Send USRP-users mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of USRP-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: HF Transverter for B2x0 (Jason A. Donenfeld)
2. Re: HF Transverter for B2x0 (Jason A. Donenfeld)
3. Re: HF Transverter for B2x0 (Matt Ettus)
4. Re: HF Transverter for B2x0 (Michael Ossmann)
5. Re: HF Transverter for B2x0 (Jason A. Donenfeld)
6. Re: HF Transverter for B2x0 (Matt Ettus)
7. Underflow with Short Tx Burst (Robert Palumbo)
8. Re: Custom FPGA build for N200R4 (Ben Hilburn)
9. Re: TX/RX Switch on SBX Daughterboard in Full Duplex mode
(Ben Hilburn)
10. New to SDR ordered a B200 graduating from a RTL-SDR USB
dongle, few questions (Benito Horta)
11. Re: New to SDR ordered a B200 graduating from a RTL-SDR USB
dongle, few questions (John Malsbury)
12. Startup issues (Dan Sego)
13. Re: New to SDR ordered a B200 graduating from a RTL-SDR USB
dongle, few questions (Benito Horta)
14. Re: HF Transverter for B2x0 (Jason A. Donenfeld)
15. Re: HF Transverter for B2x0 (Ian Buckley)
16. Replacing the B200 Oscillator (Jason A. Donenfeld)
17. Re: Replacing the B200 Oscillator (Ian Buckley)
18. Re: Replacing the B200 Oscillator (Ralph A. Schmid, dk5ras)
19. Takachi B2X0 Enclosure Details (James Balean)
20. Re: Takachi B2X0 Enclosure Details (Sivan Toledo)
21. Re: HF Transverter for B2x0 (James Balean)
22. Re: Replacing the B200 Oscillator (Marcus D. Leech)
23. Re: HF Transverter for B2x0 (Jason A. Donenfeld)
24. Re: Takachi B2X0 Enclosure Details (Jason A. Donenfeld)
25. Re: Takachi B2X0 Enclosure Details (Michael Schwingen)
26. Re: HF Transverter for B2x0 (Sivan Toledo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 06:05:24 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email protected]>
To: Matt Ettus <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
Message-ID:
<cahmme9ros44syua4bhzdw-8u2+gjz32ejc6+-60geyh-ys7...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Mar 10, 2014 5:57 AM, "Matt Ettus" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Although the official spec for the B200 and B210 is 70 MHz, it will
actually go down well below 50 MHz. However, if you wish to do lower HF
frequencies a converter like the Ham-it-up is useful.
Unfortunately the Ham-it-up can't transmit as it is not a down converter
too. :/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140310/2fd585fc/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:18:18 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email protected]>
To: James Balean <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
Message-ID:
<cahmme9rzhy97wemjq+mmeubwjsl1omnm3g4pj4ao6cmqkcu...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Mar 10, 2014 1:59 PM, "James Balean" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I too am interested in integrated HF transverter solutions for the B2X0.
Could you confirm for those deciding between B2X0 and the bladeRF
competitor whether or not an add-on module such as this is something that
Ettus would consider down the track? Or has this been ruled this out to
better differentiate the higher price-point USRP models?
I second the desire for a clear and concise answer to this, as it may in
fact be a deciding factor in which SDR to buy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140310/363b18ea/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:49:44 -0700
From: Matt Ettus <[email protected]>
To: James Balean <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
Message-ID:
<CAN=1kn_n8vURFKQHZxusuz16bvnnwaf_VduW46b=LbCU=zg...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
James,
The USRP B200 costs $675 and works down well below 30 MHz without any extra
boards. With Ham-It-Up, you can get receive down all through HF, so the
only thing missing would be TX below 10 MHz.
The BladeRF with downconverter costs $620 and as they put it, "The
expansion board's targeted high fidelity frequency is 50MHz, however the
transverter can be tuned as low as 10Mhz, making the platform suitable for
HF/VHF applications."
Thus, the price is roughly the same, and the range is roughly the same.
B200 has a much bigger FPGA, does timed commands, OpenBTS, LTE, double the
bandwidth, better RF performance, goes all the way to 6 GHz, etc. and does
it all in a single board.
If someone were to create a converter (maybe based on or similar to the
Ham-It-Up) that did HF, then we would add support to UHD and support their
efforts. We don't have any plans to develop anything ourselves at this
time. If you are interested in working on this let me know. We might even
offer a bounty.
Matt
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:59 AM, James Balean <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> I too am interested in integrated HF transverter solutions for the B2X0.
> Could you confirm for those deciding between B2X0 and the bladeRF
> competitor whether or not an add-on module such as this is something that
> Ettus would consider down the track? Or has this been ruled this out to
> better differentiate the higher price-point USRP models?
>
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
>
> ________________________________
> > From: [email protected]
> > Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 21:56:59 -0700
> > To: [email protected]
> > CC: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
> >
> >
> >
> > Although the official spec for the B200 and B210 is 70 MHz, it will
> > actually go down well below 50 MHz. However, if you wish to do lower
> > HF frequencies a converter like the Ham-it-up is useful. Our
> > daughterboard-based radios go down to DC with the LFRX and LFTX.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld
> > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > The bladeRF has a fancy HF transverter add-on [1] that seems to
> > interface really intimately with the bladeRF itself. Is there anything
> > available for the B2x0? NooElec sells the Ham It Up [2], which is an
> > upconverter with no corresponding downconverter (thus, useless for
> > me), and doesn't seem especially high quality. Do any high quality HF
> > transverter solutions exist for use with the B2x0?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.nuand.com/blog/product/hf-vhf-transverter/
> > [2]
> >
> http://www.nooelec.com/store/ham-it-up-v1-0-rf-upconverter-for-software-defined-radio.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > USRP-users mailing list
> > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> > http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ USRP-users mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140310/23a2a768/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:01:12 -0600
From: Michael Ossmann <[email protected]>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 06:05:24AM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> Unfortunately the Ham-it-up can't transmit as it is not a down
> converter too. :/
Ham It Up does work for both TX and RX. I recommend giving it a try
with a USRP.
Mike
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:42:05 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email protected]>
To: Matt Ettus <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
Message-ID:
<cahmme9rgjkcg+hpdkgygs7tyy9lklc_wxsb4b8nsefse5cr...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Replies inline.
On Mar 10, 2014 5:50 PM, "Matt Ettus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The USRP B200 costs $675 and works down well below 30 MHz without any
extra boards. With Ham-It-Up, you can get receive down all through HF, so
the only thing missing would be TX below 10 MHz.
>
> The BladeRF with downconverter costs $620 and as they put it, "The
expansion board's targeted high fidelity frequency is 50MHz, however the
transverter can be tuned as low as 10Mhz, making the platform suitable for
HF/VHF applications."
The latest revision of the transverter goes down to 300khz I'm told.
>
> Thus, the price is roughly the same, and the range is roughly the same.
B200 has a much bigger FPGA, does timed commands, OpenBTS, LTE, double the
bandwidth, better RF performance, goes all the way to 6 GHz, etc. and does
it all in a single board.
Can the B200 do LTE and OpenBTS on a single board, or does it require the
$1000 add-on gps module? I ask because the bladerf has a VCTCXO built in,
and with the OpenBTS/LTE release for it that's coming out, I'm told that
there will be a utility to recallibrate the crystal to LTE network. The
ettus faq mentions something about a forthcoming TCXO. When will this be
coming out? Will it be suitable for GSM/LTE? What will it cost?
>
> If someone were to create a converter (maybe based on or similar to the
Ham-It-Up) that did HF, then we would add support to UHD and support their
efforts. We don't have any plans to develop anything ourselves at this
time. If you are interested in working on this let me know. We might even
offer a bounty.
This would be great. From preliminary investigations, I'm told that
bladerf's transverter will actually have ordinary coax inputs/outputs, and
that the controller on it could be used with an arduino. Of course, this
still sucks for integration. Would ettus be interested in supporting the
bladerf transverter protocol in UHD? It's supposed to be a much much higher
quality transverter than the ham-it-up.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140310/b34440b0/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:53:23 -0700
From: Matt Ettus <[email protected]>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
Message-ID:
<CAN=1kn9otcitg-vqpq5gv-nzschns2gozxospe1cbs3cgcy...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> >
> > Thus, the price is roughly the same, and the range is roughly the same.
> B200 has a much bigger FPGA, does timed commands, OpenBTS, LTE, double the
> bandwidth, better RF performance, goes all the way to 6 GHz, etc. and does
> it all in a single board.
>
> Can the B200 do LTE and OpenBTS on a single board, or does it require the
> $1000 add-on gps module? I ask because the bladerf has a VCTCXO built in,
> and with the OpenBTS/LTE release for it that's coming out, I'm told that
> there will be a utility to recallibrate the crystal to LTE network. The
> ettus faq mentions something about a forthcoming TCXO. When will this be
> coming out? Will it be suitable for GSM/LTE? What will it cost?
>
>
The B2x0 has a TCXO already, so you don't need the extra GPSDO if you don't
want it. We also have a DAC to control crystal frequency, so you can
"calibrate" the crystal as well.
The B200 can and does do LTE without anything else. The B210 can and does
do 2x2 MIMO LTE. We have numerous customers doing this already. Both of
course also run OpenBTS as well.
>
> > If someone were to create a converter (maybe based on or similar to the
> Ham-It-Up) that did HF, then we would add support to UHD and support their
> efforts. We don't have any plans to develop anything ourselves at this
> time. If you are interested in working on this let me know. We might even
> offer a bounty.
>
> This would be great. From preliminary investigations, I'm told that
> bladerf's transverter will actually have ordinary coax inputs/outputs, and
> that the controller on it could be used with an arduino. Of course, this
> still sucks for integration. Would ettus be interested in supporting the
> bladerf transverter protocol in UHD? It's supposed to be a much much higher
> quality transverter than the ham-it-up.
>
Well, Mike points out that Ham-it-up already does both RX and TX, so it
sounds like that is the ideal solution.
Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140310/d6e94d70/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:19:33 -0400
From: Robert Palumbo <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USRP-users] Underflow with Short Tx Burst
Message-ID:
<CAKwzk9zSFN=vpx_wKUon+3wbU5hOv1=hopo1+dymmpubnur...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hey Everyone,
I've recently migrated some custom DSP code on my N210 from UHD 3.3.1 to
the current release (3.7.0). My code is doing some specialized processing
on receive, but much is left unchanged on the transmit side of things.
I'm running into a strange problem when streaming data to the device. I'm
trying to send a burst of 4000 samples to the device, streaming at a rate
of 25Msps. However, I'm getting underflows every time, and the data coming
out is fragmented with non-deterministic zeros. It appears as though there
are some FIFO overruns occurring in transmit somewhere, but I'm not sure
how this is possible given the large external RAM FIFO being used?
Anyone have any ideas?
Rob
--
Robert A Palumbo
[email protected]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140310/88cb2aab/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:23:14 -0700
From: Ben Hilburn <[email protected]>
To: Juha Vierinen <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] Custom FPGA build for N200R4
Message-ID:
<caoevzkjfxh+j--519kzf-5ik0wyhyqxhroq1nxrxa0lzugo...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Juha-
To clarify, did you attempt to build the latest UHD master FPGA code for
the N200 on a version of ISE that was not 12.2? Sorry, I'm a bit confused
about what you tried that failed.
Cheers,
Ben
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Juha Vierinen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here is an update:
>
> I went from the master branch code back to release
> UHD-Mirror-release_003_005_002, which seems to compile just fine with ISE
> 12.2.
>
> juha
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Juha Vierinen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tried doing a custom_dsp_rx module based on the instructions on the git
>> source. I also found Tom Hartley's post useful, as the CUSTOM_DEFS caused
>> problems with the compiilation environment. I ended up using the "Verilog
>> Macros" "LVDS=1|RX_DSP0_MODULE=custom_dsp_rx" approach as suggested in
>> Tom's tutorial mail.
>>
>> However, I still got an error related with missing BUF_SIZE parameter.
>> I've pretty much never programmed in verilog, but I am guessing that the
>> API for customizing the dsp chain is in a broken state at the moment.
>>
>> I then went in and pretty much did the changes that I wanted directly in
>> ddc_chain.v. I'm trying to compile that right now. We'll see how that goes.
>>
>> I'm using ISE 12.2, as suggested on the uhd web site.
>>
>> juha
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> USRP-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140310/381d2e1e/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:06:46 -0700
From: Ben Hilburn <[email protected]>
To: "Tuerkyilmaz, Eral" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] TX/RX Switch on SBX Daughterboard in Full
Duplex mode
Message-ID:
<caoevzklkvvqeqmpj8wtaxuh_ooxtlt187flu_cg3w2tscal...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Eral -
The switching behavior is set by the driver. You can see it being set for
the WBX v4 in this part of the code:
https://github.com/EttusResearch/uhd/blob/master/host/lib/usrp/dboard/db_wbx_version4.cpp#L135
And for all versions of the SBX in this part of the code:
https://github.com/EttusResearch/uhd/blob/master/host/lib/usrp/dboard/db_sbx_common.cpp#L276
Take a look at that SBX code and let us know if it is what you are looking
for!
Cheers,
Ben
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Tuerkyilmaz, Eral <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> We will operate the USRP N210 in combination with the SBX board in a TDD
> mode. For this we intend to use both RF connections (TX/RX (used for
> transmitting) and RX2 (used for receiving)) and do the switching by an
> external circuit. Therefore we want to provide the internal TX/RX switching
> signal to the external circuit even when the antenna setting is "Full
> Duplex".
>
>
>
> I observed that this is possible with the WBX board since it always
> switches the signal on the pin io_tx_15 even when the receive antenna is
> set to "RX2" (Full Duplex Mode).
>
> I couldn't observe this behaviour on the SBX board. The TX/RX switch is
> only switched when the antenna setting "TX/RX" is used. Is there any quick
> way to change this behavior to the "WBX-style" from the UHD driver?
>
>
>
> Thank you and the Best Regards,
> Eral T?rkyilmaz
>
> _______________________________________________
> USRP-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140310/350ff5d9/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:59:31 -0400
From: Benito Horta <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [USRP-users] New to SDR ordered a B200 graduating from a
RTL-SDR USB dongle, few questions
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I ordered the B200 board I have a workstation with the Intel USB 3 chip, 3770K
cpu etc for it.
What type of connector is used for the RF inputs. I am looking at ordering an
antenna to do some receiving in the UHF bands It looks like some kind of SMA
connection but what type, hard to see from the pictures. I was looking at
ordering a mobile antenna to use inside. something with your basic sma male
connection to connect to the unit.
Is there a case I can order from someone like Gigaparts etc.. that I can put
the board in to provide some level of protection from ESD, or other forms of
damage. It would have been nice if ettus sells a case option like what shipped
with the EOL B100 system.
Anyhow hopefully I get all this working out and learn on a better platform.
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:39:29 -0700
From: John Malsbury <[email protected]>
To: Benito Horta <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] New to SDR ordered a B200 graduating from a
RTL-SDR USB dongle, few questions
Message-ID:
<CAN5WegSabRiT6mYr=wrwqc5+3zbs5zzehkmasq8rsc-asy3...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Benito,
Congratulations on the upgrade! I have embedded answers to some of your
questions.
-John
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Benito Horta <[email protected]> wrote:
> I ordered the B200 board I have a workstation with the Intel USB 3 chip,
> 3770K cpu etc for it.
>
>
> What type of connector is used for the RF inputs. I am looking at ordering
> an antenna to do some receiving in the UHF bands It looks like some kind of
> SMA connection but what type, hard to see from the pictures. I was looking
> at ordering a mobile antenna to use inside. something with your basic sma
> male connection to connect to the unit.
>
*All RF connectors are SMA-female.*
>
> Is there a case I can order from someone like Gigaparts etc.. that I can
> put the board in to provide some level of protection from ESD, or other
> forms of damage. It would have been nice if ettus sells a case option like
> what shipped with the EOL B100 system.
>
*You can find links to enclosure vendor here:
http://files.ettus.com/private/b2x0_enclosure/
<http://files.ettus.com/private/b2x0_enclosure/>*
*Here's a post about some experiences with a Hammond enclosure:
http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/2013-October/007704.html
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/2013-October/007704.html>*
> Anyhow hopefully I get all this working out and learn on a better platform.
>
*Good luck! Don't hesitate to check back on the list if you have any
questions. *
> _______________________________________________
> USRP-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140310/1c6547f4/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:05:34 -0700
From: Dan Sego <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [USRP-users] Startup issues
Message-ID:
<calgevjtpwl1k9_lqmlj6pbbpka-vgwamsod3vzy1amt52r8...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Good evening all,
New N210 user attempting to start with rx_samples_to_file.cpp (latest
version from code archive). Win 7 environment with MSVC Express (2012). I
have installed uhd_003.005.000-release_Win32_installed.exe, and Boost 1.55
with binaries created using bootstrap and ./b2. The binaries were
successfully created though were not assembled in c:\Program Files
(x86)\boost_1_55_0\lib as indicated on Boost binary page. I assembled the
necessary (I think) *.lib files in a single folder named \lib to facilitate
the library linker in MSVC Express.
All precompile references are satisfied and I've included uhd.lib in the
library include path along with the path to the boost "libboost" binaries.
The code compiles with four type conversion warnings but fails because of a
linker error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol "__declspec(dllimport)
public...".
There was a similar problem posted in Oct 2011 on this list but the
resolution was unclear.
Any suggestions, please?
Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140310/a94188b6/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 22:40:26 -0400
From: Benito Horta <[email protected]>
To: John Malsbury <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] New to SDR ordered a B200 graduating from a
RTL-SDR USB dongle, few questions
Message-ID:
<cagfuhsrkh5segon72bjkijv7kisseo28gastmxm_bdgb26o...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Thanks I will take a look into that, I went and ordered a basic dual band
ham antenna with a male sma just to get started. What surprised me was how
effective those 18 dollar 820T usb devices were for listening in on UHF. It
will be interesting to compare the RF performance between the USRP and the
dongle.
On Monday, March 10, 2014, John Malsbury wrote:
> Benito,
>
> Congratulations on the upgrade! I have embedded answers to some of your
> questions.
>
> -John
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Benito Horta
> <[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
> > wrote:
>
>> I ordered the B200 board I have a workstation with the Intel USB 3 chip,
>> 3770K cpu etc for it.
>>
>
>
>>
>> What type of connector is used for the RF inputs. I am looking at
>> ordering an antenna to do some receiving in the UHF bands It looks like
>> some kind of SMA connection but what type, hard to see from the pictures. I
>> was looking at ordering a mobile antenna to use inside. something with your
>> basic sma male connection to connect to the unit.
>>
>
> *All RF connectors are SMA-female.*
>
>>
>> Is there a case I can order from someone like Gigaparts etc.. that I can
>> put the board in to provide some level of protection from ESD, or other
>> forms of damage. It would have been nice if ettus sells a case option like
>> what shipped with the EOL B100 system.
>>
>
> *You can find links to enclosure vendor here:
> http://files.ettus.com/private/b2x0_enclosure/
> <http://files.ettus.com/private/b2x0_enclosure/>*
>
> *Here's a post about some experiences with a Hammond enclosure:
> http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/2013-October/007704.html
> <http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/2013-October/007704.html>*
>
>
>> Anyhow hopefully I get all this working out and learn on a better
>> platform.
>>
>
> *Good luck! Don't hesitate to check back on the list if you have any
> questions. *
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> USRP-users mailing list
>> [email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
>> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140310/f7b79b39/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 04:04:13 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email protected]>
To: Matt Ettus <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
Message-ID:
<cahmme9rq3mvq0uzuqmkze5ttbztgl9op1tnyvtxu6h9bbud...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Matt Ettus <[email protected]> wrote:
> The B2x0 has a TCXO already, so you don't need the extra GPSDO if you don't
> want it. We also have a DAC to control crystal frequency, so you can
> "calibrate" the crystal as well.
Great. How long does it take for it to shift out of calibration? Will
it be possible to calibrate it with remote sources like LTE?
>
> The B200 can and does do LTE without anything else. The B210 can and does do
> 2x2 MIMO LTE. We have numerous customers doing this already. Both of
> course also run OpenBTS as well.
Excellent. And the crystal is precise enough? Also am I right to
assume from these sentences that GSM can also be done without using an
additional crystal add-on?
Also - what do you mean on the faq
<http://www.ettus.com/kb/detail/usrp-b200-and-b210-faq> when you say
"Ettus Research is planning to release a TCXO version which can be bus
powered"? Why an extra crystal if there is already one on there?
> Well, Mike points out that Ham-it-up already does both RX and TX, so it
> sounds like that is the ideal solution.
It's still a lot lower quality and not as finely tuned as the one from
bladeRF. It also contains a microcontroller for synchronizing it with
the processor of the SDR. Hopefully it will be possible to use this
transverter with the B200, after some modification... I'd love it if
someone at Ettus made a polished solution, but perhaps with mention of
the bounty up in this thread, I'll have a look at the integration.
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:39:43 -0700
From: Ian Buckley <[email protected]>
To: Jason A. Donenfeld <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> Also - what do you mean on the faq
> <http://www.ettus.com/kb/detail/usrp-b200-and-b210-faq> when you say
> "Ettus Research is planning to release a TCXO version which can be bus
> powered"? Why an extra crystal if there is already one on there?
>
A GPSDO that disciplines an onboard TCXO as opposed to an OCXO..thus reducing
power consumption significantly.
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 06:45:32 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [USRP-users] Replacing the B200 Oscillator
Message-ID:
<cahmme9rs8qwgyoxdzkyhhwtlsray6n9rp8jupjfxv0pf-e8...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi folks,
According to the OpenBTS page [1], the B200 has a rather weak
oscillator, offering only +/- 2.0 ppm. The GPSDO is obscenely
expensive, so I suppose some might be interested in replacing the
oscillator on the B200 with something a bit more stable. Looking at
the schematic [2] and a photo [3], and praying to the SDR gods that my
electronics naivete has not tainted everything, it looks like what's
required is VCTCXO, 3.3v, and 10mhz. It looks like this random
oscillator I found on digikey [4] might fit the bill with +/- 100 ppb.
Abracon apparently sells +/- 50 ppb VCTCXOs, but not for 3.3v.
Aside from voiding my warranty and killing kittens, is such a pursuit
possible? Desoldering the crappy oscillator and replacing it with a
nice one? Are the specs I listed above correct? And are these the only
criteria for finding the right part?
Thanks,
Jason
[1] http://wush.net/trac/rangepublic/wiki/USRP
[2] http://data.zx2c4.com/what-is-this-oscillator-schematic.png
[3] http://data.zx2c4.com/what-is-this-oscillator.png
[4] http://www.conwin.com/datasheets/tx/tx350.pdf
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:13:07 -0700
From: Ian Buckley <[email protected]>
To: Jason A. Donenfeld <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] Replacing the B200 Oscillator
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Jason,
A 2ppm VCTCXO would in general be regarded as a high quality clock source, it's
probably about 10x better than a typical handset VCTCXO.
To meet the (slightly absurd) GSM BTS spec there really are few substitutes for
a Rubidium clock source or GPS disciplined oscillator.
If you are budget constrained then EBay is an excellent source of 10MHz
reference sources that you can use to discipline the on board B2x0 oscilator
without any warranty issues via the Ext 10MHz input.
I would suggest you first try the stock H/W, for the vast majority of people
experimenting with Open-BTS, this quality of clock source will be just fine.
BTW the part you called out here is not footprint compatible with the B200 part
(X100) (which incidentally is 40MHz, not 10MHz)
-Ian
On Mar 10, 2014, at 10:45 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> According to the OpenBTS page [1], the B200 has a rather weak
> oscillator, offering only +/- 2.0 ppm. The GPSDO is obscenely
> expensive, so I suppose some might be interested in replacing the
> oscillator on the B200 with something a bit more stable. Looking at
> the schematic [2] and a photo [3], and praying to the SDR gods that my
> electronics naivete has not tainted everything, it looks like what's
> required is VCTCXO, 3.3v, and 10mhz. It looks like this random
> oscillator I found on digikey [4] might fit the bill with +/- 100 ppb.
> Abracon apparently sells +/- 50 ppb VCTCXOs, but not for 3.3v.
>
> Aside from voiding my warranty and killing kittens, is such a pursuit
> possible? Desoldering the crappy oscillator and replacing it with a
> nice one? Are the specs I listed above correct? And are these the only
> criteria for finding the right part?
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
>
> [1] http://wush.net/trac/rangepublic/wiki/USRP
> [2] http://data.zx2c4.com/what-is-this-oscillator-schematic.png
> [3] http://data.zx2c4.com/what-is-this-oscillator.png
> [4] http://www.conwin.com/datasheets/tx/tx350.pdf
>
> _______________________________________________
> USRP-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:13:11 +0100
From: "Ralph A. Schmid, dk5ras" <[email protected]>
To: "'Jason A. Donenfeld'" <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] Replacing the B200 Oscillator
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi,
> Aside from voiding my warranty and killing kittens, is such a pursuit
possible?
> Desoldering the crappy oscillator and replacing it with a nice one? Are
the
> specs I listed above correct? And are these the only criteria for finding
the
> right part?
I did not have a look into the schematics, but usually this is possible, in
fact I did similar things often enough. Last such stunt was fitting the
USRP1 with a better oscillator. In this case you need to check that the
tuning capabilities fit what may narrow down the range of available parts,
or even decide to abandon this capability. Otherwise I do not expect any
problems when you know what you are doing :)
> Thanks,
> Jason
Ralph.
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 19:01:05 +1100
From: James Balean <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USRP-users] Takachi B2X0 Enclosure Details
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi all,
Ettus suggests the Takachi MXA3-11-16 enclosure for the B2X0. I recently
purchased one of these, and thought that others may benefit on pricing details.
See below for prices I was given:
Enclosure with endplates: US$23.02
Milling according to Ettus specifications: US$90.27
Silk screening according to Ettus specifications: US$97.74
See http://files.ettus.com/private/b2x0_enclosure/ for the Ettus milling and
silk screening defaults (these are on file at Takachi). An additional 'initial
tooling' fee is waved if you use these.
The enclosure comes with the necessary screws for attaching the end plates.
Screw holes are not pre-tapped, though it is possible to force the screws in.
So US$211.03 + postage will get you a one-off enclosure. Not the cheapest,
though it is likely that a discount would apply if user groups or Ettus made a
bulk production run. Lead time was around 2 weeks when I ordered.
Takachi Contact: [email protected]
Hope this is of benefit.
Kind regards,
James
------------------------------
Message: 20
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:28:02 +0200
From: Sivan Toledo <[email protected]>
To: James Balean <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] Takachi B2X0 Enclosure Details
Message-ID:
<caol_rug_8ng8ktnsnmsvgbzqy2ue0ap87ch5ogj1+9bt3cc...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I got the raw enclosure from Takachi and I was able to drill all the
necessary holes with a dremmel and a reamer (using Ettus's drawing as a
drilling template).
Without milling the area around the USB connector the plug made it into the
socket and made electrical contact, but not a reliable one. I asked
somebody to mill this area out for me. It took him 5 minutes (done by hand,
not by programming a CNC machine). It looks and works fine now.
As for the silk screen, I just wrote the labels with a permanent marker :-)
There is still an issue with the LEDs. They need light guides to make the
indication visible on the front panel, and I am not sure where to get these
light guides (the board requires specific ones). If anybody has ideas or
sources, that will be great.
Sivan
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:01 AM, James Balean <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Ettus suggests the Takachi MXA3-11-16 enclosure for the B2X0. I recently
> purchased one of these, and thought that others may benefit on pricing
> details. See below for prices I was given:
>
>
> Enclosure with endplates: US$23.02
> Milling according to Ettus specifications: US$90.27
> Silk screening according to Ettus specifications: US$97.74
>
>
> See http://files.ettus.com/private/b2x0_enclosure/ for the Ettus milling
> and silk screening defaults (these are on file at Takachi). An additional
> 'initial tooling' fee is waved if you use these.
>
> The enclosure comes with the necessary screws for attaching the end
> plates. Screw holes are not pre-tapped, though it is possible to force the
> screws in.
>
> So US$211.03 + postage will get you a one-off enclosure. Not the cheapest,
> though it is likely that a discount would apply if user groups or Ettus
> made a bulk production run. Lead time was around 2 weeks when I ordered.
>
> Takachi Contact: [email protected]
>
> Hope this is of benefit.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> James
> _______________________________________________
> USRP-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140311/5bfa2ca4/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 21
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:32:27 +1100
From: James Balean <[email protected]>
To: Matt Ettus <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Hi Matt,
Thank you for providing clarity on Ettus' intentions with respect to
up/down-converter cards and a compelling argument for the B2X0. Indeed these
were the factors, in addition to the reputation and prevalence of USRP in
industry and research, which influenced my decision to adopt the USRP instead
of other SDR's for my system designs.
I was unaware of the USRP operating down to 10?/30MHz as you mentioned. It was
a nice surprise to find that UHD's lower limit was set to 50MHz, considering
Analog Devices lists the RFIC range as 70MHz-6GHz.
Judging by the block diagram for the BladeRF HF/VHF transverter
(http://nuand.com/xb-vhf-schematic.pdf), it appears as though reception below
50MHz is not supported or gets bypassed directly to the ADC. This contradicts
the 300kHz/10MHz lower limit others have mentioned and the 'HF' in the name. Is
there an updated design which anybody could point me to? It may be of little
use to integrate the card with the USRP.
It is good to know that there would be support from Ettus for a
community-developed transverter. As a result of your response, I will
investigate designing a DC-50MHz transverter board. However, ideally I would
like to collaborate with others who have more experience than me. Any takers?
Kind regards,
James
________________________________
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:49:44 -0700
> Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]; [email protected]
>
>
> James,
>
> The USRP B200 costs $675 and works down well below 30 MHz without any
> extra boards. With Ham-It-Up, you can get receive down all through
> HF, so the only thing missing would be TX below 10 MHz.
>
> The BladeRF with downconverter costs $620 and as they put it, "The
> expansion board?s targeted high fidelity frequency is 50MHz, however
> the transverter can be tuned as low as 10Mhz, making the platform
> suitable for HF/VHF applications."
>
> Thus, the price is roughly the same, and the range is roughly the same.
> B200 has a much bigger FPGA, does timed commands, OpenBTS, LTE, double
> the bandwidth, better RF performance, goes all the way to 6 GHz, etc.
> and does it all in a single board.
>
> If someone were to create a converter (maybe based on or similar to the
> Ham-It-Up) that did HF, then we would add support to UHD and support
> their efforts. We don't have any plans to develop anything ourselves
> at this time. If you are interested in working on this let me know.
> We might even offer a bounty.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:59 AM, James Balean
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> I too am interested in integrated HF transverter solutions for the
> B2X0. Could you confirm for those deciding between B2X0 and the bladeRF
> competitor whether or not an add-on module such as this is something
> that Ettus would consider down the track? Or has this been ruled this
> out to better differentiate the higher price-point USRP models?
>
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
>
> ________________________________
>> From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>> Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 21:56:59 -0700
>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>> CC: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
>>
>>
>>
>> Although the official spec for the B200 and B210 is 70 MHz, it will
>> actually go down well below 50 MHz. However, if you wish to do lower
>> HF frequencies a converter like the Ham-it-up is useful. Our
>> daughterboard-based radios go down to DC with the LFRX and LFTX.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld
>>
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>>
>
> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> The bladeRF has a fancy HF transverter add-on [1] that seems to
>> interface really intimately with the bladeRF itself. Is there anything
>> available for the B2x0? NooElec sells the Ham It Up [2], which is an
>> upconverter with no corresponding downconverter (thus, useless for
>> me), and doesn't seem especially high quality. Do any high quality HF
>> transverter solutions exist for use with the B2x0?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.nuand.com/blog/product/hf-vhf-transverter/
>> [2]
>>
> http://www.nooelec.com/store/ham-it-up-v1-0-rf-upconverter-for-software-defined-radio.html
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> USRP-users mailing list
>>
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>
>> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ USRP-users mailing list
>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
------------------------------
Message: 22
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:13:48 -0400
From: "Marcus D. Leech" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] Replacing the B200 Oscillator
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 03/11/2014 01:45 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Aside from voiding my warranty and killing kittens, is such a pursuit
> possible? Desoldering the crappy oscillator and replacing it with a
> nice one? Are the specs I listed above correct? And are these the only
> criteria for finding the right part?
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
I'd just like to point out that in most circles, and for most
applications, a +/-2PPM oscillator is in no sense considered "crappy".
There *are* applications with much-tighter specs, to be sure, which is
why there's the option of using an external reference--cheap 10MHz OCXOs
with 50PPB specs are available on eBay, for example, that are quite
adequate for the applications with absurdly-tight frequency accuracy
requirements.
Consider, for example, the RTLSDR "dongles"--they have +/-100PPM master
oscillators, which makes +/-2PPM on the B2xx a not-too-shabby 17dB better.
------------------------------
Message: 23
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:03:50 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email protected]>
To: James Balean <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
Message-ID:
<CAHmME9pGZhKpKmT9=ht61abbs6q2oaiuhcltqvh2irngari...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:32 PM, James Balean <[email protected]> wrote:
> Judging by the block diagram for the BladeRF HF/VHF transverter
> (http://nuand.com/xb-vhf-schematic.pdf), it appears as though reception below
> 50MHz is not supported or gets bypassed directly to the ADC. This contradicts
> the 300kHz/10MHz lower limit others have mentioned and the 'HF' in the name.
> Is there an updated design which anybody could point me to? It may be of
> little use to integrate the card with the USRP.
This is outdated. The design has been reworked, and a new schematic is
yet to be updated. I'm told by the creator that it now goes down to
300khz.
------------------------------
Message: 24
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:06:15 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email protected]>
To: James Balean <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] Takachi B2X0 Enclosure Details
Message-ID:
<CAHmME9qf06NOy1KvnBfUoo=z0mnuU73Ykm3cpKuyXnP=kh9...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi James,
Did you have any luck adjusting the design for the B200? I don't have
autocad in order to remove the two extra holes myself...
Jason
------------------------------
Message: 25
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:20:29 +0100
From: Michael Schwingen <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] Takachi B2X0 Enclosure Details
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 07:01:05PM +1100, James Balean wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Ettus suggests the Takachi MXA3-11-16 enclosure for the B2X0. I recently
> purchased one of these, and thought that others may benefit on pricing
> details. See below for prices I was given:
>
>
> Enclosure with endplates: US$23.02
> Milling according to Ettus specifications: US$90.27
> Silk screening according to Ettus specifications: US$97.74
For one-off production, a service like
http://www.schaeffer-apparatebau.de/produkte/frontplatten/
(in Germany - not sure about international alternatives)
is probably cheaper - they do one-off CNC-milled plates for reasonable
prices, provided you use their provided (free) design tool, which directly
outputs data for their CNC machines.
Exact price depends on machine useage, but the lowest sample on
http://www.schaeffer-apparatebau.de/produkte/preise/
with a listed price of 20.51 EUR is probably not too far away from what is
needed for an B200 enclosure in terms of production complexity.
cu
Michael
------------------------------
Message: 26
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:46:37 +0200
From: Sivan Toledo <[email protected]>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
Message-ID:
<caol_rug7uynh4aejpp_z8rpuwgsg3d2+n93o_yxmzc1tcis...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I have nothing against HF, but I fail to see the appeal of an HF
transverter for the B2XX.
There are several important issues about HF transmission/reception that did
not come up in the discussion:
1. Most HF signals are narrow band, and even the "bands" (amateur, marine,
etc) are fairly narrow. So a radio with a sampling rate in the tens of 100s
of kHz is already very useful, you do not need sampling rates in the MHz or
10s of MHz for HF. (It is nice to see a large portion of the HF on the
screen, but beyond the novelty, there may not be much that is useful in
this).
2. In some areas there are strong signals on HF, so an upconverter with a
broadband input may result in low dynamic range for weak signals of
interest. Most good HF receivers have a bank of switchable bandpass filters
to cope with this. Some have a roofing filter, and the roofing filter (that
the USRP itself does not have) may be a good reason for upconversion, but
it negates the need for a high sampling rate.
3. To transmit a level of power that is useful on HF, say 1W or more,
requires a large bank of low pass filters (say at least 5 or 6), because
the power amplifier will not be 100% linear. A wideband transmitting
downconverter without the low-pass filters cannot be put on the air.
Upconverters for DVB-T dongles make sense, because the dongles are so
cheap. But a transverter for a VHF/UHF radio that costs several hundred
dollars makes less sense, when you can get a complete sampling radio with
filters, amplifiers, etc for much less. One design point is the Flex-1500,
at $700 with all the filters etc. Another is the Peaberry, which has
filters for a portion of the HF and comes as a kit, but is only $150.
Just trying to put things in perspective.
Regards, Sivan
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:32 PM, James Balean <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Judging by the block diagram for the BladeRF HF/VHF transverter (
> http://nuand.com/xb-vhf-schematic.pdf), it appears as though reception
> below 50MHz is not supported or gets bypassed directly to the ADC. This
> contradicts the 300kHz/10MHz lower limit others have mentioned and the 'HF'
> in the name. Is there an updated design which anybody could point me to? It
> may be of little use to integrate the card with the USRP.
>
> This is outdated. The design has been reworked, and a new schematic is
> yet to be updated. I'm told by the creator that it now goes down to
> 300khz.
>
> _______________________________________________
> USRP-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140311/ccf36cc7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
USRP-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
------------------------------
End of USRP-users Digest, Vol 43, Issue 11
******************************************
