Attila wrote:
Charles Steinmetz <csteinm...@yandex.com> wrote:
how about the LTC1650? * * * [it] is nearly 100x (40dB) quieter (30nV/sqrtHz vs. 280) [than the 1650]
I was about to ask the same question :-)
Note: I divided 280 by 30 and got "nearly 100x". D'Oh! Of course, it is ~10x, or 20dB, not ~100x or 40dB as I stated. Still, a ~20dB noise advantage is substantial.
One point I didn't mention previously -- the 1650 is only marginally more expensive than the 1655.
I am sure there are ways to compensate for the charge injection by using multiple switches, but I have not been able to come up with a good way. Does anyone have a good idea?
I've tried several approaches to cancel the glitch energy of analog switches, but I never hit on anything I was really happy with -- partly because the glitch energy is more random than you'd like and partly because the "kludge factor" of multiple-switch solutions exceeds my tolerance pretty quickly. Even if you accept the high kludge factor, you find that like input bias current cancellation, glitch cancellation is most effective (only really effective??) if it is done on-chip.
Best regards, Charles _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
