The TI/NationalSemiconductor LMX2594 and LMX2595 have the best
phase noise floor FOM at -236.
The AnalogDevices/LinearTechnology LTC6952 has the best flicker at -281.
It requires an external VCO. The LTC6951 with an on board VCO is
almost as good.
Although these are state of the air for a synthesizer-on-a-chip,
it is easy to beat them if you roll your own with a mixer as
a phase detector.
Rick N6RK
On 12/12/2018 12:44 PM, Ulrich Rohde wrote:
Who makes it ?
In a message dated 12/12/2018 3:43:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
FWIW, the HMC832 has FOM of -226. The best synth on a chip
now available AFAIK has FOM of -236. That's 10 dB better.
Rick N6RK
On 12/12/2018 10:46 AM, Dr. Ulrich L. Rohde via time-nuts wrote:
> I did some phase noise measurement and the 8751 is much better then the
rest on the market
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 1:20 PM, Bob kb8tq <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Just to save others the time digging, the 7851 uses a HMC832 VCO +
fractional N PLL on a chip as
>> the heart of its synthesizer. Yet another “way to go” if building a
quick and simple signal source.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> No argument at all about other parts of the radio having their limits.
PA performance certainly is one
>> of those areas.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 12:42 PM, Dr. Ulrich L. Rohde via time-nuts
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> My feeling is
>>> A Because of the low sunspot cycle the large signal performance of the
RX is less a topic, the ICOM 7851 dynamic range, synthesizer and frequency concept is
winning but expensive
>>> B The power amplifier from 100 W to 1500 Watt need to be catching up to
the old Collins tube Amps with negative feedback, producing - 45 dB or better IMD
products.
>>>
>>> The military amplifier are fast on , reliable , durable and
expensive... initially.
>>>
>>> The noisy blower may be a bad thing.
>>>
>>> I “only “ run 1 KW, and I am happy with it
>>>
>>> 73 de N1UL
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 10:47 AM, Bob kb8tq <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Usually on HF, the issue is large signal rejection. Phase noise very
definitely
>>>> gets into that part of things. Other components in the signal chain do
as well.
>>>> Once the synthesizer is no longer the weak link in the chain, spending
more
>>>> to improve it (vs spending on the other components) probably does not
make
>>>> a lot of sense. Since the synthesizer is *far* from ideal, that sort
of begs the
>>>> question of just how troublesome the other parts are and how much
better a
>>>> device *could* be built.
>>>>
>>>> This does seem to be wandering a bit from a Time related topic …..
>>>>
>>>> It does illustrate the point that “good enough” may be way far away
from
>>>> “pretty good” and yet even more distant from “as good as it gets”. The
>>>> question on any system is always “how good do you need / what are you
>>>> doing?” ….
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:49 AM, jimlux <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/11/18 3:26 PM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>> As I said, just how rational using these parts in a radio …. not at
all clear to me.
>>>>>> Back when I went to school, stuff that was this noisy was not in the
“greatest” category.
>>>>>> That was a *very* long time ago.
>>>>>> Oddly enough best performance synthesizers have gotten better. (as
the posted
>>>>>> presentations very clearly show). Just why a “high end” radio uses a
less than
>>>>>> ideal synthesizer likely relates more to cost (even at a price of
thousands of dollars)
>>>>>> than to anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or "good enough" performance - driving to a 3 dB NF for a HF receiver
while maintaining good strong signal performance is probably not worth it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed cost also drives things like GPSDO’s and GPS modules. We
often are not
>>>>>> very eager to acknowledge that fact.
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, go to
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
>>>> To unsubscribe, go to
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
>>> To unsubscribe, go to
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>>> and follow the instructions there.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
>> To unsubscribe, go to
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>> and follow the instructions there.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
> To unsubscribe, go to
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
> and follow the instructions there.
>
>
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to
http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
and follow the instructions there.
