Serial or Parallel ADC?

Its usually better to use a PIC with the ADC built in.

If the uC has a serial port, that would be easier but the rate at which you could read the conversion results will be faster with a parallel ADC.

You better check your ADCs, serial, SPI type are faster that parallel types. Those used in DSP applications are all serial(SPI) type.

Rene Tschaggelar wrote:

Slower ADCs use the serial interface while faster ones are connected in parallel.

Rene

Provided the internal ADC is up to the required specifications. Though not that bad, it is limited.

Rene

If SPI can keep up with the ADC output, then the ADC is not fast, in my book.

I don't know what problem domain you are used to working in, but all the fast ADC's I am familiar with are parallel. It wouldn't be all that practical, in my opinion, to do a 14-bit 100 MHz ADC as a serial part, and of course it would be impossible for SPI.

--Mac

If one were better than the other on all aspects only one type would be sold.

Note that there are aslo lots of serial variations (SPI, ICC, I2C,

Wouter van Ooijen

-- ------------------------------------

Hi

I have used a 11 I/P 8 bit serial ADC on a PIC 16F84 quite successfully. Serial uses less uC pins so you can the PIC for other things. I had mine driving a LCD & RS232 chip as well. The programming is slightly more difficult though as you have to program & count address pulses, clock pulses & read out the serial data. Parallel stuff works in bytes (or nybbles) which are usually easier to program

Hope this helps & not too late,

Chopper

Remove 'Chopper' from email address