[sdiy] Pet Peeves

rsdio at audiobanshee.com rsdio at audiobanshee.com
Sat May 5 06:38:27 CEST 2018

We clearly live in an age where companies are designing chips without the level of testing or guarantees that we used to rely upon.

I mean, chips are such a commodity that people are stealing duds and reprinting them with expensive part numbers on them just to scam the market. Is it a stretch to say that putting out a chip without a complete data sheet is somewhere on the same spectrum, a little closer to the fakes?

Brian “How’s that for a Rant” Willoughby

On May 4, 2018, at 11:28 AM, MTG <grant at musictechnologiesgroup.com> wrote:
> I was looking at some SRAM recently and it was a pretty short datasheet. I guess they assume you've read all the earlier ones on the same type of device written by companies that published actual data books.
> On 5/4/2018 11:17 AM, Tim Ressel wrote:
>> To be fair it looks like the segment naming is pretty standard. Still it would nice to have it on the sheet.
>> --tr
>> On 5/4/2018 11:11 AM, Dave Magnuson wrote:
>>> Now, how could that *possibly* be important.   Sheesh.
>>> That's a pretty big omission
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tim Ressel
>>> Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 1:55 PM
>>> Who's up for a Friday rant?
>>> My pet peeve this morning: incomplete data sheets. I'm looking at the
>>> Lite-On LTP-3862 and nowhere does it relate the segment names on the pins to
>>> the segments on the display.

More information about the Synth-diy mailing list