time-nuts@lists.febo.com

Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement

View all threads

Re: [time-nuts] wtd: WWVB info

HM
Hal Murray
Fri, Aug 7, 2015 8:40 AM

Well, at least some of the chips out there do not make it to 96 KHz when
sampling at 192 KHz. It’s  been a few years since I dug into them. Back then
a chip that had an internal filter that went to 96K was very much the
exception rather than the rule. If the only point of 192K is getting to a
96K bandwidth, a lot of the chip guys missed out on it ….

Where did 192 KHz come from?  Why is anybody interested in anything that far
over 2*44 KHz?

It's common to have an audio ADC run much faster than Nyquist, but that's a
hack to make it easier to build the cut off filter.  You build a simple
analog filter and a sharp digital filter and decimator so the output is 2x
the target frequency.  You get what you want without a fancy analog filter.

--
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

kb8tq@n1k.org said: > Well, at least *some* of the chips out there do not make it to 96 KHz when > sampling at 192 KHz. It’s been a few years since I dug into them. Back then > a chip that had an internal filter that went to 96K was very much the > exception rather than the rule. If the only point of 192K is getting to a > 96K bandwidth, a lot of the chip guys missed out on it …. Where did 192 KHz come from? Why is anybody interested in anything that far over 2*44 KHz? It's common to have an audio ADC run much faster than Nyquist, but that's a hack to make it easier to build the cut off filter. You build a simple analog filter and a sharp digital filter and decimator so the output is 2x the target frequency. You get what you want without a fancy analog filter. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam.
JL
Jim Lux
Fri, Aug 7, 2015 11:02 PM

On 8/7/15 1:40 AM, Hal Murray wrote:

Well, at least some of the chips out there do not make it to 96 KHz when
sampling at 192 KHz. It’s  been a few years since I dug into them. Back then
a chip that had an internal filter that went to 96K was very much the
exception rather than the rule. If the only point of 192K is getting to a
96K bandwidth, a lot of the chip guys missed out on it ….

Where did 192 KHz come from?  Why is anybody interested in anything that far
over 2*44 KHz?

There's lots of high resolution parts at that rate..
And if it's that fast, odds are the built in sample/track/hold is good
enough that you could directly sample the 60kHz without much trouble.

With a slower ADC and a good analog BPF and a good sample/hold, you
could sample at a few kHz, but that shifts the design burden to the BPF
and the sample/hold.

It's common to have an audio ADC run much faster than Nyquist, but that's a
hack to make it easier to build the cut off filter.  You build a simple
analog filter and a sharp digital filter and decimator so the output is 2x
the target frequency.  You get what you want without a fancy analog filter.


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.

On 8/7/15 1:40 AM, Hal Murray wrote: > > kb8tq@n1k.org said: >> Well, at least *some* of the chips out there do not make it to 96 KHz when >> sampling at 192 KHz. It’s been a few years since I dug into them. Back then >> a chip that had an internal filter that went to 96K was very much the >> exception rather than the rule. If the only point of 192K is getting to a >> 96K bandwidth, a lot of the chip guys missed out on it …. > > Where did 192 KHz come from? Why is anybody interested in anything that far > over 2*44 KHz? There's lots of high resolution parts at that rate.. And if it's that fast, odds are the built in sample/track/hold is good enough that you could directly sample the 60kHz without much trouble. With a slower ADC and a good analog BPF and a good sample/hold, you could sample at a few kHz, but that shifts the design burden to the BPF and the sample/hold. > > It's common to have an audio ADC run much faster than Nyquist, but that's a > hack to make it easier to build the cut off filter. You build a simple > analog filter and a sharp digital filter and decimator so the output is 2x > the target frequency. You get what you want without a fancy analog filter. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. >