<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/>
</head><body style=""><div>Hi,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Does the MC1494 have any important advantages compared to the MC1496? It looks difficult to get.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best regards</div>
<div>Simon</div>
<div><br>> Op 17 januari 2016 om 14:28 schreef Rick Jansen <rick.jansen@xs4all.nl>:<br>> <br>> <br>> In that case the old mc1494 is a candidate too. Elektor's ring modulator is built with it.<br>> <br>> http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/MC1494-D.PDF<br>> <br>> Rick<br>> <br>> > On 17 Jan 2016, at 14:14, Gordonjcp <gordonjcp@gjcp.net> wrote:<br>> > <br>> >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 05:26:11PM -0500, alfred.pear@gmail.com wrote:<br>> >> hello SDIYers,<br>> >> <br>> >> i'm currently trying to figure out how to get reasonably affordable<br>> >> transformers for a passive ring modulator.<br>> > <br>> > Why not just make a proper four-quadrant multiplier out of a couple of opamps and an LM13700?<br>> > <br>> > -- <br>> > Gordonjcp MM0YEQ<br>> > <br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > Synth-diy mailing list<br>> > Synth-diy@dropmix.xs4all.nl<br>> > http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Synth-diy mailing list<br>> Synth-diy@dropmix.xs4all.nl<br>> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy</div></body></html>