want to switch from Eagle after 20 years. Eagle evolved from a simple DOS based program capable of maybe 8 layers, into the full featured system that it is today. What was once a single version, is now three or four flavors, and I need the most expensive flavor because of the typical size of a tube amp PCB. Even with those constraints, I have been able to upgrade to the latest "professional" version for about $100 every year or two.......Until Newark / Farnell bought Cadsoft. This happened coincident with version 6.00. I called about upgrading 5.11 to 6.) and I was told that the upgrade would cost over $600. Nevermind that I have been using the software for 20 years, make two laver simple boards that happen to be large, and do not use the autorouter, $600! To make matters worse, the old 5.11 version will not read any library written since version 6.0.
I tried Design Spark when it first appeared, and decided that it wasn't quite ready for prime time, but perhaps it's time to try it again......the price is right!
I wrote my first pcb cad program in 1990 after buying EasyPC and found it to be awkward to use and buggy.
I reckoned I could do better so set about writing my own package.
I wrote a 330,000 line assembly language program that had to fit into 512K PC memory.
I had to break it down into modules to fit 512K.
The graphics were fun as I had to write direct drivers for the VGA screen.
They worked quite slow at first until I worked out ways to do it faster.
I managed to get Maplin electronics to sell the software for me.
I let things slip once Windows arrived and Maplin stopped selling it.
I eventually got around to writing a Windows version using Delphi pascal.
Maplin had a new supplier by then so wouldn't take on my Windows version.
I continued to use the pcb software in my job as a electronics design consultant.
In about 20010 I converted it C#.
I then started selling it on ebay around that time.
I found the C# graphics to be quite slow and so set about rewriting the whole program in C++.
I have now sold around 1500 copies on ebay and via my own website.
I have laid out about 140 pcb's for my own use.
I reckoned I could do better so set about writing my own package.
I wrote a 330,000 line assembly language program that had to fit into 512K PC memory.
I had to break it down into modules to fit 512K.
The graphics were fun as I had to write direct drivers for the VGA screen.
They worked quite slow at first until I worked out ways to do it faster.
I managed to get Maplin electronics to sell the software for me.
I let things slip once Windows arrived and Maplin stopped selling it.
I eventually got around to writing a Windows version using Delphi pascal.
Maplin had a new supplier by then so wouldn't take on my Windows version.
I continued to use the pcb software in my job as a electronics design consultant.
In about 20010 I converted it C#.
I then started selling it on ebay around that time.
I found the C# graphics to be quite slow and so set about rewriting the whole program in C++.
I have now sold around 1500 copies on ebay and via my own website.
I have laid out about 140 pcb's for my own use.
No, its ALL about the placement. It would take me about three weeks to place all the parts on a cell phone or two way radio. It would then take me a day or two to route it, and a few more for clean up and fill. My designs would use less layers that the PCB guys that weren't EE's, and have better RF performance.
I just finished a two tube push pull driver board. It took me about 10 evenings to place it, starting over from scratch 3 times, then ONE evening to route it, a second evening to clean it all up and add ground fill, then a third evening to make Gerbers, plot and check them.....it's at the PCB house now, about 2 weeks away.
There are still people who believe that a PCB tube amp will never work as good as a point to point tube amp (guitar or HiFi). They are lousy PC board designers, or their amp maker was!
This will make some of you guys laugh (or cringe!)
I generally use Sprint Layout and for simple boards, maybe even Express and I recently redesigned a pcb for the fairly simple F5 amplifier where I eliminated the tracks (kept the donuts for mounting purpose) that uses the resistor wires for conductors and/or used solid copper wire for power tracks, etc - like a modern day point-to-point assembly with some Teflon sleeve.
How about that for a Fred Flintstone award!
The joke is, the damn thing provides a far better sound than the same F5 amp with the 'official' boards- go figure, eh!
Must try this with the Aikido gain stage where the circuit is again pretty simple and the official boards are HUGE ....
I generally use Sprint Layout and for simple boards, maybe even Express and I recently redesigned a pcb for the fairly simple F5 amplifier where I eliminated the tracks (kept the donuts for mounting purpose) that uses the resistor wires for conductors and/or used solid copper wire for power tracks, etc - like a modern day point-to-point assembly with some Teflon sleeve.
How about that for a Fred Flintstone award!
The joke is, the damn thing provides a far better sound than the same F5 amp with the 'official' boards- go figure, eh!
Must try this with the Aikido gain stage where the circuit is again pretty simple and the official boards are HUGE ....
I don't see the connection as an undeniable truth. I have seen very ugly and not-according-the-rules PCB designs that were sounding great. Not that I like such designs but still...
To me error free designs are a challenge for me and not to be done by software, a bit like laying a kind of puzzle. And trying and testing and making new revisions etc. comes with that. You can't do that when it is your day job but when it's just a hobby, well why not ? And yes, there is always one error left when you paid attention, more when you didn't.
When I think of it, a lot of consumer electronic designs are cost optimized as most important feature and although the boards may be "professionally designed" they can be quite mediocre performing. One thing does not exclude the other. Just have a look at hardwiring
I am referring to using the transfer directly from schematic capture to PCB. As to error free PCBs if you design a PCB then you are working to certain rules regarding track spacing's, track widths pad sizes etc, therefore every board you design must follow the basic rules and must not break these 'DRC' rules... Those are the rules I am talking about, these are the rules that allow you to fabricate your PCB design into a real board and assemble components on it.
Using schematic capture ensures that the PCB matches the circuit diagram (even if the circuit has mistakers) it is all about removing where possible our unfailing ability as humans to make mistakes.
I think you are confusing development cycle with DRC mistakes and more critical differences between a PCB and the circuit, if you have differences then fault finding can be a nightmare.
I have been doing PCB design since the days of tape ups and the early days of CAD. With early CAD we would draw the circuit diagram by hand, manually create a netlist from the drawn schematic and then lay the board out... Very time consuming and prone to human errors. Now there are many tools built into CAD systems to allow a certain level of checking of your work, helping catch silly errors and things we may miss. DRC checks are the most important, for those of use doing this for a living we also have to think about DFM (design for manufacture), test and often very tight mechanical fit (IDF to 3D MCAD). Also signal and power integrity has to be maintained and checked, using some quite powerful and expensive add-ons.
While for simple Audio designs you don't have to do this, working using best practice is the only way in my book of doing any job.
The tools are COMPUTER AIDED, with aided being the operative word. The tools allow me to put my effort into creating the best possible layout I can to fulfil all the stringent requirements I have to meet, signal integrity being first on my list.
I do not understand you first statement about not to the rules designs, apart from the geometric rules I have mentioned above the actual layout is down to the individual doing the design. I have seen the designs done by different designers, that are totally different in their approach and all versions work. In my case I know what is a good layout for most circuitry as I have been learning and developing my skills for over 30 years and working professionally I get feedback on all aspects of my designs. My diligence and attitude to studying all aspects of PCB design, signal integrity etc. has paid off for me as now in my dotage when I should be chilling at home I am dragged all over the UK (and Europe) to get involved with some very interesting projects, working with many interesting and skilled people where I can learn even more and develop my skills to an even higher level. And getting feedback both objectively and in some cases subjectively of my designs by an often very critical set of peers.
My view is even if you are designing a PCB for a hobby project then you should at least learn and understand the basics (how you are going to make the board, assembly etc.). And as you delve further into design, such as analogue digital then understanding the layout becomes more critical as the PCB is the most important part of the assembly.
As to Audio layout, it is analogue and digital layout and is no different from other designs that involve analogue and digital, if anything it can be more forgiving. Some DIY and esoteric layout practices are seen in audio that are not seen elsewhere, but then there are some beliefs in audio that could be described as esoteric. I have done a fair bit of audio layout myself, but for professional audio companies and a lot for communication systems, and here I used the same design practices I use for all my analogue and digital designs. There are certain circuits that you lay out again and again and get to know how they work and what is the best layout practice for such bits of circuitry. Designing a PCB is creating a jigsaw, first you create the pieces (power supplies, I/O circuitry etc) you then fit these pieces on the board creating the finished jigsaw out of the pieces you have already created....
I have had this where someone did it their way and ignored the inbuilt tools, a radio board, cost £25,000 in total...
These tools have developed over the years to help us, not stifle us, they give us the freedom to design...
I've used the same CAD package in its many guises since 1986/7, initially Redboard, now Cadstar and occasionally the Cadence toolset when I cant get out of it.
OK I agree, placement is king and this is the one skill that only practice, more practice and examining the resultant design will give you...It has to be learned.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.