It's important to remember these devices weren't even intended to operate in this fashion, and they almost certainly were never specified to support any given bandwidth. The ~2.4MHz sample rate is just an anecdotal number arrived at through experimentation.
--n On Sep 15, 2014 6:07 AM, "Oliver Jowett" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15 September 2014 10:26, Dean Sauer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What I am not getting is clear info on these devices.. > > > > Is it +- 2MHz at 2mb/s rate etc... > > +/- 1MHz at 2M complex samples/s. > Nyquist would like to have words with you about capturing 4MHz > bandwidth with 2M samples/sec! > > >> This spread is 3.1MHz which is so close to the upper limit of 3.2MHz you > >> may just be able to scrape through, but you will definitely experience > >> some packet loss. > > > > Here is a "limit of 3.2." Where is this coming from ? ? ? I am not > > getting answers on specs.. except that some where some one already knows > > these.... some how. Obviously some one has access to the NDA'd data > > sheets on the chips inside that us mere mortals do not have. I really > > liked things better when I could go to TI, Motorola etc. and purchase big > > honking data books. :) > > Aye, there's the rub. It would be great to have proper specs. For the > most part we don't have them. Without proper specs, most of these > limits etc are just empirical limits found through trial and error. > I don't think there's a secret NDA cartel (if there is, how do I join? > ;-)), what you see is the end result of lots of reverse-engineering > and experimentation. > > Oliver > >
