Difference between revisions of "Mercury - intermodulation (IMD) tests"
(→40m: 7000kHz + 7020kHz) |
(add Phil's intro) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''HPSDR: Intermodulation Measurements with MERCURY'''May/June 2009 / HB9AJG | + | <!-- Original title: '''HPSDR: Intermodulation Measurements with MERCURY'''May/June 2009 / HB9AJG |
| + | Phil Harman's page title: Intermodulation Measurements with MERCURY --> | ||
| + | The use by Amateurs of receivers that use Digital Down Conversion (DDC), | ||
| + | where the antenna is effectively connected directly to an Analogue to | ||
| + | Digital Converter (ADC), is relatively new. | ||
| + | |||
| + | DDC based receivers perform differently to conventional analogue receiver | ||
| + | particularly when intermodulation (IMD) testing is performed. Unlike an | ||
| + | analogue receiver the IMD varies with the level of input signals. This | ||
| + | renders the value of conventional 3rd order intercept (IP3) meaningless. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The reason for the variation of IP3 with signal level is that for small | ||
| + | input signals only a small number of the available ADC bits are actually | ||
| + | used. Also since these are near the origin of the ADC transfer curve | ||
| + | there are often imperfections that degrade the IP3 performance. | ||
| + | |||
| + | We can reduce the effect of the limited number of bits and ADC | ||
| + | non-linearity buy deliberately adding additional signal(s) into the input | ||
| + | of the ADC such that our low level signals are added to the (larger) | ||
| + | additional signal(s). In effect the larger signal sweeps our small signal | ||
| + | over a wider portion of the ADC transfer curve. This means that our | ||
| + | combined signal spends less time over any non-linear portions and also | ||
| + | uses more ADC bits. | ||
| + | |||
| + | You can perhaps think of the additional signal giving the small signal a | ||
| + | ‘piggy back ride’ across the ADC transfer curve. | ||
| + | |||
| + | As long as the instantaneous sum of the additional signal(s) and our | ||
| + | wanted signal does not overload our ADC then the overall effect is | ||
| + | beneficial. | ||
| + | |||
| + | So here is a significant difference between our existing analogue | ||
| + | receivers and a DDC based receiver. In the former case we go to a lot of | ||
| + | trouble to keep large out of band signals out of the input of the | ||
| + | receiver. In the latter case, up to a certain level, they actually are an | ||
| + | advantage! | ||
| + | |||
| + | The additional signal(s) can come from a number of sources. The LT2208 ADC | ||
| + | that is used in Mercury has the facility to inject pseudo random noise | ||
| + | into its input. This noise can then be subtracted at the output. This | ||
| + | technique is known as ‘dithering’. | ||
| + | |||
| + | By subtracting the noise at the output of the ADC we only degrade the | ||
| + | overall signal to noise ratio of the ADC by a few dB. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Alternatively, we could inject an out-of-band signal into the antenna | ||
| + | socket and use this as a source of dithering. Or perhaps there are enough | ||
| + | strong signals already present at the input of the ADC to perform the | ||
| + | dithering function so there is no need to either inject random noise or a | ||
| + | specific out of band signal. | ||
| + | |||
| + | So is the effect of poor IMD performance at low signal levels a real life | ||
| + | issue or just something we see in the non real world of lab testing? | ||
| + | So far the poor IMD at low signal levels does not seem to be a major issue | ||
| + | amongst users of DDC based receivers. I am sure we would have heard by now | ||
| + | it this wasn’t the case! | ||
| + | |||
| + | So exactly what is happening when we expose a DDC to a band full of strong | ||
| + | and weak signals and how should we make use of the dither facility of the | ||
| + | LT2208? | ||
| + | |||
| + | What follows is an excellent evaluation of this effect by HB9AJG and is | ||
| + | quite possibly the first time such comprehensive measurements have been | ||
| + | made on an Amateur DDC receiver. | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is an additional test that HB9AJG has done which is as follows. | ||
| + | The LT2208 is a very small chip with one side of the device accepting uV | ||
| + | signals (i.e. the input) and the other producing 3.3v digital signals ( | ||
| + | i.e. the digitally converted output). Stray capacitance across the chip + | ||
| + | PCB strays etc will mean that some of these digital signals will find | ||
| + | their way to the input. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This has the effect of raising the noise floor of the receiver and also | ||
| + | introducing spurs at certain frequencies as the receiver is tuned. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The way that the LT2208 overcomes this problem is to scramble the digital | ||
| + | output so the energy is dispersed over a wider band. This is what the | ||
| + | ‘Random’ control in PowerSDR does. The ADC output is first descrambled in | ||
| + | the Mercury FPGA before processing further. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I would have expected that the scrambler would have little effect on the | ||
| + | IMD performance of Mercury. As we can see from the results this is not the | ||
| + | case. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I’d like to congratulate HP9AJG on an excellent series of measurements | ||
| + | that go a long way to increasing our understanding as to how our new DDC | ||
| + | receivers perform with real-world signals. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Phil Harman, [[User:VK6APH|VK6APH]], 1 September 2009 | ||
==Test Setup== | ==Test Setup== | ||
Revision as of 21:15, 31 August 2009
The use by Amateurs of receivers that use Digital Down Conversion (DDC), where the antenna is effectively connected directly to an Analogue to Digital Converter (ADC), is relatively new.
DDC based receivers perform differently to conventional analogue receiver particularly when intermodulation (IMD) testing is performed. Unlike an analogue receiver the IMD varies with the level of input signals. This renders the value of conventional 3rd order intercept (IP3) meaningless.
The reason for the variation of IP3 with signal level is that for small input signals only a small number of the available ADC bits are actually used. Also since these are near the origin of the ADC transfer curve there are often imperfections that degrade the IP3 performance.
We can reduce the effect of the limited number of bits and ADC non-linearity buy deliberately adding additional signal(s) into the input of the ADC such that our low level signals are added to the (larger) additional signal(s). In effect the larger signal sweeps our small signal over a wider portion of the ADC transfer curve. This means that our combined signal spends less time over any non-linear portions and also uses more ADC bits.
You can perhaps think of the additional signal giving the small signal a ‘piggy back ride’ across the ADC transfer curve.
As long as the instantaneous sum of the additional signal(s) and our wanted signal does not overload our ADC then the overall effect is beneficial.
So here is a significant difference between our existing analogue receivers and a DDC based receiver. In the former case we go to a lot of trouble to keep large out of band signals out of the input of the receiver. In the latter case, up to a certain level, they actually are an advantage!
The additional signal(s) can come from a number of sources. The LT2208 ADC that is used in Mercury has the facility to inject pseudo random noise into its input. This noise can then be subtracted at the output. This technique is known as ‘dithering’.
By subtracting the noise at the output of the ADC we only degrade the overall signal to noise ratio of the ADC by a few dB.
Alternatively, we could inject an out-of-band signal into the antenna socket and use this as a source of dithering. Or perhaps there are enough strong signals already present at the input of the ADC to perform the dithering function so there is no need to either inject random noise or a specific out of band signal.
So is the effect of poor IMD performance at low signal levels a real life issue or just something we see in the non real world of lab testing? So far the poor IMD at low signal levels does not seem to be a major issue amongst users of DDC based receivers. I am sure we would have heard by now it this wasn’t the case!
So exactly what is happening when we expose a DDC to a band full of strong and weak signals and how should we make use of the dither facility of the LT2208?
What follows is an excellent evaluation of this effect by HB9AJG and is quite possibly the first time such comprehensive measurements have been made on an Amateur DDC receiver.
There is an additional test that HB9AJG has done which is as follows. The LT2208 is a very small chip with one side of the device accepting uV signals (i.e. the input) and the other producing 3.3v digital signals ( i.e. the digitally converted output). Stray capacitance across the chip + PCB strays etc will mean that some of these digital signals will find their way to the input.
This has the effect of raising the noise floor of the receiver and also introducing spurs at certain frequencies as the receiver is tuned.
The way that the LT2208 overcomes this problem is to scramble the digital output so the energy is dispersed over a wider band. This is what the ‘Random’ control in PowerSDR does. The ADC output is first descrambled in the Mercury FPGA before processing further.
I would have expected that the scrambler would have little effect on the IMD performance of Mercury. As we can see from the results this is not the case.
I’d like to congratulate HP9AJG on an excellent series of measurements that go a long way to increasing our understanding as to how our new DDC receivers perform with real-world signals.
Phil Harman, VK6APH, 1 September 2009
Contents
Test Setup
Attenuation between generators: 74.8dB (terminated with 50 Ohms)
Attenuation from HP8640B to output: 36.2dB
Attenuation from HP8657A to output: 16.2dB
This test setup was verified with an EK070 RX by Rohde+Schwarz from 80m to 10m, CW, 600Hz bandwidth:
- with 20dB attenuator enabled, MDS was -114dBm
- at -13dBm input (each signal) no IM was audible, i.e IM3DR > 101dB
- without attenuator, MDS was -134dBm
- at -25dBm input (each signal) IM was audible, i.e IM3DR = 109dB (on 80m, 40m 15m, 10m)
- at -30dBm input (each signal) IM was audible, i.e IM3DR = 104dB (on 20m)
MERCURY 3rd Order Intermodulation Free Dynamic Range IM3DR
Configuration:
- Mercury v2.6, Ozy v1.2, Penny v1.1
- Dither & Random enabled (RX sensitivity reduced by 4dB)
- Clocks from Penelope
- PowerSDR v1.10.4+BaseSVN 2025
- PowerSDR RX-Meter calibrated to HP8657A
- Bandwidth 48kHz, Buffer size 2048Bits
- CWL, 500Hz
Lower frequency = HP8657A
Upper frequency = HP8640B
All dBm readings as displayed on the RX-Meter of PowerSDR (rounded to the next dB)
Signals 3dB above the Noise Floor are considered MDS.
Maximum input signals possible with this Test Setup: -13dBm
- * = Artifacts from the ADC (very nonlinearly dependent on the input signals)
- ** = ADC Overload @ -20dBm
80m: 3680kHz + 3700kHz
Preamp OFF:Noise Floor = -115dBm
Inputs eachdBm-15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆fdBm-110-----112*-
IM @ +∆fdBm-113-----113*-
IM3DRdB96.552.5
Preamp ON:Noise Floor = -134dBm
Inputs eachdBm-20-25-30-35-40-50-60-70-80-90
IM @ - ∆fdBm-108-125-125-131----134*-132*-
IM @ +∆fdBm-108-128-126-132----134*-132*-
IM3DRdB88101.595.596.56452
40m: 7000kHz + 7020kHz
Preamp OFF: Noise Floor = -115dBm
| Inputs each | dBm | -15 | -20 | -30 | -40 | -50 | -60 | -70 | |
| IM @ -∆f | dBm | -109 | 114* | ||||||
| IM @ +∆f | dBm | -112 | 114* | ||||||
| IM3DR | dB | 95.5 | 54 |
Preamp ON:Noise Floor = -134dBm
Inputs eachdBm-20-25-30-35-40-50-60-70-80-90
IM @ - ∆fdBm-111-127-123-130------
IM @ +∆fdBm-109--126-133------
IM3DRdB9010294.596.5
20m: 14080kHz + 14100kHz
Preamp OFF:Noise Floor = -114dBm
Inputs eachdBm-15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆fdBm-113------
IM @ +∆fdBm-114------
IM3DRdB98.5
Preamp ON:Noise Floor = -134dBm
Inputs eachdBm-21**-25-30-35-40-50-60-70-80-90
IM @ - ∆fdBm-116-125-126-131------
IM @ +∆fdBm-112-125-123-134------
IM3DRdB9310094.597.5
15m: 21080kHz + 21100kHz
Preamp OFF:Noise Floor = -114dBm
Inputs eachdBm-15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆f-107-113*-114*-113*-113*-112*-
IM @ +∆fdBm-106-114*-114*-114*-113*-112*-
IM3DRdB91.593.58473.56352
Preamp ON:Noise Floor = -133dBm
Inputs eachdBm-21**-25-30-35-40-50-60-70-80-90
IM @ - ∆f-104-115-122-129-133*-133*-132*-132*-
IM @ +∆fdBm-103-116-120-130-132*-131*-131*-
IM3DRdB82.590.59194.5-9382.571.561.5
10m: 28080kHz + 28100kHz
Preamp OFF:Noise Floor = -113dBm
Inputs eachdBm-15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆f-107-113*-113*-113*-111*-110*-
IM @ +∆fdBm-107-113*-113*-112*-111*-110*-
IM3DRdB92938372.56150
Preamp ON:Noise Floor = -134dBm
Inputs eachdBm-21**-25-30-35-40-50-60-70-80-90
IM @ - ∆f-96-108-120-131-131*-128*-128*-128*-128*-
IM @ +∆fdBm-95-107-120-134-134*-131*-131*-129*-129*-
IM3DRdB74.582.59097.592.579.569.558.548.5
6m: 49080kHz + 49100kHz
Preamp OFF:Noise Floor = -113dBm
Inputs eachdBm-15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆f-97-111-----
IM @ +∆fdBm-95-107-----
IM3DRdB8189
Preamp ON:Noise Floor = -133dBm
Inputs eachdBm-21**-25-30-35-40-50-60-70-80-90
IM @ - ∆f-76-89-104-120-131-130*-132*-132*--
IM @ +∆fdBm-75-88-103-118-127-130*-132*-132*--
IM3DRdB54.563.573.58489807262
Effect of "Dither" and "Random"
(August 2009 / HB9AJG)
Even slight imperfections of the ADC transfer curve will result in unwanted signals. The Dither signal randomizes the location of the input signal on the ADC transfer curve, resulting in an improved IMD performance. Part of the Dither signal will leak through to the output, causing a rise of the noise floor.
Due to the small size of the ADC, and depending on the PCB layout, coupling from the output to the input may occur. The Random signal is to prevent such interferences from appearing as regular spectral lines. So it would not be expected to have much effect on the IMD performance.
The tests below show that both signals are required to achieve the best IM3DR.
IM3 signals 3db above the noise floor are considered MDS.
80m: 3680kHz + 3700kHz, Preamp OFF
3.1Dither enabled, Random enabled: Noise Floor = -115dBm
Inputs eachdBm-15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆fdBm-110-----112-
IM @ +∆fdBm-112-----112-
IM3DRdB9652
3.2Dither enabled, Random disabled: Noise Floor = -115dBm
Inputs eachdBm-15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆fdBm-102-102-99-99-98-98-110
IM @ +∆fdBm-103-104-99-100-98-97-110
IM3DRdB87.5836959.54837.540
3.3Dither disabled, Random enabled: Noise Floor -118dBm
Inputs eachdBm-15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆fdBm-106-110-98-102-112-113-
IM @ +∆fdBm-110-107-98-102-110-114-
IM3DRdB9388.568626153.5
3.4Dither disabled, Random disabled: Noise Floor = -118dBm
Inputs eachdBm-15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆fdBm-101-105-94-97-100-113-116
IM @ +∆fdBm-104-106-95-97-101-114-116
IM3DRdB87.585.564.55750.553.546
20m: 14080kHz + 14100kHz, Preamp OFF
3.5Dither enabled, Random enabled: Noise Floor -114dBm
Inputs eachdBm-15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆fdBm-113-----112-
IM @ +∆fdBm-114-----113-
IM3DRdB98.552.5
3.6Dither enabled, Random disabled: Noise Floor = -115dBm
Inputs eachdBm-15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆fdBm-96-96-92-90-92-99-114
IM @ +∆fdBm-98-97-95-92-93-100-114
IM3DRdB8276.563.55142.539.544
3.7Dither disabled, Random enabled: Noise Floor -117dBm
Inputs eachdBm-15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆fdBm-105-114-96-100-111-115-
IM @ +∆fdBm-108-111-97-99-110-114-
IM3DRdB91.592.566.559.560.554.5
3.8Dither disabled, Random disabled: Noise Floor = -118dBm
Inputs eachdBm-15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆fdBm-97-94-91-91-95-100-116
IM @ +∆fdBm-96-98-94-92-95-100-116
IM3DRdB81.57662.551.5454046
MERCURY IM3DR with a third signal present
(May/June / HB9AJG)
In his presentation on the design of MERCURY at the ARRL/TAPR Conference on Digital Communications 2008 Phil Harman explains that other strong signals have the same effect as "Dither enabled". To verify this, a second coupler and a third signal generator were added to the Test Setup:
"Dither" and "Random" were disabled, and the measurements on 20m were repeated:
Preamp OFF:Noise Floor = -118dBm
Inputs eachdBm -15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆fdBm -97-94-91-91-95-100-116
IM @ +∆fdBm -96-98-94-92-95-100-116
IM3DRdB4046
Third signal -52dBm*
IM @ - ∆fdBm -94-91-92-100-114*-
IM @ +∆fdBm -98-94-92-100-114*-
Third signal -47dBm*
IM @ - ∆fdBm -94-92-93-114*--
IM @ +∆fdBm -98-93-94-114*--
Third signal -14dBm*
IM @ - ∆fdBm -112-112-114*---
IM @ +∆fdBm -112-112-114*---
IM3DRdB74
Frequency of the third signal: anywhere between 1 and 30MHz (except harmonics and IMs)
Approximate signal level, the limit is fuzzy: at levels up to about 10dB higher IM signals vary between nil and MDS
With very strong third signals (S9+60dB), an improvement of the IM3DR of approximately 30db is achieved.
However, this is not as much as with "Dither" and "Random" enabled (copy from page 2):
Preamp OFF:Noise Floor = -114dBm
Inputs eachdBm-15-20-30-40-50-60-70
IM @ - ∆fdBm-113------
IM @ +∆fdBm-114------
IM3DRdB98.5
Now, of course, the next step was to connect my DX-88 8-band trap vertical instead of the third signal generator (no filters between antenna and Mercury):
BandPreampNoise floor UTCmax gen levelCommentIM3DR
for IM3 <MDS
20mOFF-114dBm15:30-50 dBmvaries slightly with time64dB
ON-115-41(fading effects?)74
40mOFF-108dBm16:00-40 dBmvaries slightly68
ON-108-2484
80mOFF-97dBm16:10-34 dBmvaries slightly63
ON-97-22just before ADC Overload!75
15mOFF-114dBm16:20-46 dBmvaries by several dB68
ON-116-4076
10mOFF-116dBm16:30-47 dBmvaries by several dB69
ON-123-4578
6mOFF-118dBm16:40-46 dBmvaries slightly72
ON-136-5086
CONCLUSION
The antenna has about the same effect as a third signal generator. Enabling "Dither" and "Random" results in a much higher IM3DR, however. Therefore, I think if a band is heavily congested, it is preferable to enable "Dither" and "Random" and to accept the degradation of sensitivity of 4dB.
