[time-nuts] GPSDO and oscillator steering - EFC vs DDS schemes?

Magnus Danielson magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org
Tue Dec 8 18:15:25 EST 2015


Azelio,

You don't get BVA performance easily out of an oscillator being 
significantly less stable than a BVA. Some environmental aspects you can 
dampen, some you can compensate, but then as you hit the fundamental 
noise processes of the oscillator. Knowing how systematics affects the 
oscillator without comparing to a much stabler source, does help you 
only to some degree when you loose that source and need to free-wheel 
without the correction input. If you have a more stable source, use that 
directly. There are oscillators which may put BVAs to the test for noise 
and systematics.

Rather than trying to do that, I think the alternative approach should 
be viewed as an interesting concept where you overcome several of the 
problems with the DAC and EFC approach, such as the DAC resolution (yes, 
I've fought that one), the DAC reference stability (as you open the 
loop, it becomes an issue), the EFC steering curve (it's not very 
linear) and range, the EFC temperature sensitivity (which becomes 
uncompensated as you go open-loop, but also shows up as subtle 
state-changes in closed-loop).

Another benefit of not steering the oscillator directly is when you 
build an ensamble of them, then you can more precisely predict their 
futute behavior when you don't steer them, as you reduce those unknown 
non-linear errors.

So, in short, I think you would fool yourself in believing you can 
significantly alter the noise process performance of your oscillator, 
see it in an improvement in how you can linearly compensate the offset 
of your oscillator, and with that possibly focus more on trimming some 
of the systematic corrections better. The noise of the core oscillator 
will keep dominate, it's just the reducing of the syntesis chain we keep 
down.

Cheers,
Magnus

On 12/08/2015 07:36 PM, Azelio Boriani wrote:
> Given that until now good (maximum stability) OCXO are much less than
> 100MHz, from the OCXO we exploit its high stability and we impose
> accuracy from a coordinated source: the OCXO+EFC method uses the
> built-in stability and disciplines the accuracy.
> The DDS method virtually can start from any oscillator, apply a
> suitable correction function giving the same result, transferring the
> hardware characteristic of a BVA (for example) into the driving
> function.
> Can a DDS be driven with the speed necessary to correct the output so
> that it results in the same stability as a BVA, starting from a given
> unstable oscillator?
> Or, how much unstable can be the 100MHz starting oscillator so that I
> can obtain after the DDS+suitable_driving_function  the same final
> stability as an ordinary 10MHz OCXO?
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Azelio Boriani <azelio.boriani at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Something like good_100MHz_OCXO+DDS => same as a BVA?
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Attila Kinali <attila at kinali.ch> wrote:
>>> Moin,
>>>
>>> I've been digging through some stuff and stumbled (again) over Rick's
>>> paper on high resolution, low noise DDS generation[1] and got confused.
>>> The scheme is very simple and looks like to be quite easy and reliably
>>> to implement. If I understood it correctly, the critical points are the
>>> DDS, its sideband generation and the LO/RF feedthrough in the mixers.
>>> Nothing that is not known and nothing that is too difficult to handle
>>> (the 10.7MHz filter get rid of most of the feedthrough already and
>>> there has been a lot written on how to design DDS for specific applications).
>>>
>>> What puzzled me is, why this has not been used more often to correct
>>> the frequency of OCXOs instead of using some DAC-to-EFC scheme?
>>>
>>> Given that Archita Hati et al. were getting very low noise numbers on
>>> their RF signal generation scheme using dividers [2], I don't think that
>>> the noise of the mixers would be the limiting factor here, but rather
>>> that the phase noise should be still dominated by the 10MHz oscillator.
>>>
>>> My guestimate is that something like this would cost approximately 5USD
>>> per divider stage, plus 20 USD for the DDS plus initial mixer. The only
>>> problem would be to get a narrow band 10.0MHz filter (I couldn't find
>>> one within 5 minutes of googling). 5 stages should cost around 50-70USD)
>>> and will give a resolution better than 5uHz (100MHz DDS with 24bit)
>>> down to 20pHz range (100MHz DDS with 32bit), which are 1:5e-13
>>> and 1:2e-15 respectively.
>>>
>>> Compared to an EFC system that costs somewhere in the range of 10-50USD
>>> and gives a resolution of something between 1:5e-12 (0.3ppm tuning range,
>>> 16bit DAC) and 1:1e-13 (10^-7 tuning range and 20bit DAC). Especially the
>>> 20bit DAC version gives a lot of electrical problems, starting from the
>>> stability of the reference, leakage current trough various components and the PCB etc pp, while the DDS scheme, as a "digital" scheme is virtually free
>>> of those.
>>>
>>> So, the DDS scheme is easier to reproduce, more stable over time and
>>> costs only slightly more (unless you try to use an LTZ1000 as reference,
>>> then the reference alone costs more then the whole DDS scheme).
>>>
>>> So, what did I miss? Why do people use DAC-EFC control instead of
>>> the DDS scheme?
>>>
>>>                          Attila Kinali
>>>
>>> [1] "A narrow band high-resolution synthesizer using a direct digital
>>> synthesiser followed by repeated dividing and mixing", Richard Karlquist, 1995
>>> http://www.karlquist.com/FCS95.pdf
>>>
>>> [2] "State-of-the-Art RF Signal Generation From Optical Frequency Division".
>>> by Hati, Nelson, Barnes, Lirette, Fortier, Quinlan, DeSalvo, Ludlow, Diddams,
>>> Howe, 2013
>>> http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2646.pdf
>>>
>>> --
>>> It is upon moral qualities that a society is ultimately founded. All
>>> the prosperity and technological sophistication in the world is of no
>>> use without that foundation.
>>>                   -- Miss Matheson, The Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>>> and follow the instructions there.
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>


More information about the time-nuts mailing list