JFET+DC servo oscilloscope input buffer - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: Martinn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2023, 02:20:58 pm
content: Hi all,while designing my own (low frequency, AD8065) front end I often came across the classical JFET/DC servo combination. It has been mentioned in this forum a number of times, e.g.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/diy-oscilloscope-(yet-again)/msg2783246/#msg2783246Picoscope on the other hand seems to use integrated buffers (even replacing a JFET solution):https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-input-noise-comparison/msg2908904/#msg2908904I was wondering - why still bother with discrete solutions if there is a ADA4817 (1 GHz BW, 4 nV/rtHz)? Lower cost? Lower noise?Interestingly, in a teardown (I think Dave) I saw that even my shiny new RTB2004 scope seems to employ the classical LMH6518+JFET buffer (?) frontend (and just one attenuator relay!).So purely for fun I think I'd like to build a JFET/DC servo buffer and see what performance I can get. There's no point in going further (PGA, ADC, FPGA...) as the effort would get excessive and I already have a really nice 300 MHz scope.I am looking for design hints: There's some in the LMH6518 datasheet and there are a number of reverse engineered Chinese scope schematics around. What would be a modern JFET choice? Any other points to look out for? As I only have a 300 MHz scope for verification there's little point trying wider bandwidth (OK, I have a spectrum analyzer, but no proper RF signal generator, just a TinySA Ultra). Maybe I'd try to beat the AD8065 in terms of noise (7 nV/rtHz).Thanks! Martin

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2023, 11:28:42 am
content: You probably know this, but just for bystanders. Check out "Wideband Amplifiers", chapter five has a fair bit to say on them. Margan hasiton his website.

author: moffy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2023, 11:58:40 am
content: The Jim Williams edited book: "The Art and Science of Analog Circuit Design" in Section 2: Signal Conditioning in Oscilloscopes ..., has a detailed 500Mhz front end for an oscilloscope and the design choices and reasons. The author uses the BF996S dual gate mosfet and the Internet Archive has a copy at:https://ia804701.us.archive.org/6/items/fe_The_Art_And_Science_Of_Analog_Circuit_Design_PCB/The_Art_And_Science_Of_Analog_Circuit_Design_PCB.pdfIf nothing else it is an interesting read.

author: Martinn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2023, 05:59:33 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 22, 2023, 11:28:42 amNo, didn't know - thanks! Impressive math usage. First 100 pages Laplace transform introduction. I love math, I just wish I had more time to more deeply work with it. Unfortunately on my daily work, * and / cover 95% of the math complexity (with an occasional sine or sqrt).Quote from: moffy on August 22, 2023, 11:58:40 amI have this book, just took it out of the shelf and it has a marker in this exact chapter! Unfortunately the author mostly elaborates solid state attenuators.As you say, interesting read at least. I also have "Analog Circuits Design", but there is a limited volume of anecdotes one can digest.

author: moffy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2023, 12:47:08 am
content: Quote from: Martinn on August 22, 2023, 05:59:33 pmAs you say there are only so many anecdotes that one can deal with; "As my grandpappy used to say ....." I forgot.

author: MasterT
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2023, 01:24:53 am
content: Decision depends on adc, most JFET analog wizardy was oriented on analog scope or 8-bits. For 12-bits and up, especially if scope would have FFT option distortion is the primary factor, so good quality /low THD in 20-100 MHz range dictate IC choise. Discrete JFET likely to have 2-5% THD or so, -30 -40 dBc at the best.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2023, 08:45:15 am
content: Quote from: Martinn on August 21, 2023, 02:20:58 pmNoise should be lower with the discrete implementation, but the ADA4817 has surprisingly good noise. A MOSFET should be noisier than a JFET.The ADA4817 uses series feedback with an input differential pair, so overload recovery is slower and the dynamic response has more aberrations than a FET follower, although low frequency distortion will be better because of feedback. To get a cleaner response, bandwidth must be limited to what looks like 400 MHz so the ADA4817 is slower, but getting good performance at 400 MHz or higher is tough no matter what technology is used. Full power bandwidth of the ADA4817 is much slower although this should not matter, but see below.Note that JFET and MOSFET oscilloscope inputs are typically limited to 500 MHz because of fixture input capacitance, and the same fixture limitations will apply to the ADA4817. Raw performance of a JFET input is reflected in active probes which achieve 1+ GHz.QuoteIf only one input attenuator is used, then the slew rate and full power bandwidth requirements are proportionally increased, by 10 times in a modern (1970s and later) design. With 2 attenuators the font end only has to handle a single range of 0.5 volts peak-to-peak (50 millivolts per division), but with one input attenuator it has to swing 5 volts which makes a huge difference with great demands on slew rate and full power bandwidth.This is why oscilloscopes like the Rigol DS1000Z series have bandwidth which varies with signal level. They have insufficient slew rate and full power bandwidth to support the higher signal levels from using one input attenuator at their specified bandwidth.

author: Martinn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2023, 06:22:30 pm
content: Thanks for the interesting explanations!Quote from: David Hess on August 24, 2023, 08:45:15 amInteresting definition of modern!Not that I'm an expert, but I have the impression that most current front-ends have one relay max. Together with a PGA like LMH6518 this seems to be sufficient. With an oscilloscope the 10:1 probes always help to extend input range, so you get away with a lower input range. For my 10 MHz frontend I don't support passive probes (not necessary for this frequency range and constant impedance calibration of the attenuators seems messy). Instead I used a 10x and 100x attenuator, giving me 1/10/100/1000 attenuation.Anyway I wonder how useful >500 MHz high impedance frontends are. From my experience, measurements with passive probes over a few 100 MHz get very difficult and it's much more accurate to use active FET probes (fantastic: Tek P6245).I also noticed that in the 7000 line there is only a single (7104) mainframe with 1 GHz bandwidth. Maybe only the nuclear weapons developers needed this speed (with single pulse visibility)?

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2023, 11:27:40 pm
content: Quote from: Martinn on August 24, 2023, 06:22:30 pmThat was confusing on my part. I mean modern instruments in the 1970s and later had two 10x input attenuators, but more recent instruments tend to have only one which considerably raises the slew rate and full power bandwidth requirements of their input buffer and amplifiers.QuoteHigh impedance passive probes work to 500 MHz if the signal source is of a suitably low impedance and a coaxial connection is made, but an active probe is better.QuoteNuclear weapons testing was a big application for the 7104, but the 7000 series mainframes only had high impedance inputs up to 200 MHz if you exclude the specialized 350 MHz logic analyzer plug-in.