The software you see here is NCH wave editor.
I use it to analyse audio files.
The waveform by 'schematics on the internet' is not simulated, but a logging of my original design which was according to the 'schematics on the internet'.
When that turned out not to fit the audio extracted from the youtube movie, I went to simulation to find out about some characteristics (but not all, as e.g. I could not find a Spice file for the 566).
So all plots in this thread are audio plots.
In the MiniP7 thread I first did almost the whole 'equivalent' schematic in simulation before even thinking of drawing a chematic to create a PCB.
For this one it was the other way around.
The software I use for simulation is a (one of the so many) regular Spice simulator with some nice IO features like a 'speaker' out. One can realy play the output waveform on the speakers.
It's TINA. Not owned by TI but they provide a freeware version as to simulate their chip's models. The nice thing is, you can import whatever spice model and make a macro for it. So it's almost limitless.
You can find TINA here: http://www.ti.com/tool/tina-ti?keyMatch ... Everything
thanks for the feedback.
It's a bit strange that it does differ so much from the video I reffered to, as it's the same type. Both MK I.
Here's a small disclosure of my findings.
The one I analysed uses the square wave output of the 566. One needs the square wave to end up with the waveform in the video.
In contradiction to that, the 566 waveform used to create the samples you provided are clearly the 566 triangle waveform.
I (and some other MW via PM) have seen strange things happening in the digital as well. e.g. where the datasheets clearly direct one thing, but the PCB clearly did not follow the datasheet.
I have the feeling that Mr Simmons designed some versions with quite some differences although they carry the same name.