Re: 6569 vs. 8565

From: silverdr_at_wfmh.org.pl
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:51:15 +0100
Message-Id: <7332A89D-712A-4B0E-B2CD-6239F54FB4F8@wfmh.org.pl>
On 2012-11-26, at 20:04, Gerrit Heitsch wrote:

>> All of this I understand but on the same monitor (a TV studio monitor), the 8565 gives virtually _no_ artefacts. Of course the picture from 8565 is not 100% perfect either, and for the good reasons you described above but it does not disturb. Here those effects are actually quite disturbing..
> 
> Maybe you have a particularly 'bad' 6569 in that respect. The chip is NMOS, but gets fed the 17.73 MHz (4 x color clock) which it then uses to generate the differently phased 4.43 MHz it uses to generate the color signal.
> 
> That's a pretty hefty job and probably the reason why the 6569 still needs +12V instead of running completly on +5V like the HMOS-II 8565.
> 
> Maybe that generator in your 6569 is a bit 'off' with respect to signal quality? Have you tried a different 8701?

After I fixed that second board I have now two working 250425s. Both behave almost identically. Swapping VICs and 8701s doesn't make any change.

> Also, some people claim, that the old clock generator (74LS629 and MC4044P on the 250407 boards) produces less jitter than the 8701.

I watched the clocks from the 8701. They look differently on the wide and on the narrow boards but generally both seem to have similar jitter (as far as I can tell from measuring freq on different ranges) while the output from 8565 doesn't create the ghostings. The chroma output from 6569 and 8565 does differ significantly though. Hm, maybe I check with a "regular", not studio monitor. Who knows, maybe this one is more sensitive to things being off norm.

-- 
SD!
       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Received on 2012-11-26 20:02:05

Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.