audio recording on IC -help wanted

Hi!

Vince wrote:
On 08:58 10 Nov 2009, Rod Speed wrote:

Not much.

My impression is that the 80-way PATA cables were a big improvement on
the old 40-way cables. Does anyone know of any data or tests which
shows how much improvement they gave?
Click to expand...
It is hard to find exact tests, cause we'll need separate tests for all
possible combinations - new cable is defined in standard, maybe you can
find some tests via Google.

In this thread Igor Batinic says twisted pair is quite an improvement
over untwisted. Does anyone know of any tests or comparisons for this?
Click to expand...
A plenty of that, also Google a little bit. Therefore, whenever you have
any kind of high-speed copper connection, twisted pair must be used to
reduce the noise in the cable. You can find, also, twisted ribbon cable
(pretty standard cable in SCSI).

Best regards,

Iggy
 
Vince wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Vince wrote
Arno wrote
mike <not@here.invalid> wrote

Rounding IDE cables this looks as if it could cause
electrical problems on the PATA cables. Is it really
as safe as he suggests it is?

http://cpu-central.com/Articles.asp?article_id=7249&decor_int=27

Depends. With UDMA 3 or before you can get data corruption.
I had this with a burner that did not support data checksums
on UDMA 3. Most HDDs do suuport these checksums, but
the standard does not require it before UDMA 4. For all
UDMA levels you can get command corruption, checksums
on commands are not present before SATA.

It also depends on lenght. My experiences are (If I remember
correctly): 30cm - works, 45cm - data corruption with the
burner, 60cm - command problems with HDDs, 90cm - basically
unusable with HDDs being dropped by the kernel within
minutes. Cable quality can influence that in both directions.

The home made mod doesn't seem to have as much protection from intereference.

True, but neither did the original 40 wire cables either.

Ready made rounded PATA/IDE cables arrange the wires (signal and ground) as twisted pairs.

Some do, some dont.

Don't know how much difference this makes.

Not much.

My impression is that the 80-way PATA cables were a big improvement on the old 40-way cables.
Click to expand...
Only because the controllers refused to use the faster modes unless an 80 wire cable is used.

Does anyone know of any data or tests which shows how much improvement they gave?
Click to expand...
It wouldnt be that hard to test, just make up a 40 wire cable that
pretends to be 80 wire as far as the controller is concerned and
monitor the SMART error data. Dunno if anyone has bothered.

In this thread Igor Batinic says twisted pair is quite an improvement
over untwisted. Does anyone know of any tests or comparisons for this?
Click to expand...
There have been plenty on the general concept. Presumably
someone has done that with the round IDE cables.
 
Igor Batinic wrote:

A plenty of that, also Google a little bit. Therefore, whenever you have
any kind of high-speed copper connection, twisted pair must be used to
reduce the noise in the cable. You can find, also, twisted ribbon cable
(pretty standard cable in SCSI).

Best regards,

Iggy
Click to expand...
"twisted pair must be used" isn't totally accurate.
TP technology has been the design of choice for over a century, but it
doesn't lend itself to two constraints on cabling for computers.. cheap
and compact.

The sig-gnd-sig-gnd layout of an 80 wire EIDE cable does work well.

I've seen/used twisted-pair ribbon cables, but I didn't have to buy them.
 
Hi!

nobody > wrote:
Igor Batinic wrote:

A plenty of that, also Google a little bit. Therefore, whenever you
have any kind of high-speed copper connection, twisted pair must be
used to reduce the noise in the cable. You can find, also, twisted
ribbon cable (pretty standard cable in SCSI).

"twisted pair must be used" isn't totally accurate.
Click to expand...
It was more a figure of speech than a technical law. :eek:)

But, of course, it is in specific areas.

TP technology has been the design of choice for over a century, but it
doesn't lend itself to two constraints on cabling for computers.. cheap
and compact.

The sig-gnd-sig-gnd layout of an 80 wire EIDE cable does work well.
Click to expand...
Of course it does, if you keep it the way it is supposed to.

Which means, if you don't cut it and try to create "rounded" cable of
it. Then you can expect some problems. Therefore good rounded cables
have completely different cable schematics.

I've seen/used twisted-pair ribbon cables, but I didn't have to buy them.
Click to expand...
It was almost a non-written standard in all latest SCSI implementations.
Of course you will not need it for ATA implementation (and I doubt you
can find something like that).

For instance, IBM FRU PN 37L5558:

http://www.aykat.com/ebay/kabel/kabel_scsi_5x_68pin/kabel_scsi_5x_68pin_3.jpg

With best regards,

Iggy
 
On 13:40 12 Nov 2009, Igor Batinic wrote:

Hi!

nobody > wrote:
Igor Batinic wrote:

A plenty of that, also Google a little bit. Therefore,
whenever you have any kind of high-speed copper connection,
twisted pair must be used to reduce the noise in the cable.
You can find, also, twisted ribbon cable (pretty standard
cable in SCSI).

"twisted pair must be used" isn't totally accurate.

It was more a figure of speech than a technical law. :eek:)

But, of course, it is in specific areas.

TP technology has been the design of choice for over a
century, but it doesn't lend itself to two constraints on
cabling for computers.. cheap and compact.

The sig-gnd-sig-gnd layout of an 80 wire EIDE cable does work
well.

Of course it does, if you keep it the way it is supposed to.

Which means, if you don't cut it and try to create "rounded"
cable of it. Then you can expect some problems. Therefore good
rounded cables have completely different cable schematics.

I've seen/used twisted-pair ribbon cables, but I didn't have
to buy them.

It was almost a non-written standard in all latest SCSI
implementations. Of course you will not need it for ATA
implementation (and I doubt you can find something like that).

For instance, IBM FRU PN 37L5558:

http://www.aykat.com/ebay/kabel/kabel_scsi_5x_68pin/
kabel_scsi_5x_68pin_3.jpg
Click to expand...
That look good.

Presumably the twisting doesn't create extra problems so (apart
form cost) why aren't PATA cables like that?
 
Tri Cutter wrote:
On 13:40 12 Nov 2009, Igor Batinic wrote:

Hi!

nobody > wrote:
Igor Batinic wrote:

A plenty of that, also Google a little bit. Therefore,
whenever you have any kind of high-speed copper connection,
twisted pair must be used to reduce the noise in the cable.
You can find, also, twisted ribbon cable (pretty standard
cable in SCSI).

"twisted pair must be used" isn't totally accurate.

It was more a figure of speech than a technical law. :eek:)

But, of course, it is in specific areas.

TP technology has been the design of choice for over a
century, but it doesn't lend itself to two constraints on
cabling for computers.. cheap and compact.

The sig-gnd-sig-gnd layout of an 80 wire EIDE cable does work
well.

Of course it does, if you keep it the way it is supposed to.

Which means, if you don't cut it and try to create "rounded"
cable of it. Then you can expect some problems. Therefore good
rounded cables have completely different cable schematics.

I've seen/used twisted-pair ribbon cables, but I didn't have
to buy them.

It was almost a non-written standard in all latest SCSI
implementations. Of course you will not need it for ATA
implementation (and I doubt you can find something like that).

For instance, IBM FRU PN 37L5558:

http://www.aykat.com/ebay/kabel/kabel_scsi_5x_68pin/
kabel_scsi_5x_68pin_3.jpg

That look good.

Presumably the twisting doesn't create extra problems so (apart
form cost) why aren't PATA cables like that?
Click to expand...
Essentially because the traditional 80 wire cable is good enough.

They did go for a much smaller serial cable with SATA.
 
On Nov 10, 2:41 am, Vince <spamt...@invalid.com> wrote:
On 23:10  9 Nov 2009, Arno wrote:





mike <n...@here.invalid> wrote:
Rounding IDE cables this looks as if it could cause electrical
problems on the PATA cables. Is it really as safe as he
suggests it is?

http://cpu-central.com/Articles.asp?article_id=7249&
decor_int=27

Depends. With UDMA 3 or before you can get data corruption. I
had this with a burner that did not support data checksums on
UDMA 3. Most HDDs do suuport these checksums, but the standard
does not require it before UDMA 4. For all UDMA levels you can
get command corruption, checksums on commands are not present
before SATA.

It also depends on lenght. My experiences are (If I remember
correctly): 30cm - works, 45cm - data corruption with the
burner, 60cm - command problems with HDDs, 90cm - basically
unusable with HDDs being dropped by the kernel within minutes.
Cable quality can influence that in both directions.

Arno

The home made mod doesn't seem to have as much protection from
intereference.

Ready made rounded PATA/IDE cables arrange the wires (signal and
ground) as twisted pairs.

Don't know how much difference this makes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...
TROLL

I AM PROTEUS
 
Boris <boris.kj@googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745048@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?

Boris
Click to expand...
I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I can
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a useful
answer.
 
"Lostgallifreyan" <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CFB9EAE21BBBzoodlewurdle@216.196.109.145...
Boris <boris.kj@googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745048@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?

Boris


I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I can
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a useful
answer.
Click to expand...
My ECA book gives: Si-N, 35V, 0.5A, 50MHz and suggests; BC817, BCX19,
2SC3325 or 2SC3341.
 
Boris <boris.kj@googlemail.com> wrote in news:91edfe7f-a4da-40e4-b02b-
5324e321e819@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

On Jan 9, 4:32 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Lostgallifreyan" <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote in message

news:Xns9CFB9EAE21BBBzoodlewurdle@216.196.109.145...

Boris <boris...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I  can use instead?

Boris

I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I ca
n
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a use
ful
answer.

My ECA book gives: Si-N, 35V, 0.5A, 50MHz and suggests; BC817, BCX19,
2SC3325 or 2SC3341.

Thanks guys, without having any catalogue , I could have download half
of internet to get any result

Boris
Click to expand...
There is a neat shortcut. :) Someone told it to me after I'd been wading
through Google and all the parts brokers nonsense out there.
http://www.findchips.com
The name sounds like any other inane parts broker with no actual inventory,
but go there, you'll see it isn't. Once you see a part offered by a couple of
sellers you can likely get a data sheet that is up to date, and further,
Digikey and Mouser have search tools good enough that you have a fair chance
of rading a data sheet for parameters, entering a few into those search
tools, and hitting a few good substitutes.
 
On Jan 9, 4:32 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Lostgallifreyan" <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote in message

news:Xns9CFB9EAE21BBBzoodlewurdle@216.196.109.145...

Boris <boris...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I  can use instead?

Boris

I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I can
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a useful
answer.

My ECA book gives: Si-N, 35V, 0.5A, 50MHz and suggests; BC817, BCX19,
2SC3325 or 2SC3341.
Click to expand...
Thanks guys, without having any catalogue , I could have download half
of internet to get any result

Boris
 
On Jan 9, 5:35 pm, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Boris <boris...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:91edfe7f-a4da-40e4-b02b-
5324e321e...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:





On Jan 9, 4:32 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Lostgallifreyan" <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote in message

news:Xns9CFB9EAE21BBBzoodlewurdle@216.196.109.145...

Boris <boris...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I  can use instead?

Boris

I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I ca
n
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a use
ful
answer.

My ECA book gives: Si-N, 35V, 0.5A, 50MHz and suggests; BC817, BCX19,
2SC3325 or 2SC3341.

Thanks guys, without having any catalogue , I could have download half
of internet to get any result

Boris

There is a neat shortcut. :) Someone told it to me after I'd been wading
through Google and all the parts brokers nonsense out there.http://www.findchips.com
The name sounds like any other inane parts broker with no actual inventory,
but go there, you'll see it isn't. Once you see a part offered by a couple of
sellers you can likely get a data sheet that is up to date, and further,
Digikey and Mouser have search tools good enough that you have a fair chance
of rading a data sheet for parameters, entering a few into those search
tools, and hitting a few good substitutes.
Click to expand...
Nice website, thanks
 
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Boris <boris.kj@googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745048@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?

Boris


I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I can
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a useful
answer.
Click to expand...

<http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/NTE2406&cid=prodCrossSell>

$2.11 each


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
 
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:36:36 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
<no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:

Boris <boris.kj@googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745048@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?

Boris


I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I can
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a useful
answer.
Click to expand...
The Hitachi data sheet doesn't indicate anything really special about
this part. It's a standard 35V part with 500mA continuous current
rating. The SC59 package can usually be substituted by a BC817's SOT23
size, with carefull soldering to cover the (possibly) longer pad
pattern.

RL
 
legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote in
news:f2oik5p4vhch8dstra7e6idpr6kmsea720@4ax.com:

The Hitachi data sheet doesn't indicate anything really special about
this part. It's a standard 35V part with 500mA continuous current
rating.
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking too, but the low gate capacitance suggests good
for RF, and the first post came from rec.radio.amateur.antenna, so I didn't
suggest spreading the search beam too wide because I don't know enough
about it.. But the Towers book didn't suggest that high in RF either, nor
does the data Ian Fields posted.
 
Boris <boris.kj@googlemail.com> wrote in news:2e06d082-c499-4c36-9346-
a41f4d381b54@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

On Jan 10, 9:36 am, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
legg <l...@nospam.magma.ca> wrote innews:f2oik5p4vhch8dstra7e6idpr6kmsea7
20@4ax.com:

The Hitachi data sheet doesn't indicate anything really special about
this part. It's a standard 35V part with 500mA continuous current
rating.

That's what I was thinking too, but the low gate capacitance suggests goo
d
for RF, and the first post came from rec.radio.amateur.antenna, so I didn
't
suggest spreading the search beam too wide because I don't know enough
about it.. But the Towers book didn't suggest that high in RF either, nor
does the data Ian Fields posted.

Hi,
This transistor goes to generator - quote " and the following 2SC2618
NPN transistor operate as a current source for the AD9851 DAC bias
circuit."
So what you guys think, something like bcx19 should be ok?
Click to expand...
Beyond me to be certain, but it looks like 'yes'. That doesn't sound like
it's an RF or otherwise demanding task. Don't pick something with poor noise
specs though.
 
On Jan 10, 9:36 am, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
legg <l...@nospam.magma.ca> wrote innews:f2oik5p4vhch8dstra7e6idpr6kmsea720@4ax.com:

The Hitachi data sheet doesn't indicate anything really special about
this part. It's a standard 35V part with 500mA continuous current
rating.

That's what I was thinking too, but the low gate capacitance suggests good
for RF, and the first post came from rec.radio.amateur.antenna, so I didn't
suggest spreading the search beam too wide because I don't know enough
about it.. But the Towers book didn't suggest that high in RF either, nor
does the data Ian Fields posted.
Click to expand...
Hi,
This transistor goes to generator - quote " and the following 2SC2618
NPN transistor operate as a current source for the AD9851 DAC bias
circuit."
So what you guys think, something like bcx19 should be ok?
 
we do have stock of the 2SC2618

For obseleted component, we do have some stock.


--
Patrick Cheung - townt.com
E-mail : patrick.cheung@townt.com
Tel : (852)2505-5838, Fax : (852)2505-8121
Address : 1805, Wu Sang House, 655 Nathan Road, Mongkok, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Online Shop Section :
http://shop.townt.com

Electronic Component Section :
http://electronic.townt.com

Check Electronic Component Online Here :
http://component.townt.com

"Lostgallifreyan" <no-one@nowhere.net> ŚbślĽó
news:Xns9CFB9EAE21BBBzoodlewurdle@216.196.109.145 ¤¤źśźg...
Boris <boris.kj@googlemail.com> wrote in news:f3377393-e256-42ea-bf34-
6d4a14745048@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

Hi, I am looking for substitute of 2SC2618 (smd).
maybe you can help me - what I can use instead?

Boris


I don't know (my Towers selector book is too old for that one, but I can
copy out its specs for you if you need) but I crossposted this reply to
sci.electronics.components where there's an increase in chance of a useful
answer.
Click to expand...
 
describe wireless extension?

this site gives some ideas http://www.eseco.fr after analyzing wireless
betatwelve <betatwelve@voila.fr>
;-)
 
Sometimes I get the bright light, the maginfier, the digital vernier scale,
and measure the damn things myself! That way I KNOW it fits.
Click to expand...
I keep a dial caliper on my desk for just that. Comes in handy when I'm
designing around parts I plan to harvest from scrap PCBs too, I can
measure the parts prior to even removing them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top