[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne
From: |
Mark Smith |
Subject: |
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:25:34 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 06:19:31PM -0500, Lisa Bengtson wrote:
> >How is this different than a single stage supper-het? Isn't that just
> >mixing down to base band? Is there something I'm missing?
>
> Nope, you are not missing a thing. It's the same as a single Stage
> Super-het, with an IF of Zero. Typically, a Super-het has a final IF
> that isn't at DC.
Are you saying that most receivers detect at IF (f != 0) and not a base
band (f == 0)? I was under the impression that most detectors did their
thing at baseband and required a final down convert from IF.
> Super-Het's are pretty well understood at this point, people have been
> hacking on them for 70 years. Direct Conversion and Undersampling have
> some gotcha's that are not fully understood and publicized yet. That's
> what makes them interesting.
That's why we're talking about it. We're geeks; it's in our nature
to try something exotic and not fully understood, if it looks like it
may have promise. :)
-Mark
--
Mark Smith - finger address@hidden for GPG v1.0.1 public key
pgpx9_CDN12YQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Welcome and brief update, (continued)
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Welcome and brief update, John E. Perry, 2003/01/13
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Welcome and brief update, Tanner Lovelace, 2003/01/13
- [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne, Tanner Lovelace, 2003/01/13
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne, Mark Smith, 2003/01/13
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne, David Bengtson, 2003/01/13
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne, Mark Smith, 2003/01/14
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne, Lisa Bengtson, 2003/01/14
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne,
Mark Smith <=
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Direct Conversion vs Superheterodyne, David Bengtson, 2003/01/14
- 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, 2003/01/14
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Radio questions welcomed, Eric Blossom, 2003/01/12
[Discuss-gnuradio] RF front end, Tanner Lovelace, 2003/01/10