Every time someone posts a PCB layout there's some helpful comments about how to layout a circuit.  For some of us newbs, it would be great to see a discussion of principles and preferences for perfboard.  I guess some of the principles are the same.  

Disclaimer:  I have only perfed an AMZ mosfet booster and I am gearing up for some complete builds so I can only offer some newb impressions  to try to kick things off.  Also, I happen dig "the layout puzzle" that each effect offers:  trying to get everything to fit into a nice looking tight package.  

Here are some ideas I have seen that I like.  Endorsements, disagreements, and new thoughts are all welcome!

(1) keep nets short (by "net" I mean the hookups between components)
(2) sharp corners in nets are bad -- or is this just a pcb thing?
(3) keep jumpers to a minimum -- but they are not a bad thing
(4) put hookup wire connections on the edges -- nice form
(5) stick to the 0.1" spacing between nets -- seems like an advantage of pcb is that you can confidently run nets closer together
(6) run the ground trace around the outside -- with so many ground connectins it's just generally easier this way
(7) small and compact is cool (and might must fit in a 1590B)
[/list:u]

Those look like PCB layout rules.

For perfboard I do the following:

left to right circuit layout. Input on left, output on right.
ground wire across bottom of board.
power wire across top.

I lay it out much like the schematic.

I developed a style of doing them back in 80s, of course back then, I also wire wrapped a great deal too. I know about what size of perf board I need, score it on both sides with an exacto, and break it off. I start laying it out, right to left, as much like the schematic as I can. If I have something like a 3 transistor circuit, I will got through and get the componets hooked up to the emmiter and collector, enough to keep the socket on the board. I usually wrap around sockets legs with my fingers, and the pinch it hard to keep it from falling off when I turn it over to solder. I use mostly component leads, and even ones I snip off to make connections. If I end up with a component lead running too close to another connection, I'll usually just pick up a piece of insulation I stripped off the hookup wire I'm using, and insulate the lead with that. If I have a lot of ground leads, usually I'll wrap a piece of wire on like clothes line on the bottom of the board, and usually by the time everything's soldered to it, it's not going anywhere. I usually solder on a few components at a time, and then I label them with little bits of tape and my trusty exacto. Note: I always label my components on the schematic while I'm making a component list. I have a cheap exacto box, and I use the top cover of it, to lay my tape down on cut into little squares with my exacto. After that I write the component names on with an ink pen. After the layout is done, I will come off the board with my hook up wire for the panel mount stuff, by drilling a hole 2 holes back from the edge, with my exacto knife, and when the wire goes through the top, it's strain relieved. I really only use 3 tools, my little nippers for cutting and stripping, exacto for labeling drilling, and lifting previously soldered component leads so I can slip another wire underneath to solder, and a pair of needle nose pliers. I don't know if this is even remotely close to how anyone else perfs their stuff, but it keeps the number of tools and stuff you have to keep on hand to a minimum, and I can move through a full schematic pretty quickly and accurately. When chips are involved, I'll usually solder on some scrap cut off, lead ends to the socket legs to hold them in place, and mark pin 1 with a marker, and label the chip socket top and bottom. Transformer mounting tabs usually line up across two holes, so I hack them out with my exacto after I've marked them, and where the leads will go through with a small marker. Insert, bend tabs, done. I've never use top jumpers like I see a lot of people do. There's nothing wrong with it, and it looks clean, but I just never got in the habit of it. There you have it, The "Musser Method" of perfing!

Thanks for the feedback!  The Musser method is really efficient.

But I think that I have the wrong idea about perfboard.  :?    I was thinking it could be a pcb substitute so that you might layout a perfboard similar to a pcb.  It sounds like you all don't ever do that.  Is perfboard generally more of a quick-and-more-permanent-than-breadboard approach?  I've seen that, like in Aron's beginner project.  But I also thought (because I've seen some people say that they mostly perf rather than press 'n peel) that folks were taking a more pcb-like approach.  It seems like that would be the only way to make sure a perfed tube screamer clone would fit into a 1590B.  Laying it out like a schematic could be pretty inefficient space-wise.

I asked because I was thinking that it might get difficult laying things out very close on a perfboard.  Now I'm guessing that it's so awkward to build a perfboard up like a pcb that I shouldn't bother.  I should just go for the pnp blue.

If I want to build something quick I'll get a PCB layout and glue it to the top of the perf and then just lay it out as close to the pcb guide a possible. I've done this with Fransisco's (tonepad) OS, marcos' (munky) layout for the square wave shaper, and the uzzfay original superfuzz pcb. When it comes to perfing from a schematic I usually just follow the schematic left to right as tight as I can, like everybody else seems to. For big circuits (especially with multiple ICs) I draw it out first.

Quote from: gaussmarkov

I asked because I was thinking that it might get difficult laying things out very close on a perfboard.  Now I'm guessing that it's so awkward to build a perfboard up like a pcb that I shouldn't bother.  I should just go for the pnp blue.

There are positives and negatives to both methods.

It usually takes longer to design a PCB, etch it and then populate it than it does to work from a schematic straight to perf. However PCB's are more efficient if you are going to build more than one of the circuit.
Perf is ofcourse better for tweaking as you dont have to work within the rigid framework of copper traces. Imo PCB's are more aesthetically pleasing than perf. Perf can be used to produce small sized circuits to be put into 1590b. However PCB's are better for producing small layouts.
There are lots of perf and PCB layouts available online. This ofcourse takes the design aspect out of layouts, and saves alot of time for PCB using builders.


To me perf is halfway between breadboard and PCB, holding same territory as veroboard.


I think they both have their advantages and one is better for some situations and one for others.

In your case if you are spending the time to design perf layouts on the computer you might aswell design a PCB as populating PCB's is faster, they take up less real estate inside a box and they look cooler..........

octafish, you seem to be in the place that I was heading.  If a pcb is laid out on 0.1" grid, then the difference between pcb and perf comes down to what nelson says:  Are you making multiple copies and/or how nice do you want it to look?  I am guessing that one can lay out the traces on a pcb much closer than the 0.1" grid, so that gives pcb layouts a big space advantage for many-component stompboxes.  Like the ability to run more than two traces under a dual op-amp or running a trace between the legs of a transistor.

I have been put off pcb by what seem like frequent complaints by newbs like me that they aren't getting very good transfers.  Of course, I should try it for myself.   :?

For small projects, like a booster, it seems like the setup costs of etching mean that perfboard dominates.  Now that I think about it, I remember seeing that Zach Vex used perfboard in the super duper I once opened up.  Even for a tube screamer, it looks like a close call to me.

Thanks, everyone, for your responses.  I think I will perf the projects that I have planned (b.blender, keeley parallel mixer, and dual amz mosfet booster) and then try my hand at etching a pcb for something more amibitious. :twisted:

For looks, you cannot beat a PCB. It looks very professional. For me, I would absolutely detest that whole process, as much as I hate the painting and labeling. The work I see on here sometime goes WAY above what I consider DIY. Some of the work looks like it came right out of a factory somewhere. In the case of Dragonfly's stuff, I think the wiring is probably dressed better than even factory stuff! I just shake my head and say wow, on some of this stuff. There is a wealth of talented people on here, and I'm not in the same league with most of them.

Quote from: jmusserFor looks, you cannot beat a PCB. It looks very professional. For me, I would absolutely detest that whole process, as much as I hate the painting and labeling. The work I see on here sometime goes WAY above what I consider DIY. Some of the work looks like it came right out of a factory somewhere. In the case of Dragonfly's stuff, I think the wiring is probably dressed better than even factory stuff! I just shake my head and say wow, on some of this stuff. There is a wealth of talented people on here, and I'm not in the same league with most of them.

I know what you mean.  The quality can be amazing.  And the average quality for first-time builds keeps going up.

Thanks again for your help jmusser!

I perf pretty much as close to the schematic as possible, left to right.  Since looking at a lot of ROG circuits, some of their layout ideas have helped me with mine.

I also look at perfboarding as a learning tool just like breadboard.  It's one thing to pop the circuits in to holes and solder them up, but it's another to have to connect them together when no traces exist.  To me, perf is worth doing just for the experience and learning curve.

Eventually I'll do PCB's just to try it but no hurry.

I don't do multiples. If I did I would use vero. I just can't be bothered with pcb's when all I want is a pedal for "me" to play.

QuoteI also look at perfboarding as a learning tool just like breadboard. It's one thing to pop the circuits in to holes and solder them up, but it's another to have to connect them together when no traces exist. To me, perf is worth doing just for the experience and learning curve.

Erik

That's exactly why I wish everyone would try perfboard at least once. You learn so much by laying it out yourself.

Might just be me, but it seems the perfboard layouts, or even my freestyle' perfbuilds are closer to what the schematic looks like...left to right, up is + / down is -.
 I have trouble 'reading' builds where the signal routs up/down and around.
 When I see a newbie with a PCB or Vero, and a problem, it's hard to do much with it except apply the universal debug stuff.
 Like I say, it's probably just me, because I have no Vero experience, whatever the board, if there's a problem, during debugging you're likely going to get 'familiar' with it, It's just the signal path and bias connections often take a zigzag route which is longer and harder to follow when it doesn't follow the schematic.
 Schematic + Perf is generally easier for me to follow. Schematics will always be easier to look at, and analyze.

ARCHIVE