I've got two C64's with bad 4066 chips at U16 and U28 and I am looking
for a replacement. I know the chip is a "Quad Bilateral Switch" but I
wanted to check with you guys first if anyone has used a more "modern"
replacement chip.

Right now I am looking at the MAX4610 as a better performing
replacement. Data sheet:

http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/MAX4610-MAX4612.pdf

Or just going with the standard MAX4066. Data sheet:

http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/MAX4066-MAX4066A.pdf

/*Raj*/

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:52:19 -0400, RajW <raj@intelc64.net> wrote:

>
>I've got two C64's with bad 4066 chips at U16 and U28 and I am looking
>for a replacement. I know the chip is a "Quad Bilateral Switch" but I
>wanted to check with you guys first if anyone has used a more "modern"
>replacement chip.
>
>Right now I am looking at the MAX4610 as a better performing
>replacement. Data sheet:
>
>http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/MAX4610-MAX4612.pdf
>
>Or just going with the standard MAX4066. Data sheet:
>
>http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/MAX4066-MAX4066A.pdf
>
>/*Raj*/


The MAX4610 is not pin for pin compatible with 4066. 

Max4610 = 14 pin dip & 4066 = 16 pin dip.

Why goof around trying to find alternative chip?

4066 has been around for ages, was part of original  design, is easily
found as replacement part, multiple chip makers produce this chip
type, and it is cheap.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 20:01:49 -0400, Bubba Jones <Smelly@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:52:19 -0400, RajW <raj@intelc64.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>I've got two C64's with bad 4066 chips at U16 and U28 and I am looking
>>for a replacement. I know the chip is a "Quad Bilateral Switch" but I
>>wanted to check with you guys first if anyone has used a more "modern"
>>replacement chip.
>>
>>Right now I am looking at the MAX4610 as a better performing
>>replacement. Data sheet:
>>
>>http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/MAX4610-MAX4612.pdf
>>
>>Or just going with the standard MAX4066. Data sheet:
>>
>>http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/MAX4066-MAX4066A.pdf
>>
>>/*Raj*/
>
>
>The MAX4610 is not pin for pin compatible with 4066. 
>
>Max4610 = 14 pin dip & 4066 = 16 pin dip.
>
>Why goof around trying to find alternative chip?
>
>4066 has been around for ages, was part of original  design, is easily
>found as replacement part, multiple chip makers produce this chip
>type, and it is cheap.
>

I typed too quickly ... both are 14 pin dips...... rest of logic still
applies. 


4016, 4066, 744016, 744066
Quad analog switches.

     +----------+
  1X |1  +--+ 14| VCC
  1Y |2       13| 1EN
  2Y |3       12| 4EN
  2X |4  4016 11| 4X
 2EN |5  4066 10| 4Y
 3EN |6        9| 3Y
 GND |7        8| 3X
     +----------+



Bubba

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 20:01:49 -0400, Bubba Jones <Smelly@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>I've got two C64's with bad 4066 chips at U16 and U28 and I am looking
>>for a replacement. I know the chip is a "Quad Bilateral Switch" but I
>>wanted to check with you guys first if anyone has used a more "modern"
>>replacement chip.
>
>4066 has been around for ages, was part of original  design, is easily
>found as replacement part, multiple chip makers produce this chip
>type, and it is cheap.

I know the 4066 is easily found... I was asking if anyone has tried
the alternative chips.

/*Raj*/

> I know the 4066 is easily found... I was asking if anyone has tried
> the alternative chips.

Why bother to do that? The specs of the 4066 are already far better what
the C64 really needs (i.e. a better performing part would not have any
noticable improvement). The 4066 is most likely cheaper and more easily
obtainable than any of the alternatives.
--
Peter van Merkerk
peter.van.merkerk(at)dse.nl

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Peter van Merkerk wrote:

> > I know the 4066 is easily found... I was asking if anyone has tried
> > the alternative chips.
> 
> Why bother to do that? The specs of the 4066 are already far better what
> the C64 really needs (i.e. a better performing part would not have any
> noticable improvement). The 4066 is most likely cheaper and more easily
> obtainable than any of the alternatives.

Maxim did a good quality, cheap chips and free samples shipping for new 
customers, so it is an easy choice for hobbyists... :)

-- 
Agemixer/Skalaria    - "First run, then load."

email: agespam@japo.fi   pass: "C64 mailinki" to the Subject: line
Spam filter is on

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:52:46 +0300, Agemixer <invalid@check.the.sig>
wrote:
>Maxim did a good quality, cheap chips and free samples shipping for new 
>customers, so it is an easy choice for hobbyists... :)

I ordered the free samples. :)

/*Raj*/

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 20:38:00 -0400, RajW <raj@intelc64.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 20:01:49 -0400, Bubba Jones <Smelly@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>>I've got two C64's with bad 4066 chips at U16 and U28 and I am looking
>>>for a replacement. I know the chip is a "Quad Bilateral Switch" but I
>>>wanted to check with you guys first if anyone has used a more "modern"
>>>replacement chip.
>>
>>4066 has been around for ages, was part of original  design, is easily
>>found as replacement part, multiple chip makers produce this chip
>>type, and it is cheap.
>
>I know the 4066 is easily found... I was asking if anyone has tried
>the alternative chips.
>
>/*Raj*/

all I can say is that the 4066 isn't used as any sort of performance
device in ths c=64, simply as an analogue switch and is much more
common, so I doubt anybody has had reason to swap anything else for it
in a c=64.  

Since the 64 was designed to work with the specs of the 4066, the
lower switch resistances, etc, of the 4612 might even cause more
distortion in the outputs.  I suppose that if the 4612's are cheap
enough you could go ahead and experiment.  The'll almost definitely
work but the you might see gain-induced distortion in the outputs