[sdiy] CA3046 vs. SSM2210

[anthony]

Yeah but you can get it as an NTE part: NTE912. Sure it's $5.18, but it's a 
good chip.
And I know for almost certain that just about ALL of the NTE CAXXXX parts 
are relabels.

Those chips died because they shut down the only fab that could make them. 
NTE bought 'em all up in a huge lifetime buy. It's easy to tell: just scrape 
the top or examine closely under an illuminated magnifying lens. They do 
this to normal TI and Motorola parts too, along with many others. The ECG 
leftovers, I'm not so sure about. I think they got them to label with house 
numbering, because if you scrape the top layer away, usually it's bare. It's 
like that with the NTE42 (2SC1583) and the NTE43 (2SA798) as well.
I think I bought the last CA3080's both in DIP (NTE966) and can (NTE902). I 
made one special order and they could only fill part of it.

But usually I hate paying NTE prices. Like I'd like to play around with an 
LM3909 again, but not for $11!


Of course there's another bad thing to watch out for with NTE: sometimes the 
parts they cross-ref aren't the right part. Like if you ask for a CD4049UB, 
you will get an NTE4049B - probably NOT what you want. I think you'd be OK 
if you asked for a CD4009....


> Hi All
>
> I have updated the Sound Lab mini-Synth page to suggest LM394 or SSM2210 
> and made a note that the CA3046 is not as viable due to not being produced 
> in DIP (which is kind of a bummer). Thanks for the info all.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ray
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <pata at ieee.org>
> To: <synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl>
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 6:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [sdiy] CA3046 vs. SSM2210
>
>
>> Hi Kyle and the Lists!
>>
>> CA3046
>> Status: Discontinued (DIP package).
>> Consists of 5 NPN TR's but 1 matched-pair.
>> Reasonable price ($0.5 or less)
>> Caution: Lots of FAKE are seen in market.
>>
>>
>> SSM2210
>> Status:Active
>> Consists of 2 NPN TR's as 1 matched-pair.
>> Lower noise, closed matching.
>>
>> I recommend SSM2210 rather than CA3046 if you want to get better
>> characteristics, but we know CA3046 (or even CA3086) is good enough in
>> all circuits in analog synthesizers.
>>
>> So, you can choose as you like.
>>
>>
>> Kyle Stephens wrote:
>>> Ahoy...
>>>
>>> I'm in the final stages of bulding my MFOS Soundlab.
>>>
>>> Ray (somewhat warily?) recomends using the CA3046s for
>>> matched transistors in the VCOs, but I've seen the
>>> SSM22210 used elsewhere for the same purpose and at a
>>> glace the datasheet sounds more impressive in any
>>> case.
>>>
>>> Is there any worthwhile difference? Anything better
>>> than either of them?
>>>
>> -- 
>> ===================================================
>> KATAYAMA, Takuya
>> Muse Music Synthesizer Laboratory
>> _______________________________________________
>> Synth-diy mailing list
>> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
>> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>
>