I believe so, although I think because you get a complex baseband signal, the bandwidth is equal to the sampling rate, and not the normal sampling rate divided by 2.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Marcus Watson < marcus.wat...@loumiaconsulting.com> wrote: > Caveat: I know more about developing/reverse engineering than I do about > SDR. > > I reverse engineered the SDRSharp.HackRF.dll - in looking for more info I > then found a year old repository on Github for HackRF and the code hasn't > changed significantly: > > https://github.com/cgommel/sdrsharp/blob/master/HackRF/HackRFDevice.cs > > var baseband_filter_bw_hz = NativeMethods. > hackrf_compute_baseband_filter_bw_round_down_lt((uint)_sampleRate); > r = NativeMethods.hackrf_set_baseband_filter_bandwidth(_dev, > baseband_filter_bw_hz); > > Does this mean it's using the sample rate to set the baseband filter > bandwidth? > > Marcus > > > On 30/09/2014 16:19, McDonald, J Douglas wrote: > > From my experience with SDR# and HackRf, it seems that whoever wrote the > > code to use HackRF is sending the wrong bandwidth option to the chip > > of the HackRF that limits it before Mr. Nyquist can have a fit. Its far far > > too wide. > > > > This is a trivial fix in the code attaching HackRF to SDR#.. > > > > It would be better to add a box so the user could set the bandwidth. > > > > Doug McDonald > > > > > _______________________________________________ > HackRF-dev mailing > listHackRF-dev@greatscottgadgets.comhttps://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/hackrf-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > HackRF-dev mailing list > HackRF-dev@greatscottgadgets.com > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/hackrf-dev > >
_______________________________________________ HackRF-dev mailing list HackRF-dev@greatscottgadgets.com https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/hackrf-dev
