View Single Post
  #13   Report Post  
Old April 27th 09, 06:19 AM posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
JosephKK[_3_] JosephKK[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2009
Posts: 9
Default If Superheterodyne, why not Subheterodyne?

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:27:37 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

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


John


Not a bad article, except that he seems to think that cascading multiple
stages at a single IF improves image rejection, and that very high IFs
are much less common than double conversion. (Does *anyone* use double
conversion anymore? Spur city.)


Double conversion may be thought to be passe an awful lot of sattelite
TV receivers are double conversion or triple conversion. Think LNB.