discuss-gnuradio
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] USRP N210 Benchmarks.


From: Paul M. Bendixen
Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] USRP N210 Benchmarks.
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:54:03 +0200


Hello

2011/10/27 Marcus D. Leech <address@hidden>
 
The attached two_tone flow-graph shows that close-in intermod products 
 are sensitive to overall
   signal magnitude settings.  Keep the digitla signal magnitudes lower, 
 and the intermod products are 
   quite well suppressed.  The flow-graph is setup for a WBX for the 
antenna settings.

Well, that sounds like the lazy solution, intermodulation products are bad, so just throwing the transmitter power away is not what I'd prefer. 
 
 Keep in mind that the CORDIC is used only when the desired target 
 frequency is not a multiple of 
   the resolution of the PLL synthesizer on whatever daughtercard you're 
 using, otherwise the CORDIC 
 NCO doesn't do anything to the signal.
Is there any way of finding out what the resolution is? We haven't been able to track it down for the RFX2400 board,
but this sounds like a nice way to test if it _is_ the CORDIC. 

Connect the TX/RX port to the RX2 port through a 60dB attenuator, so you
 can use the RX side to 
 monitor the spectrum of the TX side.  The RX-side bandwidth is set to
50Khz total, which gives you
 a good close-in view of the spectrum around the +/- 1Khz tones.  Vary
 the digital gain control, and 
 observe intermod peaks around the fundamental tones, and observe that
at digital gains below 0.250,
 the intermod peaks become well suppressed (about 45dB down from the
fundamental tones).

Only problem there is that there is a 55 dB loop back between the in and output of the RFX2400 board, so two different radios are needed. 

We have observed this as well, but as described before we do not find this to be the correct solution.

About the disabling of the CORDIC, I do not currently have a Xilinx ISE licence, but have instigated measures to get one.
When I (hopefully) do, I will try out both cutting it out and using an optimized one, written in VHDL. 

Best Paul

--
• − − •/• −/• • −/• − • •/− • • •/•/− •/− • •/• •/− • • −/•/− •/• − − •− •/− − •/− −/• −/• •/• − • •/• − • − • −/− • − •/− − −/− −//

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]