finebyfine
Well-known member
I've been wanting to play around with depletion mode mosfets and what better excuse than an octave up fuzz
Bring out yer Diptrace
- Thread starter Grubb
- Start date
PedalBuilder
Well-known member
That looks really cool! I've never used a depletion mode mosfet before. How are you using them here? And would you be willing to share the schematic?
finebyfine
Well-known member
I've never used them but on paper they seem pretty cool. One thing I'm worried about, and probably should have thought more about, is that they might turn off on the negative swing of the signal in some places here. But half the appeal of depletion mode mosfets is that you don't need to bias them to turn them on so we'll just see what happens without biasing them.
This is just a simple boost -> phase splitter -> differential long tail pair octave -> boost. Seemed to work in LTSpice. I've done variations on this theme with enhancement mode mosfets and BJTs
KR Sound
Well-known member
This is what I go by:de-uglified a previous board design. can work in a 1590B or 1590N1. This one I could match to PPCB drill pattern. Anyone have a quick link to the Tayda Drill Tool version? (I'm working with 0,0 middle of the enclosure origin now) Don't suppose it'd be in mils
oops. need to adjust some of those value bits to fit.
https://forum.pedalpcb.com/threads/getting-drill-guides-from-eagle-pcb.15025/post-173650
Vas ist das?
jessenator
Well-known member
drgonzo1969
Well-known member
Hell yeah! Nice!
jessenator
Well-known member
de-uglified a previous board design. can work in a 1590B or 1590N1. This one I could match to PPCB drill pattern. Anyone have a quick link to the Tayda Drill Tool version? (I'm working with 0,0 middle of the enclosure origin now) Don't suppose it'd be in mils
oops. need to adjust some of those value bits to fit.
Alright we're fixed and aligned to the tri pot setup that PPCB uses! This should work in both B and N1 enclosures with top jacks. Made some tweaks in an effort to give myself a consistent look: IO, LED, and power pads, etc. Took out the Platinum Chip, because it was just getting too busy, even for something you won't see…
I know it looks wonky, but the custom (elongated hexagon) #1 pads on the pots will be there in the final form. Although arguably this makes it look even wonkier hahaha:
Based on a test upload to JLC, it will drill out properly.
This came out glorious. Great work!Alright we're fixed and aligned to the tri pot setup that PPCB uses! This should work in both B and N1 enclosures with top jacks. Made some tweaks in an effort to give myself a consistent look: IO, LED, and power pads, etc. Took out the Platinum Chip, because it was just getting too busy, even for something you won't see…
I know it looks wonky, but the custom (elongated hexagon) #1 pads on the pots will be there in the final form. Although arguably this makes it look even wonkier hahaha:
View attachment 69244
Based on a test upload to JLC, it will drill out properly.
Are the IO pads 5.08mm spacing?
Look too far to be 2.54...
I really dig the between pad labeling on the pots. That gives a super clean look.
jessenator
Well-known member
jessenator
Well-known member
OH wait, you mean the DC pads? ope, yeah that's 150 mils, because I'm weird
I think if I was to implement headers I'd bring it back to 100
Harry Klippton
Well-known member
I could use some help (I hate asking for help) and I'm probably doing something stupid. I can't figure out why I'm getting clearance errors on my copper pour. got any ideas what I'm doing wrong here?
Robert
Reverse Engineer
Your Design Rule is set to warn you if the copper pour gets closer than 0.635mm from the edge of the board, but your copper pour clearance is set to extend 0.33mm from the edge.
Either change the clearance to a value higher than 0.635mm or change the design rule to accept something below 0.33mm.
I generally make sure there is some wiggle room there, if you set the design rule clearance to the exact same value as your actual clearance it'll throw an error on rounded corners.
Either change the clearance to a value higher than 0.635mm or change the design rule to accept something below 0.33mm.
I generally make sure there is some wiggle room there, if you set the design rule clearance to the exact same value as your actual clearance it'll throw an error on rounded corners.
Last edited:
Harry Klippton
Well-known member
Thank you
szukalski
Well-known member
Not DipTrace, but I've been playing with KiCad because I generally work on Mac and DT sucks there.
There's a learning curve but I have to say that KiCad has a lot going for it, it just feels less clunky and there's cool stuff to do.
Took me a while to build my footprint library again..
Check out that backside..
There's a learning curve but I have to say that KiCad has a lot going for it, it just feels less clunky and there's cool stuff to do.
Took me a while to build my footprint library again..
Check out that backside..
benny_profane
Well-known member
You did a great job with it!
szukalski
Well-known member
Still playing around but a major benefit is the footprints let you define labels a lot easier. I always hated messing around with that at the end of a layout.
benny_profane
Well-known member
Did you build the library from scratch or modify existing footprints?