It's the collective experience of far more people than you. And clearly people with far more experience & knowledge in this area.
You aren't capable of it. Time for goodbyes I think, you're too far out there. Bye. Plonk.
Anyone can look at that figure 20 and see the claimed 11% distortion plain as day.
NT
tabb...is a criminal lunatic and a liar
** No it's not - you pathetic lying POS.** Fact is, I am very good at it and very successful.
** And they can see you posted a MASSIVE LIE as well.
You are a one sad & sorry f****it without a single shred of decency in you.
Lying on a technical NG is incredibly moronic.
Folk like you are pox on the face of the earth.
Drop dead.
.... Phil
I built one of those decades ago. What a car crash. The wave forms
I built one a long time ago. I found it in my parents attic whilst clearing the house recently. I might test it to see how good/bad it is next time I have chance. You have inspired me not to just throw it out.
It was fine as a rough sine wave over the audio range as long as you were not trying to measure hifi amplifier distortion. The tweak in fig 4 would trim THD to
Why do you think it is ridiculous. If you dip into a book chosen at random and find a complicated equation that describes reality it isn't the fault of the book that you don't understand what is written there.
It requires you to actually work at reading the more complex content by looking up the references. I find that in the technical sphere there is little to criticise in Wiki there are usually decent references both to prior art and more basic information with the core article usually written at about the same level as a university textbook. A few links are broken at any given time but Wayback will often still get them.
The same is not true for Wiki entries about politicians and public figures which variously get hacked by zealots to say completely insane things at times.
Why do you want to denigrate experts at every opportunity? They are freely sharing their knowledge for the public good.
If you don't like what they have written you are not forced to use it.
-- Regards, Martin Brown
If someone experienced in the field has to do research just to read the article, how widely read can it be? Wikipedia is supposed to be a resource for a wide range of audiences, not a college level text book.
I am saying that is a problem. But it depends on the level of university textbook. Freshman level intro would be appropriate for most material rather than graduate level which I have seen.
"Every opportunity"??? Lol.
If someone wishes to communicate, they need to consider the audience. Targeting an encyclopedia to advanced college level is not "sharing" knowledge with very many, which is my point.
Yes, the "America, love it or leave it" argument... Thanks for sharing.
-- Rick C
rs.
ou.
Mr Allison is plainly nuttier than I expected.
NT
No argument there and I have no idea what you expected.
I believe the context of this discussion was "audio" gear. The high distortion of the ICL8038 is only in the frequency range above 20 kHz.
-- Rick C
Wavetek 145 is a really nice oldschool signal generator.
Sine/sq/triangle, plus sawtooth and pulses. Also freq and amplitude modulated (makes some crazy raygun sounds.) Also frequency-sweep, and with a scope, you can see an amplifier's spectrum.
tabb...is a lying f****it and usenet criminal
** Big shame what the typical number is over the audio bandYou stinking, lying f****it.
Get off the NG.
..... Phil
What are some modern equivalents to the XR2206 and ICL8038? Other than already soldered into ebay junk, they are non-stocked/obsolete/discontinued...Surely we have something cheaper-faster-better now?
Hobby kits using the XR2206 are still available but they have been largely out evolved by DDS chips and fast DACs. eg.
No idea if that one is any good or not.
-- Regards, Martin Brown
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.