View Single Post
  #5   Report Post  
Old April 20th 09, 08:23 PM posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
Tim Shoppa Tim Shoppa is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 263
Default If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?

On Apr 20, 1:10*pm, John Larkin
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:50:05 -0700 (PDT), Tim Shoppa





wrote:
A terminology question I suppose about the derivation of the term
"Superheterodyne" more than anything else:


Does the "Super" actually mean anything? Is there a Subheterodyne?


Traditionally superhets mix a higher radio frequency down to a lower
IF frequency, but certainly in the past few decades radios with IF's
above the RF frequency have become very common in broadband
applications, and those are still called superhets, not subhets :-).


Google turns up a couple hits on subheterodyne but other than one that
might mean "IF higher in frequency than RF" I don't recognize what
they mean..


I suspect that "Super" was more a marketing term than anything
else :-).


Tim N3QE


Supersonic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver


I saw that in Wikipedia too. I didn't believe it, it doesn't make
sense. Why not just call all radio frequencies and IF frequencies
above 20kHz "supersonic"? Then all radios (*) are supersonic, and
we're back to super meaning nothing at all.

(*) OK, I know about lowfers and there is submarine RF communication
below 20kHz. If I listen in to that with a superhet is it then really
a subhet?

Reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Bart and Homer are arguing
about something, and Bart parrots what Wikipedia says on the subject.
Homer says in a deep resentful voice "We'll fix THAT when we get
home!"

Tim.