Re: [softrock40] General Coverage SDR?
- I think you have just pretty much described the Clifton Labs Z-10000U. I
plan to use one of these between the RX antenna loop on my transceiver and
the input filters on a SoftRock Lite +Xtall, chiefly to eliminate local
oscillator feedback to the receiver. Currently, the LO is S9 +30-40 in the
receiver, which won't do.
From the specs:
Output Impedance 50 ohms; short circuit protected.
Reverse Isolation Typically 70 dB at 4.915 MHz; depends on
cable routing as stray coupling becomes
important at this level of isolation. Less
isolation at higher frequencies. See Section
1.3.3. [note Jack now thinks the isolation may be more like 90 db]
Bandwidth Depends on gain. If set for +6 dB net gain,
usable bandwidth >100 MHz. (See typical performance plot)
Input Impedance Depends on frequency and attachment
technique. Greater than 1.5 K ohm to 10 MHz, (See typical
73, Pete N4ZR
At 02:33 PM 4/1/2008, you wrote:
>What about general-coverage (seamless 1-30MHz for-example) SDR
>modifications? This message tossed-out as top-down; "Type-As-I-Think".
>Please don't flame me for any obvious omissions, please just point-out
>the obvious flaws with the idea. I've got a gut-feeling that what's
>said below may not work. Thanks. Here we go. 73's David...
>I'm thinking about how to simply bring a ham-band SDR to
>general-coverage while minimizing trade-offs in performance. The idea
>is based on using a low-noise high input impedance broadband pre-amp
>with output impedance that matches what follows to the QSD etc. This
>will isolate the antenna impedance (which varies widely for
>general-coverage receivers using typical ham-band-optimized antennas)
>from the follow-on effects in a typical ham-band SDR like the Softrock
>which employs inverting op-amps after the QSD. In SDR's like the
>Softrock, receiver, gain is roughly determined by the op-amp feedback
>resistance divided by antenna impedance. Plus, receive bandwidth is
>affected by the antenna impedance as well (see Gerald Youngblood's
>(AC5OG) 4-part QEX papers, "Software-Defined Radio for the Masses).
>The antenna impedance vs. gain issue may be mitigated by using a
>differential (instrumentation) amplifier instead of an inverting
>op-amp, and today it is possible to make a differential amplifier with
>good noise performance, 1nV/rtHz or less. Not as good as the best
>traditional op-amps available today in terms of noise but more than
>sufficient for HF and maybe even VHF/UHF work. But with a differential
>amp, you still have the effects on receive bandwidth dependence on
>antenna impedance, which many may rightfully argue doesn't matter as much.
>Yes I know, SDR purists will balk at the idea of putting a pre-amp in
>because it will limit the inherent dynamic range of a SDR without a
>pre-amp. But a pre-amp (hi input impedance or not) with good-noise
>performance, bandwidth over HF (at least) and sufficiently high
>dynamic range is possible these days, at sufficiently low-cost. And it
>may remove the antenna impedance from affecting receiver gain and
>Using a high-impedance input pre-amp makes the SDR independent of
>antenna impedance. With high input impedance, it's no longer about
>power transfer as in a typical 50 Ohm-based system; instead the
>high-impedance pre-amp acts as a "Voltage" amplifier (a Voltage
>"probe" if-you-will). Assuming infinite pre-amp input impedance, there
>is no power transfer so-to-speak, and return loss (VSWR) is infinite.
>It seems to me that reflections will cancel input received signals at
>the input as a result. So the question is, can the reflections be
>"shunted" to ground by a broadband directional coupler? Is a
>directional coupler the way to go, or is it not even needed? This is
>the "can you get something for nothing" argument?
>Then there's the question of input filters. Ideally a preselector or
>some other form of band-pass filter is needed. I would argue that
>preselection may be done in the differential amplifier's feedback path
>instead of at the input from the antenna. This would again maintain
>the broadband high-impedance input to the SDR. However, this may or
>may-not preclude the use of single-resistor gain-set single
>differential and/or instrumentation amplifiers, but certainly would
>not be a problem for differential amplifiers constructed from multiple
>One last thing comes to mind, what about just "padding" the antenna
>input with a passive-resistive attenuator? 50+j0 is about 0.9 nV/rtHz,
>1kOhm is about 4 nV/rtHz; just for comparison. Hmmm...
>Yahoo! Groups Links
- --- In email@example.com, "adibene" <i2phd@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Terry" <wb4jfi@> wrote:
> > If I understand, HF should have a dynamic range of 130dB or so.
> > translates to 22 bits, I believe. If appropriately dither iscurrent
> > applied, and subsampling to demod audio for SSB or CW, the
> > crop of 14 to 16 bit A/D devices should just barely get us there.range
> > Static crashes and other anomolies that go beyond this 130dB
> > will still overload the A/D, although only at the peak excursions.Hey Alberto. I've heard that number a few times, including Joseph
> Not sure, but 130 dB look to me a bit too many. No analog radio on
> the market, AFAIK, has such a big dynamic range, but they have no
> problems to cope with HF signals.
> 73 Alberto i2PHD
Mitola's book (Software Radio Architecture). He suggests that 130dB
is the dynamic range for HF-RF. He suggests an HF-IF (in the .2-
10MHz range) sould be 72-120dB. Most other places that I've heard it
probably reference back to him, although I think I saw it derived in
at least one other independent book somewhere.
Most radios are narrow-band, with filters, AGCs, switchable amps &
attenuators, and other gadgets to translate the level of the
currently received signal into a narrower dynamic range that the
radio can handle.
I think he is suggesting that the 130dB is the minimum for directly
feeding an A/D converter without overloading, but still reaching the
HF noise floor.
Obviously, we can use the same range-limiting (or maybe it's better
to say range-adjusting) tools if we are using an A/D receiver
approach. Sticking a preamp and/or attenuator inline will help, as
long as it can be switched out (or the gain adjusted with an AGC
loop). Applying filters to remove large unwanted signals (such as
the US AM broadcast band) is another possibility. I know hams have a
hard time (with normal radios) trying to work 160M with nearby AM
broadcast stations, and often resort to filtering.
But, to a SDR "purist", sticking filters, preamps, attenuators, etc,
may all be considered band-aids to mask the real issue - not enough
dynamic range. And, they all potentially hamper optimum reception in
one manner or another. Like in a traditional superhet, these band-
aids may be necessary for a while yet.
I forget where to find the noise floor on the various ham bands.
But, I'm totally guessing that it's around -128dBm on some HF band.
To need 130dB of dynamic range with that small a MDS signal means the
MAXIMUM signal would be over 0dBm! That's a ton of signal. But, I
hear some people who live near AM broadcast (US), or SW broadcast
(europe) transmitters may get that strong of a signal. Running
multiple stations nearby (field day, etc), may also create this
There was a QEX article in Sept/Oct 2002 (The DX Prowess of HF
Receivers) that indicated the BDR of a K2 is 133dB (20kHz) and 126dB
Feeding an antenna directly into an A/D input may be folly for a
while yet, especially during electrical storms. I don't think
anybody plans to have an A/D with that high a dynamic range!!