Charles I did see the slew rates and bandwidth and came to the conclusion those were not issues. Thats why I will build up a test board pretty quickly to confirm the component values still work. They should. It also means I do not need to wait for the LM873s to showup. Lots can be wired without the LMC6484s. Regards Paul WB8TSL
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Charles Steinmetz <csteinm...@yandex.com> wrote: > Paul wrote: > > post down conversion to 10 Khz I was scratching my head as to why not >> the TL08X series. >> > > Input voltage noise. Unless you need the low input current of the FET > part, there is no need to take the noise hit. If you *do* need the low > input current, there are 4 or 5 generations of FET-input opamps that are > all far superior to the TL0xx parts. Take a look at the OPA134/2134/4134, > for example. (I haven't used TL0xx opamps since the '70s.) > > BTW: I suggested using NE5532s instead of LM387s and said they were > better in every way. Comparing the LM387 to the NE5532, one might notice > that the bandwidth spec of the 5532 is lower (10MHz) than that of the 387 > (15MHz). But what is important for most applications is not the > small-signal BW, it is the power BW (full-output BW), which depends on the > slew rate, not on the SSBW. The 5532's 9v/uS slew rate supports a PBW of > 140kHz, while the 387's PBW is only 75kHz (S/R is not stated). (This tells > us two things -- first, that the 387's slew rate must be <5v/uS; and > second, that the 387 has less phase margin than the 5532.) > > > Best regards, > > Charles > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.