Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #451590 > unrolled thread

Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get?

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? oldschool@tubes.com - 2017-03-13 02:26 -0600
    Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Colin Horsley <horsley-spam@westnet.com.au> - 2017-03-13 20:20 +1100
    Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 02:20 -0700
    Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-13 09:32 +0000
      Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-03-14 09:22 +0000
        Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 03:11 -0700
        Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-14 06:58 -0700
          Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-03-15 12:10 +0000
            Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 05:39 -0700
              Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 17:41 -0700
                Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 19:13 -0700
                  Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 19:23 -0700
                    Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 19:32 -0700
                      Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 19:44 -0700
                        Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 21:00 -0700
                          Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 22:09 -0700
              Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-03-16 10:09 +0000
              Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? "David Eather" <eather@tpg.com.au> - 2017-03-17 13:56 +1000
                Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 22:44 -0700
                Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-17 02:35 -0700
                  Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-03-17 11:28 +0000
                  Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 11:10 -0400
            Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-15 07:13 -0700
    Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net> - 2017-03-13 10:13 -0400
    Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-03-13 09:09 -0700
      Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-13 18:59 +0000
        Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 19:43 -0400
          Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-14 20:50 -0400
            Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-03-14 18:34 -0700
              Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-14 21:48 -0400
            Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 05:43 -0700
              Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-03-15 07:30 -0700
                Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 11:36 -0700
              Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 17:46 -0700
                Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 19:15 -0700
                  Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 19:26 -0700
                    Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 19:45 -0700
                      Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 20:15 -0700
                        Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 21:05 -0700
                          Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 22:24 -0700
                            Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-16 10:07 -0700
                              Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 14:06 -0400
                              Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 15:37 -0700
      Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 17:43 -0700
        Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-03-14 06:46 -0700
          Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-14 07:01 -0700
            Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-03-14 08:51 -0700
              Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-14 11:13 -0500
              Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-14 16:20 -0700
          Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 17:47 -0700
    Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-03-13 09:27 -0700
      Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? oldschool@tubes.com - 2017-03-13 14:23 -0500
        Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net> - 2017-03-13 16:28 -0400
        Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 19:57 -0400
          Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 05:46 -0700
            Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 12:36 -0400
              Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 11:38 -0700
              Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-03-16 12:52 +0000
                Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 12:53 -0400
    Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-13 13:43 -0500
      Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-13 14:01 -0500
      Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? oldschool@tubes.com - 2017-03-13 14:33 -0500
        Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-13 14:51 -0500
        Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 20:02 -0400
    Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? "Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com> - 2017-03-13 21:15 +0000
    Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 14:31 -0400
      Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 17:23 -0700
        Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 20:52 -0400
          Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 18:24 -0700
            Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 23:26 -0400
              Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 13:06 -0700
                Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 16:24 -0400
          Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-15 02:21 +0000
            Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-15 07:24 -0500
              Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 12:38 -0400
      Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 17:53 -0700
    Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Bill Beaty <billb@eskimo.com> - 2017-03-16 14:04 -0700
    Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? DemonicTubes <tlackie@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 08:55 -0700
      Re: Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-03-17 16:10 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#452139

On Thursday, 16 March 2017 05:24:13 UTC, Phil Allison  wrote:
> tabb...is a criminal lunatic and a liar
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ** Must be a delusion - cos it contradicts the experience of all others.
> > > 
> > >   Or just plain old bullshit made up by valve freaks. 
> > 
> > 
> > It's the collective experience of far more people than you.
> >
> 
>  ** No it's not - you pathetic lying POS. 
> 
> 
> 
> > >   I told you to fuck off.
> > > 
> > >   Do so or I will hound you off this NG. 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > You aren't capable of it. 
> >
> 
>  ** Fact is, I am very good at it and very successful. 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Anyone can look at that figure 20 and see the claimed 11% distortion 
> > plain as day.
> > 
> 
> ** And they can see you posted a MASSIVE LIE as well.
> 
>  You are a one sad & sorry fuckwit without a single shred of decency in you.  
> 
>  Lying on a technical NG is incredibly moronic.
> 
>  Folk like you are pox on the face of the earth. 
> 
>  Drop dead. 
> 
> 
> 
> ....  Phil

Mr Allison is plainly nuttier than I expected.
http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf
Figure 20 on p10 plain as day shows upto 11% distortion on sine waves, and figure 18 admits upto 10% linearity on triangle waves. What sort of loon sits there lying on something so trivial for every reader to go see. What a - I don't know what he is. Just a nut.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#452154

On 3/16/2017 1:07 PM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Mr Allison is plainly nuttier than I expected.

No argument there and I have no idea what you expected.

> http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf
> Figure 20 on p10 plain as day shows upto 11% distortion on sine waves, and figure 18 admits upto 10% linearity on triangle waves. What sort of loon sits there lying on something so trivial for every reader to go see. What a - I don't know what he is. Just a nut.

I believe the context of this discussion was "audio" gear.  The high 
distortion of the ICL8038 is only in the frequency range above 20 kHz.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#452179

tabb...is a lying fuckwit and usenet criminal 



  > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ** Must be a delusion - cos it contradicts the experience of all others.
> > > > 
> > > >   Or just plain old bullshit made up by valve freaks. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It's the collective experience of far more people than you.
> > >
> > 
> >  ** No it's not - you pathetic lying POS. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > >   I told you to fuck off.
> > > > 
> > > >   Do so or I will hound you off this NG. 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You aren't capable of it. 
> > >
> > 
> >  ** Fact is, I am very good at it and very successful. 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Anyone can look at that figure 20 and see the claimed 11% distortion 
> > > plain as day.
> > > 
> > 
> > ** And they can see you posted a MASSIVE LIE as well.
> > 
> >  You are a one sad & sorry fuckwit without a single shred of decency in you.  
> > 
> >  Lying on a technical NG is incredibly moronic.
> > 
> >  Folk like you are pox on the face of the earth. 
> > 
> >  Drop dead. 
> > 
>
> 
> Mr Allison is plainly nuttier than I expected.
> http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf
> Figure 20 on p10 plain as day shows upto 11% distortion on sine waves,


** Big shame what the typical number is over the audio band

   You stinking, lying fuckwit. 

   Get off the NG. 


.....  Phil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451712

On Monday, 13 March 2017 16:09:59 UTC, dca...@krl.org  wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 4:28:39 AM UTC-4, olds...@tubes.com wrote:

> > I've been looking into buying an Audio Generator (Sine and Square Wave).
> 
> In addition to looking at Ebay , look at AliExpress.  Sometimes identical items are much less expensive at Ally or Ebay.  Try including diy to find kits.
> 
> Solid state equipment is a lot more reliable than vacuum tube equipment.

It _can_ be more reliable, but making it so is a challenge most equipment fails. If 50 year old valve kit is working it has proven itself, and any new electronics has a very low chance of lasting that well. So in practice old valve kit is on average more likely to last better.


> So you are better off buying something new.  Getting a replacement vacuum tube may be nearly impossible.

it's not. On the rare occasions it is, boost the heater voltage, if it's not physically broken.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451771

On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 8:43:24 PM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Solid state equipment is a lot more reliable than vacuum tube equipment.
> 
> It _can_ be more reliable, but making it so is a challenge most equipment fails. If 50 year old valve kit is working it has proven itself, and any new electronics has a very low chance of lasting that well. So in practice old valve kit is on average more likely to last better.
> 
> 
> NT

I do not agree with you.   A fifty year old  valve kit that is working does not prove that it is a reliable gear.  There may have been 50 thousand of those produced and all have failed except for one.

Way back in the 1960's the mean time to failure for some transistors was 1500 years.  

                                         Dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451773

On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 13:46:23 UTC, dca...@krl.org  wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 8:43:24 PM UTC-4, tabby wrote:
> 
> > > Solid state equipment is a lot more reliable than vacuum tube equipment.
> > 
> > It _can_ be more reliable, but making it so is a challenge most equipment fails. If 50 year old valve kit is working it has proven itself, and any new electronics has a very low chance of lasting that well. So in practice old valve kit is on average more likely to last better.

> I do not agree with you.   A fifty year old  valve kit that is working does not prove that it is a reliable gear. 

It proves the design is capable of great longevity

> There may have been 50 thousand of those produced and all have failed except for one.

There's always a 1 in 50k chance of that. Statistical conclusions are only a reflection of the data fed into them.

> Way back in the 1960's the mean time to failure for some transistors was 1500 years.  

And the mean time to failure for soldered connections, electrolytics, bits of plastic, switch contacts and all other parts?


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451776

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:02:05 AM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

 
> > Way back in the 1960's the mean time to failure for some transistors was 1500 years.  
> 
> And the mean time to failure for soldered connections, electrolytics, bits of plastic, switch contacts and all other parts?
> 
> 
> NT

On the stuff I was  designing  there were no bits of plastic, switches , or soldered connections.  The electrolytics were the biggest problem and we used mostly dry slug tantalum caps  ( as I remember it,  It was a while back )

It was somewhat after someone at MIT or Harvard built a difference analyser with something like 50,000 tubes.  The tubes had a 50,000 hour average life .  Se it would fail about every hour.  To find the bad tube took something like two hours  It was not a success.

                                          Dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451777

On 3/14/2017 10:51 AM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:02:05 AM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>> Way back in the 1960's the mean time to failure for some transistors was 1500 years.
>>
>> And the mean time to failure for soldered connections, electrolytics, bits of plastic, switch contacts and all other parts?
>>
>>
>> NT
>
> On the stuff I was  designing  there were no bits of plastic, switches , or soldered connections.  The electrolytics were the biggest problem and we used mostly dry slug tantalum caps  ( as I remember it,  It was a while back )
>
> It was somewhat after someone at MIT or Harvard built a difference analyser with something like 50,000 tubes.  The tubes had a 50,000 hour average life .  Se it would fail about every hour.  To find the bad tube took something like two hours  It was not a success.
>
>                                           Dan
>
     Still in use by the DMV.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451843

On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 15:51:30 UTC, dca...@krl.org  wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:02:05 AM UTC-4, tabb wrote:

> > > Way back in the 1960's the mean time to failure for some transistors was 1500 years.  
> > 
> > And the mean time to failure for soldered connections, electrolytics, bits of plastic, switch contacts and all other parts?

> On the stuff I was  designing  there were no bits of plastic, switches , or soldered connections.  The electrolytics were the biggest problem and we used mostly dry slug tantalum caps  ( as I remember it,  It was a while back )

Most testgear of course is built to nothing like those standards.

> It was somewhat after someone at MIT or Harvard built a difference analyser with something like 50,000 tubes.  The tubes had a 50,000 hour average life .  Se it would fail about every hour.  To find the bad tube took something like two hours  It was not a success.

A killer problem with valve computers. At least they were better than relays. A sig gen with a few valves is a very different proposition. Basic maintenance every 16k hours of use, typically several decades, is quite acceptable.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451867

dca...@krl.org wrote:

> 
> 
> I do not agree with you.  A fifty year old  valve kit that is 
> working does not prove that it is a reliable gear.  

** It proves that someone has been keeping it running. 


> 
> Way back in the 1960's the mean time to failure for some transistors
> was 1500 years.  
> 

** Which only means that the unforced failure rate is one in 1500 per year. 
                  
  Says nothing about the typical lifespan and it sure as HELL ain't 1500 years. 



.....  Phil 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451628

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 02:26:56 -0600, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:

>I've been looking into buying an Audio Generator (Sine and Square Wave).
>I mainly want this to run thru an amplifier to listen to the frequency
>repsonse of the amp and speakers.
>Here is the ebay URL.
(...)
>http://tinyurl.com/h5celuc

That DDS generator only goes up to 65KHz, does not have a built in
frequency sweep feature, and does not have a sawtooth output or built
in detector suitable for displaying a frequency sweep on an
oscilloscope.  To sweep an audio amplifier with a DDS, you will need a
sine wave generator feature, and an up/down counter or frequency
modulator to sweep the frequency range.  

First look at a real function generator.  Next, build a checklist of
the features you need.  Then, go shopping using the feature list.
You're doing this backwards.

Note:  You can use a PC sound card as a swept audio source and
function generator:
<http://www.daqarta.com/dw_gen.htm>
<http://www.instructables.com/id/PC-Sound-Card-Signal-Generator-Interface/?ALLSTEPS>
etc...

Most of the PC based oscilloscope and spectrum analyzer programs have
built in generators.  I use Visual Analyzer:
<http://www.sillanumsoft.org/prod01.htm>
and Spectrum Lab:
<http://www.qsl.net/dl4yhf/spectra1.html>
Both have built in generator functions, including two tones for
intermodulation measurements.

This scope program has a tolerable white/pink noise generator.
<https://www.zeitnitz.eu/scope_en>

Hint:  Buy a higher resolution USB sound card that will do 24 bit  96
KHz, 192 KHz, or if you have money to spend, 384 KHz clock rate.  The
common 44/48KHz devices don't make very good test instruments.
External USB is better because sound chips built into a PC or laptop
pickup noise from everywhere.

However, I must admit that $15 test equipment is lots of fun to play
with.  I have LRC meters, function generators, DDS RF generators,
return loss bridges, noise generators, etc most of which cost about
$15.  


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451653

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:27:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>That DDS generator only goes up to 65KHz, does not have a built in
>frequency sweep feature, and does not have a sawtooth output or built
>in detector suitable for displaying a frequency sweep on an
>oscilloscope.  To sweep an audio amplifier with a DDS, you will need a
>sine wave generator feature, and an up/down counter or frequency
>modulator to sweep the frequency range.  
>
>First look at a real function generator.  Next, build a checklist of
>the features you need.  Then, go shopping using the feature list.
>You're doing this backwards.
>
>Note:  You can use a PC sound card as a swept audio source and
>function generator:


Thanks to all who replied. I read that WIkipedia article, which
explained what these things are, (even though that article was like
reading a legal manual). 

When I descibed this thing, I actually had looked at several of them
from China, which all looked identical. One of them said it goes to
8mhz, using the BNC connector labeled HS. Either way, that dont much
matter, since I have my old Eico tube signal generator, for RF use.

I probably am doing this backward, but I really was not looking for
something like this. I was looking for an old tube based audio
generator, such as the Eico 377. But you know how ebay tends to show a
hundred other things that are similar, and these function generators
came up. I had to spend a good amount of time reading about them, since
I was not familiar with them at all. 

I am somewhat aware about using a computer with software to act as a
signal generator, oscilloscope, etc. I'll have to read up more on all of
that, but in all honesty, I would not even consider connecting my laptop
computer to anything other than and audio input connector on a tube amp.
I said I also want something for testing interstage circuits, and that
means applying a test probe to a spot inside a device that may have 400
or more volts on it. Even with a capacitor and other protection, there
is no way in hell that I am gonna risk destroying an expensive and
fragile laptop computer. And while I have several spare deshtop
machines, I do not keep them in my shop. I dont have the space and I
dont want to be distracted by computers when I'm soldering. If I do take
any computers in my shop, it's my laptop, and I only do so to view a
schematic on the screen.

In all honesty, what I really want to buy is still an old tube type
audio generator. That is what was made for the gear that I mostly work
on, and that old tube stuff is built to hold up, as well as being easy
to repair if it breaks. The problem is that this old tube stuff is
selling for way too much money on ebay. Heck, some of those old Eico
377's are asking as much just for shipping as I am willing to pay for
the whole thing, and one of them looks like it went thru a war, and is
being sold For PARTS.....

Which reminds me, does anyone know of other sources for buying that old
tube test gear, besides ebay? There must be other sources....
It's NOT Amazon, I checked, even though I have never cared much for
Amazon. They just dont sell old stuff like this.

I might still buy one of these DDS devices, just for the heck of it. For
$15, I'm sure I'll have some fun with it..... I actually found some of
them (identical( located in the U.S. for $17. (I dont buy from China
because it takes too long to get the stuff). I also found another one in
the US that comes with the matching wall wart for $23. (Which I'd
probably buy, or I will just end up having to spend another $5 or more
to order that wart separately.

So, the bottom line is that I may buy one of these DDS devices, but I
will still continue to look for the tube type audio generator which is
what I really want in my shop for testing my old tube gear.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451661

In article <74qdcctjlg47haiip530nl5npshooo59q1@4ax.com>, 
oldschool@tubes.com says...
> 
>
> 
> 
> 
> In all honesty, what I really want to buy is still an old tube type
> audio generator. That is what was made for the gear that I mostly work
> on, and that old tube stuff is built to hold up, as well as being easy
> to repair if it breaks. The problem is that this old tube stuff is
> selling for way too much money on ebay. Heck, some of those old Eico
> 377's are asking as much just for shipping as I am willing to pay for
> the whole thing, and one of them looks like it went thru a war, and is
> being sold For PARTS.....
> 

Back when it was made (probably around 1960 to 1980) that was the best 
that could be had for a reasonable price.  Now the items comming from 
China are much beter.  I used something like that old generator about 25 
years ago tunig some coil and capacitors.  As I needed them on a exect 
frequencyto make a filter.  I used a freq counter to set the generator.  
Had to keep one eye on the counter to make sure the generator  was not 
drifting.  I would have loved to have the China generator I have now.  
Digital readout, just set the numbers and it stays put in the audio 
range.  


Spearking of repairing the old gear, have you checked the price of some 
of the tubes and capacitors that are in the old gear ?  

Even using some of the China oscilloscopes is a joy.  Press a button on 
them and off to the side is lots of info about the trace.  Voltages in 
RMS and peak to peak.  Even the frequency.  That will take the place of 
a voltmeter in many cases.

After fighting using the old test equipment for years I finally got to 
the place where I could get the more modern equipment.  Sure makes 
things easier to work on when you can depend on the test equipment and 
not have to wonder if it is the test equipment or the item to be 
repaired.  Like the old signal generator may have some slight hum on the 
signal and you may think that hum is comming from the unit under test.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451850

On 3/13/2017 3:23 PM, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:27:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That DDS generator only goes up to 65KHz, does not have a built in
>> frequency sweep feature, and does not have a sawtooth output or built
>> in detector suitable for displaying a frequency sweep on an
>> oscilloscope.  To sweep an audio amplifier with a DDS, you will need a
>> sine wave generator feature, and an up/down counter or frequency
>> modulator to sweep the frequency range.
>>
>> First look at a real function generator.  Next, build a checklist of
>> the features you need.  Then, go shopping using the feature list.
>> You're doing this backwards.
>>
>> Note:  You can use a PC sound card as a swept audio source and
>> function generator:
>
>
> Thanks to all who replied. I read that WIkipedia article, which
> explained what these things are, (even though that article was like
> reading a legal manual).

Wikipedia often is written by those with a certain level of elitism 
rather than an interest in explaining topics to all who wish to learn. 
It is not uncommon for a technical article to be written at such a high 
level that a reader needs much more than just a casual understanding of 
the topic.

In my opinion, this is one of the ways Wikipedia has failed.


> When I descibed this thing, I actually had looked at several of them
> from China, which all looked identical. One of them said it goes to
> 8mhz, using the BNC connector labeled HS. Either way, that dont much
> matter, since I have my old Eico tube signal generator, for RF use.
>
> I probably am doing this backward, but I really was not looking for
> something like this. I was looking for an old tube based audio
> generator, such as the Eico 377. But you know how ebay tends to show a
> hundred other things that are similar, and these function generators
> came up. I had to spend a good amount of time reading about them, since
> I was not familiar with them at all.
>
> I am somewhat aware about using a computer with software to act as a
> signal generator, oscilloscope, etc. I'll have to read up more on all of
> that, but in all honesty, I would not even consider connecting my laptop
> computer to anything other than and audio input connector on a tube amp.
> I said I also want something for testing interstage circuits, and that
> means applying a test probe to a spot inside a device that may have 400
> or more volts on it. Even with a capacitor and other protection, there
> is no way in hell that I am gonna risk destroying an expensive and
> fragile laptop computer. And while I have several spare deshtop
> machines, I do not keep them in my shop. I dont have the space and I
> dont want to be distracted by computers when I'm soldering. If I do take
> any computers in my shop, it's my laptop, and I only do so to view a
> schematic on the screen.

How exactly would a computer distract you while you are soldering??? 
That is very unclear.

If you want to deal with tube circuits you need a buffer between any low 
voltage equipment and the tube equipment.


> In all honesty, what I really want to buy is still an old tube type
> audio generator. That is what was made for the gear that I mostly work
> on, and that old tube stuff is built to hold up, as well as being easy
> to repair if it breaks. The problem is that this old tube stuff is
> selling for way too much money on ebay. Heck, some of those old Eico
> 377's are asking as much just for shipping as I am willing to pay for
> the whole thing, and one of them looks like it went thru a war, and is
> being sold For PARTS.....

Maybe there's a reason why tube equipment isn't made much anymore?


> Which reminds me, does anyone know of other sources for buying that old
> tube test gear, besides ebay? There must be other sources....
> It's NOT Amazon, I checked, even though I have never cared much for
> Amazon. They just dont sell old stuff like this.

Try connecting with a Ham club.  They often use old equipment.


> I might still buy one of these DDS devices, just for the heck of it. For
> $15, I'm sure I'll have some fun with it..... I actually found some of
> them (identical( located in the U.S. for $17. (I dont buy from China
> because it takes too long to get the stuff). I also found another one in
> the US that comes with the matching wall wart for $23. (Which I'd
> probably buy, or I will just end up having to spend another $5 or more
> to order that wart separately.

The problem with buying wall warts is getting one that does what it says 
it does.  If  you type in 5v, 1A for a wall wart on ebay, the first 
hundred or so units have the same picture, are priced within a nickle of 
each other and contain a single transistor for the entire active circuit!


> So, the bottom line is that I may buy one of these DDS devices, but I
> will still continue to look for the tube type audio generator which is
> what I really want in my shop for testing my old tube gear.


You could just insert a tube amp between the DDS and the gear you are 
testing...

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451933

On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 23:57:20 UTC, rickman  wrote:
> On 3/13/2017 3:23 PM, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:27:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
> > wrote:

> > Thanks to all who replied. I read that WIkipedia article, which
> > explained what these things are, (even though that article was like
> > reading a legal manual).
> 
> Wikipedia often is written by those with a certain level of elitism 
> rather than an interest in explaining topics to all who wish to learn. 
> It is not uncommon for a technical article to be written at such a high 
> level that a reader needs much more than just a casual understanding of 
> the topic.
> 
> In my opinion, this is one of the ways Wikipedia has failed.

Surely that beats a dumbed down retardopedia. Some topics just aren't that simple. There's always the simple-wiki articles aimed more at children. Wiki has its problems, but I'm not convinced that is one of them.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451960

On 3/15/2017 8:46 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 23:57:20 UTC, rickman  wrote:
>> On 3/13/2017 3:23 PM, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:27:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>> Thanks to all who replied. I read that WIkipedia article, which
>>> explained what these things are, (even though that article was like
>>> reading a legal manual).
>>
>> Wikipedia often is written by those with a certain level of elitism
>> rather than an interest in explaining topics to all who wish to learn.
>> It is not uncommon for a technical article to be written at such a high
>> level that a reader needs much more than just a casual understanding of
>> the topic.
>>
>> In my opinion, this is one of the ways Wikipedia has failed.
>
> Surely that beats a dumbed down retardopedia. Some topics just aren't that simple. There's always the simple-wiki articles aimed more at children. Wiki has its problems, but I'm not convinced that is one of them.

I may not be an expert in various areas of electronics and computers, 
but I am far from a novice.  There are various electronics related pages 
on Wikipedia that I can't read without going to the references and 
studying.  That is ridiculous.

When only the experts in a field can even read and understand an 
encyclopedia entry I'm not sure that's any better than a "retardopedia". 
   It essentially becomes the same thing, a web page that conveys very 
little information to very few people.

I think the editors end up being full of themselves trying to be 
"expert" or "professional".  In the end they become irrelevant.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451987

On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 16:37:05 UTC, rickman  wrote:
> On 3/15/2017 8:46 AM, tabbypurr wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 23:57:20 UTC, rickman  wrote:
> >> On 3/13/2017 3:23 PM, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:27:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >
> >>> Thanks to all who replied. I read that WIkipedia article, which
> >>> explained what these things are, (even though that article was like
> >>> reading a legal manual).
> >>
> >> Wikipedia often is written by those with a certain level of elitism
> >> rather than an interest in explaining topics to all who wish to learn.
> >> It is not uncommon for a technical article to be written at such a high
> >> level that a reader needs much more than just a casual understanding of
> >> the topic.
> >>
> >> In my opinion, this is one of the ways Wikipedia has failed.
> >
> > Surely that beats a dumbed down retardopedia. Some topics just aren't that simple. There's always the simple-wiki articles aimed more at children. Wiki has its problems, but I'm not convinced that is one of them.
> 
> I may not be an expert in various areas of electronics and computers, 
> but I am far from a novice.  There are various electronics related pages 
> on Wikipedia that I can't read without going to the references and 
> studying.  That is ridiculous.
> 
> When only the experts in a field can even read and understand an 
> encyclopedia entry I'm not sure that's any better than a "retardopedia". 
>    It essentially becomes the same thing, a web page that conveys very 
> little information to very few people.
> 
> I think the editors end up being full of themselves trying to be 
> "expert" or "professional".  In the end they become irrelevant.

I don't recall seeing such pages. There are some idiotic ones, wiki certainly has its problems with wallies thinking they're experts. But for an encyclopaedia I don't know a better one.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#452106

On 15/03/2017 16:36, rickman wrote:
> On 3/15/2017 8:46 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 23:57:20 UTC, rickman  wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2017 3:23 PM, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:27:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Thanks to all who replied. I read that WIkipedia article, which
>>>> explained what these things are, (even though that article was like
>>>> reading a legal manual).
>>>
>>> Wikipedia often is written by those with a certain level of elitism
>>> rather than an interest in explaining topics to all who wish to learn.
>>> It is not uncommon for a technical article to be written at such a high
>>> level that a reader needs much more than just a casual understanding of
>>> the topic.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, this is one of the ways Wikipedia has failed.
>>
>> Surely that beats a dumbed down retardopedia. Some topics just aren't
>> that simple. There's always the simple-wiki articles aimed more at
>> children. Wiki has its problems, but I'm not convinced that is one of
>> them.
>
> I may not be an expert in various areas of electronics and computers,
> but I am far from a novice.  There are various electronics related pages
> on Wikipedia that I can't read without going to the references and
> studying.  That is ridiculous.

Why do you think it is ridiculous. If you dip into a book chosen at 
random and find a complicated equation that describes reality it isn't 
the fault of the book that you don't understand what is written there.

> When only the experts in a field can even read and understand an
> encyclopedia entry I'm not sure that's any better than a "retardopedia".
>   It essentially becomes the same thing, a web page that conveys very
> little information to very few people.

It requires you to actually work at reading the more complex content by 
looking up the references. I find that in the technical sphere there is 
little to criticise in Wiki there are usually decent references both to 
prior art and more basic information with the core article usually 
written at about the same level as a university textbook. A few links 
are broken at any given time but Wayback will often still get them.

The same is not true for Wiki entries about politicians and public 
figures which variously get hacked by zealots to say completely insane 
things at times.

> I think the editors end up being full of themselves trying to be
> "expert" or "professional".  In the end they become irrelevant.

Why do you want to denigrate experts at every opportunity?
They are freely sharing their knowledge for the public good.

If you don't like what they have written you are not forced to use it.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#452137

On 3/16/2017 8:52 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 15/03/2017 16:36, rickman wrote:
>> On 3/15/2017 8:46 AM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 23:57:20 UTC, rickman  wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2017 3:23 PM, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:27:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Thanks to all who replied. I read that WIkipedia article, which
>>>>> explained what these things are, (even though that article was like
>>>>> reading a legal manual).
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia often is written by those with a certain level of elitism
>>>> rather than an interest in explaining topics to all who wish to learn.
>>>> It is not uncommon for a technical article to be written at such a high
>>>> level that a reader needs much more than just a casual understanding of
>>>> the topic.
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion, this is one of the ways Wikipedia has failed.
>>>
>>> Surely that beats a dumbed down retardopedia. Some topics just aren't
>>> that simple. There's always the simple-wiki articles aimed more at
>>> children. Wiki has its problems, but I'm not convinced that is one of
>>> them.
>>
>> I may not be an expert in various areas of electronics and computers,
>> but I am far from a novice.  There are various electronics related pages
>> on Wikipedia that I can't read without going to the references and
>> studying.  That is ridiculous.
>
> Why do you think it is ridiculous. If you dip into a book chosen at
> random and find a complicated equation that describes reality it isn't
> the fault of the book that you don't understand what is written there.

If someone experienced in the field has to do research just to read the 
article, how widely read can it be?  Wikipedia is supposed to be a 
resource for a wide range of audiences, not a college level text book.


>> When only the experts in a field can even read and understand an
>> encyclopedia entry I'm not sure that's any better than a "retardopedia".
>>   It essentially becomes the same thing, a web page that conveys very
>> little information to very few people.
>
> It requires you to actually work at reading the more complex content by
> looking up the references. I find that in the technical sphere there is
> little to criticise in Wiki there are usually decent references both to
> prior art and more basic information with the core article usually
> written at about the same level as a university textbook. A few links
> are broken at any given time but Wayback will often still get them.

I am saying that is a problem.  But it depends on the level of 
university textbook.  Freshman level intro would be appropriate for most 
material rather than graduate level which I have seen.


> The same is not true for Wiki entries about politicians and public
> figures which variously get hacked by zealots to say completely insane
> things at times.
>
>> I think the editors end up being full of themselves trying to be
>> "expert" or "professional".  In the end they become irrelevant.
>
> Why do you want to denigrate experts at every opportunity?
> They are freely sharing their knowledge for the public good.

"Every opportunity"???  Lol.

If someone wishes to communicate, they need to consider the audience. 
Targeting an encyclopedia to advanced college level is not "sharing" 
knowledge with very many, which is my point.


> If you don't like what they have written you are not forced to use it.

Yes, the "America, love it or leave it" argument...  Thanks for sharing.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451646

On 3/13/2017 3:26 AM, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:
> I've been looking into buying an Audio Generator (Sine and Square Wave).

   If you have any interest in building one, look up the XR2206. It is 
an old but a pretty cool chip. It will do many functions up to 1 Mhz.
  Lots of info available, I even see one Arduino controlled unit.

                                             Mikek


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web