Continue to Site

Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

[moved] RF to ADC or downconverted RF to ADC

Status
Not open for further replies.

f_t

Member level 4
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
75
Helped
1
Reputation
2
Reaction score
1
Trophy points
8
Activity points
633
Dear All,


I am working on phase array antennas to do null-steering.

I have read lots of papers in this field, but still I have this question in my mind.


Which one is the better approach and why?

We go directly from antenna to ADC at RF (1.5GHz). Or first we do downconversion to IF (200MHZ) and then go to ADC? What are the differences? Converting RF to digital needs more bits?



Thanks for your help in advance.
 

Re: RF to ADC or downconverted RF to ADC

Assuming that your 1.5GHz ADC and your 200MHz have identical specs (BIG assumption) then the other things to consider are:

Sampling at 1.5GHz will require 7.5 times more data storage (assuming you're storing the samples).
The downconverter is going to add some signal degradation

I don't know what you mean by "Converting RF to digital needs more bits?" More bits than what?
 

Re: RF to ADC or downconverted RF to ADC

Assuming that your 1.5GHz ADC and your 200MHz have identical specs (BIG assumption) then the other things to consider are:

Sampling at 1.5GHz will require 7.5 times more data storage (assuming you're storing the samples).
The downconverter is going to add some signal degradation

I don't know what you mean by "Converting RF to digital needs more bits?" More bits than what?




Hi Barry,

Thanks for your help.
By "Converting RF to digital needs more bits?" I meant: For example if we want to digitalize a RF signal at 200MHz each sample to be saved on memory needs 20 bits. Then if we work with the 1.5GHz signal without downconverting, each sample needs more bits or not? I don't know much about digital stuff.


Why is assuming 1.5GHz ADC and 200MHZ ADC have identical specs is a big assumption?


More than signal degradation and storage, is there any other difference?



Regards
 

Re: RF to ADC or downconverted RF to ADC

You cannot use "direct digitization" since your signal level is too low.( reflected signal level is too low due to weak reflections from the objects to my knowledge )Therefore using direct signal processing will not be efficient.Converting to a lower frequency will you make more flexible to process the signal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: f_t

    f_t

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
Re: RF to ADC or downconverted RF to ADC

You cannot use "direct digitization" since your signal level is too low.( reflected signal level is too low due to weak reflections from the objects to my knowledge )Therefore using direct signal processing will not be efficient.Converting to a lower frequency will you make more flexible to process the signal.



Well, I am supposed to increase level of signal by LNAs after my antenna. When I say "direct" I mean without converting to lower frequencies. Do you think there would be any problem if level of signal is enough? Also, how much power the signal must have to say the level of signal is enough?

Thanks
 

Re: RF to ADC or downconverted RF to ADC

Well, I am supposed to increase level of signal by LNAs after my antenna. When I say "direct" I mean without converting to lower frequencies. Do you think there would be any problem if level of signal is enough? Also, how much power the signal must have to say the level of signal is enough?

Thanks
I prefer process this signal at lower frequencies ( @IF ) to obtain better result.Because processing a signal at lower frequencies will need lower sampling frequency,less bit storage,less complexity.
Also, filtering unwanted jamming effect can be tolerated easily by filtering somewhere in the middleway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: f_t

    f_t

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
Re: RF to ADC or downconverted RF to ADC

Why is assuming 1.5GHz ADC and 200MHZ ADC have identical specs is a big assumption?

s


Do to TI's or Analog's website and compare essential parameters for ADCs running at 200 Msps and 1.5 Gsps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: f_t

    f_t

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
Your question is a little meaningless until you explain your exact end use, AND your criteria for "better".

Does "better" mean :1)cheapest, or 2) best null depth, and so on

if cost is no object, go find a high bit 4 ghz clock rate adc and be happy
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top