[sdiy] OTA performance (was SSM chip reissue)

[Cooper Sloan]

It's one of the 3 or 4 3280/3080 app notes put out by intersil/Harris, but
only two are live on their site now.

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:51 PM MTG <grant at musictechnologiesgroup.com>
wrote:

> Sorry I don't know this one. Which manufacturer for AN6818?
>
>
>
> On 4/24/2017 11:41 AM, Cooper Sloan wrote:
>
> Can I piggy back a little request on this thread for the now missing AN
> app notes? AN6818 I think?
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:53 AM Justin Herrmann <ebn303afxcut at email.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Datasheets for CA3280, LM13700, and NE5517 all claim "excellent matching"
>> between the pairs, but none back up that claim with numbers or guaranteed
>> matching specs. On the other hand, the SSM2164 claims "All channels are
>> closely matched to within 0.07 dB at unity gain."
>>
>> Has anyone compared how closely OTA devices within a package match? Is it
>> just gm that's important here?
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On 04/23/2017, 11:10 PM Michael E Caloroso <mec.forumreader at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The CA3280 dual OTAs are also matched, which the 2164 cannot claim.
>>> There is no dual matched OTA IC currently available on the market.
>>>
>>> MC
>>>
>>> On 4/23/17, David G Dixon <dixon at mail.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>> > The exponential response of the 2164 is good enough for just about
>>> anything
>>> > you need it to do. It is the heart of the Dixie, Rubicon, and Atlantis
>>> > VCOs, and we have sold about a million dollars worth of those, so it
>>> can't
>>> > suck all that hard.
>>> >
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Synth-diy [mailto:synth-diy-bounces at synth-diy.org] On
>>> >> Behalf Of Ian Fritz
>>> >> Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 2:14 PM
>>> >> To: Tom Wiltshire; Jay Schwichtenberg
>>> >> Cc: synth-diy at synth-diy.org
>>> >> Subject: Re: [sdiy] SSM chip reissue
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> The CA3280 is a much higher performance chip. For example, it
>>> >> has a specially designed low noise input. The expo response
>>> >> of the 2164 is pretty poor, compared with what one can do
>>> >> with a good monolithic pair. Etc.
>>> >>
>>> >> Ian
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 4/23/2017 12:52 PM, Tom Wiltshire wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Talking of which, why not use the 2164 instead of the
>>> >> CA3280? You can
>>> >> > use it for filters, VCAs, and VCOs, and it's got the exponential
>>> >> > reposnse built in, unlike the CA3280.
>>> >> --
>>> >> ijfritz.byethost4.com
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Synth-diy mailing list
>>> >> Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
>>> >> http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Synth-diy mailing list
>>> > Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
>>> > http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Synth-diy mailing list
>>> Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
>>> http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Synth-diy mailing list
>> Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
>> http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing listSynth-diy at synth-diy.orghttp://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
> http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/attachments/20170424/a6a744c8/attachment.htm>