• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Subscribers 46 subscribers
  • Views 502 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

ADS1292: Comparision with ADS1294

Alwyn DSouza
Intellectual 360 points
Part Number: ADS1292
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: ADS1294

ADS1292 vs ADS1294

ADS1292 ADS1294
Power/channel (uW) 335 750
CMRR(db) -105 -115
Data Rate (ksps) 8 32
Noise(uV, p-p) 8 4

I could identify these key differences from the datasheet, apart from the obvious 2channel vs 4 channel. Also ADS1294 has pace detection hardware. Apart from these are there any compelling factors to select the ADS1294 instead of ADS1292 for 4 electrode ECG. (LA, RA, LL, RL).

I see that the ADS1294 is generally marketed for high end clinical grade applications, is there a reason not to use the ADS1292 for similar applications?

  • 0
    TI__Guru 56222 points
    Hi Alwyn,

    This post from the BIOFAQ may help: e2e.ti.com/.../2856804

    Both the ADS1292 and ADS1294 are great devices - but they have a few differences. The ADS1294 has lower input referred noise, better CMRR, and a higher data rate. The ADS1292 has lower power consumption. It's up to the system engineer designing the system to make some decisions as to which of these parameters are most important. For wearable/portable applications running off a battery, low power is the most important. For systems that desire the greatest performance, then input referred noise is the most important. There's no reason that either device can't be used for similar applications - it's just about tradeoff's and design decisions.