# Anyone else making their own circuit boards for their builds?



## ironrob2018 (Oct 16, 2021)

Is anyone else here making original designs on printed circuit boards (non-point to point)? Most of what I've been seeing here are clones of well known amps of yesteryears, not that there is anything wrong with that. Much of the manual work I've seen is top shelf beautiful.

I have a power supply board, preamp board and a power amp board in my designs. I have different ones of each so that I can mix and match characteristics.

Clement Amplification


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Nothing wrong with amps that use PCBs...IF THE BOARD AND COPPER IS THICK ENOUGH. Amps tend to generate heat, and heat tends to lift copper traces off the board. A thicker board provides a bit ore heat dissipation. And thicker/wider traces do so as well.

Where do you get your copper-clad board?


----------



## ironrob2018 (Oct 16, 2021)

I use a board house. They make the boards from cad files. You specify exactly what you want. If the boards are coated properly, the traces will never lift. I also make it a point to blow air through the amp. That way the player can keep his hands warm too.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

ironrob2018 said:


> I use a board house. They make the boards from cad files. You specify exactly what you want. If the boards are coated properly, the traces will never lift. I also make it a point to blow air through the amp. That way the player can keep his hands warm too.


Can you fill me in on what they are doing to make a board?? This has me intrigued as I never though to make a circuit board for anything before and have just used breadboards. I am rather in awe of what some of the folks post here and am trying to learn enough to even know what questions to ask to learn more so I can attempt some things. 

Thanks!


----------



## ironrob2018 (Oct 16, 2021)

Get yourself a copy of Kicad to design your board. You-tube has great tutorials. Then go check out a board house like Seed Studio Fusion PCB. It's all explained there.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

ironrob2018 said:


> Get yourself a copy of Kicad to design your board. You-tube has great tutorials. Then go check out a board house like Seed Studio Fusion PCB. It's all explained there.


My mind has been blown... there are manufacturers that will mill out my One PCB at a nominal cost.... Thank you for pointing me in a direction I did not know exists.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

ironrob2018 said:


> I use a board house. They make the boards from cad files. You specify exactly what you want. If the boards are coated properly, the traces will never lift.


Good idea to use the right people. 

I etched many boards from scratch in the eighties. All Anderton projects from his book. Compressors, mixers, tone stacks. Over time the rate of failure was 100%. 

The pros do it right. It's better than hand-wired. That's why they call it "mil spec" -- ready for BATTLE. I had London Power modify his preamp circuit board while I waited. Nothing wrong with point-to-point, but don't let anyone tell you it's easier than a proper board. Or stronger.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

KapnKrunch said:


> Good idea to use the right people.
> 
> I etched many boards from scratch in the eighties. All Anderton projects from his book. Compressors, mixers, tone stacks. Over time the rate of failure was 100%.
> 
> The pros do it right. It's better than hand-wired. That's why they call it "mil spec" -- ready for BATTLE. I had London Power modify his preamp circuit board while I waited. Nothing wrong with point-to-point, but don't let anyone tell you it's easier than a proper board. Or stronger.



Oh PCB is absolutely easier - for assembly according to plan. Point to point is easier for repair, replacement or modification. Sometimes not by much, but still.

I dunno about stronger - that depends on a lot of things. I have nothing against PCBs, modern ones are rock solid as discussed in another thread recently, but if I see an amp with board-mounted iron I'm walking the other way. I have built power supplies with board mounted transformers (for racking up preamp cards - much smaller iron and it lives in a rack vs being gigged ...also tiny PCB with the TX mounted flush and thereby stiffening it). I'll even build pedals with board mounted pots securing the PCB to the chassis and be thankful for the ease and labour savings (and lack of externally visible screws), but on an actual amp, the scale is larger (board size, overall weight, expected lifespan due to cost investment etc) I don't wanna see any of that (even with standoffs so the pots etc aren't taking all the weight) - PCBs flex, amps get dropped (and it's a bigger shock than dropping a pedal). Vintage Traynors are point to point and we have all seen the video of (or heard about) the 2 story toss test. A PCB based amp could probably be designed in a way that it would also withstand that, but I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of commercial offerings would not, or at least not nearly as consistently (I'm sure if I dropped it just right I could break a vintage Traynor too). It's the things that save manufacturing costs that have that trade off of adding vulnerability - board mounted pots or anything else heavy or sticking out externally/touched by the user are prime candidates for problems. Like I would never try the toss test on a Trayner TS series amp - I know it won't survive that (even just pushing the master volume switch on a TS-15 will cause the treble pot next to it to fail eventually - solder joints to the PCB give way as the board flexes when you use the master switch). I love the shitty little guys but that's the truth. Granted our boards are a lot better now, and pots don't have to be board-mounted even if the amp does have a PCB or 3 at it's core - that's why it depends. PCBs are a bad mix of a flexible surface (again, a modern pedal sized PCB hardly flexes - stiffer than older boards, but make it bigger, like amp size, and it totally will), with things attached to it in a way that does not allow them to be flexible along with the board, stressing solder joints to eventual failure. Point to point does not have that isue and forces you to mechanically secure heavy or awkward things to the chassis.


----------



## ironrob2018 (Oct 16, 2021)

Brunz said:


> My mind has been blown... there are manufacturers that will mill out my One PCB at a nominal cost.... Thank you for pointing me in a direction I did not know exists.


Anything I can do to help you on your journey would be my pleasure.


----------



## ironrob2018 (Oct 16, 2021)

Granny Gremlin said:


> Oh PCB is absolutely easier - for assembly according to plan. Point to point is easier for repair, replacement or modification. Sometimes not by much, but still.
> 
> I dunno about stronger - that depends on a lot of things. I have nothing against PCBs, modern ones are rock solid as discussed in another thread recently, but if I see an amp with board-mounted iron I'm walking the other way. I have built power supplies with board mounted transformers (for racking up preamp cards - much smaller iron and it lives in a rack vs being gigged ...also tiny PCB with the TX mounted flush and thereby stiffening it). I'll even build pedals with board mounted pots securing the PCB to the chassis and be thankful for the ease and labour savings (and lack of externally visible screws), but on an actual amp, the scale is larger (board size, overall weight, expected lifespan due to cost investment etc) I don't wanna see any of that (even with standoffs so the pots etc aren't taking all the weight) - PCBs flex, amps get dropped (and it's a bigger shock than dropping a pedal). Vintage Traynors are point to point and we have all seen the video of (or heard about) the 2 story toss test. A PCB based amp could probably be designed in a way that it would also withstand that, but I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of commercial offerings would not, or at least not nearly as consistently (I'm sure if I dropped it just right I could break a vintage Traynor too). It's the things that save manufacturing costs that have that trade off of adding vulnerability - board mounted pots or anything else heavy or sticking out externally/touched by the user are prime candidates for problems. Like I would never try the toss test on a Trayner TS series amp - I know it won't survive that (even just pushing the master volume switch on a TS-15 will cause the treble pot next to it to fail eventually - solder joints to the PCB give way as the board flexes when you use the master switch). I love the shitty little guys but that's the truth. Granted our boards are a lot better now, and pots don't have to be board-mounted even if the amp does have a PCB or 3 at it's core - that's why it depends. PCBs are a bad mix of a flexible surface (again, a modern pedal sized PCB hardly flexes - stiffer than older boards, but make it bigger, like amp size, and it totally will), with things attached to it in a way that does not allow them to be flexible along with the board, stressing solder joints to eventual failure. Point to point does not have that isue and forces you to mechanically secure heavy or awkward things to the chassis.


PCB is not easier. Designing one that works well is hours of work. Point to point is easy. Peavey, ... tell me a cs800 or a Stereo Chorus 400 can't be dropped off the back of a truck night after night. Alll made with pcbs Hartley Peavey is a friggin genius. There are ways to get away from stressing solder joints.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

soldering all the jacks, switches and pots directly to the board isn't good.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

ironrob2018 said:


> PCB is not easier. Designing one that works well is hours of work. Point to point is easy. Peavey, ... tell me a cs800 or a Stereo Chorus 400 can't be dropped off the back of a truck night after night. Alll made with pcbs Hartley Peavey is a friggin genius. There are ways to get away from stressing solder joints.



Yes, but make 1000 of them and tell me point to point is easier - DIY one off from scratch - sure it's more work, but still the actual assembly is easier and less requiring of constant brain engagement. You can hire a kid to populate PCBs, but I wouldn't trust any geek off the street with point to point - you gotta actually know a little bit to do that. I know you started this thread with the context of etrching your own, but I was ignoring that part (becaue most people don't). Anyway, figuring out layout for P2P also takes time and care if not quite as much and some people can do it on the fly/know from experience, but perhaps that's why Garnets are so damned messy inside.

I did say , re durability, that it depends, and I stand by that. Some are better than others. I've not used those Peaveys in particular and I wouldn't doubt it, because generally I have found them to be tough, but I did have to repair this one Peavey bass combo (15" sealed speaker) where the vibration of the speaker caused a solder joint at one end of a resistor to go. Looked fine and operated fine with the amp removed from the cab - had to put the amp on the cab so that speaker vibration would knock the resistor out of circuit. That doesn't happen in point to point, because for one thing they wrap the leads around the connection point and can gob it with a pound of solder if they want to - the solder joint isn't the sole mechanical fastener so much as a safety knot. It requires more time and care vs PCB which is designed for brainless speedy assembly. P2 P on the other hand requires more mindfulness (takes longer and therefore costs more).

Look, as I said, I have nothing against PCB - it can be great and robust, just most commercial implementations are flawed becasue the whole thing started as a cost cutting measure (sure there were other benefits - layout, the ease of making huge ground planes, easy traceability, which is now out the window with modern double-sided PCBs - can't see all the traces) and continues to be used that way. It can be done well, to rival point to point, but rarely is.



player99 said:


> soldering all the jacks, switches and pots directly to the board isn't good.


Agreed. But in the case of a 2" square pcb that weighs half a gram populated running nothing over 18V DC with those pots/jacks/switches thoughtfully layed out to support the board (like just 2 pots holding it, hells to the no, but 3 or more and you start to look better) it can be fine - like half your pedalboard I'd wager. It's about context and appropriateness for the product in question.


----------



## ironrob2018 (Oct 16, 2021)

Granny Gremlin said:


> Yes, but make 1000 of them and tell me point to point is easier - DIY one off from scratch - sure it's more work, but still the actual assembly is easier and less requiring of constant brain engagement. You can hire a kid to populate PCBs, but I wouldn't trust any geek off the street with point to point - you gotta actually know a little bit to do that. I know you started this thread with the context of etrching your own, but I was ignoring that part (becaue most people don't). Anyway, figuring out layout for P2P also takes time and care if not quite as much and some people can do it on the fly/know from experience, but perhaps that's why Garnets are so damned messy inside.
> 
> I did say , re durability, that it depends, and I stand by that. Some are better than others. I've not used those Peaveys in particular and I wouldn't doubt it, because generally I have found them to be tough, but I did have to repair this one Peavey bass combo (15" sealed speaker) where the vibration of the speaker caused a solder joint at one end of a resistor to go. Looked fine and operated fine with the amp removed from the cab - had to put the amp on the cab so that speaker vibration would knock the resistor out of circuit. That doesn't happen in point to point, because for one thing they wrap the leads around the connection point and can gob it with a pound of solder if they want to - the solder joint isn't the sole mechanical fastener so much as a safety knot. It requires more time and care vs PCB which is designed for brainless speedy assembly. P2 P on the other hand requires more mindfulness (takes longer and therefore costs more).
> 
> ...


Well I like to think I do my pcbs exceptionally well. Yes, my stuff is rare and durable.


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

Granny Gremlin said:


> Point to point is easier for repair, replacement or modification.


Are you maybe talking about eyelet board, like classic Fender stuff?
Otherwise no. True PTP is a nightmare to work on. Any other contruction type is better to work on, eyelet, turret, or PCB.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

jb welder said:


> Are you maybe talking about eyelet board, like classic Fender stuff?
> Otherwise no. True PTP is a nightmare to work on. Any other contruction type is better to work on, eyelet, turret, or PCB.



True P2P though I would consider turret, eyelet (never had to deal with this), and using terminal strips subsets of P2P. Maybe I just really hate reworking PCBs - the extra steps of having to remove it first to flip over (often involves dismantleing a lot of stuff or disconnecting things that you otherwise would not need to touch).


----------



## ironrob2018 (Oct 16, 2021)

Granny Gremlin said:


> True P2P though I would consider turret, eyelet (never had to deal with this), and using terminal strips subsets of P2P. Maybe I just really hate reworking PCBs - the extra steps of having to remove it first to flip over (often involves dismantleing a lot of stuff or disconnecting things that you otherwise would not need to touch).


How did my post turn into a pissing match? I just wanted to know if others dabbled in pcbs.


----------



## Paul Running (Apr 12, 2020)

The extent of my PCB experience was with copper-plated Vector board, either individual or bussed tracks. Since all my projects were one-offs, this worked well. All the proto types I did at Mitel were on Vector board and wire-wrap. Some of the projects were a mix of solder and wire-wrap...cutting tracks and jumpering. All the boards were 0.1 spacing.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

ironrob2018 said:


> How did my post turn into a pissing match? I just wanted to know if others dabbled in pcbs.


Tangents happen, it's not as if this is angry at all, so I wouldn't call it a pissing match. Debate is healthy. Also not a lot of folks etch their own boards around here (or at least not any more). I have, like twice (and I may again at some point, still have some copper clad kicking about) but mostly now I save the acid for enclosure artwork and if I'm not using a prefab PCB it will likely be:



Paul Running said:


> The extent of my PCB experience was with copper-plated Vector board, either individual or bussed tracks. Since all my projects were one-offs, this worked well. All the proto types I did at Mitel were on Vector board and wire-wrap. Some of the projects were a mix of solder and wire-wrap...cutting tracks and jumpering. All the boards were 0.1 spacing.


I think that's what we call strip or tag board (vero being the similar stuff but just individually plated holes vs tracks). Never even knew that stuff came in different spacings; they may have standardised in recent years (through hole part lead spacings have largely standardised) or retailers just carry the most popular one with their customer base of hobbyists. I have seen vero with various spacings though.


----------



## Paul Running (Apr 12, 2020)

https://www.vectorelect.com/prototyping-boards.html


----------



## ironrob2018 (Oct 16, 2021)

Paul Running said:


> The extent of my PCB experience was with copper-plated Vector board, either individual or bussed tracks. Since all my projects were one-offs, this worked well. All the proto types I did at Mitel were on Vector board and wire-wrap. Some of the projects were a mix of solder and wire-wrap...cutting tracks and jumpering. All the boards were 0.1 spacing.


Wire-wrap, now there's something I haven't dabbled with in a very, very long time. It had its place.


----------



## dtsaudio (Apr 15, 2009)

I build everything circuit boards, tube and solid state. This is my guitar amp before and after. The turret board was replaced with a PCB board because after 15 years of changes it was an un-holy mess.
This amp started life as a Session solid state amp. It had multiple problems, and sounded like crap when I finally got it working. So I gutted it, had a chassis bent to fit the space and started over using vacuum tubes and a turret board. Once the turret board version was where I wanted it, I made a circuit board.


----------

