Silly habits
Hi All,
The resistor across the regulator striked me as a example. In my Sony CDPX-33ES the resistor was 100 Ohm/2 watt. It did get quite hot so I think it dissipated 2 Watt.
In the successor model of Sony the CDP-X333ES the resistor was <B>GONE!</B>
I have been working in the repairbusiness of consumer electronics and have seen many series regulator transistors die a prematurely death because of a too small heatsink. It simply gets too hot! This is not exclusive to Sony.
The consumer industry has many more silly habits like: (list not complete)
1)Attaching RCA outlets directly to the PCB; solderjoint gets loose after frequently unplugging cables
2)Using 3.2 mm jackplug for powersupply like AudioAlchemy. Halfway inserted it presents a short circuit to the PS; blowing up the transformer. happened actually in my own AA.
3)Using 6.3 mm headphone jackplug in my GAS Ampzilla amplifier. The outlet for electrostatic headphones is directly connected to the speaker outputs; result shortcircuit when unplugging/plugging haedphones on a amplifier that is on.
4)RCA plug in itself: quoting Horowitz: "The so-called phono jack used in audio equipment is a nice lesson in bad design, because the inner conductor mates before the shield when you plug it in; furthermore; the design of the connector is such that both the shield and center conductor tend to make poor contact. You've undoubtly <I>heard</I> the results! Not to be outdone, the television industry has responded with its own bad standard, the type F coax "connector", which uses the unsupported inner wire of the coax as the pin of the male plug, and a shoddy arrangement to mate the shield."
I would like to add the latest "development" the scart plug, spontaneously releasing itself from the socket and as a whole a extremely shoddy consruction.
I was delighted Mark Levinson introduced the Camac or Lemo connector system but this was abandoned later much to my disappointment.
I have nothing against Sony. Its laser is very easy to replace and does need minimal adjustment. Ever tried a Pioneer? <B>Very</B> complicated adjustment procedure.
🙂 😉😀
Hi All,
The resistor across the regulator striked me as a example. In my Sony CDPX-33ES the resistor was 100 Ohm/2 watt. It did get quite hot so I think it dissipated 2 Watt.
In the successor model of Sony the CDP-X333ES the resistor was <B>GONE!</B>
I have been working in the repairbusiness of consumer electronics and have seen many series regulator transistors die a prematurely death because of a too small heatsink. It simply gets too hot! This is not exclusive to Sony.
The consumer industry has many more silly habits like: (list not complete)
1)Attaching RCA outlets directly to the PCB; solderjoint gets loose after frequently unplugging cables
2)Using 3.2 mm jackplug for powersupply like AudioAlchemy. Halfway inserted it presents a short circuit to the PS; blowing up the transformer. happened actually in my own AA.
3)Using 6.3 mm headphone jackplug in my GAS Ampzilla amplifier. The outlet for electrostatic headphones is directly connected to the speaker outputs; result shortcircuit when unplugging/plugging haedphones on a amplifier that is on.
4)RCA plug in itself: quoting Horowitz: "The so-called phono jack used in audio equipment is a nice lesson in bad design, because the inner conductor mates before the shield when you plug it in; furthermore; the design of the connector is such that both the shield and center conductor tend to make poor contact. You've undoubtly <I>heard</I> the results! Not to be outdone, the television industry has responded with its own bad standard, the type F coax "connector", which uses the unsupported inner wire of the coax as the pin of the male plug, and a shoddy arrangement to mate the shield."
I would like to add the latest "development" the scart plug, spontaneously releasing itself from the socket and as a whole a extremely shoddy consruction.
I was delighted Mark Levinson introduced the Camac or Lemo connector system but this was abandoned later much to my disappointment.
I have nothing against Sony. Its laser is very easy to replace and does need minimal adjustment. Ever tried a Pioneer? <B>Very</B> complicated adjustment procedure.
🙂 😉😀
Pete is still right. And so is Harry.
Sony cuts every penny they can. Always have, always will. They wouldn't use them unless they thought they had to. Whether that "had to" is based on sound engineering principles, or marketing is debatable. Using those resistor is not a silly idea by itself. The serve a purpose. Whether it sounds better without them is another issue.
Most engineers Harry, and I, have worked with are idiots. And we have never worked together. Some high-end products do throw in in lots of parts because it is a cheap way of justifying the high-end price. The "had to" here is obviously marketing.
Jocko
Sony cuts every penny they can. Always have, always will. They wouldn't use them unless they thought they had to. Whether that "had to" is based on sound engineering principles, or marketing is debatable. Using those resistor is not a silly idea by itself. The serve a purpose. Whether it sounds better without them is another issue.
Most engineers Harry, and I, have worked with are idiots. And we have never worked together. Some high-end products do throw in in lots of parts because it is a cheap way of justifying the high-end price. The "had to" here is obviously marketing.
Jocko
I kinda have to go with Pete here. Especially when it comes to Japanese made electronics. That resistor in question is obviously needed to help spread the heat. If a later model didn't have it, then I suggest the load current has also changed.
High-end audio may be different. That's where I believe everyone here is correct in their statements.
I do have to disagree with the proposition (unless things have changed in the last few years):
"an engineer may be on the design team of a CD player one month, a GPS the next month, and a television the following month"
I used to work for JVC and have been inside the facilities of Sony, NEC, and Mitsubishi. From what I saw, the engineers tend to specialize and are not tossed from project to project. I knew engineers who spent half of their career just on VHS read channel electronics.
jh
High-end audio may be different. That's where I believe everyone here is correct in their statements.
I do have to disagree with the proposition (unless things have changed in the last few years):
"an engineer may be on the design team of a CD player one month, a GPS the next month, and a television the following month"
I used to work for JVC and have been inside the facilities of Sony, NEC, and Mitsubishi. From what I saw, the engineers tend to specialize and are not tossed from project to project. I knew engineers who spent half of their career just on VHS read channel electronics.
jh
silly habits
I have reverse engineered many commercial audio devices to either repair or improve them, and believe me, I have seen lots of things that did not make the least bid of sense, both in Japanese and European products. Here are some of my favorites:
1) Teac CD player with MASH converter: reference voltage for DAC generated with resistor and zener diode that was placed more than 10 cm from DAC, decoupling: 4 times 1 nF ceramic disk, littered about the board, none close to the DAC. A single 100 nF disk in parallel with a tantalum would have made more sense!
2) Dual PA-5060 power amp (apparently a relabeled Rotel): decoupling capacitors to the power amp board are 2µ2 polypropylene, but line amp (5532) has 3 (!) tantalum decoupling capacitors on input, feedback and output. In addition, if the bass/treble controls are not defeated, three additional tantalums are there to degrade the audio signal.
3) Philips CD-931 CD player: output opamp supply decoupled with 10 R resitors, and 100 nF film capacitors, places for electrolytics are there on the board but were not stuffed, HF amp and servo ICs have no decoupling to speak of on either supplies or reference & share grounds with microcontroller but tray motor (!) op-amp gets the works in decoupling...
Now don't tell me any of these products was optimized according to criterea that anybody who was looking at the whole product could understand...
I have reverse engineered many commercial audio devices to either repair or improve them, and believe me, I have seen lots of things that did not make the least bid of sense, both in Japanese and European products. Here are some of my favorites:
1) Teac CD player with MASH converter: reference voltage for DAC generated with resistor and zener diode that was placed more than 10 cm from DAC, decoupling: 4 times 1 nF ceramic disk, littered about the board, none close to the DAC. A single 100 nF disk in parallel with a tantalum would have made more sense!
2) Dual PA-5060 power amp (apparently a relabeled Rotel): decoupling capacitors to the power amp board are 2µ2 polypropylene, but line amp (5532) has 3 (!) tantalum decoupling capacitors on input, feedback and output. In addition, if the bass/treble controls are not defeated, three additional tantalums are there to degrade the audio signal.
3) Philips CD-931 CD player: output opamp supply decoupled with 10 R resitors, and 100 nF film capacitors, places for electrolytics are there on the board but were not stuffed, HF amp and servo ICs have no decoupling to speak of on either supplies or reference & share grounds with microcontroller but tray motor (!) op-amp gets the works in decoupling...
Now don't tell me any of these products was optimized according to criterea that anybody who was looking at the whole product could understand...
What Capslock just have descriped is something i understand. For example take Japanese equipment like Marantz CD players Just mention one. The PCB is a singleside board with a low grade isolation material. As i see it the engineers have budget and one place to keep the costs down is to use this kind of PCB instead of Doublesided board which it should be at minimum.
They got a lot of money left in budget to other parts. If a lowpass filter has to be their to get circuit perfom better... Then it is a cheap way of compensating for a cheap PCB.
I use a lot of RC lowpass filter in my design even on doublesided boards. And i also add space for extra decoupling. Maybe you do not need but it is better that there is space for it instead of designing the PCB from the ground up again.
A PCB will not perform perfect.. Okay you can get some board simulators ... $50k plus board sim time (1 month) ... Still i would not trust it before doing any real life measurement on the design.
You cannot make a new PCB in a day or two without being useless!!!! It take a week or two multiplied with cost of an engineer hour!
Think about it before judge a engineers work.
This is not for CapsLock but something any one should think about.
For non asian designers ... Singleside PCB should be out of questeon! And i mean it! We can get Doublesided board only 50% more expensive than singleside board which in most cases only should add something like 5% to systemprice! on highend equipment.
Sonny
They got a lot of money left in budget to other parts. If a lowpass filter has to be their to get circuit perfom better... Then it is a cheap way of compensating for a cheap PCB.
I use a lot of RC lowpass filter in my design even on doublesided boards. And i also add space for extra decoupling. Maybe you do not need but it is better that there is space for it instead of designing the PCB from the ground up again.
A PCB will not perform perfect.. Okay you can get some board simulators ... $50k plus board sim time (1 month) ... Still i would not trust it before doing any real life measurement on the design.
You cannot make a new PCB in a day or two without being useless!!!! It take a week or two multiplied with cost of an engineer hour!
Think about it before judge a engineers work.
This is not for CapsLock but something any one should think about.
For non asian designers ... Singleside PCB should be out of questeon! And i mean it! We can get Doublesided board only 50% more expensive than singleside board which in most cases only should add something like 5% to systemprice! on highend equipment.
Sonny
Parts farms
"Harry. 99.9% of consumers have no idea what is inside the case, and have no interest in how many components are used."
Nonsense!
Many designs are filled with parts. Krell and Levinson come to mind. Jocko and I used to call a piece designed like this a "Parts Farm." The comsumer for high end audio is bombarded with references to designer parts and semiconductors. I have seen amps where practically all the parts were from the same "Audiophile Correct" vendors. Many of the consumers are engineers or are inclined to look for certain part types or brands. If this is not so why do manufactures display products with the tops off at shows and in advertising. This is often what sets a given product aparts from it's competion. Even computer sound card makers extoll thier choice of processor and DACs. If I am wrong, Madrigal sure wasted a lot of time and money on thier Playlist 2001 book....
H.H.
"Harry. 99.9% of consumers have no idea what is inside the case, and have no interest in how many components are used."
Nonsense!
Many designs are filled with parts. Krell and Levinson come to mind. Jocko and I used to call a piece designed like this a "Parts Farm." The comsumer for high end audio is bombarded with references to designer parts and semiconductors. I have seen amps where practically all the parts were from the same "Audiophile Correct" vendors. Many of the consumers are engineers or are inclined to look for certain part types or brands. If this is not so why do manufactures display products with the tops off at shows and in advertising. This is often what sets a given product aparts from it's competion. Even computer sound card makers extoll thier choice of processor and DACs. If I am wrong, Madrigal sure wasted a lot of time and money on thier Playlist 2001 book....
H.H.
“Many of the consumers are engineers or are inclined to look for certain part types or brands.” Oh PLEASE Harry, I must respectfully say you have clearly lost touch with the average consumer. The high end segment you are talking about is minute, absolutely miniscule, when compared to the overall consumer market. I will state again, the average person who comes in to buy, say a Japanese CD player, does NOT routinely read hi-fi magazines, they do NOT have an intimate understanding of electronic design, and have absolutely NO interest in how many components are used inside. While I find the thought that they would have such concerns mildly amusing, my experience in retail tells me otherwise.
What the average consumer DOES look at are the so called “features”. These are the, sometimes absurd, functions included in the design that more often than not result in poorer quality sound. For example, some years ago it was including graphic equalisers, these days it’s the digital equivalent. It are these “features” that drive the parts count up. Many “features” are also designed to protect the piece of equipment from the average moron who is using it. The amount of protection in an average amplifier, for example, these days is quite extraordinary. Standby modes, remote control, digital busses, soft upgrades, component interfacing, blah blah blah. These are the things that increase component count, and these are the things that influence the purchase decision. Harry you may be quite happy to get up from your chair to adjust the volume of your minimalist pre-amp, but the average consumer is not.
In general, the male consumer will be impressed by how many buttons the unit has, and its “features”, and the women will be impressed … well actually in my experience they are rarely impressed by audio equipment, but they go by what it looks like. I can say Harry, that when I worked in retail I NEVER had a customer ask to have the cover removed so they can see inside, let alone the idea that they would take the cover off two and count and compare the number of components. To be quite honest I’d be rather concerned about somebody who would!
While some people have pointed out examples of poor design, and the world is littered with examples of that, in general many of the examples again demonstrate the extent manufacturers will go to reduce cost. Large heatsinks are expensive, RCA connectors are directly attached to the board because it makes assembly cheaper and easier, ceramic caps cost peanuts while tantalums are expensive, boards often have parts missing because they realized they could get away without them.
The thought that the engineers who designed a piece of equipment must naturally be idiots, and making minor modifications will suddenly turn a cheap Japanese CD player into a first class high-end component, is appealing. Sadly it is not reality. Engineers do make mistakes, and there are myriad examples of poor design. Improvements when modifying are far more likely though if you carefully consider what the engineer was trying to achieve by that design, and what constraints they faced. Given that we are not governed by the same set of constraints, improvements in stock units is often highly achievable.
Cheers,
Pete
What the average consumer DOES look at are the so called “features”. These are the, sometimes absurd, functions included in the design that more often than not result in poorer quality sound. For example, some years ago it was including graphic equalisers, these days it’s the digital equivalent. It are these “features” that drive the parts count up. Many “features” are also designed to protect the piece of equipment from the average moron who is using it. The amount of protection in an average amplifier, for example, these days is quite extraordinary. Standby modes, remote control, digital busses, soft upgrades, component interfacing, blah blah blah. These are the things that increase component count, and these are the things that influence the purchase decision. Harry you may be quite happy to get up from your chair to adjust the volume of your minimalist pre-amp, but the average consumer is not.
In general, the male consumer will be impressed by how many buttons the unit has, and its “features”, and the women will be impressed … well actually in my experience they are rarely impressed by audio equipment, but they go by what it looks like. I can say Harry, that when I worked in retail I NEVER had a customer ask to have the cover removed so they can see inside, let alone the idea that they would take the cover off two and count and compare the number of components. To be quite honest I’d be rather concerned about somebody who would!
While some people have pointed out examples of poor design, and the world is littered with examples of that, in general many of the examples again demonstrate the extent manufacturers will go to reduce cost. Large heatsinks are expensive, RCA connectors are directly attached to the board because it makes assembly cheaper and easier, ceramic caps cost peanuts while tantalums are expensive, boards often have parts missing because they realized they could get away without them.
The thought that the engineers who designed a piece of equipment must naturally be idiots, and making minor modifications will suddenly turn a cheap Japanese CD player into a first class high-end component, is appealing. Sadly it is not reality. Engineers do make mistakes, and there are myriad examples of poor design. Improvements when modifying are far more likely though if you carefully consider what the engineer was trying to achieve by that design, and what constraints they faced. Given that we are not governed by the same set of constraints, improvements in stock units is often highly achievable.
Cheers,
Pete
I dont have much time to comment right now but let me just say this....
Many of the commercial manfacturers take cost cutting to the extreme and given the market and the price point i can understand and accept that ...
What i cant accept is when cost cutting results in a product that fails under normal use such as the example of plugging/unplugging the headphones as details above. Such things can not even be justified as silly habits but rather complete stupidity on the behalf of the designer. The same goes for inadequate heatsinking... the end product must be capable of operating in a wide variety of environmental conditions (heat and line voltage fluctuation for instance) ... if such conditions would cause the failure of the device due to overheating etc, this again is not acceptable and yet such devices have been produced on a large scale and probably will continue to be produced for many years to come.
I dont have trouble accepting that really cheap stuff = bad sound etc .... i have trouble accepting that the designers and engineers have taken cost cutting to the point where the finished product can no longer be said to fulfil the initial criteria and this is exactly wat has happened in a number of commercial designs on the market. Dont believe me? Just ask the poor servicemen and women who have to fix these mistakes on a daily basis.
As far as remote controls and protection circuits go, it is not that hard to implement such a system with a moderately low parts count. Some such commercial designs have more components than the device itself.
I've no problem with the designer using low cost parts and low quality opamps etc because this keeps costs to a minimum... but if for example a regulator requires a parallel resistor (that gets hot) in order to function correctly, then it is clear that the regulator is not sufficient for the design .... Answer: redesign the regulator or redesign the circuit such that it requires less current. Funny enough, it sounds like this is exactly what Sony did in a later revision.
Finally, let me just say that i have nothing in particular against Sony or any other such company .... these are just examples that i've chosen to highlight.
Many of the commercial manfacturers take cost cutting to the extreme and given the market and the price point i can understand and accept that ...
What i cant accept is when cost cutting results in a product that fails under normal use such as the example of plugging/unplugging the headphones as details above. Such things can not even be justified as silly habits but rather complete stupidity on the behalf of the designer. The same goes for inadequate heatsinking... the end product must be capable of operating in a wide variety of environmental conditions (heat and line voltage fluctuation for instance) ... if such conditions would cause the failure of the device due to overheating etc, this again is not acceptable and yet such devices have been produced on a large scale and probably will continue to be produced for many years to come.
I dont have trouble accepting that really cheap stuff = bad sound etc .... i have trouble accepting that the designers and engineers have taken cost cutting to the point where the finished product can no longer be said to fulfil the initial criteria and this is exactly wat has happened in a number of commercial designs on the market. Dont believe me? Just ask the poor servicemen and women who have to fix these mistakes on a daily basis.
As far as remote controls and protection circuits go, it is not that hard to implement such a system with a moderately low parts count. Some such commercial designs have more components than the device itself.
I've no problem with the designer using low cost parts and low quality opamps etc because this keeps costs to a minimum... but if for example a regulator requires a parallel resistor (that gets hot) in order to function correctly, then it is clear that the regulator is not sufficient for the design .... Answer: redesign the regulator or redesign the circuit such that it requires less current. Funny enough, it sounds like this is exactly what Sony did in a later revision.
Finally, let me just say that i have nothing in particular against Sony or any other such company .... these are just examples that i've chosen to highlight.
No arguments from me on these points, like I said there are myriad examples of poor design out there.
I did not understand what you meant by "Some such commercial designs have more components than the device itself", but it's true that sometimes, often in fact, the ancillary circuits have a greater component count than the core unit. My argument is that engineers do not routinely “throw in” components for the hell of it as some here have suggested. There may be a better way of providing a function, the engineers may have made an error, or the device may simply not meet specification. Either way it can be improved post manufacturing by enthusiasts such as us. But to not understand why something has been done the first place is like heading off on a complex journey without a road map, sure you may eventually get there, but then again you may not!
I did not understand what you meant by "Some such commercial designs have more components than the device itself", but it's true that sometimes, often in fact, the ancillary circuits have a greater component count than the core unit. My argument is that engineers do not routinely “throw in” components for the hell of it as some here have suggested. There may be a better way of providing a function, the engineers may have made an error, or the device may simply not meet specification. Either way it can be improved post manufacturing by enthusiasts such as us. But to not understand why something has been done the first place is like heading off on a complex journey without a road map, sure you may eventually get there, but then again you may not!
Pete:
The average mass market type only cares about the latest whizz-bang feature. But the neurotic high-end types do worry about all the nonsense under the lid. Thanks in large part to the magazines. They may be a drop in the bucket, number-wise, but some of us make our living in that industry.
I am firmly convinced that there are parts there just for the hell of it. All arranged in neat little rows.......'lytics in the rear, film caps next, then the resistors, then all the active devices. And symmetric traces that resemble crop circles. No way that there is any regard as to proper layout for performnce, just cool looks. You may find that to believe, but I have, and continue, to see many expmples of this approach.
So like I earlier stated.......you and Harry are both right.
Jocko
The average mass market type only cares about the latest whizz-bang feature. But the neurotic high-end types do worry about all the nonsense under the lid. Thanks in large part to the magazines. They may be a drop in the bucket, number-wise, but some of us make our living in that industry.
I am firmly convinced that there are parts there just for the hell of it. All arranged in neat little rows.......'lytics in the rear, film caps next, then the resistors, then all the active devices. And symmetric traces that resemble crop circles. No way that there is any regard as to proper layout for performnce, just cool looks. You may find that to believe, but I have, and continue, to see many expmples of this approach.
So like I earlier stated.......you and Harry are both right.
Jocko
Oh yes you may be right in this segment, but I dare say NO Sony gear falls into this category, and it was Sony (and I guess similar level) equipment that this thread was relating to.
One could argue at the very high end, component selection and layout may be dictated as much by marketing as function. Again an understanding of what the designer was trying to achieve may lead to sonic improvements. I have also seen designs such as you mention ... they weren't designed by engineers.
Cheers,
Pete
One could argue at the very high end, component selection and layout may be dictated as much by marketing as function. Again an understanding of what the designer was trying to achieve may lead to sonic improvements. I have also seen designs such as you mention ... they weren't designed by engineers.
Cheers,
Pete
Pete,
I meant that the remote control and protection sub-systems often have a higher parts count than the device these systems are meant to be controlling / protecting. I think you understood this 😀
I meant that the remote control and protection sub-systems often have a higher parts count than the device these systems are meant to be controlling / protecting. I think you understood this 😀
Yep, got that. One only has to look at some well known (US) amps to see what I believe is technology for techology's sake.
Pete,
And there a few well known australian and japanese audio companies i can think of that should be added to that list 😀
And there a few well known australian and japanese audio companies i can think of that should be added to that list 😀
sonnya said:
Sonny,
I understand perfectly well about cost saving by saving parts or not redoing a sub-optimal design. What I don't understand is why anybody would throw in extra parts where they don't do any good or even degrade the sound. In the power amp example, there are 3-6 tantalum capacitors in the chain that are a) comparatively expensive, b) degrade the sound sigificantly, c) were superfluous because a single input coupling capacitor would have made the circuit fail-safe and d) rendered the (in itself sensible) use of a large polypropylene capacitor for AC coupling the preamp and power amp stages questionable. Similarly, in the Philips the capacitors were placed were they were not needen while where they would have done good, they were missing.
Greetings,
Eric
capslock said:
I have only one two answers to this...
Worked late that day to get working before deadline or They simply forgotten there heads at home!
😉
to be Serious! : A FAE person at ANALOG DEVICES told us to Seminar that they some times see very stupid things made by a person a Engineering title...
In denmark it is so that some people who is studying a engineer degree only wan't to be able to get a "PASS" and if they do so they are happy!?
And some times they are not as good as they should be at thinking logical. It is the only answer i can get up with.
Sonny
Dumb Blond Engineers?
I would speculate the problem might be a mixed bag. Some engineers burnt out, some engineers didn't not care, some engineers hands were tied. Management is another big contributor to the way things are too. Especially the ones that has some technical background to come up with ideas.
For instance, he/she might reviewed a PCB and an RCA jack presentation and asked the engineers what if we remove the hook up wire and connect the RCA plug right on the board because he saw that kind of plug in a trade show somewhere, would the direct connection work? Of course the engineers would answer yes, but.......
For management they don't care about the buts, it works right?
If anyone concerns about the relability of this kind of connection then make sure it will last untill warranty finishes. Now he/she is the hero of cost cutting, under budget, improved productivity......
fat bonus.........
Just my 2 cents
Cheers,
Chris
I would speculate the problem might be a mixed bag. Some engineers burnt out, some engineers didn't not care, some engineers hands were tied. Management is another big contributor to the way things are too. Especially the ones that has some technical background to come up with ideas.
For instance, he/she might reviewed a PCB and an RCA jack presentation and asked the engineers what if we remove the hook up wire and connect the RCA plug right on the board because he saw that kind of plug in a trade show somewhere, would the direct connection work? Of course the engineers would answer yes, but.......
For management they don't care about the buts, it works right?
If anyone concerns about the relability of this kind of connection then make sure it will last untill warranty finishes. Now he/she is the hero of cost cutting, under budget, improved productivity......
fat bonus.........
Just my 2 cents
Cheers,
Chris
There can be many reasons for the way what seem to be extra parts get into a design.
1. One board used in several products. Because of different features and functions in a series of products using a common board. The board is stuffed with components for each version of the product. It is cheaper to make one version of the board and stock that than to make several versions and have a larger stock of boards for multiple versions.
2. Running Engineering changes. These can cause all sorts of strange things to show up on boards if they are rushed to production before fully analyzed. Causes of ECOs (Engineering Change Order) could be parts availbilty, vendor changes to parts, correction of engineering errors or reaction to field problems to name a few.
That is just the tip of the iceberg but should give you the idea of what can happen in consumer manufacturing. We don't have this problem in DYI because every unit is custom built.
Single layer or multi layer boards. I'll just say that with multi layer boards ground and power routing is much simpler than on single layer boards. While multi layer boards cost more to make they reduce the number of inductors and bypass caps needed for the design compaired to a single layer board. Which is used depends on the cost/performance ratio desired. A single layer board is MUCH cheaper to produce even with a few extra Ls and Cs than a 4 layer board and will be used as long as performance is reasonable, not the ultimate, just reasonable. That's all they are trying to get no mater what the add copy sez.
1. One board used in several products. Because of different features and functions in a series of products using a common board. The board is stuffed with components for each version of the product. It is cheaper to make one version of the board and stock that than to make several versions and have a larger stock of boards for multiple versions.
2. Running Engineering changes. These can cause all sorts of strange things to show up on boards if they are rushed to production before fully analyzed. Causes of ECOs (Engineering Change Order) could be parts availbilty, vendor changes to parts, correction of engineering errors or reaction to field problems to name a few.
That is just the tip of the iceberg but should give you the idea of what can happen in consumer manufacturing. We don't have this problem in DYI because every unit is custom built.
Single layer or multi layer boards. I'll just say that with multi layer boards ground and power routing is much simpler than on single layer boards. While multi layer boards cost more to make they reduce the number of inductors and bypass caps needed for the design compaired to a single layer board. Which is used depends on the cost/performance ratio desired. A single layer board is MUCH cheaper to produce even with a few extra Ls and Cs than a 4 layer board and will be used as long as performance is reasonable, not the ultimate, just reasonable. That's all they are trying to get no mater what the add copy sez.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.