Performance evaluation of six-port receivers with simplified interface to amplifier and filter

Osth, Joakim; Owais,; Karlsson, Magnus; Serban, Adriana; Gong, Shaofang

doi:10.1109/icuwb.2011.6058824

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A block diagram of a six‐port‐based receiver [3] using differential baseband amplifiers is shown in Figure 1. Using another diode configuration [11, 12], the use of differential amplifiers can be avoided (Fig. 2).…”

Section: System Description and Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The calculation of the difference can easily be done using an operational amplifier, or by interchanging the diode orientation [ 11] as shown in Figure 2 on one of the diodes on each output for I and Q channels, respectively. Avoiding the use of two operational amplifiers as shown in Figure 1 simplifies the circuit and allows for high‐speed processing [11, 12].…”

Section: System Description and Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Baseband complexity comparison of six‐, five‐, and four‐port receivers

Osth

Karlsson

Owais

et al. 2012

Micro & Optical Tech Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of six‐port correlators to implement six‐port receivers has been intensively studied. The six‐port receiver can also be modified to a five‐port or a four‐port receiver. However, the six‐, five‐, or four‐port receiver solution requires different baseband processing to recover the baseband In‐phase (I) and Quadrature‐phase (Q) data. A unified mathematical model for the six‐, five‐ and four‐port receivers is presented in this article. Possible solutions to recover the baseband data are discussed and compared. The investigation shows that the six‐port receiver has advantages over the five‐ and four‐port receivers in terms of complexity when analog baseband processing is used. Simulations are conducted to verify the model and to estimate the error vector magnitude versus frequency; the simulation also shows that the six‐port receiver operates over a wider bandwidth than the five‐ or four‐port receiver. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microwave Opt Technol Lett 54:1502–1506, 2012; View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com. DOI 10.1002/mop.26833

show abstract

Section: System Description and Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: System Description and Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Baseband complexity comparison of six‐, five‐, and four‐port receivers

Osth

Karlsson

Owais

et al. 2012

Micro & Optical Tech Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on researches on between six-port and conventional direct conversion receiver architecture [35,53,[58][59][60][61][62], the pros and cons of a six-port receiver over take into consideration of all the non-ideal effects that will affect the recovery of the baseband signals. Hence, solutions need to be done for the limitation of the six-port receiver.…”

Section: Pros and Cons Of Six-port Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%