There's a big difference between the performance of a function generator and that of an audio signal generator. A function generator is usually more wideband (0.01 Hz - 10 MHz or so) and can generate square, rectangular, triangle and sine waveshapes. Usually the sine is not particularly low-distortion since these generators are not used as signal sources to test audio amplifier distortion. Usually the square has a decently-fast risetime.
An audio signal generator is perhaps more suited for use as a general-purpose audio signal source, having low (well, lowER) distortion sinewaves and also perhaps a reasonable squarewave output.
In addition to the older 200-series, HP also made a 204-series and certain others (209, etc). Some of these have both sine and square outputs, some also have built-in calibrated attenuators. Most are spec'd at 0.1% THD, mine is somewhat better than this at about 0.065% but none are truly low-distortion sources. By "low-distortion" I mean 0.01% or less.
These are much smaller than the popular 200-series, much more stable, and are also very reasonably priced.
Depends what you need it for. I'm happy with my HP-209 for most things.
An audio signal generator is perhaps more suited for use as a general-purpose audio signal source, having low (well, lowER) distortion sinewaves and also perhaps a reasonable squarewave output.
In addition to the older 200-series, HP also made a 204-series and certain others (209, etc). Some of these have both sine and square outputs, some also have built-in calibrated attenuators. Most are spec'd at 0.1% THD, mine is somewhat better than this at about 0.065% but none are truly low-distortion sources. By "low-distortion" I mean 0.01% or less.
These are much smaller than the popular 200-series, much more stable, and are also very reasonably priced.
Depends what you need it for. I'm happy with my HP-209 for most things.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.