The Designer's Guide Community
Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register. Please follow the Forum guidelines.
Aug 17th, 2024, 8:21pm
Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
QAM versus filter type (receiver) (Read 122 times)
Visjnoe
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 233

QAM versus filter type (receiver)
Jul 27th, 2006, 5:50am
 

Hello,

is there anybody who has experience with the design of receiver filters for QAM-modulated communication systems?
More specifically, which is the best suited filter type (Butterworth, Chebyshev).

I was considering to use inverse Chebyshev (trade-off amplitude/phase accuracy OK versus sharp attenuation).

Kind Regards

Peter
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
ACWWong
Community Fellow
*****
Offline



Posts: 539
Oxford, UK
Re: QAM versus filter type (receiver)
Reply #1 - Jul 27th, 2006, 8:32am
 
hi peter,

i guess butterworth should be good because of maximally flat passband with reasonable phase response/groupdelay. If attenuation is adequate i would definately use it as they are much easier to design on ICs (unit circle poles makes for easy choice of well matched components R,gm,C etc,)

the thing that would make me thing abit more about inverse cheby is that it has transmission zeros which can make the design a bit tougher. i guess if you are doing bandpass, this doesn;t matter, but for low pass, i think its easier to do a slightly higher order butterworth than an inv cheby.

cheers.
aw
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
ACWWong
Community Fellow
*****
Offline



Posts: 539
Oxford, UK
Re: QAM versus filter type (receiver)
Reply #2 - Jul 27th, 2006, 8:34am
 
opps, of course i am talking continuous time analog filtering... maybe not relevant to you..
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Copyright 2002-2024 Designer’s Guide Consulting, Inc. Designer’s Guide® is a registered trademark of Designer’s Guide Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Send comments or questions to editor@designers-guide.org. Consider submitting a paper or model.