Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!news.larc.nasa.gov!grissom.larc.nasa.gov!kludge
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Subject: A QUESTION ABOUT OP AMPS
Message-ID: <1991Apr23.151300.22559@news.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: 23 Apr 91 15:13:00 GMT
References: <3816@polari.UUCP> <1991Apr22.135312.20413@news.larc.nasa.gov> <1065@eplunix.UUCP>
Sender: news@news.larc.nasa.gov (USENET Network News)
Reply-To: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Distribution: na
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Lines: 19

He said:
>I said:
>> Please don't ever use a 741 or an LM833 for audio.  This is 1991, and
>> there are far better choices.  The Motorola 34082, the AD712, and a whole
>> raft of nifty stuff from PMI and even TI.
>
>Scott, you silly person, why not? I do analog design work for a lab where we
>work on synthetic hearing and I use 741's all the time. They're cheap,
>low-power, easy to debug, robust, and almost idiot proof. For a professional
>high-quality audio application, install something better.  But for
>prototyping and home use, where crossed leads and power glitches happen
>frequently, why not use something a bit more robust? And 1/10 the price?

Okay, I concede.  The 741 is cheap and indestructable.  I should point out,
however, that he was talking about a high quality audio application from the
specifications which he gave.  However, I have this evangelical streak which
leads me to point out that every audio application should be a high quality
one; this is a religious issue and not an article of NASA policy :-).
--scott