3 ms·
A fun endeavor for sure and I like that he measured before & after results for comparison, but I'm not convinced that he made a real improvement. He notes that
by tomstokes 13y ago
A fun endeavor for sure and I like that he measured before & after results for comparison, but I'm not convinced that he made a real improvement. He notes that he saw "a 1db increase in downstream levels occurred along with a full 1db increase in S/N" but 1dB is well within the margin of error and day-to-day variations, especially for the imprecise internal power measurement circuits of the modem. In fact, simply adjusting and re-tightening your coaxial cable can easily result in more than a 1dB change. Also, I'm not quite sure where he came up with the 1000:1 reduction in power rail noise, because his waveforms show significantly less (although still significant) noise reduction. Finally, having a 10-ping average of 7ms vs 6ms is very much within the margin of error one would expect to see.
If he really wanted to improve the RF performance of his modem, he should have used small, low-value, surface-mount capacitors instead of the large tantalum capacitors with relatively long leads and large electrolytic capacitors. Cable modems and other RF equipment operate at very high frequencies by definition, and tantalum & electrolytic capacitors with long leads are ineffective at these high frequencies. The long leads of the capacitors act as inductors, which will prevent the high frequency fluctuations from ever even reaching the capacitor.
If you look closely, you can see that he added his tantalum capacitors to the already-present small ceramic decoupling capacitors. If he really wanted to improve the RF performance of the circuit, he would have been better off adding more low-value, surface-mount ceramic capacitors in parallel with the pre-existing ones to help with the high-frequency decoupling, where it counts in an RF circuit. If he was really adventurous, he could splice some ferrite beads in series with the supply lines to form an LC filter for even better noise rejection.
Furthermore, he could have taken measures to improve the S/N ratio of the circuit by improving the shielding around the sensitive RF circuits in the middle of the board. You can see where the designer originally made room for a shield "can" to be soldered over the sensitive components, indicated by the exposed copper rectangle around the heatsink area. However, you may get unlucky if your shield can volume has resonant frequencies in the operating range of the circuit which will trigger feedback and render the circuit inoperable. A safer option would be to add some RF-absorbing foam over the sensitive area to absorb the noise.
- jonknee 13y ago> Finally, having a 10-ping average of 7ms vs 6ms is very much within the margin of error one would expect to see. It's not like he did a google.com ping on each and called it a day... From the post: > I used Multiping set to do 10 pings a second and chart it. My target was the CMTS IP. I did weeks of charting and then did mods and did more charting. The differences were quite interesting. Weeks of charting should more than correct for other factors.
- alanctgardner2 13y agoBut we don't get to see the 'interesting' charts. You're just kind of taking it on faith that he noticed monotonically increasing performance as he soldered more and more expensive caps to his power supply.
- raverbashing 13y agoMaybe I understood wrong, but the capacitors he added are to the DC circuit, not the RF circuit By reducing power noise in that area (including noise created by the consumption variation due to the processor/circuitry itself) you end up reducing some noise in the RF section as well
- tonyb 13y agoI concur. He also says " The upstream power decreased by 1.5db indicating that the transmitted signal was being seen more clearly now" but that is inaccurate. A cable modem's upstream power level has nothing to do with noise. The CMTS will always power adjust the modem so that it hits the CMTS at 0db, it doesn't power adjust based on noise. A 1.5 db change in Upstream SNR would be a different story, but that is a reading that can only be obtained from the CMTS so there isn't any data to backup that claim. I also would dispute the clam that a modem vendor or MSO is trying to only minimize the cost of the cable modem. If minor internal changes reduced the number of service calls and truck rolls a small increase in upfront cost would quickly be recovered.
- X-Istence 13y agoI don't see any waveforms for the noise reduction in the power circuit in the post. Also, he reduced the noise on the DC part of the circuit, from looking the pictures posted it doesn't look like he touched the RF part at all.