[time-nuts] Sub Pico Second Phase logger (Posting Style)

Thu Dec 11 02:27:27 UTC 2008

Let's have a top-posting versus bottom-posting fight! 

But we're too late, it's already been done: 

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style>

<http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?Top-posting_or_bottom-posting>

And so on.  Many times.

Joe

"Mike Feher" <mfeher at eozinc.com> 
Sent by: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com
12/10/2008 09:06 PM
Please respond to
Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement <time-nuts at febo.com>

To
"'Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement'" 
<time-nuts at febo.com>
cc

Subject
Re: [time-nuts] Sub Pico Second Phase logger

I am now, and actually have been, at the point where I just do not read
bottom line post/replies. Bruce has a lot of good information to share,
but, now, if I click on a post, and do not immediately see a response it
is just deleted. Maybe it will be my loss, but, technology as well as
the internet is evolving, and bottom line replies totally suck. - Mike

Mike B. Feher
EOZ Inc.
89 Arnold Blvd.
Howell, NJ, 07731
732-886-5960
908-902-3831 - cell

-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at febo.com] On
Behalf Of Bruce Griffiths
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:38 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Sub Pico Second Phase logger

Joe
Joseph M Gwinn wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> 
>> Reflecting the sum frequency back into the mixer is actually
necessary
>> to reduce the noise at the IF port.
>> I believe that one of Agilent's simulation application notes mentions
>> this effect but I don't recall the actual application note number.
>> This will affect the mixer RF and IF port impedance so adding a
series
>> resistor may be required to improve the SWR.
>> 
>
> How big an effect is this?  Is the absolute noise decreased, or does
it 
> remain the same while the signal increase?
>
> 
With the same difference frequency IF port termination impedance,  noise
is actually decreased along with the mixer conversion loss.
However if the sound card input noise dominates reducing the mixer
effective output noise wont help.
> If I'm understanding Walls and Stein (paper 112) correctly, the
advantage 
> is because with the capacitor load the beatnote waveform approaches 
> square, thus increasing the zero-crossing speed and therefor the phase

> sensitivity.  This is no doubt true, but the question was if this also

> caused a small everything-dependent phase shift, something that would
not 
> have mattered in the measurement of phase noise.  The object of paper
112 
> was to remedy a 10 to 20 dB error in phase noise measurements.  The 
> critical words are in the lower left column of page 337, in the
paragraph 
> beginning "If the mixer is terminated ...".
>
>
> 
Saturating the RF port has a similar effect.
If one is time stamping the zero crossings an increased zero crossing
slope is an advantage.
For relative phase measurements a trapezoidal beat frequency waveform
may be less useful.
>>> MiniCircuits AN-41-001 "FAQ about Phase Detectors" has on page 2 a
500 
>>> 
> ohm 
> 
>>> resistor to ground and a 5000 ohm resistor to the first filter 
>>> 
> capacitor, 
> 
>>> so the capacitor is isolated from the IF port by the resistors.
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>> I wouldn't take too much notice of that recommendation as I have
little
>> confidence in the author's experience/knowledge.
>> 
>
> Well, OK, but:
>
> Stephen Kurtz says the same thing on the third column of the third
page, a 
> bit above Figure 6.
> 

Off course with a capacitive IF port termination matching the RF and LO
ports becomes more critical as does the reverse isolation of the various
amplifiers driving the RF and LO ports.
It may be simpler in fact to use a level 17 mixer with high LO to RF and
LO to IF isolation with the RF port unsaturated as it relaxes the
reverse isolation specs for the isolation amplifiers.
> Nelson and Walls (paper 971), Figure 4, also shows the low pass filter

> arranged to absorb the sum signal, not allowing it to be reflected
back 
> into the mixer.
>
> 
> 
>>>> Supposedly an SRA-1, but some caution is in order as some 
>>>> 
>> statements as
>> 
>>>> to the effect of the input offset of an opamp based IF preamp in
the
>>>> same application note were of dubious veracity unless one 
>>>> 
>> were to use an
>> 
>>>> inverting opamp input stage.
>>>>
>>>> 
>>> This issue was mentioned in another app note, but their main issue 
>>> appeared to be that the opamp bias currents could cause an offset.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>> But the circuit they suggest has no effect on bias current induced
>> offset, the same current flows into the mixer and termination
impedance
>> independent of the series resistance.
>> 
>
> You're right that the proposed remedy didn't make sense.  I don't know

> that this is a big problem with modern opamps, especially FET input
ones 
> (if needed).
>
> 
The only configuration for which it makes any sense is an inverting
input amplifier with a finite input voltage offset.
>> Yes, I should have said that when the 2 input signals are in
quadrature,
>> any capacitive crosstalk will have little effect on the phase shift.
>> 
>
> Ah.  Because the capacitor coupling adds a second 90 degree shift, 
> bringing the total to 180 degrees.
>
> But crosstalk by ground coupling will be unaffected.  As will
crosstalk by 
> transformer action.  Those boards are pretty crowded.
>
>
> 
Yes its better to measure it rather than relying too much on conjecture.
>> The AP192 has a somewhat higher interchannel isolation than that, the
>> interchannel crosstalk spec is about -120dB.
>> With a sufficiently large number of samples the its easy to see
>> artifacts as low as -140dBFS.
>> 
>
> Yep.  Seems like a very good card.
>
>
> 
>
> 
>> It's hard to find such Firewire systems without such unnecessary
frills
>> (for this application) as high gain preamps.
>> 
>
> The AP192 has high-level inputs, but I don't know if this bypasses the

> preamps, or attenuates.  Given their target market, I'd bet it
bypasses.
>
> 
There are no preamps other than an external differential input amplifier
that translates the 4 Vrms FS inputs at the input connector to a level
that the ADC can handle.
The ADC chip itself has no preamps built in.
There have been numerous complaint about this by some audio nuts,
however for this application not having such amplifiers is ideal.
> 
>> The gain tempco and linearity of some variable gain audio preamps is
>> somewhat suspect.
>> 
>
> I would think that none of these cards has a good tempco of anything, 
> given the lack of necessity in their market.
>
> I would think that linearity would be quite good, given the horsepower

> competitions on linearity.
>
> 
Since the 2 ADCs share the same reference their gain tracking tempco
should be quite good given that they use capacitors rather than
resistors within the ADCs.
> 
>>>> Other cards using AKM 24 bit ADCs should also be suitable.
>>>>
>>>> 
>>> Who is AKM?
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>> Asahi Kasei EKM
>>
>> http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/
>>
>> http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/product/proaudio.html
>>
>> 
>
> Thanks.  I'll look into their data.
>
>
> 
>>> 20 Log[ 2^24 ] = 144 dB, so something else will be the limit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>> Actual ENOB ~ 19 to 20 bits.
>> 
>
> Makes sense.  20 Log [ 2^19 ] = 114 dB.  Still plenty good enough.
>
>
> 
>>>> Ideally an external sound card with balanced  XLR inputs would be 
>>>> 
> best.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> 
>>>> HP produced a number of different phase comparators each with a
>>>> different type of phase detector.
>>>> 
>
> OK.  And the PLL folk must have a million designs.
>
>
> 
>>
>> Can alleviate it to some extent by driving a pair of such phase
>> detectors so that their outputs are in quadrature.
>> One just selects the phase detector output that is in the linear
range.
>> The quadrature outputs also allow unambiguous assignment of the sign
of
>> any phase change.
>> 
>
> The Symmetricom 5120A does something very clever to alleviate this 
> problem.  Explained in US patent 7,227,346 and "Direct-Digital
Phase-Noise 
> Measurement"; J. Grove, J. Hein, J. Retta, P. Schweiger, W. Solbrig,
and 
> S.R. Stein; 2004 IEEE International Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and 
> Frequency Control Joint 50th Anniversary Conference, pages 287-291.
>
> Joe
>
> 
I've read the patent.

Bruce

_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to 
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.