Thru-hole, Surface Mount and RoHS questions...

[ShamansDream]

Surface mount simply allows for denser component packaging. Through hole takes away real-estate for internal traces. The manufacturing techniques for surface mount also becomes more complex although surface mount is already the standard of the industry. Just makes it a little tougher for us who like mod'ng our own stuff. You know, no color codes on the resistors any more tutt

RoHS directive is a suck deal for a lot of manufacturers AND us as consumers. It is not only inbound gear but outbound too. THis could certainly change a process that may affect product reliability and performance. Depending on the extent a factory has to retool and retrofit, this could show up in the cost of goods sold and show up in the MSRP.

All you tree~huggers will be happy for the directive. This means that 10 years from now, all our consumer trash will be biodegratable within the next 2 millenia instead of 5

[ShamansDream]

Originally Posted by WHITEAUDIOLABs

...and there is no solder involved, it is assembled with glue! A fukking conductive paste that dries hard....

It is still solder but it is vaporized and adheres to where the flux is applied. The components are placed with little glue tabs so they don't move for the vapor solder phase. In the longrun, it is not cheaper, but circuit density demands it.

That is why your 1U chassis use to be 3~4U in the past.

Much of the low end gear still uses through hole technology for relatively simple circuits. Systems that use high density DSP chips require a lot of support circuits. Making these circuit boards requires a high quality shop to assemble them. This fabrication is extremely process control dependent for reliability.

[h2000]

Originally Posted by WHITEAUDIOLABs

It would work, but it wouldn't be magic. So there is sound and then there is desirable sound.

I don't doubt what you are saying, but just curious. Have you done any direct comparisons? What sort of differences do you hear?

[pan60]

long live point to point ( and thru-hole )!
not a tech but i do like gear that can be easily moded and serviced.

[ulysses]

Originally Posted by WHITEAUDIOLABs

Surface mount construction is practical in some devices. Like communications gear and computers but thats about it. It just has to work for those types of devices.

Think about a mic pre or comp. You could make one very easily out of very little, it would do what you wanted it to do, but it wouldn't be desirable. It would work, but it wouldn't be magic. So there is sound and then there is desirable sound.

Sorry, but that's a bunch of crap. The idea that a surface-mount resistor or transistor sounds inherently different thant the through-hole version is just absurd. It's the exact same component in both cases, only encapsulated inside of a differently-sized glob of enamel or epoxy.

It's true that through-hole stuff is easier for beginners to modify and repair, but that's a matter of degree. Even to do a half-decent job of not wrecking your through-hole boards, you have to have some degree of soldering and desoldering skill, and there's a minimum of equipment you need to do it. The same holds for surface-mount stuff, but you need a slightly steadier hand, and slightly different equipment that maybe isn't sold at Radio Shack.

[ShamansDream]

Originally Posted by WHITEAUDIOLABs

Well I am sure you pride your self in being a recording engineer. Don't fool your self though, a recording engineer has no where near the education as an electrical engineer. You should just use your gear and not worry about how it works and why it should be made a certain way. What you said is absolutely not true, you did not describe the differences or similarities between surface mount technology and what you are calling "Through Hole" circuitry. Surface mount does suck, that's the bottom line, it was developed to save space and weight, and when you are doing that you are not that concerned about additional properties being contained other than the first one, which would be functionality.

Good day to you sir.

Any Electronic Engineer would DEFINITELY be concerned with ALL the specs and how they act in their circuit. Some may simply be too lazy to follow through on a good design.
I've been in the biz for over 30 years and I've seen it all change. The technology is sound but the expertice to use it properly is far more fleeting.
There will always be that 'old school' mentality in "I will never use CAD tools; I USE A DRAFTING BOARD!" as long as the ancient and older generation designs stuff. Unfortunately, these guys need to go into another line of work or share their expertice on theory. They've been replaced with young punks on the practical side of engineering and manufacturing.
Why do you think studios use to cost 100X to set up compared to what we are paying today? With the statements made, you'd still be paying $5K for a DVD player and it would take up as much space as the TV cabinet of the 50's not to mension that the disks would be the size of the old LP's.

[pan60]

Originally Posted by ShamansDream

you'd still be paying $5K for a DVD player and it would take up as much space as the TV cabinet of the 50's not to mension that the disks would be the size of the old LP's.

now that dose sound very cool!
the slutz in me thinks i would like one.
very cool

[ulysses]

Originally Posted by WHITEAUDIOLABs

Well I am sure you pride your self in being a recording engineer. Don't fool your self though, a recording engineer has no where near the education as an electrical engineer. You should just use your gear and not worry about how it works and why it should be made a certain way. What you said is absolutely not true, you did not describe the differences or similarities between surface mount technology and what you are calling "Through Hole" circuitry. Surface mount does suck, that's the bottom line, it was developed to save space and weight, and when you are doing that you are not that concerned about additional properties being contained other than the first one, which would be functionality.

Semiconductors, and even integrated circuits, are much smaller than even the surface-mount packages that contain them. It doesn't matter if you buy the 8-DIP package or the 8-SOIC package or the 8-SOP package of, for example, a particular op amp. They all contain the same semiconductor fabricated on the same equipment. Only the plastic or epoxy package and connecting pins are different. Same goes for discretes. You can buy a 4148 diode in SOT-23 or DO-35 packaging, and you get the same part. The thermal resistance will be different between the two, which affects how much heat they can absorb during assembly, and how much power they can dissipate during use. But they are electrically identical because they are the same part, mounted inside of different inert capsules.

[pan60]

Originally Posted by rufus13

Let the hoarding begin! We live in interesting times, for sure.

kk in pdx

oh i am hoarding!

[tmarra]

Ok, might as well add some flamebait...

IMO the good thing about SMD is that it puts the service back to the professionally schooled technician and takes it away from the gararge/basement tinkerers.

Because SMD removal/replacement is a lot harder than thru-hole, a technician must analyze the circuit a little more thoroughly to find the defective component before replacing it. How many IC's you guys replace that are good, because they are in DIP sockets?

-Tony

My buddy Whitey from Cinci can repair and modify surface mount. He hates it but can do it. Also, he'll charge you so much for the job you'll probably walk away, which is kinda his point of the price, he doesn't want to do it.

[h2000]

Aside from the repair issues, is their anyone who has any experience making direct comparisons in the way they sound different or not? Some people in this thread have either eluded to differences or simply stated that SMD will "not have a magic sound".

I'm really curious to hear more details about what kinds of differences are being heard in direct comparison tests.

[Dan Kennedy]

What a load of crap you are spouting.

Surface mount inductors, like the 56uH types I use on a regular basis are wirewound on a ferrite core, handle an amp. As are the little tiny 220uH types, just a smaller core with tinier wire. Good for .15 amps of dc in small power supplies. Not real inducters? Bullshit.

Many surface mount parts are superior to thru-hole parts, but not by any means all of them. Some types of surface mount resistors are quieter, lower parasitics, less lead inductance. Others are noisier and you can hear it. Some of the new film capacitor types are extraordinary in terms of low ESR and low inductance, beat the box caps hands down. Other types like mono-ceramics are about as bad as their leaded conterparts, mostly because of the dielectric properties, not because they are leaded or not, although, once again the lack of leads makes the parasitic inductance lower (and therefore the self resonant frequency higher).

Surface mount transistors and diodes are generally faster than leaded parts, that old lead inductance again. Some packages are better in terms of dissapation per square inch, others aren't so good. You have to know what to use, where and why.

I've been doing surface mount design and production in industrial controls, commercial audio equipment as well as boutique audio products that are pretty well received for more than 15 years, and while there are valid reasons to use or not use surface mount parts, not one of your reasons holds any water or semblance of reality.

[Dan Kennedy]

Shit, I am so humbled by your superior knowledge sir, folks, here he is, god's gift to audio.

Pardon me for attempting to clear the air.

Whew. Stinks in here, somebody fart, or is the shit just ass deep?

[Dan Kennedy]

Hmm, in checking about the internet, I can't find any credentials for you at all. How long has your dad let you play on his computer?

You really ought to be in bed by now.

It's tough to argue with morons, you really have to get down to their level, and frankly it just isn't worth it with you.

Good luck in life putz.

[ulysses]

I've got to stop and think for a minute about whose perspective I'm more likely to respect and perhaps believe. Lets see here...

On the one hand, I've got a fellow who uses his real name and is a respected designer and manufacturer of some of the most high-performance, musical, well-respected, soldily-built gear available today. I own some of his gear, I've seen inside of even more of it, I've seen schematics for a lot of it, and I know it to be top-notch kit. Everybody else here who is paying any attention at all knows his gear, and respects it, him, and his knowledge.

On the other hand, there is this anonymous jerk who uses the name of a defunct company with which he is in no way affiliated. He spouts opinions loudly but has never offered anything substantive to back up any of it. He mostly posts mindless wanna-be political bullshit about how liberals will be eradicated in the Thunderdome, and occasionally butts his head into a technical post to firmly assert that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. The only other user on this forum who claims to know this guy is a ghost profile called "Studio Tech." which has existed for four days and has made not a single post except in defense of his numbskull alter ego. Incredibly convincing.

Hmmm, this is a tough one.

[ShamansDream]

Originally Posted by WHITEAUDIOLABs

...and am working on a Nuclear Weapons lab too.

NOW I'm worried !

[tmarra]

Originally Posted by WHITEAUDIOLABs

My name is White. I do have an Audio Lab, an RF Lab and am working on a Nuclear Weapons lab too.

From the Cincinatti Bell Yellow Pages:

We're sorry, no listings or categories containing
"whiteaudiolabs" were found.

We're sorry, no listings or categories containing
"white audio labs" were found.

We're sorry, no listings or categories containing
"white labs" were found.

We're sorry, no listings or categories containing
"white audio" were found.

We're sorry, no listings or categories containing
"white RF labs" were found.

We're sorry, no listings or categories containing
"white RF" were found.

Originally Posted by WHITEAUDIOLABs

You think Im trying to hide something?

hmmmmm.......

[tmarra]

Originally Posted by WHITEAUDIOLABs

btw you ulysses piece of s**t, I have an L.L.C. under that name, so who is the moron.

Also no listing with the Ohio Secretary of State for a LLC for:

whiteaudiolabs
whiteaudio
white audio labs
white audio
white labs

So "whiteaudiolabs" how about backing up the validity of all those posts with a real name, address and phone number?

[EveAnna Manley]

Whiteaudiolabs: you chill out. This is the Geekslutz forum. Stick to geeky topics you can debate in a civil and geeky manner. Do not threaten people on Geekslutz. Do not be so dang personally aggressive to others here on this forum.

This thread about surface mount vs. through hole technology is entirely interesting to us geeks. Now keep your arguements geeky, not personal.

Low signal-to-noise ratio is not tolerated on this Geekslutz forum.

Please. Thank you.

[Jules]

I have temporarily suspended WhiteAudioLabs from participation in this forum until such time he can give me an assurance of civil posting behavior.

Jules
Site admin

[Matt Syson]

Hi
Not wishing to get flamed or whatever unnecessarily but I feel there is an element of truth in many of the previous posts. SMT is a cheap technology for mass produced items and DESIGNED CAREFULLY into a SYSTEM can sound good.
All of the digital recording systems use it simply because the chipsets that are used and the supporting components are in miniature format. with proper supplies and time compensated PCB traces and all the other conflicting requirements factored in you can produce good gear. OK you can't readily modify it or even necessarily repair it but at the price you throw it away especially as it is now a week old and has been superceded!
Likewise you can obtain the most fantastic components and just shove them into a box and it will sound like the proverbial...
Going lead free except for medical and military purposes (which are exempted) is and interesting admission that it may not be over reliable.
Just because you CAN jam umpteen circuits into a matchbox size space does not necessarily make for a good sounding piece of kit, some space (or screening) is necessary, all part of good design.
Happy posting all.
Matt S

[Dan Kennedy]

Matt,

If you read my posts, you can see that I'm with you that surface mount is not the end all be all technology, but neither can it be dismissed out of hand.

I build elevator control systems. Both frieght and passenger. Many of the components used are surface mount, not because of dollars, but reliability and density.

I build some avionics as well, reliability and density again are the primary decisions, not dollars.

Repair on surface mount components is generally easier than thru-hole parts, once you get used to it. Typically less damage to a circuit board. It takes a few more tools, more skill, but nothing excessive.

Mods aren't as easy, sure, but well designed gear doesn't need mods, and poorly designed gear doesn't deserve them.

In audio use, the parts need to be evaluated carefully, and applied properly. I use mixed technology construction in everything I build, some surface mount, and some thru-hole, depends on a lot of factors, but I certainly don't write off the SM parts because they are "poopy".

[nosebleedaudio]

Originally Posted by WHITEAUDIOLABs

Surface mount sucks ass.

There are so many things that are shitty about surface mount topology it would take a year to write it all down.

The bottom line is it is cheaper to produce, almost no inherent reliability, and there is no solder involved, it is assembled with glue! A fukking conductive paste that dries hard. The same job is being accomplished by components but with little surface area.

It's squeezing 10 pounds of shit out of a 5 pound bag, but in this case the bag is wet.

I agree 100%..
To me true pro audio still uses thru hole, ground traces can be twice as thick, the average guy can replace components ect..
Its all about money, it more and more a thow way type gear.
I will always design thru hole PCB...
For less expensive mass produced electronics its the way to go, cost far more to tool up for as well.
For a CPU esp. having to drill about a hundred holes in a 1" square area is not easy...

[nosebleedaudio]

Originally Posted by ulysses

Semiconductors, and even integrated circuits, are much smaller than even the surface-mount packages that contain them. It doesn't matter if you buy the 8-DIP package or the 8-SOIC package or the 8-SOP package of, for example, a particular op amp. They all contain the same semiconductor fabricated on the same equipment. Only the plastic or epoxy package and connecting pins are different. Same goes for discretes. You can buy a 4148 diode in SOT-23 or DO-35 packaging, and you get the same part. The thermal resistance will be different between the two, which affects how much heat they can absorb during assembly, and how much power they can dissipate during use. But they are electrically identical because they are the same part, mounted inside of different inert capsules.

Thats not completely true, the larger traces on a double sided PCB act as a heat sink, for a smaller amount of heat...
Both types have ther place...
Quantity is everything, a hundred PCB's in surface mount would cost far more than the same in thru hole...Im referring to the complete process, not the PCB only.

[Dan Kennedy]

Actually, building one hundred boards in surface mount is not prohibitive, building it with hand labor is.

We build a control board, has a couple of UARTS, a display, data entry keys, involatile memory, switching power supply on 3 x 4" circuit board. It's far cheaper to have an outside house do the solder paste screening, parts placement and reflow soldering than it is to do it in house by hand. The board could not be built in thru-hole technology, by the way, the components are simply not available. It would be about the size of a Lexicon 224, too.

We build them in runs of 50. Even though the paste mask runs about $400, this is nothing compared to the labor and inspection and rework time if the thing was hand soldered. The reliability of the workmanship when complete is about the same. Once the mask is built, it can be reused too.

Somebody in their garage doing one-off custom jobs can afford to trade labor and product density, but a manufacturer doing any real number of products has to evaluate and use any of the techniques available.

Just because surface mount is chosen doesn't mean throw away either, it just requires a serious set of skills to repair, usually commesurate with the quality of the product.

I wouldn't ever set a guitar amp tech up to repair an Apogee A/D converter without a thorough grounding in techniques and circuit understanding, just because he can find and change a .22uF 400v capacitor in a simple tube circuit doesn't begin to qualify him to work on advanced electronics.

There is cheap crap out there too, I am not saying there isn't, it just isn't inherently so just because of a chosen technology.

[Matt Syson]

Hi Dan
I am not against SMD as such (except I cannot see the beeping things now!!).
It is ALL to do with appropriate design whatever you are making it with. Proper design with SMD is reliable as long as all factors are considered and I am sure that (Dan) does in his work. A poorly laid out board in a flimsy box will be unreliable using either through hole or SMT.
Goodwill to all
Matt S

[nosebleedaudio]

[QUOTE=Dan Kennedy]Actually, building one hundred boards in surface mount is not prohibitive, building it with hand labor is.

I was referring to the complete process, including stuffing the PCB.
Its like comparing machining one custom part on a manual machine to writing the G codes and running it on a CNC machine, the latter would be far more expensive.

[h2000]

While there is a good argument that equipment that goes into pro studios should be easily serviceable, SMD is not really that hard to work with after a little practice. I have lots of past experience and it's really easy once you have the hang of it And it's not really necessary to have special equipment if you have a variable temperature solder station and a pair of tweezers. That said, most techs probably don't have the experience neccessary.

Originally Posted by nosebleedaudio

I agree 100%..
To me true pro audio still uses thru hole, ground traces can be twice as thick,

Not sure I get this. What could stop you from using large ground traces? Just neck them down when approaching a tight pad configuration. No? After all, it will get necked down inside the component anyway if you are talking transistors and ICs. With resistors and caps, some parts actually have a larger surface area for connection than do the thru hole parts.

I have been using thru hole in some MI gear. But, I have been considering SMD in certain products. From what I have seen, the costs on SMD PCB assembly seem to be a bit cheaper, at least for 250pc. runs. All of the current thru-hole PCBs I have are hand stuffed - time consuming and thus more expensive.

Obviously there is a cost vs. servicability tradeoff. Most of the products that I work with are not user servicable - we have very good warranty and service.

Anyone else with any comments on how an analog circuit sounds different between the two topologies?