Soft sync and medicine to cure it.

[Bjorn Julin]

Hi.
I made some measurements lately on softsync
issues, by measuring the spikes bleeding trough
to the common emitter of the expo convereter.

Depending on the tecknique used in the switching
mecanism of the core (as you allready know i suppose)
the spikes are quite different in its amplitude.

Just by simple bypassing with a apropriate cap
between the most pos and most neg rail you can
reduce the spike significantly.

To my suprice, by placing a FET in series with the
sourcing current from the osc did not reduce the spikes?

Juergen or  (others) ,did you got any improvment doing so
in your's designs? And has any one done any soft sync measures?

reg
BJ


>From: "jhaible" <jhaible at debitel.net>
>To: "Tim Ressel" <Tim_R1 at verifone.com>, <synth-diy at node12b53.a2000.nl>
>Subject: Re: Junction Noise
>Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 00:55:08 +0200
>
> > Well, you math weenies have one on me. I can tell you that I have 
>studied
>PRN
> > sources with FFT analysers, and the output falls into well defined
>buckets. In
> > between the buckets there are definite holes: frequencies with no 
>energy.
>My
> > idea was to frequency modulate the clock with another unrelated PRN. 
>This
>would
> > smear out the energy and fill in the holes. This I believe would make 
>for
>better
> > "noise".
>
>If you just play your PRN sequence _once_, you should have a continuous
>spectrum.
>(But only for a limited time, unfortunately.)
>The more often you repeat the same cycle, the less "smearing" you will get,
>and
>at infinite repetition you'll have discrete frequencies.
>So altering the sequence, or the playback speed of the same sequence,
>between
>every cycle, must surely help to preserve the "smearing". With another PRN
>serving
>as a modulation source, the variations will not be unlimited either. You
>will
>get some repetition as well - only much later. It would surely be an
>improovement
>compared with one single PRN.
>The big question is, will this improovement be better than simply investing
>the additional PRN in an increased length of the first one, rather than
>splitting in
>two PRNs and finding an optimal modulation algorithm ?
>What if for a certain number of flipflops the linear arrangement of all
>flipflops
>*is* the best algorithm ?
>(I cannot answer this.)
>
>JH.
>
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.