Quote:
Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The flip side is you're somewhat more likely to NEED to repair a point to point design.
|
I politely disagree.
What is it about a PCB that makes it more reliable? Paper thin traces are not nearly as sturdy as an actual, insulated wire.
Before I got into hi-fi, I restored old radios. Still do, but spend more time building more gear these days. Having been through over 100 sets, I have yet to have seen a failure due to point-to-point wiring. Most sets went down from bad filters, but never because the tie points or wire failed.
I have, however, seen numerous scorched PCBs that became unusable (or would need to be jumpered into a point-to-point setup, anyway), cracked PCBs and traces lifted by excess heat. From what I've seen, PCBs are less reliable, more prone to failure and a major pain to repair. If a component fails in a point-to-point setup, it can be replaced in a few minutes, as good as new. That's why gear was built point-to-point in the days before planned obsolescence.
Point-to-point can work for decades, as well. My oldest set is an Atwater-Kent neutrodyne, circa 1934. I went through it and left much of the 70+ year old wire in place. Had similar luck with a 1946 Hammarlund. The wire and tie points are fine.
Noise, etc. can be eliminated depending on the design, no different from a PCB.
Also, you can have a superior ground plane in point-to-point.
Anyhow, having been through so many old point-to-point sets, that's how I build my projects. I plan to keep them for the long term and pass them along to family. I'd hate for something I built to be thrown out because a resistor cooked off and delaminated the PCB. I'd much rather have the gear kept in service because replacing the bad resistor took ten minutes and cost $25.