CA3046 vs CA3086?

[jorgen.bergfors at idg.se]

Thanks a lot for the information.
I have a question regarding the Moog 921. 
I have built the saw to triangle converter but I can't get the triagle wave 
quite symmetrical. Also there is a glitch at the peak. 
I have tried many different transistors (including the specified 2N3904) and 
experimented with different resistor values, but that doesn't change the 
waveform much.
Do you know if a genuine Moog 921B has these problems with the triangle 
waveform? If it does, it could be considered part of the "sound" and probably 
should be left as is.

Best regards
Jorgen Bergfors

P.S. by adding a 1n capacitor in series with a resistor between the base and 
emitter of the first tranny, the glich can be reduced. But Moog didn't do this 
-- at least it's not in the schematics.





MIME:majmoog at synthfool.com on 98-04-21 12.40.22
To: synth-diy at mailhost.bpa.nl @ SMTP 
cc:  (bcc: Jorgen Bergfors/IDGSE)
Subject: Re: CA3046 vs CA3086?

>> I have a couple of schematics that use the CA3046 and the CA3086. For
>>practical
>> reasons I would like to standardize on one of them. Both are NPN transistor
>> arrays with the same pinout. Farnell stock both and the CA3086 is
>>slightly more
>> expensive. Is it better? The higher number suggests that it is newer and
>> therefore might be an improved version. Is this true? Or are they actually
>> incompatible?
>
>I have the impression, that they are the same chips but measured/tested to
>different specs. I think I found that the 3046 had better characteristics.




We had this thread a while back in DIY.

The 3046 was deemed better at that time, I think.

But...
Oberheim SEMs use 3086's.

Moog 921's use SG3821's

Being the same basic device, I'd like to know what the criteria was for
Moog and Oberheim choosing these over 3046's. Price?

-K