| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
February 6th 04, 07:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#12
February 7th 04, 07:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Paul Keinanen
writes: On 05 Feb 2004 17:35:31 GMT, (Avery Fineman) wrote: Signal to noise ratio changes as the _square_root_ of bandwidth change. I do not quite understand this. Usually the signal to noise ratio is defined as the signal power S compared to the noise N (or compared to S+N). In a white noise environment with constant noise density, the noise power is directly proportional to bandwidth. If the noise bandwidth is larger than the required signal bandwidth, reducing the noise bandwidth will not affect the signal but only reduce the noise power directly proportional to the bandwidth (dropping the bandwidth to 1/4 will drop the noise power by 1/4 or 6 dB and increase the SNR by 6 dB). However, if you looking at the noise _voltage_, it will drop by the square_root of the bandwidth. But dropping the bandwidth to 1/4 will drop the noise voltage to 1/2, which is again 6 dB. My apologies for not stating a reference. Was thinking in terms of voltage, a bad habit picked up with vacuum-state electronics many moons ago. I've been working with FETs lately and am too (for shame) conditioned to thinking in terms of signal voltages. In the OP's case, some of the signal sidebands are also cut, thus also reducing the signal power. Are you assuming something about the spectral or phase distribution of these sidebands (e.g. adding coherent side bands produce the sum of the sideband _voltages_, while adding noise from two side bands with random phase only produces a sum of sideband _power_). Random noise POWER always adds directly. If the spectral distribution of noise power is uniform, the noise power through a bandwidth-limiting device is proportional to the bandwidth of that device. Ergo, if there is a change in bandwidth, the amount of noise power change is directly proportional to bandwidth change. Normally for such things as radar, the receiver bandwidth is kept wide to preserve the echo's shape (a very rectangular pulse if the target is very reflective and a plane (not airplane) surface. The leading edge sharpness is very useful in determining precise range to the radar target. In other applications, such as limiting the pulsed signal bandwidth to just a few sidebands on either side of the carrier, the received pulse is rounded, more rounded as the sidebands get down to just one set closest to carrier. If just a portion of the first (or major) SB set, the shape resembles the "cosine-squared" envelope, nowhere close to rectangular. That is sometimes called a "matched filter" condition where the bandwidth is equal to the pulse duration time inverse. At RCA EASD, there was an R&D program for aircraft anti-collision that involved many carrier frequencies all spaced at 1 MHz intervals with 1 uSec pulse widths. Deliberate receiver limiting was used so the discrimination between frequencies depened highly on the matched-filter distortion. At 1 MHz away, a matched-filter would pass only the sideband content of the first two sidebands on one side; the resulting RF envelope would have a rounded "bow tie" shape with a reduced peak envelope. That made it relatively easy to discriminate against adjacent channels. While predicted in theory by the system designer, it nonetheless had a number of the senior staff (all very used to conventional RF pulse techniques) scratching their heads and doing many simulations. It worked very well in hardware but I've not seen any similar explanation in any texts before or since. Something vaguely similar goes on in digital TV now, the video information sent digitally and the resulting digital pulse train shaped to reduce sideband content. That allows a nearly one-third bandwidth reduction so that a 6 MHz wide TV channel allotment can accept the information requiring at least 16 MHz bandwidth under conventional video modulation techniques. Obviously there is also the MPEG video compression also a part of the bandwidth reduction. Digital TV has an almost infinite S:N ratio down to the lower limit of its processing capability, none of the noise "snow" effects seen with early days of analog TV and distant TV stations "down in the mud." Remotely, vaguely similar (:-) is the now-conventional 56K telephone line modem capable of sending high digital data rates over a 3 KHz (or less) telephone line bandwidth. While most of that bandwidth reduction is due to using a combination of AM and PM, there exists bandpass filtering of one sort or another to limit the sideband content of that combinatorial modulation. All of the techniques mentioned work in concert to present the best signal-to-noise ratio of each system. Ever since the RCA SECANT project, I've gotten away from the conventional wide-bandwidth radar-like thinking in terms of RF pulses. Sometimes pulse shape distortion can be used to advantage. It depends on the application and not "staying in the box" all the time (holding to conventional thinking). My apologies again for not stating my references to voltage instead of power in the previous message. Len Anderson retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person |
|
#13
February 7th 04, 07:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Paul Keinanen
writes: On 05 Feb 2004 17:35:31 GMT, (Avery Fineman) wrote: Signal to noise ratio changes as the _square_root_ of bandwidth change. I do not quite understand this. Usually the signal to noise ratio is defined as the signal power S compared to the noise N (or compared to S+N). In a white noise environment with constant noise density, the noise power is directly proportional to bandwidth. If the noise bandwidth is larger than the required signal bandwidth, reducing the noise bandwidth will not affect the signal but only reduce the noise power directly proportional to the bandwidth (dropping the bandwidth to 1/4 will drop the noise power by 1/4 or 6 dB and increase the SNR by 6 dB). However, if you looking at the noise _voltage_, it will drop by the square_root of the bandwidth. But dropping the bandwidth to 1/4 will drop the noise voltage to 1/2, which is again 6 dB. My apologies for not stating a reference. Was thinking in terms of voltage, a bad habit picked up with vacuum-state electronics many moons ago. I've been working with FETs lately and am too (for shame) conditioned to thinking in terms of signal voltages. In the OP's case, some of the signal sidebands are also cut, thus also reducing the signal power. Are you assuming something about the spectral or phase distribution of these sidebands (e.g. adding coherent side bands produce the sum of the sideband _voltages_, while adding noise from two side bands with random phase only produces a sum of sideband _power_). Random noise POWER always adds directly. If the spectral distribution of noise power is uniform, the noise power through a bandwidth-limiting device is proportional to the bandwidth of that device. Ergo, if there is a change in bandwidth, the amount of noise power change is directly proportional to bandwidth change. Normally for such things as radar, the receiver bandwidth is kept wide to preserve the echo's shape (a very rectangular pulse if the target is very reflective and a plane (not airplane) surface. The leading edge sharpness is very useful in determining precise range to the radar target. In other applications, such as limiting the pulsed signal bandwidth to just a few sidebands on either side of the carrier, the received pulse is rounded, more rounded as the sidebands get down to just one set closest to carrier. If just a portion of the first (or major) SB set, the shape resembles the "cosine-squared" envelope, nowhere close to rectangular. That is sometimes called a "matched filter" condition where the bandwidth is equal to the pulse duration time inverse. At RCA EASD, there was an R&D program for aircraft anti-collision that involved many carrier frequencies all spaced at 1 MHz intervals with 1 uSec pulse widths. Deliberate receiver limiting was used so the discrimination between frequencies depened highly on the matched-filter distortion. At 1 MHz away, a matched-filter would pass only the sideband content of the first two sidebands on one side; the resulting RF envelope would have a rounded "bow tie" shape with a reduced peak envelope. That made it relatively easy to discriminate against adjacent channels. While predicted in theory by the system designer, it nonetheless had a number of the senior staff (all very used to conventional RF pulse techniques) scratching their heads and doing many simulations. It worked very well in hardware but I've not seen any similar explanation in any texts before or since. Something vaguely similar goes on in digital TV now, the video information sent digitally and the resulting digital pulse train shaped to reduce sideband content. That allows a nearly one-third bandwidth reduction so that a 6 MHz wide TV channel allotment can accept the information requiring at least 16 MHz bandwidth under conventional video modulation techniques. Obviously there is also the MPEG video compression also a part of the bandwidth reduction. Digital TV has an almost infinite S:N ratio down to the lower limit of its processing capability, none of the noise "snow" effects seen with early days of analog TV and distant TV stations "down in the mud." Remotely, vaguely similar (:-) is the now-conventional 56K telephone line modem capable of sending high digital data rates over a 3 KHz (or less) telephone line bandwidth. While most of that bandwidth reduction is due to using a combination of AM and PM, there exists bandpass filtering of one sort or another to limit the sideband content of that combinatorial modulation. All of the techniques mentioned work in concert to present the best signal-to-noise ratio of each system. Ever since the RCA SECANT project, I've gotten away from the conventional wide-bandwidth radar-like thinking in terms of RF pulses. Sometimes pulse shape distortion can be used to advantage. It depends on the application and not "staying in the box" all the time (holding to conventional thinking). My apologies again for not stating my references to voltage instead of power in the previous message. Len Anderson retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person |
|
#15
February 7th 04, 07:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Tom
Bruhns) writes: (Avery Fineman) wrote in message ... In article , (gudmundur) writes: My current I.F. bandwidth is 8mhz at the 6db points. I am looking at pulses of .8microseconds length, or about 1.25mhz. If all else remains the same, and I change the swamping resistors, and tweak the slugs for a 1.5mhz I.F. bandwidth at the 6db points, what increase in signal to noise ratio should I see? Signal to noise ratio changes as the _square_root_ of bandwidth change. Wouldn't be much of an effect going from 1.25 to 1.5 MHz. Um, he was starting with an 8MHz BW... Ooops, mea culpa! My fault. Please see reply to Paul in other post. With 0.8 uSec pulses and a 1.25 to 1.5 MHz bandwidth (I presume Mega Hertz, not milli Hertz), the output envelope will be very rounded, almost Guassian or "cosine-quared" in shape. Rounding happens because of the limitation of passing the harmonics of the pulsed RF; all you have left is the carrier frequency. Yes, the pulses will certainly be rounded when they come out of the filter (though they may have started that way anyway). But depending on the filter type, they may also incur lots of ringing, and if the pulses follow one after another at the right spacing, the phase of the energy in the pulse relative to the phase of the energy left in the filter will matter a whole lot in what you see coming out. The trailing edge of a rectangular pulse fed through a Chebychev filter isn't very Gaussian looking! True. "Gaussian" shape is so often used incorrectly when so many equate that to the statistical distribution curve shape also referred to as "Gaussian." Chebs and Cauers (elliptical) all exhibit ringing in an L-C component application...but it isn't quite the same kind of shape resulting with equal group delays of SAW or digital filters. In terms of RF Envelope shape, the envelope has little hangovers at the trailing edges (I call them "burbles" in my mind, heh heh). Now, some of that comes from energy stored-and-released-at-a-later-time (commonly called "ringing") but I think (from analysis and simulation) that it is the result of pulse sideband energy content summation that includes the relative sideband phases. When working with SAW filters at the 3rd generation of RCA's SECANT (previously mentioned in reply to Paul), there was almost NO ringing possible (or observed) and the "matched-filter" effect was absolutely as predicted and observed in the earlier generations using L-C filters. As for the original question, the answer depends on the spectral distribution of the noise...if it happens to be strongly peaked at the carrier frequency of the pulses, the narrowing won't make much difference; if it happens to be peaked at some other frequency, it may help a lot. If it's uniformly distributed, AND you keep the filter shape the same and narrow the bandwidth by 1.5:8, then you will have 1.5/8 as much noise _power_. You'll also have somewhat less signal power, depending on the shape of the pulses. And of course, the filter won't get rid of noise that's introduced after the filter--fairly obvious but sometimes overlooked. In looking at the basic system, one has to assume that the random noise IS uniform in energy distribution. If the real world has a different set, such as peaking at certain parts of the spectrum, that can be calculated later and overall S:N modified...while keeping all the other factors the same. Any other method of looking at too many variables at once results in long hours and a marked increase in aspirin intake. :-) I've got a copy of Claude Elwood's original "Shannon's Law" 1948 paper in the BSTJ and still need to keep the Tylenol bottle handy when I study that again. It makes sense, but getting to the "sense" part isn't intuitive. Neither is time-domain response of filters. If it weren't for the computer simulation programs, I'd still have to rely on old aphorisms of a very general nature. :-( I once spent a fruitless night trying to figure out the spectral content of an RF pulse that was on for only one RF cycle. The next day I brown-bagged it and hooked up some test equipment during lunch hour to get the results. Rather remarkable spectral content shape and the RF waveshape was exactly one RF cycle as observed on a wideband scope. Never did finish the analysis. Sometimes ya hafta get down and dirty on the bench to prove a point and get results. Len Anderson retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person |
|
#16
February 9th 04, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Avery Fineman" wrote in message ... In article , Paul Keinanen writes: On 05 Feb 2004 17:35:31 GMT, (Avery Fineman) wrote: Signal to noise ratio changes as the _square_root_ of bandwidth change. [...snip...] My apologies for not stating a reference. Was thinking in terms of voltage, a bad habit picked up with vacuum-state electronics many moons ago. [...snip...] Whew! Thanks... I'm glad to see this post. I was about to post a question about this, but you cleared it up Avery (or is it Paul...or er, Len...) Digital TV has an almost infinite S:N ratio down to the lower limit of its processing capability, none of the noise "snow" effects seen with early days of analog TV and distant TV stations "down in the mud." If it is like digital cellular, it will have really good noise down to some level _at which_ an analog signal would still be watchable (with noise), then just DIE completely - where the analog signal would me watchable depending upon the viewer's noise tolerance. -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. |
|
#17
February 9th 04, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Avery Fineman" wrote in message ... In article , Paul Keinanen writes: On 05 Feb 2004 17:35:31 GMT, (Avery Fineman) wrote: Signal to noise ratio changes as the _square_root_ of bandwidth change. [...snip...] My apologies for not stating a reference. Was thinking in terms of voltage, a bad habit picked up with vacuum-state electronics many moons ago. [...snip...] Whew! Thanks... I'm glad to see this post. I was about to post a question about this, but you cleared it up Avery (or is it Paul...or er, Len...) Digital TV has an almost infinite S:N ratio down to the lower limit of its processing capability, none of the noise "snow" effects seen with early days of analog TV and distant TV stations "down in the mud." If it is like digital cellular, it will have really good noise down to some level _at which_ an analog signal would still be watchable (with noise), then just DIE completely - where the analog signal would me watchable depending upon the viewer's noise tolerance. -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Spectrum Analyzer | Antenna | |||
| signal to noise ratio drops on connecting the antenna | Homebrew | |||
| signal to noise ratio drops on connecting the antenna | Homebrew | |||
| Automatic RF noise cancellation and audio noise measurement | Homebrew | |||
Linear Mode
