|
From: | Alex Batts |
Subject: | Re: Calculating SNR of an incoming signal |
Date: | Fri, 26 Jun 2020 09:49:59 -0400 |
Hi Alex,
"0 < fa <= sampling_rate/2" is correct and should always be enforced. If
you try to set your filter cut-off frequency at >= samp_rate/2, you'll
experience aliasing.
After reading your mails, I get the impression you try to set your
filter cut-off frequency at your carrier frequency $f_c$ + bandwidth/2
$B/2$. Or something in that range. That won't work in baseband.
Effectively, your signal at $f_c$ goes through a mixer and is shifted
such that it would appear at $0$ in your baseband signal.
There's a lot of digital signal processing fundamentals involved. I like
the explanations given in [0]. Though, of course there are well known
books such as the ones by Proakis or Sklar on the topic.
Cheers
Johannes
[0] https://dspillustrations.com/pages/index.html
On 25.06.20 22:22, Alex Batts wrote:
> The effective noise bandwidth is part of the calculation. I'm using the
> radar range equation.
>
> My purpose for including the bandwidth in my response was that any time
> I try to use a filter with a frequency greater than my sampling rate/2 I
> get an error returned. I agree that ideally I would use a band-pass
> filter with very narrow cutoffs to best capture the signal in its
> entirety, however, I can't because the frequency I'm trying to set my
> filter at is more than half my sampling rate, giving me an error. Maybe
> there is something askew with that error and it's something else, but it
> returns saying 0 < fa <= sampling_rate/2
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:27 PM Marcus Müller <mueller@kit.edu
> <mailto:mueller@kit.edu>> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> On 25/06/2020 21.00, Alex Batts wrote:
> > I'm sampling an incoming signal, but only around 2 MSps.
> >
>
> and that's fine! that's the *equivalent* baseband, it has all the same
> information as the RF signal.
>
> > I need the signal power to noise power ratio at the receiver as
> part of
> > my range calculation.
>
> Yes, but you'd always want to do that "signal to noise" only in the
> bandwidth that actually contains your tone; the rest will just contain
> more noise, interferers... to make your measurement worse.
>
> > So I would need to be able to distinguish between
> > the power of the tone vs the power of the surrounding noise and use
> > those two numerical values in an equation to calculate the range.
>
> You need to define "surrounding"! Your signal doesn't get worse by
> applying a filter that only selects your tone and as little else as
> possible. So you should do that – it makes your SNR better. Hence, your
> Signal power estimate gets more reliable (which you definitely want).
>
> (that also highlights why I have a bit of doubt on your measurement
> methodology – if your SNR depends on receiver bandwidth, then how much
> does it actually tell you about the range, unless you specify the
> bandwidth alongside with it?)
>
> Think about it: we typically assume noise to be white, i.e. to have
> identical power spectral density all over the spectrum, e.g. -170
> dBm/Hz.
>
> Now, if your receiver bandwidth is set to 2 MHz (because that's what
> your SDR is probably configured to filter out if you ask for 2 MS/s),
> then you get twice as much noise power than if you set the sampling
> rate
> to 1 MS/s.
>
> It's the same thing that I always let students figure out by themselves
> the first time they use the lab spectrum analyzer:
> Feed a 2 GHz -60 dBm tone into the spectrum analyzer.
> Set the resolution bandwidth of the spectrum analyzer to 1 MHz, and
> tell
> me what the SNR is. Now set the resolution bandwidth to 300 kHz and
> tell
> me again.
> You get as much "N" in your SNR as you let through your system. In the
> case of the spectrum analyzer, every point on the display is the power
> in 1 MHz (or 300 kHz) of filter. In the case of your Qt plot, it's the
> power in a FFT bin. There's (f_sample)/(FFT length) bandwidth to each
> bin; so your graphical analysis hinges on the setting of sample rate
> and
> FFT length (also, on window choice and labeling, and software
> convention). Proportionally!
>
> It's really hard to define "SNR" for 0-bandwidth, i.e. a single tone
> (having a single tone, actually, gets tricky physically, but there's a
> lot of people who could tell you more about oscillators than I could).
>
> If you'd be fair, the only choice for the noise filter bandwidth would
> be 0 Hz, because if you chose any wider, you always get more noise. But
> in 0 Hz, there's actually 0 noise power! So, that doesn't work.
>
> Instead, you need to define SNR exactly on the bandwidth your detection
> system will have to use. That's a design parameter you haven't
> mentioned
> so far!
>
> > This
> > is why I referenced the green and red lines on the qt gui freq.
> display,
> > this would seem to give me signal strength in dB.
>
> Hopefully, above explained how much these lines depend on your
> configuration and aren't "SNR".
>
> Cheers,
> Marcus
>
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |