CD4050 vs CD4049 & signal-inversion perversion

Feral Feline

Well-known member
I really like CD4049 circuits, a hex of inverting buffers, and recently I've been looking at the datasheet again.
The CD4050 is included on the same datasheet, in most cases, and the CD4050 shares the same pinout as the '49, has the same number of buffers (non-inverting), the same power requirements ... they are ssssooo similar. So I'm trying to learn more about the similarities and differences.

5f9781ecc672e0840b60adf6,816,544


Graphs on the Datasheet:
- The Minimum & Maximum voltage transfers differ slightly;
- Drain-to-source voltage differ slightly;
- Typical Output High (Source) current differs slightly;
- Input voltage as a function of temperature differs only slightly.

The differences might matter if your circuit is logic-based and needs to be high or low (speaking of which...)

Function Table for CD4049UB​
INPUT​
OUTPUT​
High​
Low​
Low​
High​

Function Table for CD4050B
INPUTOUTPUT
HighHigh
LowLow


However, for our purposes we're talking simple distortion circuits, EQ, etc — for our needs, really, I think the differences between the '49UB and '50B are quite minor.

Kinda boils down to this (4049 top, 4050 bottom):

5f9781ecc672e0840b60adf8



Further to building pedals — I'm not particularly fond of circuits that invert the phase of a signal — makes clean-blends and other pedals in the chain behave erratically and given the amount of times bass-players employ a clean-blend ...


While many '49UB-based circuits such as the Red Llama, Hot Tubes, Blackstone OD, etc don't invert because the signal gets inverted enough times within the circuit for the output to be in phase with the input, what about the circuits that invert signal phase?

I've looked at DIYSB, FSB and a few other forums besides that and there is squat info — there's barely any mention at all of the CD4050, which doesn't invert phase...

SO WHY THE HELL ISN'T THE CD4050 USED MORE?
 
Thanks Cybercow, I've got one of Barry's Angry Red Camels built up (but unboxed), and I have a few of the 4050 ICs to try;
if I fry one, no big deal.


If it does indeed work, then it begs my original question: Why aren't the CD4050s used more in pedals?
 
Feral Feline - Well, I dug thru my boxes of pedals and I must've sold my Angry Red Camel cuz it's nowhere to be found. I'll need to breadboard it to test out the 4050 in place of the 4049.

If you could test that in your ARC that would be cool. Please let us know what you learn if you do.
 
Further down in that thread DanFrank said: "I have bought 4049BE from fleabay which ended up being unbuffered 4049 ICs, so the UBE and BE suffixes aren't in strict adherence. My best test to determine whether the 4049 is buffered or unbuffered is to pop one in a Red Llama. If it sounds nice, it's unbuffered. If it sounds like $hit, it's buffered. BTW, a buffered 4049 will sound similar to a 4050 in a Red Llama" (From this post.)

Perhaps that's why 4050s are not used in pedals as audio devices.
 
That's why The Great Destroyer and Christine circuits are meant to have the buffered CD4049BE, those circuits are meant to sound like sonic mayhem.

I still haven't found a 4049BE to buy...
 
Back
Top