SparkFun Forums

[bigglez]

True, however I never claimed to have designed the circuit - in fact, I used a previously designed and tested circuit because I know that it will do what I want, and it has been tested (this saves me having to troubleshoot schematic errors and just leaves me with design errors

Just be aware that most of the 'success' of that
circuit is the correct PCB layout. You came here asking:

this is the first thing I have ever designed/created in Eagle...
If you have any comments, suggestions, etc, please let me know!

You gave the impression that you had created this PCB,
and intended to fab and build it.

V=IR Im very familiar with Ohm's Law

Then why run amperes of current through 25mil pin headers?
Also, why run inputs and outputs from a high gain (26dB) amplifier
next to each other? This has nothing to do with EAGLE.
You are not at a point to understand that such a circuit is doomed.
This has nothing to do with EAGLE.

I have done nothing of the sort! :) Actually, Im on the last day of my cruise.

Fine. I was addressing leon_heller. His passionate
discussion of his favourite PCB software would scare
away anyone!

Again, not trying to defend leon, nor bash you, but it sounds to me like he was simply saying that Eagle isnt the best tool to use to autoroute my board

Do some homework. Use the search on this forum to find
"eagle' and 'leon_heller'. leon_heller jumps on most PCB newbies to
pitch his bloatware. EAGLE is not easy to learn, but has quite
a good price/performance for hobby needs.

You are one of several new members that have brought a
specific EAGLE problem here, and been told by leon_heller
you are wrong to use EAGLE. (But leon_heller will import your
EAGLE work into another tool and lecture you on your errors!).

By baiting leon_heller we see this behaviour in a better light.
BTW, leon_heller is compensated by the other tool's publisher.
I've purchased my own copy of EAGLE.

[leon_heller]

I don't get any money from Pulsonix, I get a license free in return for beta testing and consultancy.

As I said previously, there are more suitable programs than Pulsonix for hobbyists. Eagle will get the job done, but there are better programs around and some of them are cheaper.

I think that my component placement will solve most of the problems with the original layout, it shouldn't be difficult to achieve something similar with Eagle. Perhaps someone else should help the OP with an example done with Eagle. Is Bigglez up for it?

I've used these two-part connectors on high-power amplifiers:

http://www.rapidonline.com/Cables-Conne ... ocks/74998

Leon

[bigglez]

BTW, leon_heller is compensated by the other tool's publisher.

I don't get any money from Pulsonix, I get a license free in return for beta testing and consultancy.

Confirming what I said. You don't need cash money to
have a conflict of interest. You are an official spokesperson
for that product. AFAIK, you also run their third-party
support group on-line somewhere, right?

[bigglez]

Perhaps someone else should help the OP with an example done with Eagle. Is Bigglez up for it?

The project has already been done and tested. See
the earlier link. Anyone interested in a 150Watt audio
power amp can download the Gerbers and BOM.

[bigglez]

I've used these two-part connectors on high-power amplifiers:
...
Leon

In the broadcast and recording studios these
are called 'Phoenix Connectors'.
An ideal but costly alternative to screw terminals.

[leon_heller]

BTW, leon_heller is compensated by the other tool's publisher.

I don't get any money from Pulsonix, I get a license free in return for beta testing and consultancy.

Confirming what I said. You don't need cash money to
have a conflict of interest. You are an official spokesperson
for that product. AFAIK, you also run their third-party
support group on-line somewhere, right?

I don't see a conflict of interest, I use the product, like it and don't mind mentioning it. I'm not an official spokesperson for Pulsonix. I do run the Yahoo support group, which is independent of Pulsonix.

Leon

[leon_heller]

I've used these two-part connectors on high-power amplifiers:
...
Leon

In the broadcast and recording studios these
are called 'Phoenix Connectors'.
An ideal but costly alternative to screw terminals.

They are a fraction of that price here in the UK. It must be because they are made here.

Leon

[leon_heller]

Perhaps someone else should help the OP with an example done with Eagle. Is Bigglez up for it?

The project has already been done and tested. See
the earlier link. Anyone interested in a 150Watt audio
power amp can download the Gerbers and BOM.

But the OP has already stated that he wants to design his own PCB as a learning experience. He obviously needs some help, which I didn't mind giving. Of course, component placement is the easy part. The layout will be quite challenging, given the requirements in the data sheet.

Leon

[bigglez]

I don't see a conflict of interest, I use the product, like it and don't mind mentioning it.

Mention? Now that's an understatement!

I'm not an official spokesperson for Pulsonix. I do run the Yahoo support group, which is independent of Pulsonix.

So by definition you're not impartial or even fair.
conflict of interest

[bigglez]

I don't see a conflict of interest, I use the product, like it and don't mind mentioning it.

You don't mind mentioning EAGLE either:

Your use of the (rather poor) Eagle autorouter explains many of the problems with your layout.

Eagle will get the job done, albeit with some difficulty, but autorouting a board like that is a mistake. There are much better tools, of course, like the Pulsonix software I use.

There are much better tools, of course, like the Pulsonix software I use. Pulsonix uses the Electra autorouter, which is available for Eagle.

Pulsonix starts at about twice the price of Eagle Professional (2,000 GBP, IIRC, vs $1494 for Eagle). It's good value, as designs can typically be completed in a fraction of the time it takes with Eagle.

Ypu might want to look at Easy-PC:
...
I used it for over 20 years, and was one of their first customers.

It's much easier to use than Eagle, and is more affordable for hobbyists and students. The standard autorouter is better than the Eagle one, and you can upgrade to the excellent Pro-Router quite cheaply (it's actually Electra). It'll import Eagle designs and libraries.

I don't use Eagle, but that sounds like the well-known feature/bug with the grid; pins need to be on the grid otherwise you can't connect to them. They really should have fixed it by now. You probably need to edit the schematic symbol.

Easy-PC is much easier to use than Eagle, and costs about the same:

Easy-PC is much easier to use than Eagle, and costs about the same:

rather pricey for the hobbyist at USD$477

That's actually £477 GBP. It starts at £247 GBP.
Eagle costs about $1,000 for an equivalent version to the unlimited Easy-PC version.
Easy-PC also has an excellent autorouter and support is very good.

No, I just like the products. I Used Easy-PC for over 20 years until Pulsonix came along.

Both offer email and telephone support, as well as support via forums.

Easy-PC was developed specifically for the hobbyist and educational market, although it is also used by a lot of professionals.

I get Pulsonix free in return for beta-testing and a bit of consultancy.

The Pulsonix router did it in just over two minutes. It's done quite a good job. Easy-PC uses the same router.

Both Easy-PC and Pulsonix can import Eagle libraries, schematics and PCBs. I've actually helped people who have been unable to finish their designs with Eagle by importing them into Pulsonix!

They tried to get me to use Eagle where I used to work. I refused, because it took about twice as many mouse and keyboard operations to complete a design as it did using my own copy of Pulsonix, and it was aggravating RSI which I suffer from occasionally. It also tended to crash on me, Eagle support didn't even respond to my request for help.

The OP asked for a good PCB package, so I suggested one. What's wrong with that? If he's used to Protel, he is much less likely to have problems if he moves to something that operates in a similar manner like Easy-PC than if he moves to Eagle.

For some amusement (or schadenfreude) I just had a look at the Cadsoft Eagle support forum: it's full of tales of woe about crashes, slowness, and problems with the software. The Pulsonix and Easy-PC forums have very few, if any, posts like that.

I get Pulsonix free in return for beta-testing and a bit of consultancy.
The Pulsonix router did it in just over two minutes. It's done quite a good job. Easy-PC uses the same router.

I used EasyPC for about 25 years:

http://www.numberone.com

It's about the same price as Eagle and is much easier to use.

You should route critical nets like power and ground manually, even with good autorouters. The Eagle one is very poor.

It's probably something to do with your Eagle settings. I don't use it so I can't help you.

Pulsonix is *far* easier and faster to use than Eagle, and competes with more expensive packages like Altium Designer, PADS and OrCAD.

I actually compared Pulsonix and Eagle once, and found that equivalent operations were twice as fast with Pulsonix, primarily because of all the additional keystrokes and mouse clicks required with Eagle. Where I used to work a colleague of mine who knew Eagle very well took two weeks over a PCB that I could have done in a couple of days with Pulsonix.

It's a pity I can't export footprints from Pulsonix, although it can import designs, footprints etc. from Eagle. I might be able to sell them to lazy Eagle users.

As a lazy EAGLE user I think leon_heller has demonstrated
that he’s far from a neutral opinion on PCB layout tools.
Caveat Emptor!

[SpikedCola]

I made up a master board. It will attach to two slave boards (the other two amps). This look a bit better in terms of layout and trace size?


Also how important are my grid settings? I had to make it finer to make some of the traces and components fit. Will that be a problem?

[MrPotatoHead]

Also how important are my grid settings? I had to make it finer to make some of the traces and components fit. Will that be a problem?

While doing the schematic, sticking to a 0.1 grid is the standard rule.

While doing the layout, thinks are less clear. I'll just say what I do.

For component placement, I try to use a 0.1 grid to make the board look organized.

When routing heavy amp traces, I tend to use that grid also. In my past projects, heavy amp was ~100mA. I believe that is nothing compared to your current challenge.

For digital signal lines, I drop to a 0.05 grid with 0.025 alternate. I use whatever works between those two.

For ananalog signal lines, I would probably follow the same. I have not built a heavy analog board, so I have no experience to base a comment. I am just assuming.

As the board layout comes together, I'll switch to whatever grid I need to fix routing problems or to make things look better.

After writing all of that, I realized the simpler answer would have been no. It doesn't really matter if you use a finer grid to make it all fit. With an analog board (or fast digital), following best practices is more important than using a "standard" grid.

[Shifted]

What is the voltage/current rating on the SMD cap you have connected to the huge power trace? (upper left hand corner, can't read the number).

[Shifted]

It also looks like you have the positive side of the two large rightmost caps connected to the ground trace on the bottom...

[FartingMonkey92]

It also looks like you have the positive side of the two large rightmost caps connected to the ground trace on the bottom...

That's correct, and their meant to be...