I'm in need of a PLL too. Is there a common part that is better than the 4046? I assume there must be. Not for high precision work. > Wrote:< Using the CD4046 (or HC4046) as the phase locked oscillator would probably be counterproductive as its phase noise is very high (its in effect an RC oscillator with an effective Q of around1/4) > > A. I don’t know.  Maybe there is a better IC choice for the PLL. I guess building one would prove its feasibility. > -- ===== Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California

Hi What are you trying to do? There are many people out there making PLL chips with various features. National and Analog are the two most commonly used for most RF applications. Bob -----Original Message----- From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On Behalf Of Chris Albertson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:11 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: [time-nuts] PLL chip? (was 10 MHz Oscillator comparison part II) I'm in need of a PLL too. Is there a common part that is better than the 4046? I assume there must be. Not for high precision work. > Wrote:< Using the CD4046 (or HC4046) as the phase locked oscillator would probably be counterproductive as its phase noise is very high (its in effect an RC oscillator with an effective Q of around1/4) > > A. I don’t know.  Maybe there is a better IC choice for the PLL. I guess building one would prove its feasibility. > -- ===== Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California _______________________________________________ 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.