4017 vs. 4022 for simple sequencers?

[sonicwarrior]

I recently found out that there is the 4022 chip with 8 outputs which looks otherwise exactly like the popular 4017 with 10 outputs.

Musically 8 outputs make more sense and many sequencers based on it are using only 8.

So why does nobody use a 4022 instead of the 4017?

[slacker]

I've never used one because until about 30 seconds ago I'd never heard of them

[Dave Kendall]

Only thing I can think of, is that 4022s are rarer, and have a different pinout. The CLK, ENABLE, CARRY OUT and RESET pins are the same as the 4017, but the pinout for the Q outputs is different.
Apart from the pinouts, the Motorola datasheets for the 2 ICs seem identical.

cheers,
Dave

[analog_backlash]

It's a good point that you've made sonicwarrior. Nearly all simple sequencers I've seen are based on the 4017 (including ones that I've thought of myself). Musically, the 8-step 4022 seems more sensible. I'm sure that effectively they are the same (apart from step length and pinout as already mentioned), as most manufacturers seem to put them on the same data sheet (I have the NatSemi and SGS-Thompson ones to hand). The only problem I can see is that an 8-step 4017 can be expanded to a 16-step 2 x 4017, but this uses some of the unused outputs. With the 4022, there are no unused outputs, so this is more difficult (or impossible?) to achieve.

I am planning to build (eventually) a clock divider/distributor/gate sequencer which I was designing using 4017s, but I've just looked at my stash of chips and I have six 4022s. I think I might use them, since I don't have any other urgent use for them.

Gary

[JingleJoe]

[analog_backlash]

[JingleJoe]