An 11-Bit 10 MS/s SAR ADC with C–R DAC Calibration and Comparator Offset Calibration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some observations about the content of the paper:

-the proposed ADC is an 11-bit ADC, but in the section 2 it is presented as a combination of 8-bit CDAC and a 2-bit RDAC. Furthermore, SAR Logic block has two outputs of 7b and two of 2b. Are these true?

-some further details  regarding the function of calibration code alfa would be welcome

-what does represent the notations w/ C-R DAC and w/o C-R DAC? They are introduced in the caption of some figures.

Author Response

First of all, authors would like to thank the Editor and Reviewers, for providing good comments to improve the quality of the manuscript. The authors tried their best to reply to the comments received through the paper review and to prepare the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      Summary

In this paper, authors have presented 11-bit 10 MS/s successive approximation register (SAR) ADC using capacitor register (C-R) to reduce the area of the capacitor by 75%. The author claims that the proposed ADC is low in terms of power while utilizing the minimum required area.  

2.      General comments

Overall I have to say the authors wrote this paper meticulously, and it will definitely make sense to the readers. The abstract was small but to the point. I believe the authors need to do a better job in writing the introduction section. The authors tried their best to introduce the issues they are trying to address through their proposed design. However, I believe many places,  the authors should have cited other published work. Section 2 was acceptable but could have been better. The proposed technique was appropriately presented in Section 3. The positive aspect of this paper was that the authors presented an experimental result. I believe the paper would have looked stronger if they would have compared their findings with some other published work. Also, the paper would have looked stronger if the authors would have shown a sample measurement besides what they presented with the experimental setup picture.

3.      Improvements that you could suggest on the paper

Major Improvement:

·         None

Minor Improvement:

·         Page 1, line 31-32, needs to be cited.  

·         Page 1, 34-37, generally in the introduction, authors never reveal their design size or parameter. Mostly it can be done in section 2, which describes the proposed design, or other section. Hence, Table no 1 is not required in the introduction section. Rather it can be moved to Section 3.

·         Paragraph 2 in the introduction section on pages no 1 -2, I believe the authors need to cite almost every sentence.

Author Response

First of all, authors would like to thank the Editor and Reviewers, for providing good comments to improve the quality of the manuscript. The authors tried their best to reply to the comments received through the paper review and to prepare the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf