On Friday 19 December 2008 02:46, Joe Gwinn wrote: > > >> 10Hz resolution whilst avoiding phase truncation spurs is > > >> impractical > >>> with a DDS chip by itself. > >>> Depending on the DDS and its clock frequency, the frequency > >>> spacing of phase truncation spur free outputs may be as large > >>> as several kHz. > >> > >> Is this true of concatenated DDS chips? I recall a patent to > >> the > > > contrary. > > > >Which patent? > > Hmm. It's at work. I'll look it up in January. As I recall, the > second DDS made a small integer conversion, and so had low spurs, > while the first DDS was set to whatever was needed. > I think you are referring to patent 5598440 about a DDS driven DDS.
Tom _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
