Recently we have acquired an AD9161-FMCC-EBZ evaluation board through Mouser. We already had one, and after running some tests I observed that the balun T1 was different. Consulting the schematics for the different evaluation boards of the AD916X family it can be seen that for the FMCC evaluation boards the correct balun would be the TCM1-63AX+, meanwhile in the FMCB devices we would have the TC1-1-43A+.
The board that we recently purchased has this last component, the TC1-1-43A+, but it is still identified as a AD9161-FMCC-EBZ board. Due to the pinout difference between the baluns, if we plug our two boards in both sockets of a VC707 and configure the corresponding ICs in the same way, we get two signals of reverse polarity. Also, the bandwidth of the wrong balun represents an issue to us, being much worse than the correct one.
For this reason, we wrote to the vendor (Mouser), who told us to ask the manufacturer to confirm that the device is really defective. After putting a request through the tech support link, I was redirected to the forum.
Below is a picture of the defective board. It can be seen that it is signed as an AD9161-FMCC-EBZ, but the balun T1 (between the DAC and the SMA connector) is the TC1-1-43A+. The schematics of the evaluation boards for the AD916X family can be found here:
And the two different baluns:
Mounted one: https://www.minicircuits.com/WebStore/dashboard.html?model=TC1-1-43A%2B
Expected one: https://www.minicircuits.com/WebStore/dashboard.html?model=TCM1-63AX%2B
I am asking for confirmation of this, preferably from an employee of Analog Devices.
Sorry, it looks like the incorrect balun was installed on that board. You can return or exchange it with Mouser or try another source like Arrow or Digi-key. In the meantime, I am checking on our internal processes for how we can validate boards that are in inventory.
After forwarding this to Mouser, they sent us a new board which sadly had the same issue. Having the same batch number, is it possible that all the boards of this model from that batch are affected?
In fact, Mouser told us that AD indicated that we should expose the problem directly through the technical support link, which opened the Case #(SR-142454-S8Z9H9), but we dont have any answers yet.