Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #451590 > unrolled thread
| Started by | oldschool@tubes.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-13 02:26 -0600 |
| Last post | 2017-03-17 16:10 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 79 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
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 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | oldschool@tubes.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 02:26 -0600 |
| Subject | Audio Generator or Function Generator? Which to get? |
| Message-ID | <vaicccta9pdjea9abbc1074l06705f6677@4ax.com> |
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. Nothing very scientific, just to see what these amps and speakers can do.... And on occasion to inject an audio signal into amp sections to dee if the audio is passing that stage. Originally I was looking at some of the old tube gear, such as the Eico model 377. I also looked at the Heathkit IG-18 a transistorized version from the 70s. Because I like that old test gear, I'd be happy to get either of these, or another similar. Both of these are Sine and Suqare Wave. But what I am finding is the prices combined with high S+H fees, make these things very costly, and I have not found any of them which claim to work. Sold as-is, for parts or repair. So, I may end up paying $60 or more and getting something that dont work, likely needs new caps, and so on..... If they were $25 or less, I'd take a chance, but not for that kind of money. My search on ebay lead me to something called a "Function Generator". What the heck is that??? And also called a DDS device. (I have no clue what DDS means). But I carefully looked at this NEW device, sold without a box (case), but only needs a power module and test leads. They sell for around $14 from China, but since I dont care to order from China, I'll probably have to hunt one down from the US, and pay around $5 or $10 more. But that's ok. These have both the Sine and Square wave, as well as Triangle wave (what does that sound like?). While I prefer the older stuff, for around $20 a cheap wal-wart, and a little work putting it into a box, I'd probably buy one of these, *IF* it will do what I need..... I have read all the info on the ebay pages, but I am not 100% sure that this is a modern replacement for the old audio generators. One nice thing, is that they will show the exact frequency on the digital readout. IS THIS WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR? Is something like this made to really be used, or is it just another toy that does little and fails in a few months? And can something like this work to test tube amps, without blowing up from the high voltages in tube gear? One last thing that has me puzzled. There are two BNC connectors. One is labeled DDS, tho other is HS. I found this in the description. DDS frequency range: 1Hz-65534Hz, high-speed frequency (HS) output up to 8MHz. I dont understand how or what the high speed feature does. Why would an audio frequency be or need "high speed"? And what is the point for this device to go above 20,000 cps, since we cant hear that anyhow? Going up to 8MHZ seens senseless, unless this also serves as a RF signal generator. Here is the ebay URL. http://tinyurl.com/h5celuc
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Colin Horsley <horsley-spam@westnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 20:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <pNKdndMWAN3N-VvFnZ2dnUU78b3NnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #451590 |
On 13/03/2017 19:26, oldschool@tubes.com wrote: > My search on ebay lead me to something called a "Function Generator". > What the heck is that??? And also called a DDS device. (I have no clue > what DDS means). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_digital_synthesizer Col --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 02:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24f342f4-a83b-4f99-bcbf-3d05ea9058b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451590 |
On Monday, 13 March 2017 08:28:39 UTC, olds...@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. Nothing very scientific, just to see > what these amps and speakers can do.... And on occasion to inject an > audio signal into amp sections to dee if the audio is passing that > stage. > > Originally I was looking at some of the old tube gear, such as the Eico > model 377. I also looked at the Heathkit IG-18 a transistorized version > from the 70s. Because I like that old test gear, I'd be happy to get > either of these, or another similar. Both of these are Sine and Suqare > Wave. But what I am finding is the prices combined with high S+H fees, > make these things very costly, and I have not found any of them which > claim to work. Sold as-is, for parts or repair. So, I may end up paying > $60 or more and getting something that dont work, likely needs new caps, > and so on..... If they were $25 or less, I'd take a chance, but not for > that kind of money. > > My search on ebay lead me to something called a "Function Generator". > What the heck is that??? And also called a DDS device. (I have no clue > what DDS means). But I carefully looked at this NEW device, sold without > a box (case), but only needs a power module and test leads. They sell > for around $14 from China, but since I dont care to order from China, > I'll probably have to hunt one down from the US, and pay around $5 or > $10 more. But that's ok. These have both the Sine and Square wave, as > well as Triangle wave (what does that sound like?). > > While I prefer the older stuff, for around $20 a cheap wal-wart, and a > little work putting it into a box, I'd probably buy one of these, *IF* > it will do what I need..... I have read all the info on the ebay pages, > but I am not 100% sure that this is a modern replacement for the old > audio generators. One nice thing, is that they will show the exact > frequency on the digital readout. > > IS THIS WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR? > Is something like this made to really be used, or is it just another toy > that does little and fails in a few months? > > And can something like this work to test tube amps, without blowing up > from the high voltages in tube gear? > > One last thing that has me puzzled. There are two BNC connectors. One is > labeled DDS, tho other is HS. > > I found this in the description. > DDS frequency range: 1Hz-65534Hz, high-speed frequency (HS) output up to > 8MHz. > > I dont understand how or what the high speed feature does. Why would an > audio frequency be or need "high speed"? And what is the point for this > device to go above 20,000 cps, since we cant hear that anyhow? Going up > to 8MHZ seens senseless, unless this also serves as a RF signal > generator. > > Here is the ebay URL. > > http://tinyurl.com/h5celuc Those are proving popular at the bottom end. I gather they're good except near the top of their freq range, when it gets a bit weird. They do audio and much more. But as you say, longevity is another matter. But at $14 it's hard to complain. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 09:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa5out$n06$1@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #451590 |
On 2017-03-13, oldschool@tubes.com <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. Nothing very scientific, just to see > what these amps and speakers can do.... And on occasion to inject an > audio signal into amp sections to dee if the audio is passing that > stage. Any reason you've not looked at PC software? > My search on ebay lead me to something called a "Function Generator". > What the heck is that??? And also called a DDS device. (I have no clue > what DDS means). look it up on wikipedia. it means that inside there's some sort of computer generating a digital wavform, that gets converted and comes out the output > But I carefully looked at this NEW device, sold without > a box (case), but only needs a power module and test leads. They sell > for around $14 from China, but since I dont care to order from China, > I'll probably have to hunt one down from the US, and pay around $5 or > $10 more. But that's ok. These have both the Sine and Square wave, as > well as Triangle wave (what does that sound like?). you can probably buy he same thing from china on ebay, for about the same price, most large scale vendors are present in multiple marketplaces. > IS THIS WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR? > Is something like this made to really be used, or is it just another toy > that does little and fails in a few months? it will probably last longer than a few months, especially if you put it in a good case. > And can something like this work to test tube amps, without blowing up > from the high voltages in tube gear? > > One last thing that has me puzzled. There are two BNC connectors. One is > labeled DDS, tho other is HS. > > I found this in the description. > DDS frequency range: 1Hz-65534Hz, high-speed frequency (HS) output up to > 8MHz. > I dont understand how or what the high speed feature does. Why would an > audio frequency be or need "high speed"? And what is the point for this > device to go above 20,000 cps, since we cant hear that anyhow? Going up > to 8MHZ seens senseless, unless this also serves as a RF signal > generator. it's probably a square wave at 128 times the DDS output frequency. it might be useful for other purposes -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-14 09:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa8cno$1c3m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #451599 |
On 13/03/2017 09:32, Jasen Betts wrote: > On 2017-03-13, oldschool@tubes.com <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. Nothing very scientific, just to see >> what these amps and speakers can do.... And on occasion to inject an >> audio signal into amp sections to dee if the audio is passing that >> stage. > > Any reason you've not looked at PC software? Indeed. I favour Daquarta (sp?) for this sort of thing. The paid for version will even give you a realtime FFT vs time waterfall plot of the input signal and the signal generator part continues to work after the evaluation period. It can do the usual waveforms well enough for all but the most demanding tests. It is easily good enough for most audio work and allows you to see harmonic content of signals in realtime. The only disadvantage is that it perhaps isn't going to like mains voltages on the inputs/outputs of your PC so you would need to be careful. >> My search on ebay lead me to something called a "Function Generator". >> What the heck is that??? And also called a DDS device. (I have no clue >> what DDS means). > > look it up on wikipedia. it means that inside there's some sort of computer > generating a digital wavform, that gets converted and comes out the output There used to be old school analogue function generator chips that made a triangle wave and then applied diode shaping to get a pseudo-sine wave. HP made one design implementation that was surprisingly good. Intersils 8038 was the poor mans alternative for DIY. http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf These days DDS is probably the way to go since it can do so much more. Testing power amps it is wiser to use frequency shaped noise rather than pure sine waves since you can hit mechanical resonances and damage acoustic drivers with quite modest power levels of pure sine wave. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-14 03:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <015222f9-ab24-40b5-91fc-33fe3de08126@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451762 |
Martin Brown wrote: > > > These days DDS is probably the way to go since it can do so much more. > Testing power amps it is wiser to use frequency shaped noise rather than > pure sine waves since you can hit mechanical resonances and damage > acoustic drivers with quite modest power levels of pure sine wave. > ** Giant HUH ??? Testing amplifiers does not involve speakers AT ALL !!! Sine waves are the primary and still most revealing method. BTW, any speaker that cannot survive short term sine wave testing is not worth owning. You could not be more WRONG. .... Phil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-14 06:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8fdec2a5-4ebc-4c77-a1af-c35826ba72a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451762 |
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 09:22:05 UTC, Martin Brown wrote: > There used to be old school analogue function generator chips that made > a triangle wave and then applied diode shaping to get a pseudo-sine > wave. HP made one design implementation that was surprisingly good. > Intersils 8038 was the poor mans alternative for DIY. > > http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf I built one of those decades ago. What a car crash. The wave forms were hopeless. I don't remember the details to know why, I presume the problem was the 8038 though. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 12:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oabavn$18uf$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #451772 |
On 14/03/2017 13:58, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 09:22:05 UTC, Martin Brown wrote: > >> There used to be old school analogue function generator chips that >> made a triangle wave and then applied diode shaping to get a >> pseudo-sine wave. HP made one design implementation that was >> surprisingly good. Intersils 8038 was the poor mans alternative for >> DIY. >> >> http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf > >> > I built one of those decades ago. What a car crash. The wave forms > were hopeless. I don't remember the details to know why, I presume > the problem was the 8038 though. It was never anything like as good as a Wein bridge sine wave but it was good for about 0.5% THD if you trimmed it properly. I suspect manufacturing tolerances made it inconsistent batch to batch. Cute chip in its day, but that was a long time ago. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 05:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b5646e2-75db-43ad-96ec-e5d18c21452e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451929 |
On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 12:10:36 UTC, Martin Brown wrote: > On 14/03/2017 13:58, tabbypurr wrote: > > On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 09:22:05 UTC, Martin Brown wrote: > > > >> There used to be old school analogue function generator chips that > >> made a triangle wave and then applied diode shaping to get a > >> pseudo-sine wave. HP made one design implementation that was > >> surprisingly good. Intersils 8038 was the poor mans alternative for > >> DIY. > >> > >> http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf > > > >> > > I built one of those decades ago. What a car crash. The wave forms > > were hopeless. I don't remember the details to know why, I presume > > the problem was the 8038 though. > > It was never anything like as good as a Wein bridge sine wave but it was > good for about 0.5% THD if you trimmed it properly. I suspect > manufacturing tolerances made it inconsistent batch to batch. > > Cute chip in its day, but that was a long time ago. I doubt it managed 50%, let alone 0.5%. It had 3 outputs, sine square & triangle. At some frequencies one output looked more like one of the others should, and the others were just a mess. It was dire, and yes I followed the advised circuit. It might manage 0.5% at some frequency, but as a sig gen it was a real failure. If I ever get the time I'll look at it again one day, it's on a shelf somewhere. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 17:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <279cc7ab-8df9-4e72-b7ed-cec41b08b6ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451931 |
tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> > > >> http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf > > I doubt it managed 50%, let alone 0.5%. > ** See page 20 of the pdf. You are so full of shit. It had 3 outputs, sine square & triangle. At some frequencies one output looked more like one of the others should, and the others were just a mess. ** Meaningless bollocks. Your only area of expertise. .... Phil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 19:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5305fae-7ff4-499a-a084-e2bd047ad5df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452040 |
On Thursday, 16 March 2017 00:42:02 UTC, Phil Allison wrote: > tabby wrote: > > > >> http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf > > > > > I doubt it managed 50%, let alone 0.5%. > > > > ** See page 20 of the pdf. Page 20 of a 12 page pdf? Page 2&3 quote 0.05-1.5% distortion, which may well be true for some of the scale. But twiddle the knobs and it went off the chart. > You are so full of shit. > > > It had 3 outputs, sine square & triangle. At some frequencies one output looked more like one of the others should, and the others were just a mess. > > > ** Meaningless bollocks. > > Your only area of expertise. Baseless abuse is your area of expertise. You don't even know the facts. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 19:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb48e4ac-4873-4f89-b95c-c5a7f8ff1d3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452058 |
tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > ** See page 20 of the pdf. > > Page 20 of a 12 page pdf? ** Should be "see figure 20". > > You are so full of shit. > > > > > > It had 3 outputs, sine square & triangle. At some frequencies one output looked more like one of the others should, and the others were just a mess. > > > > > > ** Meaningless bollocks. > > > > Your only area of expertise. > > Baseless abuse ** Thoroughly fact based, fair comment. You are a prize bullshit artist and nasty piece of work to boot. .... Phil > > NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 19:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf5ed1e6-9375-4f8c-b3fb-6bcbfdc6cdc4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452062 |
On Thursday, 16 March 2017 02:23:48 UTC, Phil Allison wrote: > tabby wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ** See page 20 of the pdf. > > > > Page 20 of a 12 page pdf? > > > ** Should be "see figure 20". Mfr admits to 11% distortion. We got way worse. > > > You are so full of shit. > > > > > > > > > It had 3 outputs, sine square & triangle. At some frequencies one output looked more like one of the others should, and the others were just a mess. > > > > > > > > > ** Meaningless bollocks. > > > > > > Your only area of expertise. > > > > Baseless abuse > > > ** Thoroughly fact based, fair comment. > > You are a prize bullshit artist A sensible person would ask why might it have produced so much distortion. A sensible person might ask if I'm likely to get the time to find it, repair it & demonstrate its problem. > and nasty piece of work to boot. Oh. I suspect quite a lot of people think that one more fits you. It doesn't fit me. You think it does, but know not a lot about my life. If you have electronics knowledge to contribute, great. But when it comes to stupid & abusive comments, why bother. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 19:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a28bd2d7-e65c-4b00-878b-b84cd18904d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452066 |
tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > ** Should be "see figure 20". > > Mfr admits to 11% distortion. ** Blatant lie. You really are a piece of shit. > > > > ** Thoroughly fact based, fair comment. > > > > You are a prize bullshit artist > > A sensible person would ask why might it have produced so much distortion. > ** Nope. Asking why before you have the facts straight is pure fuckwittery. Your one and only talent. Piss off, arsehole. .... Phil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 21:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90a55b28-5ac4-4237-b8d7-ddca3fdddfd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452068 |
On Thursday, 16 March 2017 02:44:36 UTC, Phil Allison wrote: > tabby wrote: > > > ** Should be "see figure 20". > > > > Mfr admits to 11% distortion. > > > > ** Blatant lie. I checked it again. The graph does go upto 11% claimed distortion as its frequency increases. It's on the figure 20 you referred to. No doubt about it. > You really are a piece of shit. > > > > > > > > > > ** Thoroughly fact based, fair comment. > > > > > > You are a prize bullshit artist > > > > A sensible person would ask why might it have produced so much distortion. > > > > > ** Nope. > > Asking why before you have the facts straight is pure fuckwittery. > > Your one and only talent. > > > Piss off, arsehole. > > > > .... Phil Did someone piss in your cheerios when you were a kid or something? You really are very dysfunctional, and equally unreasonable. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 22:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e824522a-0859-4e02-b730-af257f584829@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452079 |
tabb...is a lying POS
>
> > > > ** Should be "see figure 20".
> > >
> > > Mfr admits to 11% distortion.
> >
> >
> >
> > ** Blatant lie.
>
** And you are lying your arse off again.
You are a real piece of shit.
A trolling NG criminal.
.... Phil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-16 10:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oado9d$19o8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #451931 |
On 15/03/2017 12:39, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 12:10:36 UTC, Martin Brown wrote: >> On 14/03/2017 13:58, tabbypurr wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 09:22:05 UTC, Martin Brown wrote: >>> >>>> There used to be old school analogue function generator chips >>>> that made a triangle wave and then applied diode shaping to get >>>> a pseudo-sine wave. HP made one design implementation that was >>>> surprisingly good. Intersils 8038 was the poor mans alternative >>>> for DIY. >>>> >>>> http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I built one of those decades ago. What a car crash. The wave forms >>> were hopeless. I don't remember the details to know why, I >>> presume the problem was the 8038 though. >> >> It was never anything like as good as a Wein bridge sine wave but >> it was good for about 0.5% THD if you trimmed it properly. I >> suspect manufacturing tolerances made it inconsistent batch to >> batch. >> >> Cute chip in its day, but that was a long time ago. > > I doubt it managed 50%, let alone 0.5%. It had 3 outputs, sine square > & triangle. At some frequencies one output looked more like one of > the others should, and the others were just a mess. It was dire, and I built one a long time ago. I found it in my parents attic whilst clearing the house recently. I might test it to see how good/bad it is next time I have chance. You have inspired me not to just throw it out. > yes I followed the advised circuit. It might manage 0.5% at some > frequency, but as a sig gen it was a real failure. If I ever get the > time I'll look at it again one day, it's on a shelf somewhere. It was fine as a rough sine wave over the audio range as long as you were not trying to measure hifi amplifier distortion. The tweak in fig 4 would trim THD to <1% over most of the audio range at least it did for me. Symmetry of the triangle waveform was essential to minimising THD - most of the errors did not come from the sine shaping network. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David Eather" <eather@tpg.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 13:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yw77v9y2wei6gd@fx-6300> |
| In reply to | #451931 |
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:56:13 +1000, David Eather <eather@tpg.com.au> wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:39:48 +1000, <tabbypurr@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 12:10:36 UTC, Martin Brown wrote: >>> On 14/03/2017 13:58, tabbypurr wrote: >>> > On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 09:22:05 UTC, Martin Brown wrote: >>> > >>> >> There used to be old school analogue function generator chips that >>> >> made a triangle wave and then applied diode shaping to get a >>> >> pseudo-sine wave. HP made one design implementation that was >>> >> surprisingly good. Intersils 8038 was the poor mans alternative for >>> >> DIY. >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf >>> > >>> >> >>> > I built one of those decades ago. What a car crash. The wave forms >>> > were hopeless. I don't remember the details to know why, I presume >>> > the problem was the 8038 though. >>> >>> It was never anything like as good as a Wein bridge sine wave but it >>> was >>> good for about 0.5% THD if you trimmed it properly. I suspect >>> manufacturing tolerances made it inconsistent batch to batch. >>> >>> Cute chip in its day, but that was a long time ago. >> >> I doubt it managed 50%, let alone 0.5%. It had 3 outputs, sine square & >> triangle. At some frequencies one output looked more like one of the >> others should, and the others were just a mess. It was dire, and yes I >> followed the advised circuit. It might manage 0.5% at some frequency, >> but as a sig gen it was a real failure. If I ever get the time I'll >> look at it again one day, it's on a shelf somewhere. >> >> >> NT > > there were a few kits designed with it - they really did manage 0.5% > -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-16 22:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6499b7de-b2b6-4649-ae63-ac6c282b6799@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452230 |
David Eather wrote: > > >> NT > > > > there were a few kits designed with it - they really did manage 0.5% > > > > ** Of course they did. Nutcase Thornton is a lying, psychopathic moron. ..... Phil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 02:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e550de19-9a69-4308-b243-35092abe0517@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452230 |
On Friday, 17 March 2017 03:56:37 UTC, David Eather wrote: > On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:56:13 +1000, David Eather <eather@tpg.com.au> wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:39:48 +1000, <tabbypurr> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 12:10:36 UTC, Martin Brown wrote: > >>> On 14/03/2017 13:58, tabbypurr wrote: > >>> > On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 09:22:05 UTC, Martin Brown wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> There used to be old school analogue function generator chips that > >>> >> made a triangle wave and then applied diode shaping to get a > >>> >> pseudo-sine wave. HP made one design implementation that was > >>> >> surprisingly good. Intersils 8038 was the poor mans alternative for > >>> >> DIY. > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/intersil/documents/icl8/icl8038.pdf > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > I built one of those decades ago. What a car crash. The wave forms > >>> > were hopeless. I don't remember the details to know why, I presume > >>> > the problem was the 8038 though. > >>> > >>> It was never anything like as good as a Wein bridge sine wave but it > >>> was > >>> good for about 0.5% THD if you trimmed it properly. I suspect > >>> manufacturing tolerances made it inconsistent batch to batch. > >>> > >>> Cute chip in its day, but that was a long time ago. > >> > >> I doubt it managed 50%, let alone 0.5%. It had 3 outputs, sine square & > >> triangle. At some frequencies one output looked more like one of the > >> others should, and the others were just a mess. It was dire, and yes I > >> followed the advised circuit. It might manage 0.5% at some frequency, > >> but as a sig gen it was a real failure. If I ever get the time I'll > >> look at it again one day, it's on a shelf somewhere. > >> > >> > >> NT > > > > there were a few kits designed with it - they really did manage 0.5% Presumably they used only part of its frequency range. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web