Ground Bounce/ Oscillations in SPDIF - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Source

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 4th March 2004, 10:38 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Terry Demol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: *
Quote:
Originally posted by jewilson
Elso,

When your switching at high clock speeds, High Speed CMOS dumps more current to ground the Advanced Low Power Schottky.

I was looking for my older data books that show the differences output designs between the two, however I could not find the applications and schematic data for the High Speed CMOS. I have the stuff for ALS in some of my old TI data books. If I find the more I will post it.

Also, as the clock speed increases for High Speed CMOS the it will use more power than ALS at high speeds.
There was a post with comparison of jitter figures of different
logic types some time ago. ALS was worse than most other types,
HOWEVER, gnd noise is real issue. XO should reclock at DAC
chips and remove (attenuate) that jitter.

Might be an advantage in changing the reclocking DFF logic family
only to something of lower jitter and sacrifice small increase in
gnd noise for that 1 application.


T
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2004, 11:04 PM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Plano , TX
Send a message via AIM to jewilson
Terry Demol,

So why don't you find us that information regrading logic chips and ground noise.
__________________
Jim W.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2004, 11:39 PM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
Terry Demol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: *
Quote:
Originally posted by jewilson
Terry Demol,

So why don't you find us that information regrading logic chips and ground noise.
Well, you could ask nicely instead of demanding
and I might think about it

BTW it was jitter comparisons not gnd noise.

T
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2004, 06:41 AM   #14
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Zamboanga, City of Flowers, Mindanao
Send a message via Yahoo to Elso Kwak
Question Jitter of Logic Families

Quote:
Originally posted by Terry Demol


There was a post with comparison of jitter figures of different
logic types some time ago. ALS was worse than most other types,
HOWEVER, gnd noise is real issue. XO should reclock at DAC
chips and remove (attenuate) that jitter.

Might be an advantage in changing the reclocking DFF logic family
only to something of lower jitter and sacrifice small increase in
gnd noise for that 1 application.


T
Hi Terry,
I have seen that post by a Russian(?) forum member. I wondered if actually jitter was measured instead of propagation delay as the fastest logic apparently had the lowest jitter.
As I am using a NON-OS DAC with I2S Direct. I don't use the masterclock at the DAC and have it in the transport as close as possible to the DSP.
I don't use the Asynchronous Reclocker any more, as I don't see any reason using it with I2S Direct, but it seems I have created another "monster". They will never let it die, or me rest."
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2004, 12:09 PM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
Terry Demol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: *
Default Re: Jitter of Logic Families

Quote:
Originally posted by Elso Kwak


Hi Terry,
I have seen that post by a Russian(?) forum member. I wondered if actually jitter was measured instead of propagation delay as the fastest logic apparently had the lowest jitter.

Hi Elso, I don't think so as prop. delay is usually in nanosecs
for non - ecl logic families. It seems consistent that the
faster logic has lower jitter but more ground induced noise
however I am no expert in this area.

Quote:


As I am using a NON-OS DAC with I2S Direct. I don't use the masterclock at the DAC and have it in the transport as close as possible to the DSP.
I don't use the Asynchronous Reclocker any more, as I don't see any reason using it with I2S Direct, but it seems I have created another "monster". They will never let it die, or me rest."
Maybe you should reclock I2S with a DFF/line driver right at
transport OP. This will ensure lowest jitter.

What cabling are you using for I2S to dac? Are you using 75ohm
transmission line and separate coax's?

Terry
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2004, 01:15 PM   #16
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Zamboanga, City of Flowers, Mindanao
Send a message via Yahoo to Elso Kwak
Cool Re: Re: Jitter of Logic Families

Quote:
Originally posted by Terry Demol


Hi Elso, I don't think so as prop. delay is usually in nanosecs
for non - ecl logic families. It seems consistent that the
faster logic has lower jitter but more ground induced noise
however I am no expert in this area.



Maybe you should reclock I2S with a DFF/line driver right at
transport OP. This will ensure lowest jitter.

What cabling are you using for I2S to dac? Are you using 75ohm
transmission line and separate coax's?

Terry
Hi Terry,
Then we should ECL which is the fastest and has the lowest jitter, and does not have groundbounce as Jocko once explained???
I have tried reclocking I2S with I2S Direct that is transporting the three signals Wordclock, Bitclock and Data to the DAC and reclocking these in the DAC asynchronously. It was not worth the extra trouble and did not give an improvement. In fact sonically it is slightly worse.
I am using 50 Ohm coax cables as in my original post.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...220#post249220
Of course 75 Ohm cables could be used as well.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2004, 01:47 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Plano , TX
Send a message via AIM to jewilson
Terry,

Having the fastest chip in your circuit does not guarantee you good jitter performance.

If the master clock as jitter then you have jitter.
If the layout is poor with distributed capacitance and inductance, that will effect the jitter.
If the transformer has poor coupling then you can have poor jitter.
If your circuit has poor grounding and is noisy, you are going to have jitter.
If you have impedance mismatches and reflections well you know.
If you have slow rise time on you clock edge that can cause jitter.

Low jitter performance comes down to a design that implements all these elements to make a system with low jitter. It a recipe in hardware design too.
__________________
Jim W.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2004, 02:05 PM   #18
diyAudio Retiree
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Spain or the pueblo of Los Angeles
Lightbulb Half fast

The faster the edge rates in this interface, the more RFI, reflections, and noise. RF noise can more easily couple through the interwinding capacitance when using a pulse transformer for the interface. Stick to HC CMOS. I once did some measurements and poked around inside a very expensive top loading transport. It had 4000 series CMOS, which is even slower, driving the output, and still sounded extremely good.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2004, 03:10 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Plano , TX
Send a message via AIM to jewilson
Fred,

Sound like implementation counts. Man 4000 series CMOS try running that at 5 volts, talking about slow.
__________________
Jim W.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2004, 10:01 PM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
Terry Demol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: *
Quote:
Originally posted by jewilson
Terry,

Having the fastest chip in your circuit does not guarantee you good jitter performance.

If the master clock as jitter then you have jitter.
If the layout is poor with distributed capacitance and inductance, that will effect the jitter.
If the transformer has poor coupling then you can have poor jitter.
If your circuit has poor grounding and is noisy, you are going to have jitter.
If you have impedance mismatches and reflections well you know.
If you have slow rise time on you clock edge that can cause jitter.

Low jitter performance comes down to a design that implements all these elements to make a system with low jitter. It a recipe in hardware design too.
Hi Jewilson,

You are probably new here and don't realise but, all these topics
have been covered in depth and pretty much go without saying
(in my world).

The issues were that ALS/AS has low noise / gnd bounce but
has more jitter per gate than most other logic families.
So better to use slower lower noise logic everywhere possible
but reclock at DAC chips directly from XO. I was suggesting that
maybe *only the 1 DFF that does reclocking at DAC* would
benefit from faster lower jitter logic at the sacrifice of *some*
small increase in noise for that 1 part.

Cheers,

Terry
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
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
Parallel LM3886, input ground, power ground, safety resistor and oscillations. markiemrboo Chip Amps 5 9th August 2007 03:50 PM
Contact bounce rho Solid State 6 10th March 2005 08:31 PM
pga2310 and switch bounce biff584 Digital Source 4 3rd April 2004 01:42 AM
does connecting mains ground with circuit ground create a ground loop? jarthel Everything Else 0 25th June 2003 12:55 PM
Inductors before the power pins vs ground bounce patwen Digital Source 4 4th November 2002 07:34 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:29 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2