| Electronics > Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff |
| IC for function generator |
| << < (4/4) |
| rs20:
--- Quote from: MarkF on June 26, 2019, 03:58:37 am ---You have got to be kidding! No RF here. And both devices have fine pitch. --- End quote --- I wasn't comparing different options, I'm just saying that as an individual thing, you would have to be a million times better an EE than software before programming an AD9102 became comparable in difficulty to correctly designing and assembling a board with an AD9102 on it. Maybe you are a million times better at EE than programming, but I would suggest you shouldn't assume everyone else on here is the same. --- Quote from: ogden on June 26, 2019, 05:11:54 am ---SPI double mode argument is BS. By default interface is plain 3 wire SPI. --- End quote --- This. MarkF, you're looking at every part of this, and assuming the absolute worst. I'm not talking out of ignorance, I've used this device in the past. I made it extra complicated for myself by requiring that I could output different frequencies, synchronized with a pulse output by a separate microcontroller, such that the 0 of the sin coincided with the end of the microcontroller pulse. It was a while ago now, but I recall spending a whole day figuring out an issue which turned out to be having my SCLK and MOSI backwards or something like that, and then I had this going in no time at all: The fact that each bit has a one-line description is a GOOD THING. It means the operation of each piece of the device is simple, and the great flexibility of the device as a whole comes from the varied ways you can plug those pieces together. There's plenty of examples outlining the main features, so you have far more to work with that just one line descriptors. If you expect the datasheet to be a Stack Overflow-style guide that has every possible thing you can imagine already figured out for you, then it'd be 1000 pages long. If you just invest a little time in understanding the design decisions behind the AD9102, the datasheet makes beautiful sense. YMMV I suppose. |
| MarkF:
I feel sorry for the person reading this and then chooses the AD9102 over the AD9834 thinking it will be a walk-in-the-park to use. Both the AD9102 hardware and SPI interface is far more complex than the AD9834. The concepts and capabilities of the AD9102 are much harder to grasp than in the AD9834. One line descriptions is what I would consider as minimal documentation. (Not a bad thing. Just minimal.) I have no idea what a Stack Overflow-style guide looks like. I have never seen one. The point I am trying to make is that the AD9834 documentation is more detailed. The double SPI transfer mode argument is not BS if you need/want to use it. It's not a hardware SPI transfer capability. I am not making any assumptions about the user. I am comparing the two devices and the manufacture datasheets. I see that I am not going to win any arguments here. Just saying the AD9834 is much easier to use than the AD9102. I would still recommend the AD9834 over the AD9102 for a novice. This discussion is suppose to be a comparison of the AD9834 and AD9102 devices. This is not a comparison of electronics vs software. This is a comparison of the electronics and software needed for the AD9102 vs the AD9834. |
| ogden:
Double SPI argument indeed is BS because it is optional mode. When someone need/want to use it, he shall not be considered as novice. Fast SPI is needed only for waveform memory of AD9102. As far as I know, theres no such in AD9834. In general I agree to you, but had to correct you fallacies. BTW stm32f4 spi peripheral have not only double but quad spi mode. There are other mcu's with such functionality. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Previous page |