I found another one: http://www.sdr1000.de/forum/topic.php?id=238&;
It is the question if the CY27EE16, CY22392 and CY22393/4/5 all have the same or comparable clock circuit internal. - Henry Arie Dogterom schrieb: > DJ9CS also has published some noise measurements in one of the e-mail groups, > but I only have the pictures, lost the source. > 73 > Arie > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ehydra > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 6:25 PM > Subject: Re: [soft_radio] Re: Elector Boards > > > Here is a link about phase noise with CY27EE16: > http://www.elexs.de/clock3.htm > > You can translate it with Google. > > - Henry > > ehydra schrieb: > > > > k5nwa schrieb: > >> At 01:57 PM 4/20/2008, you wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Dave and others - > >>> > >>> After thinking about what is going on, my question is: > >>> Is the 400ps spec in the datasheet another way of a spur definition? Can > >>> I simply see the jitter as a short-term time-delay at the output? This > >>> will translate the programmed nominal output frequency to another > >>> frequency... > >>> > >>> The CY22393 is a PLL-type system. One can set the PLL loop-bandwidth in > >>> a register. Unfortunately the data sheet doesn't cover this area, nor > >>> where optimum jitter performance would be possible. Maybe a good > >>> relation between quartz- and programmed output frequencies will drive > >>> jitter considerable down? > >>> > >>> Someone knows more? > >> Depends on the nature of the jitter if its repeatable it shows up as > >> spurs if it's random it shows and a higher noise floor. > > > > At the moment I think it is more spurs than noise floor. I will try to > > contact the electronics department on the local university. Maybe they > > have and allow me to use their SA. > > > > > >> Took bad they didn't use the SI570 chip, it has .4 ps jitter not 400 > >> or approximately 1000 times less. Maybe someone will modify it someday. > >> > > > > I ordered samples of the SI571. Unfortunately even after weeks no > > response from silabs :-( > > > > On datasheet the rf spec of the SI57x devices look very good. The other > > side of the coin is price and power consumption. Both really heavy. That > > would kick them out of most mobile apps. > > > > Other comparable devices? I need at least two PLL on the chip. > > > > regards - > > Henry > > > > > >> Cecil > >> K5NWA > >> www.softrockradio.org www.qrpradio.com > >> > >> "Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light." > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------ > >> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > >
