Sp6661 pdf

Abstract: 1NA. OK, Thanks We use Cookies to give you best experience on our website. Arrow Electronics 2. More Info. RS Components 3. Mouser Electronics.

Arrow Electronics. Quest Components. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser. Thread starter Snaz Start date Nov 18, Status Not open for further replies. Snaz New Member. The very simple circuit uses a lot of power to work. Even if the fans were not connected the current used by the circuit would kill a little 9V battery quickly.

The boosted voltage would double the fan's current so the little battery would die very quickly. Snaz said:. Click to expand Henry T Member. Look at the datasheet for a 9V alkaline battery. An Energizer battery is almost dead in half an hour when its current is mA the fan has mA at 9V or mA at 18V.

PNG 7. Last edited: Nov 19, The battery, especially a 9V block will be empty in a heartbeat indeed, maybe you should look at something else, an old cellphone battery or something But that sp, I used it for a project last year, and it has quite some efficiency, also look into some other buck boost pumps Similar threads R.

Voltage Doubler. Replies 1 Views 2K. Mar 15, Phasor. Replies 2 Views 2K. I'm still a little bit put out by the idle noise, so I am going to try another receiver chip to see if it helps. The new nominee is the WM One big difference is that this chip requires a 12 MHz crystal. It's almost perfect, so far as I can tell. There's just one interesting issue. If you remove the optical input, you get a noticeable white noise output.

This didn't happen with the DIR But damnit, MUTE is pulled high, so none of that should matter. But the PCM's minimum threshold for high is 2 volts, so it still should be enough. I guess a workaround for this would be to supply an actual replacement clock to OMCK. If not, then you get the unlocked PLL clock of kHz. I don't think I'll bother, though. If I were to do anything more at this point, I might attempt to replace the CS with an alternative, but I don't think I have a great deal of incentive to do so since the PCM itself isn't rated for higher than kHz sample rates, and I certainly have no use for anything higher than that.

I got v1. At first the prototype didn't work, but swapping out one of the PLL filter caps fixed it. I must have picked up the wrong one assembling it. This version also has dual RCA jacks for output. They take up most of the front panel, but they should be much more durable.

And, no, I didn't buy gold-plated jacks. The one thing I am not sure about is whether or not the CS needs a reset circuit.

The PCM datasheet pretty strongly implies that it has a power-up reset circuit, but the sheet says that you have to hold! RST low until all power supplies and voltages are stabilized. I'm going to add a footprint for a MIC supervisor chip. Along with that, a pull-up on! If nothing else, that will give us a more convenient spot to force!

RST low if it's ever necessary. I'm not happy with them, but I am not sure whether it's my measurement technique or the equipment or the device under test. I sort of have the feeling that the device isn't to blame. If I lift the probe off the output pin, I don't see the noise floor change any, so that tells me that I'm not seeing the device create extra noise on its output. AY is at the noise floor and BY is at the peak of the fundamental.

The delta between the two is just shy of 90 dB. The specs claim that on a good day this DAC should be able to do dB. But as I said, I don't see the noise floor drop when I take the probe off the output, so maybe the noise floor of the scope is higher than the noise floor of the DAC. Either that, or perhaps the 1 kHz fundamental peak is lower than it is in reality that seems unlikely. That said, figure 19 on the PCM datasheet shows a noise floor at dB and a signal peak at dB.

That's a difference of I'm not that experienced with this sort of measurement, so I can't really be sure. Anyone want to comment? Version 1. Mechanically, there are still some issues. The biggest one is that the TRS jack just doesn't stick out far enough.

Attempting to plug into it doesn't go in far enough before it hits the front panel, so it makes poor contact. I've decided to bite the bullet and go with dual RCA jacks instead. Surely those will stick out far enough. Mating hasn't been an issue thus far, but I want to make it even less of a potential one. I might wind up deciding to go with OSHpark's half-thickness boards for the front and back panels as well. We'll see. The sounds is just as beautiful as it was before.

I'm going to have to find a way to generate some optical test signals and try to measure the S:N of the prototype to see if all of my noise reduction precautions have been sufficient. The plan is to attempt to generate sine tones and look at the output with the FFT mode of my scope to look for spurs and measure the S:N.