'Proper' clock divider - 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 3rd May 2002, 06:21 PM   #1
tiroth is offline tiroth  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Default 'Proper' clock divider

I'm hoping Harry/Jocko or others might weigh in on the design of a proper divider for digital audio applications. Specifically I'd like a 128Fs MCK at 24.576MHz, a 64Fs BCK, and the Fs LRCK.

My inital thought was a quality 24.576 clock oscillator feeding a CMOS monolithic synchronous counter. The problem is that the propagation delay is nearly 50ns, so I would worry that clock syncronicity is lost.

Second thought is a 49.152MHz clock, and all signals are generated by the counter. Now I have to worry about using a non-fundemental mode oscillator.

Add to this the idea that CMOS logic induces a lot of phase noise. (?) What is the alternative? ECL logic? Analog claims 4ps jitter added by an ECL gate.

I have to wonder at the quality of the dividers in chips like AD1896 compared to a solution that board members here would create.

Any thoughts? What would you use in such a circuit? (Jocko, if you chime in with part suggestions, I'll promise to buy--not sample--them. ^_^)
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2002, 09:24 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
ftorres's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Limoges, France
I'd go with the second solution. Feed the counters with the 49.152 MHz clock and latch all the counters' outputs with a 74574 driven by the 49M clock. You may want to use the same latch to reclock the data output by the 1896. So all your signals are latched at the same time

I'm not aware of a monolithic CMOS 8 bit synchronous counter, but a PLD (PAL/GAL) will do a nice job (at the expense of a much higher supply current).

3rd or 5th overtone XOs are not that tricky. I have no references handy here, but a google search with "butler" AND "overtone" will give you some starting points. And I'm sure our XO specialists will come to your rescue IMHO, the hardest job will be to find the proper xtal.

Hope this helps
__________________
François
"Learning French is trivial: the word for horse is cheval, and everything else follows in the same way."
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2002, 09:34 PM   #3
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dallas,Texas
Angry 3rd or 5th overtone XOs are not that tricky

Yes folks we have a winner. The most preposterous statement yet posted on this forum!
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2002, 10:30 PM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: As far from the NOSsers as possible
I would go with the Butler if you are going overtone.

Never used any of the ASRC stuff. Too digital for Mr. Analog RF.

Jocko
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2002, 10:40 PM   #5
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dallas,Texas
Exclamation ASRC

Acronym alert!

Association of Specialists in Cleaning and Restoration?

Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic?

American Society of Classical Realism?

Advanced Scientific Computing Research?

Adirondack Stampede Charity Rodeo?

All your acronyms are belong to us.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2002, 10:42 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Scandinavia
OK, so I am jumping into this forum, perhaps I can add some minor value.

You owe it to yourself to go to the Valpey Fisher website and see what the experts do + those guys are super nice!

My recommendation is a monolithic ready-made oscillator at the right frequency, or a binary multiple.

Overtone crystals have their own jitter problems -- you are extremely unlikely to get better results out of an divided overtone oscillator than a standard unit.

VP claim 1ps phase jitter. This should be pretty much as low as you can get given the standard intervals (withing which phase jitter is measured)

Petter
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2002, 11:37 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
ftorres's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Limoges, France
Default Tricky XOs

Harry,

Glad to have won , but the game is not over... Any challenger ? As we say in french, "J'essaierai de faire mieux la prochaine fois"

Maybe I should have said tweaky instead of tricky... Just a matter of pronunciation

What I intended to say is that XOs ARE theoretically complex animals, and that overtone ones are not (IMHO) much more complex than fundamental ones (Fire!!!). They require more care from the practical side (parasitic inductances and capacitances, pcb design, etc... - but SMT components help a lot here), and you have to pay more attention to the xtal intrinsic parameters. I've tested almost all the designs in Matthys' book above 20 MHz (disrete and IC, 3rd and 5th o'tones), and they all worked fine the first time I powered them on. May be I'm just a lucky guy... Moreover they often provide a higher Q than fundamental XOs.

And as a side note, the starting post from tiroth mainly focused on dividers and not on XOs
__________________
François
"Learning French is trivial: the word for horse is cheval, and everything else follows in the same way."
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2002, 12:30 AM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: .
How about 3 or 4 74x163s. They seem to cope with 27MHz digital video so I imagine they would do for digital audio. Failing that, a Xilinx or Altera Fpga would allow you to use dedicated clock divider macros or any other form of clock dividing you can think of.

ray.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2002, 01:06 AM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
ftorres's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Limoges, France
If memory serves, 74x163 is a 4 bits sync counter. Need 2 of them to achieve the 192 kHz from 24.576 or 49.152 MHz. Just from a practical point of view, I think it is easier to use only one simple and cheap 16V8 GAL to make a 8 bits sync counter : no need of numerous pcb traces between the 2 '163s, and most of all, you can reassign the outputs as needed to achieve the shortest traces between ICs.

But that's just a suggestion. I've not tested this idea at high frequencies...
__________________
François
"Learning French is trivial: the word for horse is cheval, and everything else follows in the same way."
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2002, 04:34 PM   #10
tiroth is offline tiroth  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Say I go with a canned 49.152MHz clock oscillator driving two cascaded 163s. (I'm not setup for PLD) I'm not really trying to exceed the performance of the AD1896 divider, but I'd like to match it with Fs=192kHz. (the internal divider cannot be used at such high frequencies) Do you think I would be unhappy with this solution?

ftorres-is latching the output really necessary? I thought I was avoiding this by using a syncronous counter.

Thanks for everyone's input; this place is like a volunteer design team at times. :)
  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
Precision Voltage Divider - diy redrabbit Equipment & Tools 3 24th July 2008 04:16 PM
Reg and Pass V Potential Divider iUSERTLO72p Power Supplies 7 17th February 2008 10:00 AM
voltage divider+Aikido anawat Tubes / Valves 0 17th October 2007 05:19 PM
Variovented divider panel + more ro9397 Subwoofers 12 16th October 2007 07:39 PM
PGA2311 or resistor divider? fmak Parts 2 3rd May 2004 02:34 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:27 AM.


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