That’s strange, by default the analog filters should be being configured from 
the master_clock_rate to have optimal bandwidth for the master_clock_rate on 
the assumption your signal uses the bulk of that bandwidth.
UHD version?

> On May 19, 2018, at 2:37 AM, Sylvain Munaut via USRP-users 
> <> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm comparing two cases that, in theory (at least in my understanding
> of things), should yield the same result but don't :)
> 1) I'm sending data to the USRP at sample_rate N with
> master_clock_rate N and the ADI has FIR 4x, HB 2x,2x,2x
> 2) I'm sending data to the USRP at sample_rate N with
> master_clock_rate 2*N and the ADI has FIR 2x, HB 2x,2x,2x
>    In this second case I'm also using a patched FPGA image that
> essentially disables the half band filters of the FPGA so that it
> inserts 0 between each sample instead of doing the half band.
> In both case, the FIR from the ADI is programmed with my own taps (the
> same in both case).
> Now I would expect the result to be the same ... since essentially the
> only thing that changes is that either the ADI is doing the 4x
> interpolation or the FPGA is doing 2x and then the ADI is doing 2x,
> but in both case the signal ends up at the same rate and filtered by
> the same taps and the final DAC rate is also the same.
> (i.e. in both case the samples before the FIR filtering are  "a 0 0 0
> b 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 ...". Yes I know that's probably not how it's
> internally done in the ADI but that should be mathematically
> equivalent to this).
> But turns out the results are not the same. Not a catastrophic
> difference but 0.5% ~ 1% EVM change.
> What I'm wondering is if changing the master_clock_rate has an
> influence on other parts of the system that I'm not seeing and that
> could explain this. At first I thought maybe the analog filters are
> configured based on the master_clock_rate, but calling
> get_tx_bandwidth shows 56 MHz full bandwidth in both cases.
> Any theory ?
> Cheers,
>    Sylvain Munaut
> _______________________________________________
> USRP-users mailing list

USRP-users mailing list

Reply via email to