Circuit Response
every model has an edge, and the figure carries it
Concept

Device mismatch — where it appears

The difference between two devices that a design assumes are identical, as a fraction of the quantity they share. It is a distribution rather than a number, so a circuit that depends on it has an accuracy with a width, and no amount of solving one instance produces that width.

Named by 5 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

At a stationary point a tolerance has a mean, not a spread. computed by solving, not by drawing. Six hundred ladders with every reactance drawn independently from ±1 per cent, measured at the ripple peak and at a frequency between the peaks. Away from the peak the distribution is centred on nominal and 325 of 600 are above it. At the peak none is: the whole distribution lies below, with a mean of -0.0030 per cent and a worst case of -0.0140. A yield calculation that assumes a symmetric spread at a frequency that has a stationary point is wrong in both directions at once — it allows parts above a limit that cannot exist, and it misses that the whole batch has moved.

The tolerance that can only take away

At a doubly terminated ladder's ripple peak the first derivative of the magnitude with respect to every reactance is zero to ten digits, which the rung below measured and which says nothing about how much the response moves. This says how: every second derivative is negative, so of six hundred ladders built from one per cent components not one is above nominal, the mean has shifted rather than the spread having grown, and doubling the tolerance quadruples the damage instead of doubling it.

networks · Sensitivity What a cascaded modulator is worth, against how well its two paths match. computed by solving, not by drawing. Two first-order loops marched sample by sample at an oversampling ratio of 64, with the first stage's quantisation error taken as the difference between what its comparator said and what was presented to it — nothing here reads a state a real converter could not. Perfectly matched, the cascade gives 72.5 decibels against the first stage's own 47.5: second-order shaping out of two first-order loops, neither of which can be unstable. The gain with which the first error reaches the second stage is then given an error, and the flat left-hand half of the curve is the arrangement working. It costs three decibels at 5.29 per cent, which is a capacitor ratio — achievable, and not free, and not something the digital side can measure or correct.

Two loops, and the mismatch between them

The rung below marched single loops of second, third and fourth order and found the amplitude at which each stops working, falling with the order — which is why nobody builds a fourth-order single loop. The standard answer is two first-order loops with the first one's error fed to the second and differentiated back out, giving second-order shaping out of parts that cannot be unstable. The cancellation is between an analogue path and a digital one, and it is worth 25 decibels until the two differ by five per cent.

digital · Noise shaping 300 mirrors built to one design, with 2% device mismatch. computed by solving, not by drawing. Every pair in the population is a full Newton solve of the same netlist with two saturation currents drawn from a normal distribution, the Early conductances iterated to self-consistency for each. The mean is 3.836 per cent, which is the systematic error the rung below computed with identical devices (3.937 per cent) — the mismatch does not move it. The spread about it is 1.955 per cent, which is the device mismatch arriving with nothing dividing it, and the worst pair of the 300 is 8.43 per cent out. A design whose specification is the mean has specified the one mirror nobody has.

The error that is a distribution

The rung below solved a mirror and separated two errors — one that falls with beta and one that does not. Neither is what limits a real mirror. Two transistors on the same die differ, a fractional difference in saturation current is a fractional difference in collector current with nothing dividing it, and the honest object is a spread rather than a number: mean 3.84 per cent, standard deviation 1.96, worst of three hundred 8.43. Degeneration divides it by one plus gm·R and stops at the resistors' own tolerance, and where it stops is a voltage — a hundred millivolts, containing nothing but the ratio of two tolerances.

semiconductors · Current mirror The "offset" a switch leaves moves by 1.863 mV across a volt of signal. computed by solving, not by drawing. The charge a switch leaves on a 1 pF hold capacitor, as the input it was sampling changes. It is W·L·C_ox·(V_gs − V_th) with the clock's high level for the gate, so it falls as the input rises for two reasons at once: less gate drive, and a threshold that rises with the source potential through the body effect. The dashed line is the part that does not know what the signal is — the clock coupling through the gate overlap capacitance, -1.649 mV — and it is the only part of this that is honestly an offset. The curve stops where the switch does: an n-channel device passes nothing within a threshold of its own gate, and the model refuses rather than returning a zero.

The offset that knows the signal

The charge a switch leaves on the capacitor it was sampling is the gate oxide capacitance times the channel area times the overdrive, and both terms in that overdrive depend on the input — one directly and one through the body effect. So the 5.67 mV a data sheet would call an offset moves by 1.86 mV across a volt of signal, which is a gain error of 0.186 per cent and only 3.4 µV of anything else. Opening the summing-node switch first divides the gain error by the amplifier's own gain, exactly, and what is left goes from twenty-nine times the sampled-noise floor to nineteen times below it.

filters · Switched capacitor Three mismatches, and only one of them reaches the output. computed by solving, not by drawing. Each of the three quantities that can differ between the two transistors is given a spread of its own, one at a time, and 200 pairs are solved at each. The saturation currents produce a spread that follows them exactly — exponent 0.998, so 1.910 per cent of copy error for two per cent of mismatch. The current gains produce a line of slope 2.003, which is second order rather than first, and land at 2.20e-4 per cent for the same two. There is no third line because there is no third component: with no emitter resistors there is nothing for a resistor tolerance to be a tolerance of, and matching a mirror is a statement about emitter area and about nothing else.

The mismatch that cancels itself

A current mirror's copy error is spread by three things the two transistors can differ in, and the population that measures it has always drawn all three at once. Turned on one at a time, a two per cent spread of saturation currents gives 1.910 per cent of copy error and a two per cent spread of current gains gives 0.00022 — because the gains enter only as a sum of reciprocals, which has no first derivative where they are equal. Then the standard cure un-cancels it, by a factor of 86.

semiconductors · Current mirror

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Design tradeoffComponent toleranceCurrent mirrorEarly effectEmitter degenerationAdjoint networkCharge injectionComponent sensitivityDesensitivityDevice matchingDynamic rangeGain error

All concepts