0
\$\begingroup\$

As far as I know we can make a 16:1 MUX using five 4:1 MUX. For four 4:1 MUX, I think we have to apply NOT to different selection lines but I am not getting the correct configuration to do that.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ The question is not clear. Also, if you provide a schematic or drawings to your question it will improve your explanation a lot! \$\endgroup\$ – Alper91 Aug 28 '16 at 9:44
1
\$\begingroup\$

You could've easily found it on the internet if you searched.

The basis: See it this way: You need a combinational logic with 16 input pins, 4 select lines and one output. In a 4:1 mux, you have 4 input pins, two select lines and one output.

So, at the least you have to use 4 4:1 MUX, to obtain 16 input lines. But you'd then have a logic with 4 output pins. We can use another 4:1 MUX, to multiplex only one of those 4 outputs at a time. Hence, this would be your final design. There might be other designs methods too, but this is the most common.

enter image description here

Image courtesy: www.slideplayer.com

EDIT: Yes, we can implement it without using the last 4:1 MUX; but you have to use an OR gate there and also include enable pins for each 4:1 MUX. It utilizes the traditional method; drawing a truth table and then analytically deciding the design. Here is an example of an 8:1 MUX from 2:1 MUX without using a 2:1 MUX at the output.

enter image description here

Image courtesy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neXhD9qyQmo

But, to obtain the same for a 16:1 MUX you'll need to make a lot of modifications. Like if you draw the truth table and analyze (compare it with the above 8:1 MUX design), you'll require two enable pins for each MUX, each with different options. For example, the first MUX needs to be enabled only when the two enable pins(say, e1, e0) are low, the second MUS should be enabled only when e1= 0 and e0=1 and so on.

As the size of the MUX increases, it'll become too complex to design using this model. Hence, the first approach is utilized; the one with a MUX at the end. There may be other designs, but this is my approach.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ This thing i know. I am asking is it possible to make a 16:1 MUX without using that last single 4:1 MUX ? \$\endgroup\$ – Debakar Roy Aug 28 '16 at 5:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, it is. Check the edited answer. \$\endgroup\$ – electronics Aug 28 '16 at 5:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ Actually I watched that video before I asked the question here. Anyway thank you for the explanation part. I think I get it now. \$\endgroup\$ – Debakar Roy Aug 28 '16 at 6:09
-2
\$\begingroup\$

enter image description here

Q 16×1 mux by using 4×1mux Ans:. It contains four 4×1mux are used & it is a 16×1 mux 16 i/p are used the selective lines are S0, s1 ,s2, s3 , and 4 not gates are used and o/p are "y".

See the given image to verify the logical circuit

               It is designed by "Krishna .ch"
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ How is this answer different from the one that was accepted 2 years ago? \$\endgroup\$ – Harry Svensson Sep 21 '18 at 13:55

protected by Community Sep 21 '18 at 13:40

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.