The Designer's Guide Community
Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register. Please follow the Forum guidelines.
May 18th, 2024, 6:16pm
Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Direct upconversion mixer gain definition using spectre (Read 6937 times)
amr alaa
New Member
*
Offline



Posts: 3

Direct upconversion mixer gain definition using spectre
Jun 24th, 2009, 5:29am
 
Hi

We all know that the mixer is just a multiplier that can be modeled mathematically as
V_out = m(t) * cos(wc*t)
where: m(t) is the input modulating signal
wc is the carrier frequency

if we are upconverting from an IF-frequency then
V_out = cos(w_IF*t) * cos(wc*t) = 0.5*(cos((wc+w_IF)t)+cos((wc-w_IF)t)))
And we are interested in only one sideband. So, after filtering the unwanted side band
V_out_filtered = 0.5*cos((wc+w_IF)t)

However, if we are upconverting directly from baseband
V_out = m(t)*cos(wc*t)

From which we can conclude that the conversion gain of direct upconversion mixer = 2*conversion gain of IF upconversion mixer (after filtering)
(Am I right at this point??)

Anyway, I am using spectre to simulate the direct up-conversion gain of a gilbert cell. I am also using PSS+PAC method in which the PSS fundamental = flo and in the PAC,  I am adjusting the input source's AC magnitude =1 so the output voltage is the conversion gain directly.
So, does the resulting conversion gain is that corresponding to DIRECT CASE or the IF CASE????
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
pancho_hideboo
Senior Fellow
******
Offline



Posts: 1424
Real Homeless
Re: Direct upconversion mixer gain definition using spectre
Reply #1 - Jun 24th, 2009, 6:11am
 
amr alaa wrote on Jun 24th, 2009, 5:29am:
However, if we are upconverting directly from baseband
V_out = m(t)*cos(wc*t)
From which we can conclude that the conversion gain of direct upconversion mixer = 2*conversion gain of IF upconversion mixer (after filtering)
(Am I right at this point??)
Not correct.
Consider spectrum components of m(t).
This is no more than IF UpMixer except for DC component.

m(t)*cos(wc*t) -> 0.5*M(ω+ωc)+0.5*M(ω-ωc)
Here M(ω) is spectrum of m(t).

amr alaa wrote on Jun 24th, 2009, 5:29am:
So, does the resulting conversion gain is that corresponding to DIRECT CASE or the IF CASE????
IF CASE.

Your Mixer is single I-UpMixer not I/Q UpMixer.
People often have confusions about gain definition of I/Q UpMixer.
However there is no confusion for I-UpMixer.
Back to top
 
 
View Profile WWW Top+Secret Top+Secret   IP Logged
amr alaa
New Member
*
Offline



Posts: 3

Re: Direct upconversion mixer gain definition using spectre
Reply #2 - Jun 24th, 2009, 8:44am
 
Thank you pancho_hideboo
I got your point.
I think in both cases of direct up-conversion and IF up-conversion the mixer operation is the same. However, in the direct up-conversion mixer we are interested in the whole up-converted signal. However, in the IF up-conversion case, we are interested in only one side band of the signal (either the upper side band or the lower side band).
This can be shown from the following mathematical relations:

The IF up-conversion
IF signal = m(t)*cos(w_IF*t)
The transmitted signal = IF signal *cos(wc*t) = m(t)*cos(w_IF*t)*cos(wc*t)
                                = 0.5*m(t)*(cos((wc+w_IF)t)+cos((wc-w_IF)t)))
which has a spectrum of --> 0.25*(M(w-(wc+w_IF))+M(w+(wc+w_IF))+M(w-(wc-w_IF))+M(w-(wc-w_IF)))
we are interested in the signal with spectrum (for example): 0.25*((M(w-(wc+w_IF))+M(w+(wc+w_IF))
                                           or in time domain = 0.5*m(t)*cos((wc+w_IF))

The direct up-conversion
Baseband signal = m(t)
The transmitted signal = m(t)*cos(wc*t)
which has a spectrum of --> 0.5*M(w+wc)+0.5*M(w-wc)
However, we are interested in the hole signal which is =m(t)*cos(wc*t)

So,apparently there is a factor of 2.

Please, pancho_hideboo, I am confused could you explain it more to me.

Also, If the spectre is calculating the IF conversion case. How can I calculate the direct up-conversion case??

Thanks for your time inadvance Smiley
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
pancho_hideboo
Senior Fellow
******
Offline



Posts: 1424
Real Homeless
Re: Direct upconversion mixer gain definition using spectre
Reply #3 - Jun 24th, 2009, 9:22am
 
amr alaa wrote on Jun 24th, 2009, 8:44am:
I got your point.
I don't think you can get.

amr alaa wrote on Jun 24th, 2009, 8:44am:
However, in the direct up-conversion mixer we are interested in the whole up-converted signal.
However, in the IF up-conversion case, we are interested in only one side band of the signal (either the upper side band or the lower side band).
You don't seem to understand spectrum correctly.
In double conversion, IF spectrum is same as direct conversion.
Here two mixers and two local signals are needed.

if(t)=m(t)*cos(ωIF*t) -> IF(ω)=0.5*M(ω+ωIF) + 0.5*M(ω-ωIF)

if(t)*cos(ωc*t)=m(t)*cos(ωIF*t)*cos(ωc*t) -> 0.5*IF(ω+ωc) + 0.5*IF(ω-ωc)
=0.5*0.5*M(ω+ωIFc)+0.5*0.5*M(ω-ωIFc)
+ 0.5*0.5*M(ω+ωIFc)+0.5*0.5*M(ω-ωIFc)

amr alaa wrote on Jun 24th, 2009, 8:44am:
So,apparently there is a factor of 2.
No, you are completely misunderstanding.

amr alaa wrote on Jun 24th, 2009, 8:44am:
Please, pancho_hideboo, I am confused could you explain it more to me.
Also, If the spectre is calculating the IF conversion case. How can I calculate the direct up-conversion case??
What procedure do you take in actual measurement using actual instruments ?
If you understand correctly, there is no confusion.

In double conversion, you need two mixers and two local signals.

Again I phrase the following.
Your Mixer is single I-UpMixer not I/Q UpMixer.
People often have confusions about gain definition of I/Q UpMixer.
However there is no confusion for I-UpMixer.


Back to top
 
 
View Profile WWW Top+Secret Top+Secret   IP Logged
amr alaa
New Member
*
Offline



Posts: 3

Re: Direct upconversion mixer gain definition using spectre
Reply #4 - Jun 24th, 2009, 1:09pm
 
Thaks for the reply pancho_hideboo

In the double conversion architecture you mentioned. There is basically two mixers, one is to up-convert from baseband to the IF frequency (which behaves identically to the direct up-conversion case) while the other is to up-convert from the IF frequency to the RF frequency.

If we rephrased my previous questionas follow. If I used identical circuit topology for both mixers, will they have the same conversion gain given that the second mixer will generate the output @ ωc+ωIF & ωc+ωIF (and their negative frequency counter parts) and we will take only one sideband and filter the other.

Can you please also refer me to a good book or tutorial that elaborate on this issue.

Thanks for your time
Back to top
 
 
View Profile   IP Logged
pancho_hideboo
Senior Fellow
******
Offline



Posts: 1424
Real Homeless
Re: Direct upconversion mixer gain definition using spectre
Reply #5 - Jun 24th, 2009, 3:03pm
 
amr alaa wrote on Jun 24th, 2009, 5:29am:
Anyway, I am using spectre to simulate the direct up-conversion gain of a gilbert cell.
I am also using PSS+PAC method in which the PSS fundamental = flo and in the PAC,
I am adjusting the input source's AC magnitude =1 so the output voltage is the conversion gain directly.
So, does the resulting conversion gain is that corresponding to DIRECT CASE or the IF CASE????

Your "IF CASE" means "Double Conversion".
Your "DIRECT CASE" means "Single Conversion".
Your simulation setup in the above is "Single Conversion".

amr alaa wrote on Jun 24th, 2009, 1:09pm:
If we rephrased my previous questionas follow.
I can't find out any relation between your previous questions and the following.
amr alaa wrote on Jun 24th, 2009, 1:09pm:
If I used identical circuit topology for both mixers,
will they have the same conversion gain
given that the second mixer will generate the output @ ωc+ωIF & ωc+ωIF (and their negative frequency counter parts)
and we will take only one sideband and filter the other.
I can't understand what you mean by this sentences.
Do you mean difference of conversion gain between LSB and USB ?
If ωIF is large, they are quite different.

amr alaa wrote on Jun 24th, 2009, 1:09pm:
Can you please also refer me to a good book or tutorial that elaborate on this issue.
What and where is issue ?  Just you don't understand spectrum correctly.
Any RF textbook for very beginner is helpful.

What procedure do you take in actual measurement using actual instruments ?
If you understand actual measurement correctly, there is no confusion.
You have to learn measurements using actual instruments. Not "EDA Tool Play".
Back to top
 
 
View Profile WWW Top+Secret Top+Secret   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.