CD4049UB v/s CD4069UB?

[stm]

I downloaded both datasheets and they are both composed of a single complementary pair of MOSFETs.

Input protection diodes look sightly different, but nothing that should cause clipping or limiting to audio within "normal" input range (i.e. within 0 to 9V).

Output current capacities are different, though.  The 4049 has assymetrical output capability, while the 4069 is symmetrical and also transfer function curves are characterized, as if it were expected to be used in the linear region.

My question is:

Has anyone tried the CD4069UB on circuits like Three legged dog, Red llama, Double D, etc?  Does it sound different from the CD4049UB.  I'm asking 'cause in all circuits I've seen there is reference to the 4049 only.

Regards,

STM

[guitarhacknoise]

I think tim e. has a T.S.F. variant.
calavera? check the circuit snippets.
iirc it uses the 4069
I have a 4069, but hav'nt tried it yet, sorry.

[guitarhacknoise]

I can pull the 4049 out of my t.s.f. and try the 4069 out tonight.....about 2 more hours, I should be back!

[puretube]

free information sucks...

[StephenGiles]

I breadboarded the MXR Envelope filter using 4049s instead of 4069 and noticed no difference in sound at all. I don't think they have the same pin outs though.
Stephen

[stm]

Thanks for your answers.

Puretube / Stephen: I was expecting for a definitive answer like yours. I searched previous posts but didn't find anything very conclusive.  I have access to both chips, but the 4069 is 14 pin only and with better pinout, so I will try to stick to it.

By the way, the 4049 and 4069 are not pin-to-pin compatible. They do not have the same number of pins either, so it is not so easy to try one or the other to make an A/B realtime comparison, unless you actually built both circuits.

Regards,

STM

[puretube]

free information sucks...

[Tim Escobedo]

I think it may be difficult to generalize too much about the 4069 vs the 4049. the reason is that there is a ridiculous amount of variation among 4069s alone (and similarly the 4049) that I'd be hesitant to say one chip always behaves like x and the other like y. Once you really start putting them through the ringer of linear applications, you realize they can be all over the map.

The only really general thing I can think of right now is that it seems the 4049 usually eats more current than a 4069, all other things being equal (all unused inputs to ground, single stage linear amp biased using neg DC feedback, etc.). But I wouldn't be surprised if you found examples that were contrary.

[guitarhacknoise]

hey, back at home but can't find my "lil' dip rig" in all this clutter.  kind of a pain to make a new one right now (no sockets) i'll keep on it.
p.s. it's just a socket on perf. with solid core wire off each pin, i just re route the new pin-out to match the old one...................a socket for a socket.  
I've got the data sheets for both so ............maybe........

[RickL]

I wondered the same thing a while ago so I built the same circuit, one of the Tube Sound Fuzz varients I think, with each of the chips.

It's been a while since I played around with them but I seem to remember the version built with the 4069 being slightly brighter than the 4049 or maybe the distortion was a little edgier. In any case there was a noticable difference, enough that some people might prefer one over the other.

If it's important enough I could probably dig the two out and post a more accurate review.

[guitarhacknoise]

o.k. I gave up on lookin', bit I did find what appears to be a t.s.f. (perfed) board with out any off board connections.............to do pile.............anyway......tommorrow i'll score a socket and start a new.............more for me than you.............for what ever it may be worth.................
-matthias

[R.G.]

The 4049 is designed for the task of not only high current buffering, but also level tranlation. The 4069 is purely a buffer. That is why the input protection and output circuits are different.

Will that make a differnence in sound? Of course.

As was pointed out, the internal circuit varies from maker to maker. All that you have to do to sell one as a 4049 (or 4069) is meet the input/output and logic specs. They will (and do) vary from maker to maker unless you use them as logic chips.

[Brian Marshall]

thanks RG

This really came up because a while back i had a mxr filter on breadboard.  I used the 4049's, because i have a bunch of them.  It looks to me like the mxr uses an HFO to modulate the mos-switches for the filter level, but that part of it never worked.  I suppose it could have been damaged by static electricity, but I'll never know, as i ended up needing the breadboard for something else.

Now I am working on something completely different that uses inverters to trigger some other parts of the circuit.  unfortunately the 4049's are not acting digital enough for it.  there are a few other inverters in the circuit, and id hate to add another IC just to get one schmit triggered inverter.... 

Now i do have two spare inverters on the 4049.  perhaps i could put two in front of the triggering inverter, and use some positive feedback to make it a little more schmidt like.