Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Source
Home Forums Rules Articles Store Gallery Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Digital Source Digital Players and Recorders: CD , SACD , Tape, Memory Card, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 8th February 2011, 07:44 PM   #1
jkeny is offline jkeny  Ireland
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin
Default RF Attenuators (Again)!

Can I draw people's attention to a thread & series of measurements (done by an expert in RF) in this thread Reflections and attenuators

In the thread he explains how reflections will be attenuated by twice the amount of the dB value of the attenuator (I.e 10dB attenuator will decrease the signal by 10dB & the reflection by 20dB). He explains what it will NOT attenuate - overshoot, ringing, etc.

He also shows a number of scope shots to illustrate what happens & explains in detail each shot.

I urge everybody (who believes in measurements) to read this thread & educate themselves on the operation of these RF attenuators.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 11:01 PM   #2
godfrey is online now godfrey  South Africa
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cape Town
Hi John

Nice to see some intelligent conversation on the subject.
...and relevant tests and measurements too!
Wassup with that - don't they have trolls there too?

I seem to remember that around here the subject got buried in idiotic arguments like "Properly designed equipment is properly terminated, therefore there are no reflections ..."

btw, something I've been wondering about:
IIRC, the Hiface output signal is higher than the standard level, the waveform doesn't look great (according to some scope shots I've seen), and the output impedance isn't a great match for the cable.

Have you considered tweaking your modified Hifaces to get a cleaner output signal and a better impedance match? I'm starting to get the idea that lousy impedance matching is almost normal with digital audio. If you get it right, you'd be ahead of the pack. Makes more sense to me to fix the root cause of the problem instead of treating the symptoms with RF attenuators.

On a vaguely related note, I suspect variable output level would be tweaker's paradise, and justifiably so as different DACs are probably happier with different signal levels.

Cheers - Godfrey
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 11:23 PM   #3
jkeny is offline jkeny  Ireland
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin
Hi Godfrey,
Good comments!
But a couple of points - the overshoot on the SPDIF waveform is a result of the output trafo used. This isn't something that is fixed by the RF attenuators - it is somewhat ameliorated.

The output impedance is measured on computeraudiophile as 73ohms - a perfectly acceptable match to the cable & within the margin of error.

The reason why you see a bad SPDIF waveform is because of the rise time speed - the higher speed causes more reflections. This is why when measurements were done in the previous thread here of a cheap Chinese USB-SPIF converter it showed few reflections.

The seeming advantage of a faster rise time is to reduce inter-symbol interference. So what? This seems to be a method of reducing deterministic jitter - the worst jitter as far as sonics are concerned, it seems. So if the reflections can be tamed we end up with a sonic advantage. RF attenuators help in this taming.

Yes you are correct in your assumption about impedance matching in digital it would seem.

The Rf attenuators are so cheap ($15) that buying a number of different values is the equivalent of a variable one!
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 12:54 AM   #4
godfrey is online now godfrey  South Africa
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cape Town
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post
The output impedance is measured on computeraudiophile as 73ohms - a perfectly acceptable match to the cable & within the margin of error.
Hmm, I wonder...
Given that there's an output trafo involved, I'd expect that to be strongly frequency-dependent. What would be interesting is a reverse input test, i.e. send a pulse up the cable to the Hiface's output and see what bounces back.

This is of academic interest only for me anyway, since I'm not using any SPDIF equip. It's just my curiosity getting the better of me again.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 01:03 AM   #5
jkeny is offline jkeny  Ireland
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin
Have a look at the way they measured it using a scope, the peak voltage of the SPDIF waveform for both unterminated & a 75 ohm termination. It is a correct way of measuring the output impedance but has a certain margin of error.

I agree - I use I2S & find it far superior
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2011, 05:10 PM   #6
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Blog Entries: 2
Hmm, curious that none of these guys come over here to argue their case. Or perhaps they've already been banned for their antisocial behaviour?

w
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2011, 05:43 PM   #7
jkeny is offline jkeny  Ireland
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakibaki View Post
Hmm, curious that none of these guys come over here to argue their case. Or perhaps they've already been banned for their antisocial behaviour?

w
That's the totality of your comment - nothing about the attenuators or results - oh well, it reveals a lot!
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RF Attenuators = Jitter Reducers jkeny Digital Source 971 15th November 2010 05:19 AM
Scope shots of Hiface modifications & RF attenuators jkeny PC Based 3 29th October 2010 06:58 PM
Laser Pickup´s M52103FP RF-Amp instead of older CX20109 RF-Amp Salar Digital Source 2 25th July 2010 05:44 PM
Attenuators ------ Please Help soundbadger Tubes / Valves 5 13th February 2008 04:19 PM
About Attenuators leiade Solid State 8 3rd November 2002 08:54 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:27 PM.

Page generated in 0.10195 seconds (83.20% PHP - 16.80% MySQL) with 10 queries

Copyright ©1999-2012 diyAudio