5 Jul
2000
5 Jul
'00
12:59 a.m.
As Chuck pointed out, maybe the fact that this is
quarter-century-old
technology put together with quarter-century-old construction and design
techniques makes it less accessible to some of the younger members
of this list. Maybe the way to make it more accessible to them is to put
the circuitry on a CPLD, I dunno, I think it's fine as it is.
It's compatable with my 500ft deep junkbox. Likely if I built it the
parts would be 25 years old too. ;)
tend to implicate the design as being on the naively
simplistic side, too :-).
Oh, it doesn't bust, rust or collect dust then.
I will admit, MFM *does* require at least twice the
timing resolution of FM.
I once got in a small argument with some other members of this list about
AC circuit design of MFM vs FM data recovery circuits. IIRC, they were
insisting that MFM did come "for free" if you had the frequency response
necessary for FM at half the data rate. My point was that it
wasn't the max pulse frequency which made life difficult, it was the phase
response (finding where the pulse occured in the window) that was the tough
point.
Also since precomp ranges from .0625uS to as long as .375uS the ability
to slice a bit finer is a desireable thing.
Allison