7 ms·
Yeah, jitter doesn't matter too much at low frequency IF. I/Q calibration is more likely to be the bottleneck. That and close-in spurs from the fractional PLLs.
by mallets 2mo ago
Yeah, jitter doesn't matter too much at low frequency IF. I/Q calibration is more likely to be the bottleneck. That and close-in spurs from the fractional PLLs.
I have very little experience with MIMO / phased-arrays, this application likely doesn't need ultra high SFDR.
- mrtnmcc 2mo agoYes, I actually designed the I/Q calibration for many of Analog Device's transceivers (AD93x), and indeed it is a fun problem. If you're interested in what was done for QuadRF, you can read: https://QuadRF.com/cals/txqec.html https://QuadRF.com/cals/txqec.html (Warning: Math!)
- mallets 2mo agoOh wow, the AD936x series was impressive for its I/Q calibration. Still is I guess, because there's been no compelling alternative even a decade later. As I mostly deal with single channel applications, I get to use double superhet and avoid runtime calibration. Not an option here, Zero-IF has too much in the Pros column for multichannel.
- mrtnmcc 2mo agoYes once you have runtime IQ compensation figured out in digital, its essentially free and easily puts your image rejection ratio into the -50 to -60dBc range. I don't have a write up on the RxQEC, but it's rather trivial: you periodically compute the 2x2 IQ correlation matrix, then take the sqrt (e.g., Cholesky) and multiply your incoming Rx samples by that inverse. You can extend that further for widerband by using FIR taps but here the baseband matching is good enough to go with "single tap"