...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Obama says, "I AM NOT a cry baby, Fox REALLY IS out to get me!"
On a sunny day (Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:03:21 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in <vp46f5trc0u49n51dcqd67jbujie2ke...@4ax.com>:
mm they have a 32 bit DAC too, prices at 98 cent for 10,000.
Just too lazy or sceptical to see, n owait, thsi is fun, they claim 2 Vrms out, that makes 5.65 Vpp, divided by 2^32 = 1.317 nV per step. Yes nano nano nano, wonder how much noise is allowed on the supply, or in a one kilomter (mile for the Yankees) radius?
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: > Huh? 32 bit interface is commonplace in the audio DAC/ADC. > The 120dB performance is decent yet this is inferior to the current > state of the art.
Yes, there are some chips with 32 bit interfaces. But the webpage is a bit misleading (I guess some marketing people wrote it :-) because -120 dB THD is 19.93 bits.
MooseFET wrote: > Take a good 24 bitter and add 8 random bits on the bottom and you'd > likely do as well.
They claim 120dB of pure THD, not SINAD. The 120dB THD figure probably implies the signal level of no higher then -20dBFS, and they still should have ~20 bits of resolution at this level. Your assertion about 24 bits looks right.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:31:18 +0100, Frank Buss <f...@frank-buss.de> wrote:
>Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>> Huh? 32 bit interface is commonplace in the audio DAC/ADC. >> The 120dB performance is decent yet this is inferior to the current >> state of the art.
>Yes, there are some chips with 32 bit interfaces. But the webpage is a bit >misleading (I guess some marketing people wrote it :-) because -120 dB THD >is 19.93 bits.
Just wondering how they have measured the THD.
At least with oversampled _audio_ DACs running at 192 kHz the THD is usually measured only in the 0-20 kHz audio band.
>> 32 bite is too expensive; 64 bits only for the rich (Awk! Pieces of >> eight! Awk!).
> Pieces of 7 - parroty error.
rofl
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Paul Keinanen wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:31:18 +0100, Frank Buss <f...@frank-buss.de> > wrote:
>>Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>>Huh? 32 bit interface is commonplace in the audio DAC/ADC. >>>The 120dB performance is decent yet this is inferior to the current >>>state of the art.
>>Yes, there are some chips with 32 bit interfaces. But the webpage is a bit >>misleading (I guess some marketing people wrote it :-) because -120 dB THD >>is 19.93 bits.
> Just wondering how they have measured the THD.
The same way they measured the quality in oxygen free Monster speaker wire!
On Nov 5, 10:26 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:03:21 -0800, John Larkin > >I guess 64 is next.
> Does it have to be burned-in ?:-)
Hmmm. Test for monotonicity of a 32-bit converter takes, at 1 MHz, about an hour. Test for monotonicity of a 64-bit converter takes half a million years. They already built the 64-bit converter, the assembly line will spit out the first tested unit ... any day now.
> >I guess 64 is next. > Test for monotonicity of a 32-bit converter takes, at 1 MHz, > about an hour. > Test for monotonicity of a 64-bit converter takes > half a million years.
You miss a point: effective you get 20 bit and add a few random Bits. Later you upgrade the random Bits to zero bist and sell this as a feature, that improves the compressability without artefacts.
