If it's done properly there are no spurs on the output, it's clean as can be until you noticed that the noise floor went up.

At 06:46 PM 1/26/2006, you wrote:

would that increase the number of spurs but lower in amplitude?

KD5NWA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is another item that will tweak your sense of reason.

A DDS can have all of it's spurs cleaned up if when you take the sine
wave value out of it's lookup table and add a small random number to
it, then that value is sent to the DAC and output.

The reason is a follows;

The imperfections in the Phase accumulator, the sine table, and the
DAC are highly predictable, hence every time particulars frequency
sine waves are produce the errors are roughly in the same place.
Depending on the reason, they repeat over and over adding power to
that spur. When you randomly change the sine wave you make those
spurs occur in different spots so the power does not add up.

The result is not necessarily more desirable since the spur energy
has to go somewhere, what happens is the noise floor goes up a few
decibels but the output is free of spurs.

Raising the noise floor lowers the MSD ratings of the radio, but you
have the consolation that you are not picking up unwanted signals.

It is important to have the front end be as tight as possible and not
allow wide areas of RF to come in, so there are no signals out of
band to mix with the spurs and produce an output.


At 01:39 PM 1/26/2006, you wrote:


> >The chances are that one product,
> >somewhere, will come out unpleasently close to the wanted output, and it is
> >quite illuminating to see just how quickly the spurii change for even a
> >modest shift in output frequency.
>
>OK, herein lies the rub, I think::>
>
>It seems to me that a real world receiver will have it's performance
>significantly degraded when running with a DDS LO.....
>
>We aren't talking a few spurs here that we can steer clear of (by
>design), are we?
>
>Let's say we have a conventional 7 Mhz double conversion receiver.
>The first IF is 10.7 Mhz, the second IF is 455 KHz. The front end is
>tuned, but not overly sharp, but lets say it admits out of band
>signals from 5 to 15 Mhz. Our DDS operates at 17.7 Mhz (10.7 + 7
>Mhz). For the sake of argument, let's assume our mixer is a 'good' mixer.
>
>The DDS operates at 17.7 MHz, but it has hundreds (or thousands) of
>sprurs, in the 70 to 90 db down range (relative to the desired 17.7
>MHz desired output).  Some of these spurs happen every few hundred
>Hz, some happen every few KHz (on average).  While the spurs are 70
>to 90 db down, there are many of them. Each spur allows the receiver
>to receive a small amount of interference, which mixes with many 30
>to 60 over S9 signals within the range of the front end tuned circuit
>(5 to 15 MHz).
>
>While spurs down 70 to 90 db sounds rather harmless, the end result
>is a disaster because there are so many of them and because out of
>band signals within the range of the front end tuned circuit are very
>strong and numerous as well. You end up with hash, all across the
>desired listening frequency that really isn't there.....and your
>ability to copy weaker signals is gone!
>
>Clearly, any DDS used as a local oscillator should be de-spurr'd (is
>that a word)?
>
>Is my assessment of the overall impact on the receivers ability to
>copy weak signals based on the example above accurate or am I missing
>something? If the receiver's ability to copy weak signals is
>compromised by using DDS technology, shouldn't we (as a group) be
>incorporating de-spuring countermeasures every time we hook up a DDS
>for use as a LO in a receiver?
>
>The point I'm trying to make here is that we aren't just concerned
>with the spurs that happen near the desired listening frequency that
>cause us grief!!!! It's ALL the spurs mixing with ALL the signals
>within the bandpass of the front end filter that we need to be concerned with.
>
>Correct, or incorrect?
>
>Regards,
>
>Art
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/240 - Release Date: 1/25/2006
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/240 - Release Date: 1/25/2006


Cecil Bayona
KD5NWA
www.qrpradio.com

"I fail to see why doing the same thing over and over and getting the
same results every time is insanity: I've almost proved it isn't;
only a few more tests now and I'm sure results will differ this time ... "


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/240 - Release Date: 1/25/2006





YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/240 - Release Date: 1/25/2006


Cecil Bayona
KD5NWA
www.qrpradio.com

"I fail to see why doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results every time is insanity: I've almost proved it isn't; only a few more tests now and I'm sure results will differ this time ... "


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS





No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/240 - Release Date: 1/25/2006

Reply via email to