Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Jim wrote: > Dean Banerjee's book is also useful. * * * > You can buy the 5th edition on paper, but here it is as a pdf > you can read it, but not print it. The 4th ed. is available at It is a fully functional PDF file. File name is

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi > On Jan 21, 2020, at 8:21 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2020-01-22 01:05, Mark Haun wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:30:12 +0100 >> Magnus Danielson wrote: What are the adverse consequences of using large divisors in the loop, as would be required for my odd OCXO

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On 1/21/20 4:19 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote: Hi Pretty much everybody who wants to sell you a PLL chip also has free simulation software to give you some idea what that chip does. None of them are perfect. They all take a bit of time to get used to. Some of them (Analog Devices stuff) will deal with

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi, On 2020-01-22 01:05, Mark Haun wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:30:12 +0100 > Magnus Danielson wrote: >>> What are the adverse consequences of using large divisors in the >>> loop, as would be required for my odd OCXO frequency? E.g. on >>> paper, it would seem that I could use 80 MHz / 625

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi Pretty much everybody who wants to sell you a PLL chip also has free simulation software to give you some idea what that chip does. None of them are perfect. They all take a bit of time to get used to. Some of them (Analog Devices stuff) will deal with noise. You can get a pretty good feel

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On 1/21/20 3:30 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote: Hi Mark, On 2020-01-21 19:41, Mark Haun wrote: Hi Attila, On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:08:16 +0100 Attila Kinali wrote: On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:15:45 +0100 Attila Kinali wrote: You don't need a high performance ADC for the reference as you are dealing

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:30:12 +0100 Magnus Danielson wrote: > > What are the adverse consequences of using large divisors in the > > loop, as would be required for my odd OCXO frequency? E.g. on > > paper, it would seem that I could use 80 MHz / 625 = 16.384 MHz / > > 128 = 128 kHz PFD frequency.

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi Mark, On 2020-01-21 19:41, Mark Haun wrote: > Hi Attila, > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:08:16 +0100 > Attila Kinali wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:15:45 +0100 >> Attila Kinali wrote: >>> You don't need a high performance ADC for the reference as you are >>> dealing with a narrow band signal of

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi All, I am not an expert here, but I can say with some certainty that a divided clock works well. I have a system with a 4GSPS RF ADC and a aux ADC which runs at 1/64th the RF ADC. The whole clock chain is a 10MHz ext ref -> a LMX2581 synth -> RF ADC -> RF ADC DCO -> nb4l52 clk in with a D

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On 1/21/20 10:41 AM, Mark Haun wrote: Hi Attila, On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:08:16 +0100 Attila Kinali wrote: On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:15:45 +0100 Attila Kinali wrote: You don't need a high performance ADC for the reference as you are dealing with a narrow band signal of known frequency. Even a

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi > On Jan 21, 2020, at 1:41 PM, Mark Haun wrote: > > Hi Attila, > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:08:16 +0100 > Attila Kinali wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:15:45 +0100 >> Attila Kinali wrote: >>> You don't need a high performance ADC for the reference as you are >>> dealing with a narrow

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi Attila, On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:08:16 +0100 Attila Kinali wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:15:45 +0100 > Attila Kinali wrote: > > You don't need a high performance ADC for the reference as you are > > dealing with a narrow band signal of known frequency. Even a 10bit > > or 8bit ADC would be

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

. Hope that helps. Regards, Abdul -Original Message- From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@lists.febo.com] On Behalf Of Gerhard Hoffmann Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2020 3:04 PM To: time-nuts@lists.febo.com Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO Am 19.01.20

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:15:45 +0100 Attila Kinali wrote: > > I was about to say that adding a second ADC channel is really expensive > > (like $50 between AD9266 and AD9269), but I really like this idea... > > just couple a reference oscillator into the main signal path at an > > appropriate

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 16:34:08 -0800 jimlux wrote: > On 1/20/20 3:40 PM, Mark Haun wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:31:51 -0500 > > Bob kb8tq wrote: > > > > Unfortunately I suspect the added digital power consumption in the > > FPGA would be greater than the analog power for a PLL solution. As >

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On 1/20/20 3:40 PM, Mark Haun wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:31:51 -0500 Bob kb8tq wrote: Unfortunately I suspect the added digital power consumption in the FPGA would be greater than the analog power for a PLL solution. As much as it pains me to say that as a DSP guy ;) I need to think about

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:40:08 -0800 Mark Haun wrote: > I was about to say that adding a second ADC channel is really expensive > (like $50 between AD9266 and AD9269), but I really like this idea... > just couple a reference oscillator into the main signal path at an > appropriate level, then use

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Link does not work, but https://www.digikey.de/product-detail/de/ecs-inc/ECOC-2522-100.000-3FC/XC2265-ND/6578492 Sorry, Gerhard ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@lists.febo.com To unsubscribe, go to

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Am 20.01.20 um 22:57 schrieb Attila Kinali: On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 12:50:09 -0800 Mark Haun wrote: True enough, but remember that my motivation for using the OCXO in the first place was to combine the required phase-noise spec with OCXO-class frequency stability (this is for narrowband coherent

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:31:51 -0500 Bob kb8tq wrote: > > On Jan 20, 2020, at 5:16 PM, jimlux wrote: > > On 1/20/20 1:57 PM, Attila Kinali wrote: > >> And then there ia third way, which is IMHO even better: > >> Your application is an SDR system, i.e. you already need some > >> signal processing

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi > On Jan 20, 2020, at 5:16 PM, jimlux wrote: > > On 1/20/20 1:57 PM, Attila Kinali wrote: > >> And then there ia third way, which is IMHO even better: >> Your application is an SDR system, i.e. you already need some >> signal processing for the system to work. Why not extend this >> to use

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On 1/20/20 1:57 PM, Attila Kinali wrote: And then there ia third way, which is IMHO even better: Your application is an SDR system, i.e. you already need some signal processing for the system to work. Why not extend this to use it for the reference as well? Add another ADC and feed the

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On 1/20/20 1:13 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote: Hi I think you will find that some fairly generic oscillators will hit the “more or less 1x10^-10” sort of spec needed for HF com work. A good OCXO will get you into the 1x10^-12 range. The limit generally is the “floor” imposed by propagation variance at

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On 1/20/20 12:50 PM, Mark Haun wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:25:00 -0500 Bob kb8tq wrote: On Jan 20, 2020, at 2:57 PM, Mark Haun wrote: Agree except you were starting from the VFOV numbers for the 100-MHz version. If you use their numbers for the 10-MHz version and add 20 dB for an ideal

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 12:50:09 -0800 Mark Haun wrote: > True enough, but remember that my motivation for using the OCXO in the > first place was to combine the required phase-noise spec with > OCXO-class frequency stability (this is for narrowband coherent > modulation schemes on the shortwave

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi I think you will find that some fairly generic oscillators will hit the “more or less 1x10^-10” sort of spec needed for HF com work. A good OCXO will get you into the 1x10^-12 range. The limit generally is the “floor” imposed by propagation variance at HF. Bob > On Jan 20, 2020, at 3:50

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:25:00 -0500 Bob kb8tq wrote: > On Jan 20, 2020, at 2:57 PM, Mark Haun wrote: > > Agree except you were starting from the VFOV numbers for the 100-MHz > > version. If you use their numbers for the 10-MHz version and add > > 20 dB for an ideal 10x multiplication, for

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi > On Jan 20, 2020, at 3:12 PM, jimlux wrote: > > On 1/20/20 11:44 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote: >> Hi >>> On Jan 20, 2020, at 2:38 PM, jimlux wrote: >>> >>> On 1/20/20 10:01 AM, Mark Haun wrote: >>> A fair question... in fact I was initially planning to use the ABLNO + a PLL. The OCXOs

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi > On Jan 20, 2020, at 2:57 PM, Mark Haun wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:22:41 -0500 > Bob kb8tq wrote: >> On Jan 20, 2020, at 1:36 PM, Mark Haun wrote: >>> The VFOV405 datasheet lists typical phase noise for 10- and 100-MHz >>> units. (Mine are 16.384 MHz.) In comparing the two

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:44:01 -0500 Bob kb8tq wrote: > > On Jan 20, 2020, at 2:38 PM, jimlux wrote: > > On 1/20/20 10:01 AM, Mark Haun wrote: > >> A fair question... in fact I was initially planning to use the > >> ABLNO + a PLL. The OCXOs I found, however, are CTS VFOV405's with > >> phase

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:22:41 -0500 Bob kb8tq wrote: > On Jan 20, 2020, at 1:36 PM, Mark Haun wrote: > > The VFOV405 datasheet lists typical phase noise for 10- and 100-MHz > > units. (Mine are 16.384 MHz.) In comparing the two oscillators, I > > have used the 100-MHz "typical" numbers which

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi > On Jan 20, 2020, at 2:38 PM, jimlux wrote: > > On 1/20/20 10:01 AM, Mark Haun wrote: > >> A fair question... in fact I was initially planning to use the ABLNO + >> a PLL. The OCXOs I found, however, are CTS VFOV405's with phase noise >> claimed to be just as good as the ABLNO or CVHD

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On 1/20/20 10:01 AM, Mark Haun wrote: A fair question... in fact I was initially planning to use the ABLNO + a PLL. The OCXOs I found, however, are CTS VFOV405's with phase noise claimed to be just as good as the ABLNO or CVHD VCXOs: https://www.ctscorp.com/wp-content/uploads/VFOV405.pdf They

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi > On Jan 20, 2020, at 1:36 PM, Mark Haun wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:13:00 -0500 > Bob kb8tq wrote: >> On Jan 20, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Mark Haun wrote: >>> A fair question... in fact I was initially planning to use the >>> ABLNO + a PLL. The OCXOs I found, however, are CTS VFOV405's

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:13:00 -0500 Bob kb8tq wrote: > On Jan 20, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Mark Haun wrote: > > A fair question... in fact I was initially planning to use the > > ABLNO + a PLL. The OCXOs I found, however, are CTS VFOV405's with > > phase noise claimed to be just as good as the ABLNO or

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi > On Jan 20, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Mark Haun wrote: > > Hi Attila, > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:29:15 +0100 > Attila Kinali wrote: >> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 11:13:46 +0100 >> Attila Kinali wrote: >> >>> With those constraints, and reading the discussion, I wonder why >>> don't consider a VCXO+PLL

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi Attila, On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:29:15 +0100 Attila Kinali wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 11:13:46 +0100 > Attila Kinali wrote: > > > With those constraints, and reading the discussion, I wonder why > > don't consider a VCXO+PLL solution. Using something like the > > Abracon ABLNO and a generic

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 11:13:46 +0100 Attila Kinali wrote: > With those constraints, and reading the discussion, I wonder why don't > consider a VCXO+PLL solution. Using something like the Abracon ABLNO and > a generic PLL (e.g. ADF4001) would give you above performance. The ABLNO > are so low

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 16:28:56 -0800 Mark Haun wrote: > Constraints in order of importance: > > 1. Don't degrade the nice phase noise of the OCXO (-90 @ 1, -120 @10, > -140 @ 100, -160 @ 1k) any more than necessary; at the very least, it > should not impact the ADC noise floor in the primary 0-40

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 12:49 AM Magnus Danielson wrote: > > I would be very interested to do exactly that. I've actually had issues > getting the Prologix do things exactly as I want, and I blame that on my > inability to focus long enough to read the manual to understand it > properly. The

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Try AbeBooks ... -Original Message- From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@lists.febo.com] On Behalf Of Alex Pummer Sent: 20 January 2020 03:38 To: time-nuts@lists.febo.com Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO I got my German edition of T+S [16

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

I got my  German edition of T+S [16] for $120.- shipped to California, but don't be surprised some of the medicament's made in Europe costing 50 times more here. 73 KJ6UHN Alex On 1/19/2020 5:30 PM, Charles Steinmetz wrote: Gerhard wrote: The idea was just to measure 1/f noise on my AF and

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Gerhard wrote: The idea was just to measure 1/f noise on my AF and RF transistors in a circuit inspired by that in Art Of Electronics V3. Good book. Must have. Absolutely right. But most electronics amateurs don't seem to want to spend the money for what is arguably the most important tool

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi > On Jan 19, 2020, at 7:48 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote: > > Hi Gerhard, > > On 2020-01-20 00:03, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote: >> >> Am 19.01.20 um 22:20 schrieb Magnus Danielson: >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> On 2020-01-19 18:19, Mark Haun wrote: >>> >>> I've read that I should avoid high-Q tuned

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi Gerhard, On 2020-01-20 00:03, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote: > > Am 19.01.20 um 22:20 schrieb Magnus Danielson: >> Hi Mark, >> >> On 2020-01-19 18:19, Mark Haun wrote: >> >> I've read that I should avoid high-Q tuned circuits, because they >> will introduce more noise with temperature variation.  Are

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi Alex, Well, all amplifiers will face that noise, but how it does it makes it more or less an issue. Some digital inputs are better than others to handle it, essentially by sub-sequent amplification stages, but most is not fantastic at it. Wither it is the dominant source of noise or not

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

the only problem with that CMOS  freq. multiplying circuit's that the threshold of the inputs  has a thermal noise component = jitter [phase noise] 73 KJ6UHN Alex On 1/19/2020 11:31 AM, Mark Haun wrote: Hi Jim, On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 10:35:42 -0800 jimlux wrote: On 1/19/20 9:29 AM, Mark Haun

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi Mark, On 2020-01-19 18:19, Mark Haun wrote: > Hi Magnus, > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 15:56:37 +0100 > Magnus Danielson wrote: >>> I also found this common-base amp circuit in the archives: >>> https://www.febo.com/pipermail/time-nuts/2016-January/095683.html >>> and >>>

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi Jim, On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 10:35:42 -0800 jimlux wrote: > On 1/19/20 9:29 AM, Mark Haun wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 09:37:39 -0500 > > Bob kb8tq wrote: > >> Is your intended application tolerant of spurs at 16 and 32 MHz? If > >> not, do they need to be in the 90 dB down vicinity (= the

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

On 1/19/20 9:29 AM, Mark Haun wrote: Hi Bob, On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 09:37:39 -0500 Bob kb8tq wrote: Is your intended application tolerant of spurs at 16 and 32 MHz? If not, do they need to be in the 90 dB down vicinity (= the SFDR of the ADC) ? I guess you mean stray coupling between the

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi Bob, On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 09:37:39 -0500 Bob kb8tq wrote: > Is your intended application tolerant of spurs at 16 and 32 MHz? If > not, do they need to be in the 90 dB down vicinity (= the SFDR of the > ADC) ? I guess you mean stray coupling between the oscillator, clock conditioning circuitry

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi Magnus, On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 15:56:37 +0100 Magnus Danielson wrote: > > I also found this common-base amp circuit in the archives: > > https://www.febo.com/pipermail/time-nuts/2016-January/095683.html > > and > >

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi, On 2020-01-19 01:28, Mark Haun wrote: > Hi time nuts, > > I'm looking for a 5x frequency multiplication scheme to let me use a > 16-MHz square-wave OCXO for an ADC encode clock at 80 MHz. > > Constraints in order of importance: > > 1. Don't degrade the nice phase noise of the OCXO (-90 @ 1,

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

Hi Is your intended application tolerant of spurs at 16 and 32 MHz? If not, do they need to be in the 90 dB down vicinity (= the SFDR of the ADC) ? Bob > On Jan 18, 2020, at 7:33 PM, Mark Haun wrote: > > Hi time nuts, > > I'm looking for a 5x frequency multiplication scheme to let me use a

Re: [time-nuts] Odd-order multiplication of CMOS-output OCXO

The easiest way to do it is with an ICS 512 or ICS 570. We use the 570 all the time Bert Kehren In a message dated 1/18/2020 7:34:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, m...@hau.nz writes: Hi time nuts, I'm looking for a 5x frequency multiplication scheme to let me use a16-MHz square-wave OCXO for an