Re: faster DDS clock

Liste des GroupesRevenir à se design 
Sujet : Re: faster DDS clock
De : llc (at) *nospam* fonz.dk (Lasse Langwadt)
Groupes : sci.electronics.design
Date : 22. Sep 2024, 22:26:35
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vcq22b$2brhf$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 9/22/24 22:32, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 18:37:54 +0200, Lasse Langwadt <llc@fonz.dk>
wrote:
 
On 9/22/24 03:40, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 18:37:26 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
>
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 03:11:53 +0200, Lasse Langwadt <llc@fonz.dk>
wrote:
>
On 9/21/24 17:42, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 00:30:28 +0200, Lasse Langwadt <llc@fonz.dk>
wrote:
>
On 9/19/24 05:57, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 03:28:09 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 21:56:59 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
Assume a DAC being driven with an n-bit sine waveform at some clock
frequency, and then a lowpass filter and a comparator, generating a
programmable frequency clock.
>
Why not use both edges of the comparator output as our clock? That
de-stresses everything by 2:1, which could well be a net win on jitter
and such. Or gives twice the clock frequency with the same parts.
>
>
>
The usual trouble is that you have to get the other edge from somewhere. An
xor gate and an RC is typical.
>
Any asymmetry in the square wave turns into subharmonic jitter.
>
A 2:1 PLL would probably get my vote.
>
>
I'm trying to make things cheaper and simpler. I need a clock that's
programmable up to maybe 20 or 25 MHz, and it would be nice to use
some relatively cheap dual DACs.
>
Understood.  A Joergesque solution would be to use a discrete FET as part
of the RC + XOR, and dork the ON resistance to square up the duty cycle.
(He’d probably use a CD4007 DIY gate package to do a few at once. Maybe
it’s possible to use a TinyLogic inverter with VDD open.)
>
Cheers
>
Phil Hobbs
>
An LVDS line receiver would make a pretty good comparator, after the
filter.
>
If I have enough balls (no pun intended) I can use an LVDS input of my
FPGA. One could even servo that to exactly 50%.
>
I don't know if this FPGA could internally clock on both edges.
>
But I can get a TI DAC908 for under $5, so may just clock that fast,
brute force at 100 MHz or so. That would make 20 MHz with a dinky
filter.
>
>
this will give you 3x10bit@140MHZ DACs for about the same price
https://www.lcsc.com/product-detail/Digital-to-Analog-Converters-DAC_Analog-Devices-ADV7123KSTZ140-RL_C172724.html
>
or 3x8bit@330MHz
https://www.lcsc.com/product-detail/Digital-to-Analog-Converters-DAC_Analog-Devices-ADV7125JSTZ330_C662165.html
>
if you opt for the Chinese clone, less than half for 3x10bit@240MHz
https://www.lcsc.com/product-detail/Digital-to-Analog-Converters-DAC_HTCSEMI-HT7123ARQZ_C2886392.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
It occurrs to me that the use for a 3-channel fast 10-bit DAC is to
drive a color CRT monitor, which I expect nobody makes any more.
>
>
It's for VGA (that's why it has sync and blank input)
While VGA is old I doubt it is going anywhere soon, it still widely
used, go buy a server and it has VGA
>
>
Seems silly to take digital data, convert it to analog, ship it six
feet, and convert it back to digital.
>
And why do we have those firehoses of HDMI connectors and cables? Why
not use Ethernet or USB  out to a monitor?
>
HDMI  is ~10-20 times the bandwidth of regular ethernet
anyone that wants sensible refresh rates and better resolutions than was the norm 20 years ago do too

Maybe some gamers need multi-gigabit bandwidth.
 I can watch a movie that arrives at my house over a cable modem and
CAT5 or WiFi to my computers. So a CAT5 from the computer to a monitor
should be OK.
that's lossy compressed to the extreme and adds lots of latency which for a movie doesn't matter, but for a desktop display it would unbearable

Date Sujet#  Auteur
18 Sep 24 * faster DDS clock25john larkin
18 Sep 24 +* Re: faster DDS clock21Phil Hobbs
19 Sep 24 i`* Re: faster DDS clock20john larkin
19 Sep 24 i `* Re: faster DDS clock19Phil Hobbs
19 Sep 24 i  `* Re: faster DDS clock18john larkin
20 Sep 24 i   `* Re: faster DDS clock17Lasse Langwadt
20 Sep 24 i    +- Re: faster DDS clock1Jan Panteltje
20 Sep 24 i    +* Re: faster DDS clock3john larkin
20 Sep 24 i    i+- Re: faster DDS clock1Bill Sloman
21 Sep 24 i    i`- Re: faster DDS clock1Lasse Langwadt
21 Sep 24 i    `* Re: faster DDS clock12john larkin
22 Sep 24 i     `* Re: faster DDS clock11Lasse Langwadt
22 Sep 24 i      `* Re: faster DDS clock10john larkin
22 Sep 24 i       +* Re: faster DDS clock4john larkin
22 Sep 24 i       i`* Re: faster DDS clock3Lasse Langwadt
22 Sep 24 i       i `* Re: faster DDS clock2john larkin
22 Sep 24 i       i  `- Re: faster DDS clock1Lasse Langwadt
22 Sep 24 i       `* Re: faster DDS clock5Jan Panteltje
23 Sep 24 i        `* Re: faster DDS clock4john larkin
23 Sep 24 i         `* Re: faster DDS clock3Jan Panteltje
23 Sep 24 i          `* Re: faster DDS clock2john larkin
23 Sep 24 i           `- Re: faster DDS clock1Jan Panteltje
18 Sep 24 +* Re: faster DDS clock2piglet
19 Sep 24 i`- Re: faster DDS clock1john larkin
19 Sep 24 `- Re: faster DDS clock1john larkin

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal