To: | <[email protected]> |
---|---|
Subject: | LF: Re: QRSS limiter |
From: | "James Moritz" <[email protected]> |
Date: | Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:24:19 +0100 |
Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btopenworld.com; s=s1024; t=1270844659; bh=jzn3CtnIqVPu6nZHmAg7YkerxrV1JFmk5PW98Hxikhs=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE; b=CAwPd5fbmkcHc1Nmj7emL74fxpgmohE5ICkZeCiQNJhQOGjCxCkyUyfXYD31qmquMu4Zwphsk17UBwi4SvbEyG8PeMxPm+NeWjydqDO+TX4muGOU3N1Izhrss6xixwy8TGmaWW8EFt5rM8axwud1sZV0Thu6zaXN+GLhRE8UM1I= |
Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btopenworld.com; h=DKIM-Signature:Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE; b=ejH39lymbuJKuzsobn/2vegF6z1/P25aPATgTVyzp6T9Vw7AZ+K4NCUql/+gYoFMdsLjdXo2o4rf9mMW/zAIPZiQC5YUBRacCV7wEptlZkflVv1HXafm6TbWsYwiQBOZ8DQgEF1e3ecDuDHurXlHKQOUUueHtWj6JtZAEOw7b/c= ; |
Domainkey-status: | good (testing) |
In-reply-to: | <BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C19A043E53C@ICTS-S-EXC2-CA.luna.kuleuven.be> |
References: | <[email protected]>,<6876ACB6572F47BC801F2268111C7E07@JimPC> <BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C19A043E53C@ICTS-S-EXC2-CA.luna.kuleuven.be> |
Reply-to: | [email protected] |
Sender: | [email protected] |
Dear Rik, LF group, ...>what about IMD due to the non linear behavior of the clipping diodes ?Yes, some IMD is inherent in any clipping (or noise-blanking) scheme. If there is, for example, a strong local CW signal in the passband, "quieting" as in a FM limiting IF amplifier occurs, and any weaker signal present is heavily attenuated, and IM products generated. So severe cross-modulation of the weak signal by the strong one would be present. But where most of the power in the passband is more-or-less random noise like QRN, IM will still occur, but the products won't have any particularly defined frequency and will just add to the wideband noise level, or add noise sidebands to the signal being received. I suppose this is what causes the "thickening" of traces on the spectrogram. But overall, the reduction in noise obtained by clipping the large amplitude QRN impulses more than compensates for this. So the technique works quite well when you can only hear noise coming out of the RX speaker. The Spectrum Lab limiter seems to be less susceptible to these effects, I guess because the clipping threshold automatically tracks any signal present. Cheers, Jim Moritz73 de M0BMU |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | LF: XDV 136.318kHz, Mike Dennison |
---|---|
Next by Date: | LF: 136.317.6khz, henny van elst |
Previous by Thread: | LF: RE: Re: QRSS limiter, Rik Strobbe |
Next by Thread: | LF: XDV 136.318kHz, Mike Dennison |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |