PCB Design Suggestions


Joined Mar 30, 2015
Here are some suggestions on component layout:
  1. If you rotate C4 180 degrees, you can uncross the fly wires to TP2 and IC1. That package seems too small to be for a 10uF cap.
  2. If you rotate R4 90 degrees CCW and place it next to IC1, you can route the traces from P1 under the resistor.
  3. Similarly, if you move R9 to the left of P1, you can route the connections from P1 to IC1 under R9.
  4. If you rotate R2 180 degrees, you can uncross the fly wires to IC1.
  5. You can move TP1 so it doesn't cross wires.

John P

Joined Oct 14, 2008
If the question is where the connectors should go, you generally want to consider how the board gets used--what will make the wires coming away from the board short and convenient to install? And if the board uses significant power, you'd want to keep the traces fro the connectors to the power-handling components as short as possible, with room to make them wide too.

And in a lot of projects, the PCB is actually more expensive than anything that's on it. You pay for a PCB according to its area, so why are you wasting so much space?


Joined Jul 29, 2018
I see a via nightmare.
Placement, placement, placement.
See what it looks like with the traces added.
C3 needs to be more towards R3. Place your components so there are less crossings on the lines. Just hit undo after you've look at it traced and fix what you don't like or is incorrect.
Your IC/transistor/ component doesn't have to be in the middle.
Last edited:

John P

Joined Oct 14, 2008
I didn't look at the circuit diagram before, but now I see that it's an op-amp chain, I assume with a pretty sensitive input. If you're dealing with an analog circuit, then you should have filter capacitors on the power pins of the op amps, and it would be best if you could make the front of the board be a ground plane.

Speaking of the possibly sensitive input, you've got a combination of 2 10K resistors biasing the input to a pseudo-ground level. Does the input have sufficient power to drive that adequately?