Why is superheterodyning better than direct conversion? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Is FM more information density efficient than AMDown-Conversion of RF signalHow long does analog to digital conversion take?In Analog to Analog conversion , why we multiply instead of adding?Noise Source in Direct Form 2 DiagramWhy is one return conductor for each forward conductor in a ribbon cable better than a shared return conductor?Understanding Mixer OperationWhy do FM radio signals occupy greater bandwidth than AM?direct conversion SSB (vs DSB-SC)Butterworth bandpass - higher roll-off than expected
Why do the resolve message appear first?
What does this Jacques Hadamard quote mean?
When a candle burns, why does the top of wick glow if bottom of flame is hottest?
Why are the trig functions versine, haversine, exsecant, etc, rarely used in modern mathematics?
Significance of Cersei's obsession with elephants?
Can a party unilaterally change candidates in preparation for a General election?
Delete nth line from bottom
How would a mousetrap for use in space work?
Generate an RGB colour grid
Where are Serre’s lectures at Collège de France to be found?
Is it ethical to give a final exam after the professor has quit before teaching the remaining chapters of the course?
Maximum summed powersets with non-adjacent items
Using audio cues to encourage good posture
8 Prisoners wearing hats
Why are there no cargo aircraft with "flying wing" design?
Is it fair for a professor to grade us on the possession of past papers?
Most bit efficient text communication method?
What does the "x" in "x86" represent?
For a new assistant professor in CS, how to build/manage a publication pipeline
Why didn't Eitri join the fight?
Is there such thing as an Availability Group failover trigger?
Why do we bend a book to keep it straight?
How to find all the available tools in mac terminal?
What is homebrew?
Why is superheterodyning better than direct conversion?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Is FM more information density efficient than AMDown-Conversion of RF signalHow long does analog to digital conversion take?In Analog to Analog conversion , why we multiply instead of adding?Noise Source in Direct Form 2 DiagramWhy is one return conductor for each forward conductor in a ribbon cable better than a shared return conductor?Understanding Mixer OperationWhy do FM radio signals occupy greater bandwidth than AM?direct conversion SSB (vs DSB-SC)Butterworth bandpass - higher roll-off than expected
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
What is the advantage of having the extra stage of IF, extra local oscillator and extra filtering stage and amplification. It just seems like more work and circuitry. Surely the direct conversion to baseband and the intermediate conversion to baseband are both going to go through the same passband filter at the end of it that isolates the original frequency range?
I see answers such as 'it allows common circuitry to be used rather than separate circuitry for each frequency', basically:
Without using an IF, all the complicated filters and detectors in a radio or television would have to be tuned in unison each time the frequency was changed, as was necessary in the early tuned radio frequency receivers
But I don't understand because they could all be tuned to the baseband signal for instance rather than the IF, eliminating the problem described.
I also see:
So a narrower bandwidth and more selectivity can be achieved by converting the signal to a lower IF and performing the filtering at that frequency
But why not perform the filtering only at the baseband frequency IF=0. That is a lower IF, right. Does the addition of the IF passband stage improve the sharpness of final passband as opposed to doing it directly?
The only disadvantage I can understand is the leaking local oscillator and doesn't this happen more at higher frequencies? An IF could allow the first LO to oscillate much slower.
signal-processing am band-pass amplitude-modulation superheterodyne
asked Apr 13 at 14:33
Lewis KelseyLewis Kelsey
1414
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What is the advantage of having the extra stage of IF, extra local oscillator and extra filtering stage and amplification. It just seems like more work and circuitry. Surely the direct conversion to baseband and the intermediate conversion to baseband are both going to go through the same passband filter at the end of it that isolates the original frequency range?
I see answers such as 'it allows common circuitry to be used rather than separate circuitry for each frequency', basically:
Without using an IF, all the complicated filters and detectors in a radio or television would have to be tuned in unison each time the frequency was changed, as was necessary in the early tuned radio frequency receivers
But I don't understand because they could all be tuned to the baseband signal for instance rather than the IF, eliminating the problem described.
I also see:
So a narrower bandwidth and more selectivity can be achieved by converting the signal to a lower IF and performing the filtering at that frequency
But why not perform the filtering only at the baseband frequency IF=0. That is a lower IF, right. Does the addition of the IF passband stage improve the sharpness of final passband as opposed to doing it directly?
The only disadvantage I can understand is the leaking local oscillator and doesn't this happen more at higher frequencies? An IF could allow the first LO to oscillate much slower.
signal-processing am band-pass amplitude-modulation superheterodyne
asked Apr 13 at 14:33
Lewis KelseyLewis Kelsey
1414
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't know enough to say for sure, but consider the size difference between low-frequency and high-frequency inductors and capacitors of the same impedance. The high-frequency ones are a lot smaller.
$endgroup$
– Hearth
Apr 13 at 14:38
2
$begingroup$
Opposite sideband rejection is one issue (unless you do the quadrature thing a direct conversion set does not have any!), while an intermediate LO makes this relatively easy. The other elephant in the room is the massive dynamic range present at the mixer output, it is hard to build a low frequency LPF with steep skirts and a 100dB++ dynamic range.
$endgroup$
– Dan Mills
Apr 13 at 14:48
$begingroup$
I've seen low-IF be used, to preserve the modulation phasors.
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
Apr 13 at 14:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What is the advantage of having the extra stage of IF, extra local oscillator and extra filtering stage and amplification. It just seems like more work and circuitry. Surely the direct conversion to baseband and the intermediate conversion to baseband are both going to go through the same passband filter at the end of it that isolates the original frequency range?
I see answers such as 'it allows common circuitry to be used rather than separate circuitry for each frequency', basically:
Without using an IF, all the complicated filters and detectors in a radio or television would have to be tuned in unison each time the frequency was changed, as was necessary in the early tuned radio frequency receivers
But I don't understand because they could all be tuned to the baseband signal for instance rather than the IF, eliminating the problem described.
I also see:
So a narrower bandwidth and more selectivity can be achieved by converting the signal to a lower IF and performing the filtering at that frequency
But why not perform the filtering only at the baseband frequency IF=0. That is a lower IF, right. Does the addition of the IF passband stage improve the sharpness of final passband as opposed to doing it directly?
The only disadvantage I can understand is the leaking local oscillator and doesn't this happen more at higher frequencies? An IF could allow the first LO to oscillate much slower.
signal-processing am band-pass amplitude-modulation superheterodyne
asked Apr 13 at 14:33
Lewis KelseyLewis Kelsey
1414
$endgroup$
What is the advantage of having the extra stage of IF, extra local oscillator and extra filtering stage and amplification. It just seems like more work and circuitry. Surely the direct conversion to baseband and the intermediate conversion to baseband are both going to go through the same passband filter at the end of it that isolates the original frequency range?
I see answers such as 'it allows common circuitry to be used rather than separate circuitry for each frequency', basically:
Without using an IF, all the complicated filters and detectors in a radio or television would have to be tuned in unison each time the frequency was changed, as was necessary in the early tuned radio frequency receivers
But I don't understand because they could all be tuned to the baseband signal for instance rather than the IF, eliminating the problem described.
I also see:
So a narrower bandwidth and more selectivity can be achieved by converting the signal to a lower IF and performing the filtering at that frequency
But why not perform the filtering only at the baseband frequency IF=0. That is a lower IF, right. Does the addition of the IF passband stage improve the sharpness of final passband as opposed to doing it directly?
The only disadvantage I can understand is the leaking local oscillator and doesn't this happen more at higher frequencies? An IF could allow the first LO to oscillate much slower.
signal-processing am band-pass amplitude-modulation superheterodyne
signal-processing am band-pass amplitude-modulation superheterodyne
asked Apr 13 at 14:33
Lewis KelseyLewis Kelsey
1414
asked Apr 13 at 14:33
Lewis KelseyLewis Kelsey
1414
asked Apr 13 at 14:33
Lewis KelseyLewis Kelsey
1414
asked Apr 13 at 14:33
Lewis KelseyLewis Kelsey
1414
asked Apr 13 at 14:33
Lewis KelseyLewis Kelsey
1414
1414
$begingroup$
I don't know enough to say for sure, but consider the size difference between low-frequency and high-frequency inductors and capacitors of the same impedance. The high-frequency ones are a lot smaller.
$endgroup$
– Hearth
Apr 13 at 14:38
2
$begingroup$
Opposite sideband rejection is one issue (unless you do the quadrature thing a direct conversion set does not have any!), while an intermediate LO makes this relatively easy. The other elephant in the room is the massive dynamic range present at the mixer output, it is hard to build a low frequency LPF with steep skirts and a 100dB++ dynamic range.
$endgroup$
– Dan Mills
Apr 13 at 14:48
$begingroup$
I've seen low-IF be used, to preserve the modulation phasors.
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
Apr 13 at 14:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't know enough to say for sure, but consider the size difference between low-frequency and high-frequency inductors and capacitors of the same impedance. The high-frequency ones are a lot smaller.
$endgroup$
– Hearth
Apr 13 at 14:38
2
$begingroup$
Opposite sideband rejection is one issue (unless you do the quadrature thing a direct conversion set does not have any!), while an intermediate LO makes this relatively easy. The other elephant in the room is the massive dynamic range present at the mixer output, it is hard to build a low frequency LPF with steep skirts and a 100dB++ dynamic range.
$endgroup$
– Dan Mills
Apr 13 at 14:48
$begingroup$
I've seen low-IF be used, to preserve the modulation phasors.
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
Apr 13 at 14:59
$begingroup$
I don't know enough to say for sure, but consider the size difference between low-frequency and high-frequency inductors and capacitors of the same impedance. The high-frequency ones are a lot smaller.
$endgroup$
– Hearth
Apr 13 at 14:38
$begingroup$
I don't know enough to say for sure, but consider the size difference between low-frequency and high-frequency inductors and capacitors of the same impedance. The high-frequency ones are a lot smaller.
$endgroup$
– Hearth
Apr 13 at 14:38
2
2
$begingroup$
Opposite sideband rejection is one issue (unless you do the quadrature thing a direct conversion set does not have any!), while an intermediate LO makes this relatively easy. The other elephant in the room is the massive dynamic range present at the mixer output, it is hard to build a low frequency LPF with steep skirts and a 100dB++ dynamic range.
$endgroup$
– Dan Mills
Apr 13 at 14:48
$begingroup$
Opposite sideband rejection is one issue (unless you do the quadrature thing a direct conversion set does not have any!), while an intermediate LO makes this relatively easy. The other elephant in the room is the massive dynamic range present at the mixer output, it is hard to build a low frequency LPF with steep skirts and a 100dB++ dynamic range.
$endgroup$
– Dan Mills
Apr 13 at 14:48
$begingroup$
I've seen low-IF be used, to preserve the modulation phasors.
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
Apr 13 at 14:59
$begingroup$
I've seen low-IF be used, to preserve the modulation phasors.
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
Apr 13 at 14:59
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are quite a few advantages.
Taking a look at a typical superhet (up to the IF):
The input signal at the RF input is small (as low as -122dBm in some narrow band voice systems I have worked on - that is about 6.3fW)
To amplify a signal at a high RF (say a few GHz) is expensive compared to doing that amplification at a lower frequency. A few dB of RF gain is usually sufficient to process the signal up to the IF stage.
The input filter bandwidth has to be such that it is less than the channel spacing (usually less than the output bandwidth) so it is easier to implement.
The image rejection filter bandwidth is set by the local oscillator frequency (at RF +/- IF), so choosing a relatively low IF means that image rejection is relatively easy to do as well.
The IF amplifier is usually where most of the signal gain is done at a relatively low cost and low complexity (compared to trying to do that at higher frequencies). The filter prevents bleed through and sets the signal bandwidth to the information bandwidth.
Another major advantage is that everything after the mixer is fixed - no adjustment necessary during normal operation which is why the dynamic signal range can be high. I have not shown the AGC (just about always present) but that is also a fixed piece of (dynamic) circuitry.
An improvement is the double superhet (2 IF stages) which I worked with decadees ago and they are still highly popular.
There are direct conversion receivers but they suffer from a number of issues, in particular dynamic range of the signal.
[Update]
In response to the comment, there are wide dynamic range direct conversion receivers (one possible source listed); these have been around for some time and are often found in SDR setups.
A purely hardware approach favours the superhet.
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
Peter SmithPeter Smith
15.1k11240
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Actually, some of the highest dynamic range receivers in existence are direct conversion
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
Apr 13 at 15:33
1
$begingroup$
+1 Good answer, but one point to add: Most receivers/transmitter/transceivers do not have a single frequency, but an entire range. It is easier to tune the LF part of the hardware to a single frequency, but the characatistics of the HF signal have to be maintained, which is why a carrier frequency of 0 Hz cannot be chosen directly (obviously, this would cut the LSB in most use cases). Hence, the superhet circuit converts between a tunable HF range and a lower fixed frequency; the LF part is then optimised for the fixed lower freuqency.
$endgroup$
– rexkogitans
Apr 13 at 16:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Note that this answer is skewed toward analog radio reception. The rules are different for software-defined radios, and for digital services.
The biggest drawback to direct conversion is sideband suppression. If you use a single mixer, a signal at $f_c + f_s$ is indistinguishable from a signal at $f_c - f_s$, where $f_c$ is the carrier and $f_s$ is the signal frequency. You can mitigate this problem a lot with quadrature downconversion, but while it's enough for digital data reception, it's not good enough for analog (i.e., SSB or AM).
The second biggest drawback is the amount of gain you need at one frequency. Receivers need a lot of gain, and mixers are usually the limiting factor in high dynamic range. So you'd like to put all of your gain after the first mixer, which tends to be the one that sees the most interfering signals. For a sensitive SSB receiver this gain can be in excess of 120dB. It is difficult to impossible to get that much gain without oscillating. In fact, if you look in the amateur radio literature you'll see that most direct conversion receivers have headphones -- there's a reason for this.
Other problems are LO bleed-through and the difficulty of achieving a low-noise, low-impedance amplifier at audio frequencies.
So all of these drawbacks leave you with a distinct advantage to putting at least some of your filtering and gain before the final conversion to audio -- once you assume that such a step is necessary, I think the reasons that confuse you will suddenly make sense.
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
TimWescottTimWescott
7,0091416
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Actually, you can do sideband suppression using quadrature techniques, on TX and RX -- there are DC designs in the ham world that do just that
$endgroup$
– ThreePhaseEel
Apr 14 at 3:55
$begingroup$
@ThreePhaseEel yes. I addressed that: "You can mitigate this problem a lot with quadrature downconversion, but while it's enough for digital data reception, it's not good enough for analog". It can be used, and it is, but getting more than 40dB or so of opposite sideband suppression with analog circuitry requires heroic measures. The fact that only a small percentage of commercial receivers ever used it is a strong indication of the cost/benefit tradeoff.
$endgroup$
– TimWescott
Apr 14 at 14:24
$begingroup$
What's the "reason for this"?
$endgroup$
– David Cullen
Apr 14 at 20:58
$begingroup$
@DavidCullen I think you're asking about sideband suppression in direct-conversion receivers. It's because the sideband you don't want is suppressed by subtracting out a pair of signals that go through separate channels, that must be matched for gain, and which must have phase shifts 90 degrees apart. That is difficult to achieve, and subject to component variations -- so you end up with less suppression than you'd like.
$endgroup$
– TimWescott
Apr 14 at 21:20
$begingroup$
I was asking about why "most direct conversion receivers have headphones". How exactly do headphones help?
$endgroup$
– David Cullen
Apr 14 at 21:31
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Yes, direct-conversion receivers exist, but they require special care, especially with certain kinds of modulation.
For example, with SSB modulation, in order to reject the unwanted sideband, your baseband demodulator must be able to distinguish between "positive frequency" and "negative frequency". This is not trivial, and is only really practical using DSP.
Similarly, if you translate the center frequency of an FM or PM signal down to 0 Hz, again you need to distinguish between positive and negative frequencies in order to demodulate it properly.
Even with AM or DSB signals, where the sidebands contain identical information, unless your conversion is perfect (your LO precisely matches the received carrier frequency), you get distortion — or a constant tone from the AM carrier.
Superheterodyne was invented in the days when demodulation was done by simple envelope detectors, which didn't have any frequency discrimination at all, let alone distinguishing between positive and negative frequencies. All selectivity has to be applied before demodulation, which gets back to the reasons you found — you either need filters that can track the carrier frequency with constant bandwidth, or you convert to a fixed intermediate frequency where you can use fixed filters.
answered Apr 13 at 14:53
Dave Tweed♦Dave Tweed
125k10155269
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Direct conversion is conceptually simple, but requires considerable engineering to do it right. Besides Dave's & Tim's answers, there is a subtle pernicious potential problem with direct conversion...
Most mixers (even doubly-balanced ones) leak local oscillator power to both RF port and IF port. Power leaking backwards through to the RF port to the antenna can cause problems. Even with excellent mixer balance, re-radiated Local Oscillator energy is often much larger than incoming signals.
Re-radiated L.O. can be modified (phase, amplitude) and re-enter the receiving antenna, back into the mixer. Mixer balance can be adversely affected. As well, a baseband signal is generated at the mixer's output port that can foul the desired baseband signal.
Some motion sensors, "bug" detectors take advantage of this process, where the "spurious" baseband signal is the desired result, indicating motion for example.
A linear receiver is most often desired, in which case you don't want local oscillator energy to find its way back to the signal source. Having excellent mixer balance is a start, adding a strong RF preamp with good output-to-input isolation helps too. All difficult as frequency goes up.
answered Apr 13 at 15:51
glen_geekglen_geek
9,74611016
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No one else has mentioned the problem of frequency offset in the mixer stages. The RF mixer does its best to match the frequency of the carrier, but there will still be a difference which will result in the IF having an offset from the desired frequency. An IF stage with a non-zero center frequency allows a PLL to be used to track the IF signal and remove most of the frequency offset.
It is usually easier and cheaper to make the best PLL at IF frequencies rather than RF frequencies.
You can use two mixers to convert the received signal to I and Q, but that would require two expensive RF frequency PLLs that also have to have a fixed 90 degree phase difference. This is also something that is a lot easier and cheaper to do at IF frequencies.
answered Apr 13 at 16:11
David CullenDavid Cullen
1214
New contributor
David Cullen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem is mixer LO rejection, and close to carrier LO phase noise. 20dB is trivial out of the box. 40dB is straightforward with care. 60dB is just possible with heroics and dynamic adjustment. 80dB can be done in the lab, for a short while, at spot frequencies, if you're lucky, and the temperature doesn't change. You need >120dB to get a direct conversion receiver to work as well as a superhet.
Unless you're using OFDM. There you have dozens of carriers, and not all are used for data. There are some for pilots, some for guard bands, and in some advanced systems there are some that are only used to reduce the peak RF voltage of the ensemble to ease transmitter linearity issues. So leaving a few carriers with no data on them at and around the channel centre (DC if we're talking IQ basebands, the LO for a direct conversion receiver) is no huge inefficiency.
answered Apr 14 at 15:08
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79.2k285182
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("schematics", function ()
StackExchange.schematics.init();
);
, "cicuitlab");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "135"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f432355%2fwhy-is-superheterodyning-better-than-direct-conversion%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are quite a few advantages.
Taking a look at a typical superhet (up to the IF):
The input signal at the RF input is small (as low as -122dBm in some narrow band voice systems I have worked on - that is about 6.3fW)
To amplify a signal at a high RF (say a few GHz) is expensive compared to doing that amplification at a lower frequency. A few dB of RF gain is usually sufficient to process the signal up to the IF stage.
The input filter bandwidth has to be such that it is less than the channel spacing (usually less than the output bandwidth) so it is easier to implement.
The image rejection filter bandwidth is set by the local oscillator frequency (at RF +/- IF), so choosing a relatively low IF means that image rejection is relatively easy to do as well.
The IF amplifier is usually where most of the signal gain is done at a relatively low cost and low complexity (compared to trying to do that at higher frequencies). The filter prevents bleed through and sets the signal bandwidth to the information bandwidth.
Another major advantage is that everything after the mixer is fixed - no adjustment necessary during normal operation which is why the dynamic signal range can be high. I have not shown the AGC (just about always present) but that is also a fixed piece of (dynamic) circuitry.
An improvement is the double superhet (2 IF stages) which I worked with decadees ago and they are still highly popular.
There are direct conversion receivers but they suffer from a number of issues, in particular dynamic range of the signal.
[Update]
In response to the comment, there are wide dynamic range direct conversion receivers (one possible source listed); these have been around for some time and are often found in SDR setups.
A purely hardware approach favours the superhet.
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
Peter SmithPeter Smith
15.1k11240
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Actually, some of the highest dynamic range receivers in existence are direct conversion
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
Apr 13 at 15:33
1
$begingroup$
+1 Good answer, but one point to add: Most receivers/transmitter/transceivers do not have a single frequency, but an entire range. It is easier to tune the LF part of the hardware to a single frequency, but the characatistics of the HF signal have to be maintained, which is why a carrier frequency of 0 Hz cannot be chosen directly (obviously, this would cut the LSB in most use cases). Hence, the superhet circuit converts between a tunable HF range and a lower fixed frequency; the LF part is then optimised for the fixed lower freuqency.
$endgroup$
– rexkogitans
Apr 13 at 16:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are quite a few advantages.
Taking a look at a typical superhet (up to the IF):
The input signal at the RF input is small (as low as -122dBm in some narrow band voice systems I have worked on - that is about 6.3fW)
To amplify a signal at a high RF (say a few GHz) is expensive compared to doing that amplification at a lower frequency. A few dB of RF gain is usually sufficient to process the signal up to the IF stage.
The input filter bandwidth has to be such that it is less than the channel spacing (usually less than the output bandwidth) so it is easier to implement.
The image rejection filter bandwidth is set by the local oscillator frequency (at RF +/- IF), so choosing a relatively low IF means that image rejection is relatively easy to do as well.
The IF amplifier is usually where most of the signal gain is done at a relatively low cost and low complexity (compared to trying to do that at higher frequencies). The filter prevents bleed through and sets the signal bandwidth to the information bandwidth.
Another major advantage is that everything after the mixer is fixed - no adjustment necessary during normal operation which is why the dynamic signal range can be high. I have not shown the AGC (just about always present) but that is also a fixed piece of (dynamic) circuitry.
An improvement is the double superhet (2 IF stages) which I worked with decadees ago and they are still highly popular.
There are direct conversion receivers but they suffer from a number of issues, in particular dynamic range of the signal.
[Update]
In response to the comment, there are wide dynamic range direct conversion receivers (one possible source listed); these have been around for some time and are often found in SDR setups.
A purely hardware approach favours the superhet.
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
Peter SmithPeter Smith
15.1k11240
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Actually, some of the highest dynamic range receivers in existence are direct conversion
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
Apr 13 at 15:33
1
$begingroup$
+1 Good answer, but one point to add: Most receivers/transmitter/transceivers do not have a single frequency, but an entire range. It is easier to tune the LF part of the hardware to a single frequency, but the characatistics of the HF signal have to be maintained, which is why a carrier frequency of 0 Hz cannot be chosen directly (obviously, this would cut the LSB in most use cases). Hence, the superhet circuit converts between a tunable HF range and a lower fixed frequency; the LF part is then optimised for the fixed lower freuqency.
$endgroup$
– rexkogitans
Apr 13 at 16:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are quite a few advantages.
Taking a look at a typical superhet (up to the IF):
The input signal at the RF input is small (as low as -122dBm in some narrow band voice systems I have worked on - that is about 6.3fW)
To amplify a signal at a high RF (say a few GHz) is expensive compared to doing that amplification at a lower frequency. A few dB of RF gain is usually sufficient to process the signal up to the IF stage.
The input filter bandwidth has to be such that it is less than the channel spacing (usually less than the output bandwidth) so it is easier to implement.
The image rejection filter bandwidth is set by the local oscillator frequency (at RF +/- IF), so choosing a relatively low IF means that image rejection is relatively easy to do as well.
The IF amplifier is usually where most of the signal gain is done at a relatively low cost and low complexity (compared to trying to do that at higher frequencies). The filter prevents bleed through and sets the signal bandwidth to the information bandwidth.
Another major advantage is that everything after the mixer is fixed - no adjustment necessary during normal operation which is why the dynamic signal range can be high. I have not shown the AGC (just about always present) but that is also a fixed piece of (dynamic) circuitry.
An improvement is the double superhet (2 IF stages) which I worked with decadees ago and they are still highly popular.
There are direct conversion receivers but they suffer from a number of issues, in particular dynamic range of the signal.
[Update]
In response to the comment, there are wide dynamic range direct conversion receivers (one possible source listed); these have been around for some time and are often found in SDR setups.
A purely hardware approach favours the superhet.
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
Peter SmithPeter Smith
15.1k11240
$endgroup$
There are quite a few advantages.
Taking a look at a typical superhet (up to the IF):
The input signal at the RF input is small (as low as -122dBm in some narrow band voice systems I have worked on - that is about 6.3fW)
To amplify a signal at a high RF (say a few GHz) is expensive compared to doing that amplification at a lower frequency. A few dB of RF gain is usually sufficient to process the signal up to the IF stage.
The input filter bandwidth has to be such that it is less than the channel spacing (usually less than the output bandwidth) so it is easier to implement.
The image rejection filter bandwidth is set by the local oscillator frequency (at RF +/- IF), so choosing a relatively low IF means that image rejection is relatively easy to do as well.
The IF amplifier is usually where most of the signal gain is done at a relatively low cost and low complexity (compared to trying to do that at higher frequencies). The filter prevents bleed through and sets the signal bandwidth to the information bandwidth.
Another major advantage is that everything after the mixer is fixed - no adjustment necessary during normal operation which is why the dynamic signal range can be high. I have not shown the AGC (just about always present) but that is also a fixed piece of (dynamic) circuitry.
An improvement is the double superhet (2 IF stages) which I worked with decadees ago and they are still highly popular.
There are direct conversion receivers but they suffer from a number of issues, in particular dynamic range of the signal.
[Update]
In response to the comment, there are wide dynamic range direct conversion receivers (one possible source listed); these have been around for some time and are often found in SDR setups.
A purely hardware approach favours the superhet.
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
Peter SmithPeter Smith
15.1k11240
edited Apr 13 at 15:48
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
Peter SmithPeter Smith
15.1k11240
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
Peter SmithPeter Smith
15.1k11240
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
Peter SmithPeter Smith
15.1k11240
15.1k11240
1
$begingroup$
Actually, some of the highest dynamic range receivers in existence are direct conversion
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
Apr 13 at 15:33
1
$begingroup$
+1 Good answer, but one point to add: Most receivers/transmitter/transceivers do not have a single frequency, but an entire range. It is easier to tune the LF part of the hardware to a single frequency, but the characatistics of the HF signal have to be maintained, which is why a carrier frequency of 0 Hz cannot be chosen directly (obviously, this would cut the LSB in most use cases). Hence, the superhet circuit converts between a tunable HF range and a lower fixed frequency; the LF part is then optimised for the fixed lower freuqency.
$endgroup$
– rexkogitans
Apr 13 at 16:16
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Actually, some of the highest dynamic range receivers in existence are direct conversion
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
Apr 13 at 15:33
1
$begingroup$
+1 Good answer, but one point to add: Most receivers/transmitter/transceivers do not have a single frequency, but an entire range. It is easier to tune the LF part of the hardware to a single frequency, but the characatistics of the HF signal have to be maintained, which is why a carrier frequency of 0 Hz cannot be chosen directly (obviously, this would cut the LSB in most use cases). Hence, the superhet circuit converts between a tunable HF range and a lower fixed frequency; the LF part is then optimised for the fixed lower freuqency.
$endgroup$
– rexkogitans
Apr 13 at 16:16
1
1
$begingroup$
Actually, some of the highest dynamic range receivers in existence are direct conversion
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
Apr 13 at 15:33
$begingroup$
Actually, some of the highest dynamic range receivers in existence are direct conversion
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
Apr 13 at 15:33
1
1
$begingroup$
+1 Good answer, but one point to add: Most receivers/transmitter/transceivers do not have a single frequency, but an entire range. It is easier to tune the LF part of the hardware to a single frequency, but the characatistics of the HF signal have to be maintained, which is why a carrier frequency of 0 Hz cannot be chosen directly (obviously, this would cut the LSB in most use cases). Hence, the superhet circuit converts between a tunable HF range and a lower fixed frequency; the LF part is then optimised for the fixed lower freuqency.
$endgroup$
– rexkogitans
Apr 13 at 16:16
$begingroup$
+1 Good answer, but one point to add: Most receivers/transmitter/transceivers do not have a single frequency, but an entire range. It is easier to tune the LF part of the hardware to a single frequency, but the characatistics of the HF signal have to be maintained, which is why a carrier frequency of 0 Hz cannot be chosen directly (obviously, this would cut the LSB in most use cases). Hence, the superhet circuit converts between a tunable HF range and a lower fixed frequency; the LF part is then optimised for the fixed lower freuqency.
$endgroup$
– rexkogitans
Apr 13 at 16:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Note that this answer is skewed toward analog radio reception. The rules are different for software-defined radios, and for digital services.
The biggest drawback to direct conversion is sideband suppression. If you use a single mixer, a signal at $f_c + f_s$ is indistinguishable from a signal at $f_c - f_s$, where $f_c$ is the carrier and $f_s$ is the signal frequency. You can mitigate this problem a lot with quadrature downconversion, but while it's enough for digital data reception, it's not good enough for analog (i.e., SSB or AM).
The second biggest drawback is the amount of gain you need at one frequency. Receivers need a lot of gain, and mixers are usually the limiting factor in high dynamic range. So you'd like to put all of your gain after the first mixer, which tends to be the one that sees the most interfering signals. For a sensitive SSB receiver this gain can be in excess of 120dB. It is difficult to impossible to get that much gain without oscillating. In fact, if you look in the amateur radio literature you'll see that most direct conversion receivers have headphones -- there's a reason for this.
Other problems are LO bleed-through and the difficulty of achieving a low-noise, low-impedance amplifier at audio frequencies.
So all of these drawbacks leave you with a distinct advantage to putting at least some of your filtering and gain before the final conversion to audio -- once you assume that such a step is necessary, I think the reasons that confuse you will suddenly make sense.
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
TimWescottTimWescott
7,0091416
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Actually, you can do sideband suppression using quadrature techniques, on TX and RX -- there are DC designs in the ham world that do just that
$endgroup$
– ThreePhaseEel
Apr 14 at 3:55
$begingroup$
@ThreePhaseEel yes. I addressed that: "You can mitigate this problem a lot with quadrature downconversion, but while it's enough for digital data reception, it's not good enough for analog". It can be used, and it is, but getting more than 40dB or so of opposite sideband suppression with analog circuitry requires heroic measures. The fact that only a small percentage of commercial receivers ever used it is a strong indication of the cost/benefit tradeoff.
$endgroup$
– TimWescott
Apr 14 at 14:24
$begingroup$
What's the "reason for this"?
$endgroup$
– David Cullen
Apr 14 at 20:58
$begingroup$
@DavidCullen I think you're asking about sideband suppression in direct-conversion receivers. It's because the sideband you don't want is suppressed by subtracting out a pair of signals that go through separate channels, that must be matched for gain, and which must have phase shifts 90 degrees apart. That is difficult to achieve, and subject to component variations -- so you end up with less suppression than you'd like.
$endgroup$
– TimWescott
Apr 14 at 21:20
$begingroup$
I was asking about why "most direct conversion receivers have headphones". How exactly do headphones help?
$endgroup$
– David Cullen
Apr 14 at 21:31
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Note that this answer is skewed toward analog radio reception. The rules are different for software-defined radios, and for digital services.
The biggest drawback to direct conversion is sideband suppression. If you use a single mixer, a signal at $f_c + f_s$ is indistinguishable from a signal at $f_c - f_s$, where $f_c$ is the carrier and $f_s$ is the signal frequency. You can mitigate this problem a lot with quadrature downconversion, but while it's enough for digital data reception, it's not good enough for analog (i.e., SSB or AM).
The second biggest drawback is the amount of gain you need at one frequency. Receivers need a lot of gain, and mixers are usually the limiting factor in high dynamic range. So you'd like to put all of your gain after the first mixer, which tends to be the one that sees the most interfering signals. For a sensitive SSB receiver this gain can be in excess of 120dB. It is difficult to impossible to get that much gain without oscillating. In fact, if you look in the amateur radio literature you'll see that most direct conversion receivers have headphones -- there's a reason for this.
Other problems are LO bleed-through and the difficulty of achieving a low-noise, low-impedance amplifier at audio frequencies.
So all of these drawbacks leave you with a distinct advantage to putting at least some of your filtering and gain before the final conversion to audio -- once you assume that such a step is necessary, I think the reasons that confuse you will suddenly make sense.
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
TimWescottTimWescott
7,0091416
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Actually, you can do sideband suppression using quadrature techniques, on TX and RX -- there are DC designs in the ham world that do just that
$endgroup$
– ThreePhaseEel
Apr 14 at 3:55
$begingroup$
@ThreePhaseEel yes. I addressed that: "You can mitigate this problem a lot with quadrature downconversion, but while it's enough for digital data reception, it's not good enough for analog". It can be used, and it is, but getting more than 40dB or so of opposite sideband suppression with analog circuitry requires heroic measures. The fact that only a small percentage of commercial receivers ever used it is a strong indication of the cost/benefit tradeoff.
$endgroup$
– TimWescott
Apr 14 at 14:24
$begingroup$
What's the "reason for this"?
$endgroup$
– David Cullen
Apr 14 at 20:58
$begingroup$
@DavidCullen I think you're asking about sideband suppression in direct-conversion receivers. It's because the sideband you don't want is suppressed by subtracting out a pair of signals that go through separate channels, that must be matched for gain, and which must have phase shifts 90 degrees apart. That is difficult to achieve, and subject to component variations -- so you end up with less suppression than you'd like.
$endgroup$
– TimWescott
Apr 14 at 21:20
$begingroup$
I was asking about why "most direct conversion receivers have headphones". How exactly do headphones help?
$endgroup$
– David Cullen
Apr 14 at 21:31
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Note that this answer is skewed toward analog radio reception. The rules are different for software-defined radios, and for digital services.
The biggest drawback to direct conversion is sideband suppression. If you use a single mixer, a signal at $f_c + f_s$ is indistinguishable from a signal at $f_c - f_s$, where $f_c$ is the carrier and $f_s$ is the signal frequency. You can mitigate this problem a lot with quadrature downconversion, but while it's enough for digital data reception, it's not good enough for analog (i.e., SSB or AM).
The second biggest drawback is the amount of gain you need at one frequency. Receivers need a lot of gain, and mixers are usually the limiting factor in high dynamic range. So you'd like to put all of your gain after the first mixer, which tends to be the one that sees the most interfering signals. For a sensitive SSB receiver this gain can be in excess of 120dB. It is difficult to impossible to get that much gain without oscillating. In fact, if you look in the amateur radio literature you'll see that most direct conversion receivers have headphones -- there's a reason for this.
Other problems are LO bleed-through and the difficulty of achieving a low-noise, low-impedance amplifier at audio frequencies.
So all of these drawbacks leave you with a distinct advantage to putting at least some of your filtering and gain before the final conversion to audio -- once you assume that such a step is necessary, I think the reasons that confuse you will suddenly make sense.
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
TimWescottTimWescott
7,0091416
$endgroup$
Note that this answer is skewed toward analog radio reception. The rules are different for software-defined radios, and for digital services.
The biggest drawback to direct conversion is sideband suppression. If you use a single mixer, a signal at $f_c + f_s$ is indistinguishable from a signal at $f_c - f_s$, where $f_c$ is the carrier and $f_s$ is the signal frequency. You can mitigate this problem a lot with quadrature downconversion, but while it's enough for digital data reception, it's not good enough for analog (i.e., SSB or AM).
The second biggest drawback is the amount of gain you need at one frequency. Receivers need a lot of gain, and mixers are usually the limiting factor in high dynamic range. So you'd like to put all of your gain after the first mixer, which tends to be the one that sees the most interfering signals. For a sensitive SSB receiver this gain can be in excess of 120dB. It is difficult to impossible to get that much gain without oscillating. In fact, if you look in the amateur radio literature you'll see that most direct conversion receivers have headphones -- there's a reason for this.
Other problems are LO bleed-through and the difficulty of achieving a low-noise, low-impedance amplifier at audio frequencies.
So all of these drawbacks leave you with a distinct advantage to putting at least some of your filtering and gain before the final conversion to audio -- once you assume that such a step is necessary, I think the reasons that confuse you will suddenly make sense.
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
TimWescottTimWescott
7,0091416
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
TimWescottTimWescott
7,0091416
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
TimWescottTimWescott
7,0091416
answered Apr 13 at 14:58
TimWescottTimWescott
7,0091416
7,0091416
$begingroup$
Actually, you can do sideband suppression using quadrature techniques, on TX and RX -- there are DC designs in the ham world that do just that
$endgroup$
– ThreePhaseEel
Apr 14 at 3:55
$begingroup$
@ThreePhaseEel yes. I addressed that: "You can mitigate this problem a lot with quadrature downconversion, but while it's enough for digital data reception, it's not good enough for analog". It can be used, and it is, but getting more than 40dB or so of opposite sideband suppression with analog circuitry requires heroic measures. The fact that only a small percentage of commercial receivers ever used it is a strong indication of the cost/benefit tradeoff.
$endgroup$
– TimWescott
Apr 14 at 14:24
$begingroup$
What's the "reason for this"?
$endgroup$
– David Cullen
Apr 14 at 20:58
$begingroup$
@DavidCullen I think you're asking about sideband suppression in direct-conversion receivers. It's because the sideband you don't want is suppressed by subtracting out a pair of signals that go through separate channels, that must be matched for gain, and which must have phase shifts 90 degrees apart. That is difficult to achieve, and subject to component variations -- so you end up with less suppression than you'd like.
$endgroup$
– TimWescott
Apr 14 at 21:20
$begingroup$
I was asking about why "most direct conversion receivers have headphones". How exactly do headphones help?
$endgroup$
– David Cullen
Apr 14 at 21:31
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Actually, you can do sideband suppression using quadrature techniques, on TX and RX -- there are DC designs in the ham world that do just that
$endgroup$
– ThreePhaseEel
Apr 14 at 3:55
$begingroup$
@ThreePhaseEel yes. I addressed that: "You can mitigate this problem a lot with quadrature downconversion, but while it's enough for digital data reception, it's not good enough for analog". It can be used, and it is, but getting more than 40dB or so of opposite sideband suppression with analog circuitry requires heroic measures. The fact that only a small percentage of commercial receivers ever used it is a strong indication of the cost/benefit tradeoff.
$endgroup$
– TimWescott
Apr 14 at 14:24
$begingroup$
What's the "reason for this"?
$endgroup$
– David Cullen
Apr 14 at 20:58
$begingroup$
@DavidCullen I think you're asking about sideband suppression in direct-conversion receivers. It's because the sideband you don't want is suppressed by subtracting out a pair of signals that go through separate channels, that must be matched for gain, and which must have phase shifts 90 degrees apart. That is difficult to achieve, and subject to component variations -- so you end up with less suppression than you'd like.
$endgroup$
– TimWescott
Apr 14 at 21:20
$begingroup$
I was asking about why "most direct conversion receivers have headphones". How exactly do headphones help?
$endgroup$
– David Cullen
Apr 14 at 21:31
$begingroup$
Actually, you can do sideband suppression using quadrature techniques, on TX and RX -- there are DC designs in the ham world that do just that
$endgroup$
– ThreePhaseEel
Apr 14 at 3:55
$begingroup$
Actually, you can do sideband suppression using quadrature techniques, on TX and RX -- there are DC designs in the ham world that do just that
$endgroup$
– ThreePhaseEel
Apr 14 at 3:55
$begingroup$
@ThreePhaseEel yes. I addressed that: "You can mitigate this problem a lot with quadrature downconversion, but while it's enough for digital data reception, it's not good enough for analog". It can be used, and it is, but getting more than 40dB or so of opposite sideband suppression with analog circuitry requires heroic measures. The fact that only a small percentage of commercial receivers ever used it is a strong indication of the cost/benefit tradeoff.
$endgroup$
– TimWescott
Apr 14 at 14:24
$begingroup$
@ThreePhaseEel yes. I addressed that: "You can mitigate this problem a lot with quadrature downconversion, but while it's enough for digital data reception, it's not good enough for analog". It can be used, and it is, but getting more than 40dB or so of opposite sideband suppression with analog circuitry requires heroic measures. The fact that only a small percentage of commercial receivers ever used it is a strong indication of the cost/benefit tradeoff.
$endgroup$
– TimWescott
Apr 14 at 14:24
$begingroup$
What's the "reason for this"?
$endgroup$
– David Cullen
Apr 14 at 20:58
$begingroup$
What's the "reason for this"?
$endgroup$
– David Cullen
Apr 14 at 20:58
$begingroup$
@DavidCullen I think you're asking about sideband suppression in direct-conversion receivers. It's because the sideband you don't want is suppressed by subtracting out a pair of signals that go through separate channels, that must be matched for gain, and which must have phase shifts 90 degrees apart. That is difficult to achieve, and subject to component variations -- so you end up with less suppression than you'd like.
$endgroup$
– TimWescott
Apr 14 at 21:20
$begingroup$
@DavidCullen I think you're asking about sideband suppression in direct-conversion receivers. It's because the sideband you don't want is suppressed by subtracting out a pair of signals that go through separate channels, that must be matched for gain, and which must have phase shifts 90 degrees apart. That is difficult to achieve, and subject to component variations -- so you end up with less suppression than you'd like.
$endgroup$
– TimWescott
Apr 14 at 21:20
$begingroup$
I was asking about why "most direct conversion receivers have headphones". How exactly do headphones help?
$endgroup$
– David Cullen
Apr 14 at 21:31
$begingroup$
I was asking about why "most direct conversion receivers have headphones". How exactly do headphones help?
$endgroup$
– David Cullen
Apr 14 at 21:31
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Yes, direct-conversion receivers exist, but they require special care, especially with certain kinds of modulation.
For example, with SSB modulation, in order to reject the unwanted sideband, your baseband demodulator must be able to distinguish between "positive frequency" and "negative frequency". This is not trivial, and is only really practical using DSP.
Similarly, if you translate the center frequency of an FM or PM signal down to 0 Hz, again you need to distinguish between positive and negative frequencies in order to demodulate it properly.
Even with AM or DSB signals, where the sidebands contain identical information, unless your conversion is perfect (your LO precisely matches the received carrier frequency), you get distortion — or a constant tone from the AM carrier.
Superheterodyne was invented in the days when demodulation was done by simple envelope detectors, which didn't have any frequency discrimination at all, let alone distinguishing between positive and negative frequencies. All selectivity has to be applied before demodulation, which gets back to the reasons you found — you either need filters that can track the carrier frequency with constant bandwidth, or you convert to a fixed intermediate frequency where you can use fixed filters.
answered Apr 13 at 14:53
Dave Tweed♦Dave Tweed
125k10155269
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, direct-conversion receivers exist, but they require special care, especially with certain kinds of modulation.
For example, with SSB modulation, in order to reject the unwanted sideband, your baseband demodulator must be able to distinguish between "positive frequency" and "negative frequency". This is not trivial, and is only really practical using DSP.
Similarly, if you translate the center frequency of an FM or PM signal down to 0 Hz, again you need to distinguish between positive and negative frequencies in order to demodulate it properly.
Even with AM or DSB signals, where the sidebands contain identical information, unless your conversion is perfect (your LO precisely matches the received carrier frequency), you get distortion — or a constant tone from the AM carrier.
Superheterodyne was invented in the days when demodulation was done by simple envelope detectors, which didn't have any frequency discrimination at all, let alone distinguishing between positive and negative frequencies. All selectivity has to be applied before demodulation, which gets back to the reasons you found — you either need filters that can track the carrier frequency with constant bandwidth, or you convert to a fixed intermediate frequency where you can use fixed filters.
answered Apr 13 at 14:53
Dave Tweed♦Dave Tweed
125k10155269
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, direct-conversion receivers exist, but they require special care, especially with certain kinds of modulation.
For example, with SSB modulation, in order to reject the unwanted sideband, your baseband demodulator must be able to distinguish between "positive frequency" and "negative frequency". This is not trivial, and is only really practical using DSP.
Similarly, if you translate the center frequency of an FM or PM signal down to 0 Hz, again you need to distinguish between positive and negative frequencies in order to demodulate it properly.
Even with AM or DSB signals, where the sidebands contain identical information, unless your conversion is perfect (your LO precisely matches the received carrier frequency), you get distortion — or a constant tone from the AM carrier.
Superheterodyne was invented in the days when demodulation was done by simple envelope detectors, which didn't have any frequency discrimination at all, let alone distinguishing between positive and negative frequencies. All selectivity has to be applied before demodulation, which gets back to the reasons you found — you either need filters that can track the carrier frequency with constant bandwidth, or you convert to a fixed intermediate frequency where you can use fixed filters.
answered Apr 13 at 14:53
Dave Tweed♦Dave Tweed
125k10155269
$endgroup$
Yes, direct-conversion receivers exist, but they require special care, especially with certain kinds of modulation.
For example, with SSB modulation, in order to reject the unwanted sideband, your baseband demodulator must be able to distinguish between "positive frequency" and "negative frequency". This is not trivial, and is only really practical using DSP.
Similarly, if you translate the center frequency of an FM or PM signal down to 0 Hz, again you need to distinguish between positive and negative frequencies in order to demodulate it properly.
Even with AM or DSB signals, where the sidebands contain identical information, unless your conversion is perfect (your LO precisely matches the received carrier frequency), you get distortion — or a constant tone from the AM carrier.
Superheterodyne was invented in the days when demodulation was done by simple envelope detectors, which didn't have any frequency discrimination at all, let alone distinguishing between positive and negative frequencies. All selectivity has to be applied before demodulation, which gets back to the reasons you found — you either need filters that can track the carrier frequency with constant bandwidth, or you convert to a fixed intermediate frequency where you can use fixed filters.
answered Apr 13 at 14:53
Dave Tweed♦Dave Tweed
125k10155269
answered Apr 13 at 14:53
Dave Tweed♦Dave Tweed
125k10155269
answered Apr 13 at 14:53
Dave Tweed♦Dave Tweed
125k10155269
answered Apr 13 at 14:53
Dave Tweed♦Dave Tweed
125k10155269
125k10155269
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Direct conversion is conceptually simple, but requires considerable engineering to do it right. Besides Dave's & Tim's answers, there is a subtle pernicious potential problem with direct conversion...
Most mixers (even doubly-balanced ones) leak local oscillator power to both RF port and IF port. Power leaking backwards through to the RF port to the antenna can cause problems. Even with excellent mixer balance, re-radiated Local Oscillator energy is often much larger than incoming signals.
Re-radiated L.O. can be modified (phase, amplitude) and re-enter the receiving antenna, back into the mixer. Mixer balance can be adversely affected. As well, a baseband signal is generated at the mixer's output port that can foul the desired baseband signal.
Some motion sensors, "bug" detectors take advantage of this process, where the "spurious" baseband signal is the desired result, indicating motion for example.
A linear receiver is most often desired, in which case you don't want local oscillator energy to find its way back to the signal source. Having excellent mixer balance is a start, adding a strong RF preamp with good output-to-input isolation helps too. All difficult as frequency goes up.
answered Apr 13 at 15:51
glen_geekglen_geek
9,74611016
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Direct conversion is conceptually simple, but requires considerable engineering to do it right. Besides Dave's & Tim's answers, there is a subtle pernicious potential problem with direct conversion...
Most mixers (even doubly-balanced ones) leak local oscillator power to both RF port and IF port. Power leaking backwards through to the RF port to the antenna can cause problems. Even with excellent mixer balance, re-radiated Local Oscillator energy is often much larger than incoming signals.
Re-radiated L.O. can be modified (phase, amplitude) and re-enter the receiving antenna, back into the mixer. Mixer balance can be adversely affected. As well, a baseband signal is generated at the mixer's output port that can foul the desired baseband signal.
Some motion sensors, "bug" detectors take advantage of this process, where the "spurious" baseband signal is the desired result, indicating motion for example.
A linear receiver is most often desired, in which case you don't want local oscillator energy to find its way back to the signal source. Having excellent mixer balance is a start, adding a strong RF preamp with good output-to-input isolation helps too. All difficult as frequency goes up.
answered Apr 13 at 15:51
glen_geekglen_geek
9,74611016
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Direct conversion is conceptually simple, but requires considerable engineering to do it right. Besides Dave's & Tim's answers, there is a subtle pernicious potential problem with direct conversion...
Most mixers (even doubly-balanced ones) leak local oscillator power to both RF port and IF port. Power leaking backwards through to the RF port to the antenna can cause problems. Even with excellent mixer balance, re-radiated Local Oscillator energy is often much larger than incoming signals.
Re-radiated L.O. can be modified (phase, amplitude) and re-enter the receiving antenna, back into the mixer. Mixer balance can be adversely affected. As well, a baseband signal is generated at the mixer's output port that can foul the desired baseband signal.
Some motion sensors, "bug" detectors take advantage of this process, where the "spurious" baseband signal is the desired result, indicating motion for example.
A linear receiver is most often desired, in which case you don't want local oscillator energy to find its way back to the signal source. Having excellent mixer balance is a start, adding a strong RF preamp with good output-to-input isolation helps too. All difficult as frequency goes up.
answered Apr 13 at 15:51
glen_geekglen_geek
9,74611016
$endgroup$
Direct conversion is conceptually simple, but requires considerable engineering to do it right. Besides Dave's & Tim's answers, there is a subtle pernicious potential problem with direct conversion...
Most mixers (even doubly-balanced ones) leak local oscillator power to both RF port and IF port. Power leaking backwards through to the RF port to the antenna can cause problems. Even with excellent mixer balance, re-radiated Local Oscillator energy is often much larger than incoming signals.
Re-radiated L.O. can be modified (phase, amplitude) and re-enter the receiving antenna, back into the mixer. Mixer balance can be adversely affected. As well, a baseband signal is generated at the mixer's output port that can foul the desired baseband signal.
Some motion sensors, "bug" detectors take advantage of this process, where the "spurious" baseband signal is the desired result, indicating motion for example.
A linear receiver is most often desired, in which case you don't want local oscillator energy to find its way back to the signal source. Having excellent mixer balance is a start, adding a strong RF preamp with good output-to-input isolation helps too. All difficult as frequency goes up.
answered Apr 13 at 15:51
glen_geekglen_geek
9,74611016
answered Apr 13 at 15:51
glen_geekglen_geek
9,74611016
answered Apr 13 at 15:51
glen_geekglen_geek
9,74611016
answered Apr 13 at 15:51
glen_geekglen_geek
9,74611016
9,74611016
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No one else has mentioned the problem of frequency offset in the mixer stages. The RF mixer does its best to match the frequency of the carrier, but there will still be a difference which will result in the IF having an offset from the desired frequency. An IF stage with a non-zero center frequency allows a PLL to be used to track the IF signal and remove most of the frequency offset.
It is usually easier and cheaper to make the best PLL at IF frequencies rather than RF frequencies.
You can use two mixers to convert the received signal to I and Q, but that would require two expensive RF frequency PLLs that also have to have a fixed 90 degree phase difference. This is also something that is a lot easier and cheaper to do at IF frequencies.
answered Apr 13 at 16:11
David CullenDavid Cullen
1214
New contributor
David Cullen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No one else has mentioned the problem of frequency offset in the mixer stages. The RF mixer does its best to match the frequency of the carrier, but there will still be a difference which will result in the IF having an offset from the desired frequency. An IF stage with a non-zero center frequency allows a PLL to be used to track the IF signal and remove most of the frequency offset.
It is usually easier and cheaper to make the best PLL at IF frequencies rather than RF frequencies.
You can use two mixers to convert the received signal to I and Q, but that would require two expensive RF frequency PLLs that also have to have a fixed 90 degree phase difference. This is also something that is a lot easier and cheaper to do at IF frequencies.
answered Apr 13 at 16:11
David CullenDavid Cullen
1214
New contributor
David Cullen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No one else has mentioned the problem of frequency offset in the mixer stages. The RF mixer does its best to match the frequency of the carrier, but there will still be a difference which will result in the IF having an offset from the desired frequency. An IF stage with a non-zero center frequency allows a PLL to be used to track the IF signal and remove most of the frequency offset.
It is usually easier and cheaper to make the best PLL at IF frequencies rather than RF frequencies.
You can use two mixers to convert the received signal to I and Q, but that would require two expensive RF frequency PLLs that also have to have a fixed 90 degree phase difference. This is also something that is a lot easier and cheaper to do at IF frequencies.
answered Apr 13 at 16:11
David CullenDavid Cullen
1214
New contributor
David Cullen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
No one else has mentioned the problem of frequency offset in the mixer stages. The RF mixer does its best to match the frequency of the carrier, but there will still be a difference which will result in the IF having an offset from the desired frequency. An IF stage with a non-zero center frequency allows a PLL to be used to track the IF signal and remove most of the frequency offset.
It is usually easier and cheaper to make the best PLL at IF frequencies rather than RF frequencies.
You can use two mixers to convert the received signal to I and Q, but that would require two expensive RF frequency PLLs that also have to have a fixed 90 degree phase difference. This is also something that is a lot easier and cheaper to do at IF frequencies.
answered Apr 13 at 16:11
David CullenDavid Cullen
1214
New contributor
David Cullen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Apr 13 at 17:09
answered Apr 13 at 16:11
David CullenDavid Cullen
1214
New contributor
David Cullen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Apr 13 at 16:11
David CullenDavid Cullen
1214
answered Apr 13 at 16:11
David CullenDavid Cullen
1214
1214
New contributor
David Cullen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
David Cullen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
David Cullen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem is mixer LO rejection, and close to carrier LO phase noise. 20dB is trivial out of the box. 40dB is straightforward with care. 60dB is just possible with heroics and dynamic adjustment. 80dB can be done in the lab, for a short while, at spot frequencies, if you're lucky, and the temperature doesn't change. You need >120dB to get a direct conversion receiver to work as well as a superhet.
Unless you're using OFDM. There you have dozens of carriers, and not all are used for data. There are some for pilots, some for guard bands, and in some advanced systems there are some that are only used to reduce the peak RF voltage of the ensemble to ease transmitter linearity issues. So leaving a few carriers with no data on them at and around the channel centre (DC if we're talking IQ basebands, the LO for a direct conversion receiver) is no huge inefficiency.
answered Apr 14 at 15:08
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79.2k285182
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem is mixer LO rejection, and close to carrier LO phase noise. 20dB is trivial out of the box. 40dB is straightforward with care. 60dB is just possible with heroics and dynamic adjustment. 80dB can be done in the lab, for a short while, at spot frequencies, if you're lucky, and the temperature doesn't change. You need >120dB to get a direct conversion receiver to work as well as a superhet.
Unless you're using OFDM. There you have dozens of carriers, and not all are used for data. There are some for pilots, some for guard bands, and in some advanced systems there are some that are only used to reduce the peak RF voltage of the ensemble to ease transmitter linearity issues. So leaving a few carriers with no data on them at and around the channel centre (DC if we're talking IQ basebands, the LO for a direct conversion receiver) is no huge inefficiency.
answered Apr 14 at 15:08
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79.2k285182
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem is mixer LO rejection, and close to carrier LO phase noise. 20dB is trivial out of the box. 40dB is straightforward with care. 60dB is just possible with heroics and dynamic adjustment. 80dB can be done in the lab, for a short while, at spot frequencies, if you're lucky, and the temperature doesn't change. You need >120dB to get a direct conversion receiver to work as well as a superhet.
Unless you're using OFDM. There you have dozens of carriers, and not all are used for data. There are some for pilots, some for guard bands, and in some advanced systems there are some that are only used to reduce the peak RF voltage of the ensemble to ease transmitter linearity issues. So leaving a few carriers with no data on them at and around the channel centre (DC if we're talking IQ basebands, the LO for a direct conversion receiver) is no huge inefficiency.
answered Apr 14 at 15:08
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79.2k285182
$endgroup$
The problem is mixer LO rejection, and close to carrier LO phase noise. 20dB is trivial out of the box. 40dB is straightforward with care. 60dB is just possible with heroics and dynamic adjustment. 80dB can be done in the lab, for a short while, at spot frequencies, if you're lucky, and the temperature doesn't change. You need >120dB to get a direct conversion receiver to work as well as a superhet.
Unless you're using OFDM. There you have dozens of carriers, and not all are used for data. There are some for pilots, some for guard bands, and in some advanced systems there are some that are only used to reduce the peak RF voltage of the ensemble to ease transmitter linearity issues. So leaving a few carriers with no data on them at and around the channel centre (DC if we're talking IQ basebands, the LO for a direct conversion receiver) is no huge inefficiency.
answered Apr 14 at 15:08
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79.2k285182
answered Apr 14 at 15:08
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79.2k285182
answered Apr 14 at 15:08
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79.2k285182
answered Apr 14 at 15:08
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79.2k285182
79.2k285182
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f432355%2fwhy-is-superheterodyning-better-than-direct-conversion%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
I don't know enough to say for sure, but consider the size difference between low-frequency and high-frequency inductors and capacitors of the same impedance. The high-frequency ones are a lot smaller.
$endgroup$
– Hearth
Apr 13 at 14:38
2
$begingroup$
Opposite sideband rejection is one issue (unless you do the quadrature thing a direct conversion set does not have any!), while an intermediate LO makes this relatively easy. The other elephant in the room is the massive dynamic range present at the mixer output, it is hard to build a low frequency LPF with steep skirts and a 100dB++ dynamic range.
$endgroup$
– Dan Mills
Apr 13 at 14:48
$begingroup$
I've seen low-IF be used, to preserve the modulation phasors.
$endgroup$
– analogsystemsrf
Apr 13 at 14:59