To generate frequencies from approximately 0.5 mHz to 12 MHz with a DDS a minimum clock of >24, say 25 MHz, is required. To be able to go down to 0.5 mHz, a phase accumulator of at least 36 bits is required. This will give sub mHz resolution over the entire range. Nice for the low frequencies, but not of much use for MHz frequencies (in this application). Is there any objection to using a smaller phase accumulator and a clock pre-scaler to generate the lower frequencies? I see Analog Devices has DDS chips up to 48 bits, so 36 bits would not be a problem (except for cost maybe). But al of the DDS chips I find from Analog seem only to implement a fixed sine table/function. Do DDS chips exist that allow downloading an arbitrary lookup table with 2^10 - 2^16 entries of 10 - 16 bit each? If no such standard chips exist, I expect I need to implement the DDS in an FPGA. Using a smaller accumulator would probably save some space in the FPGA. Or am I just optoimizing prematurely? -- Stef Baker's First Law of Federal Geometry: A block grant is a solid mass of money surrounded on all sides by governors.

# Wide frequency range, arbitrary waveform DDS

Started by ●August 16, 2022

Reply by ●August 16, 20222022-08-16

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:37:42 AM UTC-4, Stef wrote:> To generate frequencies from approximately 0.5 mHz to 12 MHz with a DDS > a minimum clock of >24, say 25 MHz, is required. To be able to go down > to 0.5 mHz, a phase accumulator of at least 36 bits is required. This > will give sub mHz resolution over the entire range. Nice for the low > frequencies, but not of much use for MHz frequencies (in this > application). > > Is there any objection to using a smaller phase accumulator and a clock > pre-scaler to generate the lower frequencies? > > I see Analog Devices has DDS chips up to 48 bits, so 36 bits would not > be a problem (except for cost maybe). > > But al of the DDS chips I find from Analog seem only to implement a > fixed sine table/function. Do DDS chips exist that allow downloading an > arbitrary lookup table with 2^10 - 2^16 entries of 10 - 16 bit each? > > If no such standard chips exist, I expect I need to implement the DDS > in an FPGA. Using a smaller accumulator would probably save some space > in the FPGA. Or am I just optoimizing prematurely?See my response in comp.arch.fpga -- Rick C. - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Reply by ●August 17, 20222022-08-17

In comp.arch.embedded Stef <me@this.is.invalid> wrote:> To generate frequencies from approximately 0.5 mHz to 12 MHz with a DDS > a minimum clock of >24, say 25 MHz, is required. To be able to go down > to 0.5 mHz, a phase accumulator of at least 36 bits is required. This > will give sub mHz resolution over the entire range. Nice for the low > frequencies, but not of much use for MHz frequencies (in this > application). > > Is there any objection to using a smaller phase accumulator and a clock > pre-scaler to generate the lower frequencies?Well, your frequency will be less accurate. To see this let me derive formula for DDS. Let t be DAC clock, T be period of desired signal and assume that we have N samples at uniformly distributed points. At n-th tick of DAC clock real time is nt. In the scale of desired signal this corresponds to nt/T. To get position within period we drop integer part of this, that is take frac(nt/T). Then we need to round to closest sample point. Actually instead of rounding we can multiply by N, add 0.5 as bias and take integer part. So, sample index is: [N frac(nt/T) + 0.5] where [ ] denotes integer part. Assuming that N is power of 2, say 2^m and all arthmetic is in fixed point binary frac above is equvalent to dropping high bits, leaving only m bits before binary point. Integer part means dropping bits after bianary points. So formula simplified to [nNt/T + 0.5] = [n*a + b] where a = Nt/T and b = 0.5 is time shift. Note that taking phi_n = n*a + b we have phi_{n+1} = (n+1)*a + b = a + phi_n so single addition is enough to adjust phase. What is effect of using smaller number of bits to represent phase phi_n? Well, b needs only 1 bit, so if Nt/T fits into k bits with k bigger than m + 1, then calculation using k bits gives exactly the same result as calculation using infinite precision. In other words, using k bits we get exact result but possibly for wrong frequency. In general acceptable frequency error depends on application. But since good analog components are more expensive than digital ones, simple heuristic says that resuluting of phase accumulator should not degrade accuracy of oscilator. Assuming few ppm quartz oscilator as source of DAC clock, this means that we need about 20 significant bits in parameter a. OTOH, at moderate freqences we do not want to make big jumps, so parameter a should have m or more zero bits at start. With m = 10 we arrive at 30 bits. Add some margin for users that want slightly better results and we arrive at 36 bits. In fact, if you want 0.5 mHz without divisor on DAC clock you will have about 35 zero bits at start of paramter a, so 55 bits phase accumultor would be more appropriate. However, in in few hundreds Hertz range and below pre-divisor on DAC clock seem quite appropriate, so 36 bits + pre-divisor should be OK.> I see Analog Devices has DDS chips up to 48 bits, so 36 bits would not > be a problem (except for cost maybe). > > But al of the DDS chips I find from Analog seem only to implement a > fixed sine table/function. Do DDS chips exist that allow downloading an > arbitrary lookup table with 2^10 - 2^16 entries of 10 - 16 bit each? > > If no such standard chips exist, I expect I need to implement the DDS > in an FPGA. Using a smaller accumulator would probably save some space > in the FPGA. Or am I just optoimizing prematurely?If you go for 25 MHz DAC clock your DDS should be doable using sufficiently fast processor. My rough guesstimate is that to produce single sample (addjust phase accumulator, extract bits and copy value) you need about 10 machine instructions, so 250 MIPS processor should be fast enough to generate samples. You probably need a DMA channel to transmit them to DAC. I am not aware of processor with fast enough DAC, but I think that there are processors capable of driving external DAC at that speed. OTOH with 12 MHz signal and 25 MHz DAC clock you essentially are limited to sinusoidal signals, to have more variety you need more samples per period, so either lower signal frequency or higher DAC clock. So you may end up with much higher DAC freqency and censequenty be forced to use FPGA. As I wrote earler, skimming bits on phase accumulator seems unwise, it is at most one instruction in critical loop in CPU realization and has _much_ smaller impact on FPGA (think about size of your tables, single counter is tiny compared to that). -- Waldek Hebisch

Reply by ●August 18, 20222022-08-18

On 2022-08-17 antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote in comp.arch.embedded:> In comp.arch.embedded Stef <me@this.is.invalid> wrote: >> To generate frequencies from approximately 0.5 mHz to 12 MHz with a DDS >> a minimum clock of >24, say 25 MHz, is required. To be able to go down >> to 0.5 mHz, a phase accumulator of at least 36 bits is required. This >> will give sub mHz resolution over the entire range. Nice for the low >> frequencies, but not of much use for MHz frequencies (in this >> application). >> >> Is there any objection to using a smaller phase accumulator and a clock >> pre-scaler to generate the lower frequencies? > > Well, your frequency will be less accurate. To see this let me > derive formula for DDS.<snip detailed DDS math>>> >> If no such standard chips exist, I expect I need to implement the DDS >> in an FPGA. Using a smaller accumulator would probably save some space >> in the FPGA. Or am I just optoimizing prematurely? > > If you go for 25 MHz DAC clock your DDS should be doable using > sufficiently fast processor. My rough guesstimate is that > to produce single sample (addjust phase accumulator, extract > bits and copy value) you need about 10 machine instructions, > so 250 MIPS processor should be fast enough to generate > samples. You probably need a DMA channel to transmit them > to DAC. I am not aware of processor with fast enough DAC, > but I think that there are processors capable of driving > external DAC at that speed.That is assuming the processor has not much else to do and that only a single DDS channel is required. Both will not be true in the possible application, I'm affraid. The additional DDS channels can be a bit slower, so it may still be doable.> OTOH with 12 MHz signal and 25 MHz DAC clock you essentially > are limited to sinusoidal signals, to have more variety > you need more samples per period, so either lower signal > frequency or higher DAC clock. So you may end up with > much higher DAC freqency and censequenty be forced to > use FPGA.Yes, this is understood. Read the 10 MHz as bandwidth, not as the max frequency at which a complex waveform should be generated. So the waveform will degrade to a sine when sped up to 10 MHz.> As I wrote earler, skimming bits on phase accumulator seems > unwise, it is at most one instruction in critical loop > in CPU realization and has _much_ smaller impact on > FPGA (think about size of your tables, single counter > is tiny compared to that).FPGA have memory blocks to hold such tables. A simple ripple counter will indeed take a tiny amount of logic, a synchronous counter will take more, certainly at 55 bits. But I think you need an adder if you want variable accumulator steps and not only +1. Keeping the adder small enough to fit in something like a 48-bit DSP slice will probably save space. The above is probably quite Xilinx specific, as that is the last FPGA I have experience with. And even that was a while ago. But again, I may be worrying too much about space already. When it comes to it, I should first implement the 'best' solution. And then probably find that this uses less than 10% of my FPGA. :-) -- Stef Don't shout for help at night. You might wake your neighbors. -- Stanislaw J. Lem, "Unkempt Thoughts"