<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>One thing to remember is that older schematics would not have
been made with CAD, just basic drafting tools like pencils,
rulers, T-squares, stencils, etc. If it looks like they went back
and added things in here and there, they probably did? They
wouldn't have wanted to redraw the entire thing. They might have
cut sections out and Xerox'd them into new arrangements at most.
I'm guessing any grid lines on the original drafting paper would
have been too faint for photocopiers to replicate.</p>
<p>Don't know for sure, I wasn't around then. I started electronics
in 2015 with a full arsenal of open-source CAD software and
swathes of inexpensive components in standardized packages already
available to me. The process of designing electronics now would
look very very different to how it did in the 60's and such. Back
then you'd probably design a thing and have to redo it multiple
times due to like, supply issues or cost reduction or changing
requirements...</p>
<p>Maybe someone who was there can weigh in?</p>
<p>- Ashlyn</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/5/24 15:51, Paulo Constantino via
Synth-diy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFBByKVk79TryKKE_7PO6U0VLyid4Bv_0P0dCJeQ0KmQX9sQpQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small;color:#0b5394">The
most frustrating part for me is that I understand all the
basic building blocks in electronics: all types of transistor
amplifiers, op-amp amplifiers, oscillators, many types of
filters, current mirrors, differential amps and so on, but
still, many schematics I look at look nothing like those. They
have transistors, capacitors and resistor feedbacks all over
the place that I cannot assign as any types of amplifiers, or
other building blocks that I know of. It's like the designer
just thought of a circuit in steps, realizing what the
voltages and currents are doing at a certain point and then
adding feedback and extra paths to those points in steps, but
then the end product is not easily understandable.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small;color:#0b5394">I'm
not sure how to describe this. It looks kinda like someone
building a structure using lego blocks, adding bridges from
place to place.</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, May 12, 2024 at
6:40 AM brianw <<a href="mailto:brianw@audiobanshee.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">brianw@audiobanshee.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I
studied Electrical Engineering, but I do not recall any course
that actually taught how to read schematics, per se. However,
there are some basics like Kirchhoff's Laws (current and
voltage) which typically test your ability to unwind a
schematic, and I think that understanding those laws helps
decipher a schematic.<br>
<br>
There's also a general style for schematic flow that almost
everyone follows. There are, of course, many slight variations
on that general style, but most variations are not too
upsetting.<br>
<br>
I did once work on a prototype designed by a very famous early
electronics era person, and the style was so out of the
ordinary that I could not make sense of it. In a way, this
exception almost proved the rule that most designers try to
arrange things the same way everyone else does, to improve
understandability.<br>
<br>
By the way, I spent some time reverse-engineering guitar
pedals from the circuit board traces. That was an interesting
exercise, because the arrangement of parts and traces on a
board is not the same as it is in the 'standard' schematic
flow. I would write down the schematic as it was arranged on
the board, as a first draft, and then rearrange the 'same'
schematic in the 'standard' flow. The second draft would also
group things into high level blocks, to make them more
readable. Guitar pedals are so small that the physical
components cannot be separated into high level functions -
instead they might be tightly interwoven. That might be
another exercise that could help you rearrange components in
your head while reading schematics.<br>
<br>
Finally, learning the basics of op-amp theory (no current in
or out of the inputs, at least not in the steady state, etc)
might help you understand feedback a little better. Of course,
not all circuits with feedback use op-amps, and discrete
transistors usually require more than basic electronics to
understand, but a little knowledge might go a long way.<br>
<br>
Brian<br>
<br>
<br>
On May 11, 2024, at 4:41 PM, Paulo Constantino wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
> <br>
> I wanted to ask a question that has been on my mind
lately.<br>
> <br>
> I consider myself a beginner in electronics.<br>
> I know all the fundamental stuff, or how can I express
it... I understand the landscape of electronics from a high
point of view.<br>
> <br>
> However what gets me constantly is this...<br>
> When I look at analog electronics schematics, specially
big ones, they don't make sense to me, or at least not within
the first few minutes of looking at them. I find that most
schematics are highly "non-linear". By that I mean that there
are feedback loops everywhere, many times from places in the
schematics that are far away from each other.<br>
> <br>
> Schematics that are more linear flowing are easier for me
because I can see the "blocks" and how they connect to each
other. But many schematics are so non-linear and I find that
difficult to understand.<br>
> <br>
> How to become better at this? If you are an experienced
electronics engineer, can you yourself understand these
"non-linear" schematics by just looking at them if you have
not seen that type of circuit before?<br>
> <br>
> Thank you very much for reading this and responding if
you can.<br>
> <br>
> Paulo<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________________________________<br>
This is the Synth-diy mailing list<br>
Submit email to: <a href="mailto:Synth-diy@synth-diy.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Synth-diy@synth-diy.org</a><br>
View archive at: <a
href="https://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/</a><br>
Check your settings at: <a
href="https://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy</a><br>
Selling or trading? Use <a
href="mailto:marketplace@synth-diy.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">marketplace@synth-diy.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">________________________________________________________
This is the Synth-diy mailing list
Submit email to: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Synth-diy@synth-diy.org">Synth-diy@synth-diy.org</a>
View archive at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/">https://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/</a>
Check your settings at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy">https://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy</a>
Selling or trading? Use <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:marketplace@synth-diy.org">marketplace@synth-diy.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>