[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne
From: |
Jim Smith |
Subject: |
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:03:20 -0600 |
For more reading on Direct Conversion, and some of its pitfalls as well
as its advantages, see August, 1992 and January, 1993 _QST_ articles by
Rick Campbell, amateur callsign KK7B. He is an RF engineer who has done
some real in-depth study of optimizing direct conversion receivers on
the analog side.
Good background reading.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:52:17 -0600
Crusty Curmudgeon <address@hidden> wrote:
> Ok.. a direct conversion receiver is simple and cheap, but I think
> there are some flies in the ointment too:
>
<snip>
--
Jim Smith
If you're not part of the Solution,
you're part of the Precipitate!
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne, (continued)
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne, warren, 2003/01/15
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne, David Bengtson, 2003/01/15
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne, Crusty Curmudgeon, 2003/01/13
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne, Nick Waterman, 2003/01/13
- [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne, Ian Wraith, 2003/01/13
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne, Nick Waterman, 2003/01/14
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne,
Jim Smith <=
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Radio questions welcomed, Eric Blossom, 2003/01/12
[Discuss-gnuradio] RF front end, Tanner Lovelace, 2003/01/10
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Welcome and brief update, Chris Albertson, 2003/01/10
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Welcome and brief update, John Turner, 2003/01/11
RE: [Discuss-gnuradio] Welcome and brief update, Ettus, Matt, 2003/01/10