Speed Racer Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 37 minutes ago, Don Hills said: Yes. So? Oh boy..... opus101 was suggesting that all Mike did was hide the glitch. That is not what Mike said he did. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 Yes. So? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop. Or was that it, simply an observation? If so, I apologise, I thought there was more to it. Anyway, Mike did what he said he did. Got rid of the glitch. If you repeat the measurement, you see the glitch isn't there any more. (I agree with Opus101, in theory it just got moved somewhere else, but good luck trying to find it by measurement.) opus101 1 "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
mindbomb Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 So was this major carry transition error? I don't understand how that could be fixed simply with additional calibration. Link to comment
opus101 Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 With an R2R ladder DAC the zero crossing is when all switches transition at once. But timing errors between switches mean their switch instants can never be truly simultaneous, hence the output code isn't correct until the last one has settled, resulting in a glitch. No 'additional calibration' was used, merely the zero crossing of the DAC was moved some distance away from zero volts in audio terms so that low level signals no longer incur MSB transitions and hence fewer switches are changing state simultaneously. Burr Brown's 'CoLinear' idea is rather similar - the PCM63 instead of using a single 20bit DAC uses two 19bit ones. The zero crossings of those 19bit DACs then move to -6dB, well away from low level signals. johndoe21ro 1 Link to comment
mindbomb Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 To me, it sounded like he was describing dac calibration that is typically done to fix gain and zero scale errors, so that's why I was confused. But you're saying he is using a new coding system to avoid msb transitions in these problem cases? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now