Reply by Vladimir Vassilevsky July 11, 20082008-07-11

Tim Wescott wrote:

> Andor wrote: > >> On 11 Jul., 12:08, Robert Adams <robert.ad...@analog.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 11, 2:48 am, Andor <andor.bari...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Robert Adams wrote: >>>> >>>>> One method of creating a quadrature signal is to pass an input signal >>>>> through two parallel allpass networks, where the outputs of the two >>>>> networks differ in phase by 90 degrees. Each allpass network is >>>>> typically high-order to obtain reasonable accuracy in terms of holding >>>>> the phase difference over frequency. One advantage of this technique >>>>> compared with the more usual anti-symmetric Hilbert filter is that the >>>>> number of multiplies is smaller for a given accuracy (note that the >>>>> Hilbert filter is perfect for phase accuracy, but suffers from >>>>> amplitude errors and becomes very long if you need a frequency range >>>>> that spans a large portion of the band from 0 to PI, whereas the >>>>> allpass filters are perfect for amplitude accuracy but cannot hold the >>>>> phase difference at frequencies near DC and PI). >>>>> The problem I have is designing the allpass filter networks to hold >>>>> the 90-degree phase difference. In the past I have seen people apply >>>>> non-linear optimizers to the problem. I am trying to solve it with >>>>> Matlab fminsearch, but am having trouble getting a starting point that >>>>> is close enough that it converges to the desired 90-degree phase >>>>> difference. >>>>> Has anyone seen any papers on this?. >>>> >>>> Hi Bob >>>> You could try FDLS for this (at least to get sensible starting values >>>> for the coefficients). Using FDLS for phase compensation was discussed >>>> in the thread "Allpass filter with specific phase response Options" by >>>> the FDLS inventor Greg Berchin. >>>> I'm curious: the two allpass networks you want are supposed to have a >>>> phase shift of 90&#2013266096; with respect to each other. However, does the >>>> output of each network have a constant phase shift? >>>> Regards, >>>> Andor- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> >>> No, it does not. >>> Each allpass network will display increasing phase shift with >>> frequency, but if you were to plot them on the same graph the >>> difference in phase would be 90 degreees. >> >> >> Ah, ok. So you generate a quadrature pair, but neither of the outputs >> is equal to the input ... > > > Right. It's an old method for generating or demodulating SSB signals > for voice communications. Since the ear is relatively insensitive to > phase variations, the overall phase variation of the result doesn't > matter nearly as much as the suppression of the opposing sideband.
BTW this method can be used in the opposite way. I.e. the SSB signal can be easily converted into 90-degree shifted versions of the modulation signal. The SSB can be formed by conventional filtering. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by Tim Wescott July 11, 20082008-07-11
Andor wrote:
> On 11 Jul., 12:08, Robert Adams <robert.ad...@analog.com> wrote: >> On Jul 11, 2:48 am, Andor <andor.bari...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Robert Adams wrote: >>>> One method of creating a quadrature signal is to pass an input signal >>>> through two parallel allpass networks, where the outputs of the two >>>> networks differ in phase by 90 degrees. Each allpass network is >>>> typically high-order to obtain reasonable accuracy in terms of holding >>>> the phase difference over frequency. One advantage of this technique >>>> compared with the more usual anti-symmetric Hilbert filter is that the >>>> number of multiplies is smaller for a given accuracy (note that the >>>> Hilbert filter is perfect for phase accuracy, but suffers from >>>> amplitude errors and becomes very long if you need a frequency range >>>> that spans a large portion of the band from 0 to PI, whereas the >>>> allpass filters are perfect for amplitude accuracy but cannot hold the >>>> phase difference at frequencies near DC and PI). >>>> The problem I have is designing the allpass filter networks to hold >>>> the 90-degree phase difference. In the past I have seen people apply >>>> non-linear optimizers to the problem. I am trying to solve it with >>>> Matlab fminsearch, but am having trouble getting a starting point that >>>> is close enough that it converges to the desired 90-degree phase >>>> difference. >>>> Has anyone seen any papers on this?. >>> Hi Bob >>> You could try FDLS for this (at least to get sensible starting values >>> for the coefficients). Using FDLS for phase compensation was discussed >>> in the thread "Allpass filter with specific phase response Options" by >>> the FDLS inventor Greg Berchin. >>> I'm curious: the two allpass networks you want are supposed to have a >>> phase shift of 90&#2013266096; with respect to each other. However, does the >>> output of each network have a constant phase shift? >>> Regards, >>> Andor- Hide quoted text - >>> - Show quoted text - >> No, it does not. >> Each allpass network will display increasing phase shift with >> frequency, but if you were to plot them on the same graph the >> difference in phase would be 90 degreees. > > Ah, ok. So you generate a quadrature pair, but neither of the outputs > is equal to the input ...
Right. It's an old method for generating or demodulating SSB signals for voice communications. Since the ear is relatively insensitive to phase variations, the overall phase variation of the result doesn't matter nearly as much as the suppression of the opposing sideband. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Do you need to implement control loops in software? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
Reply by Robert Adams July 11, 20082008-07-11
On Jul 11, 8:58&#2013266080;am, Greg Berchin <gberc...@sentientscience.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 8:15&#2013266080;am, Robert Adams <robert.ad...@analog.com> wrote: > > > I haven't gone through the math but I assume roughly that this > > corresponds to a phase error on the order of 90 degrees/10000. > > I played around a bit more with FDLS. &#2013266080;I'm seeing 90&#2013266096;&#2013266097;0.01&#2013266096; from about > Fs/22 to just under Fs/2. &#2013266080;(Yeah, 90/10000 is closer to 0.01 than it > is to 0.001; I can't do arithmetic in my head this early in the > morning.) &#2013266080;So if your band falls close to those limits, it might be > worth a try. > > Greg Berchin
Greg Thanks, I'll give it a try! Bob
Reply by Andor July 11, 20082008-07-11
On 11 Jul., 14:25, Robert Adams <robert.ad...@analog.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 7:55&#2013266080;am, Greg Berchin <gberc...@sentientscience.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 2:48&#2013266080;am, Andor <andor.bari...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You could try FDLS for this (at least to get sensible starting values > > > for the coefficients). Using FDLS for phase compensation was > > > discussed in the thread "Allpass filter with specific phase response > > > Options" by the FDLS inventor Greg Berchin. > > > I experimented a little bit with FDLS this morning, and with a > > "reasonable" filter size I can get 0dB&#2013266097;&#2013266109;dB and 90&#2013266096;&#2013266097;1&#2013266096; from > > approximately Fs/40 to just under Fs/2. &#2013266080;Bob, would that satisfy your > > performance requirements? > > > Greg Berchin > > Greg > > Never mind, I just read your paper and realized that FDLS stands for > frequency-domain least-squares; I thought at first it was the name of > a program that was commercially available.
It is available as a free Matlab function file. If that interests you, download here: http://apollo.ee.columbia.edu/spm/external/tipsandtricks/files/TandT_Jan2007.zip Regards, Andor
Reply by Greg Berchin July 11, 20082008-07-11
On Jul 11, 8:15&#2013266080;am, Robert Adams <robert.ad...@analog.com> wrote:

> I haven't gone through the math but I assume roughly that this > corresponds to a phase error on the order of 90 degrees/10000.
I played around a bit more with FDLS. I'm seeing 90&#2013266096;&#2013266097;0.01&#2013266096; from about Fs/22 to just under Fs/2. (Yeah, 90/10000 is closer to 0.01 than it is to 0.001; I can't do arithmetic in my head this early in the morning.) So if your band falls close to those limits, it might be worth a try. Greg Berchin
Reply by Greg Berchin July 11, 20082008-07-11
On Jul 11, 8:25&#2013266080;am, Robert Adams <robert.ad...@analog.com> wrote:

> I also note that you mention amplitude and phase accuracy, so I assume > the FDLS method cannot be constrained to produce allpass filters > (otherwise the amplitude error would be zero).
Correct. It's a conventional least-squares model, so it really knows nothing of the "type" of filter that it's creating. It just minimizes the squared error based upon the data matrices. Achieving phase accuracy on the order of 0.001&#2013266096; over a significant bandwidth is a really tall order. Greg
Reply by Robert Adams July 11, 20082008-07-11
On Jul 11, 7:55&#2013266080;am, Greg Berchin <gberc...@sentientscience.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2:48&#2013266080;am, Andor <andor.bari...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > You could try FDLS for this (at least to get sensible starting values > > for the coefficients). Using FDLS for phase compensation was > > discussed in the thread "Allpass filter with specific phase response > > Options" by the FDLS inventor Greg Berchin. > > I experimented a little bit with FDLS this morning, and with a > "reasonable" filter size I can get 0dB&#2013266097;&#2013266109;dB and 90&#2013266096;&#2013266097;1&#2013266096; from > approximately Fs/40 to just under Fs/2. &#2013266080;Bob, would that satisfy your > performance requirements? > > Greg Berchin
Greg Never mind, I just read your paper and realized that FDLS stands for frequency-domain least-squares; I thought at first it was the name of a program that was commercially available. I also note that you mention amplitude and phase accuracy, so I assume the FDLS method cannot be constrained to produce allpass filters (otherwise the amplitude error would be zero). Bob
Reply by Robert Adams July 11, 20082008-07-11
On Jul 11, 5:03&#2013266080;am, "Vladimir Vassilevsky"
<antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert Adams" <robert.ad...@analog.com> wrote in message > > news:d0b3aa98-a31e-48a1-87ba-93cc24adabb9@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > The problem I have is designing the allpass filter networks to hold > > the 90-degree phase difference. In the past I have seen people apply > > non-linear optimizers to the problem. I am trying to solve it with > > Matlab fminsearch, but am having trouble getting a starting point that > > is close enough that it converges to the desired 90-degree phase > > difference. > > > Has anyone seen any papers on this?. > > IIRC the 90 degree IIR networks are designed analytically by lowpass > transformation. The standard approximations like Chebyshev, etc. can be > used. > > Vladimir Vassilevsky > DSP and Mixed Signal Consultantwww.abvolt.com
Can you elaborate a little more, or provide a reference? This sounds interesting. Bob
Reply by Robert Adams July 11, 20082008-07-11
On Jul 11, 7:55&#2013266080;am, Greg Berchin <gberc...@sentientscience.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2:48&#2013266080;am, Andor <andor.bari...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > You could try FDLS for this (at least to get sensible starting values > > for the coefficients). Using FDLS for phase compensation was > > discussed in the thread "Allpass filter with specific phase response > > Options" by the FDLS inventor Greg Berchin. > > I experimented a little bit with FDLS this morning, and with a > "reasonable" filter size I can get 0dB&#2013266097;&#2013266109;dB and 90&#2013266096;&#2013266097;1&#2013266096; from > approximately Fs/40 to just under Fs/2. &#2013266080;Bob, would that satisfy your > performance requirements? > > Greg Berchin
Greg Thanks for running this through FDLS. I actually need much better accuracy. In the end I am using this for making a frequency shifter, so quadrature phase error will result in leakage into the "Lower sideband" (sorry, my past history as a ham radio operator causes me to use strange terminology!). These leakage components should be < -80 dB. I haven't gone through the math but I assume roughly that this corresponds to a phase error on the order of 90 degrees/10000. I am not that familiar with FDLS, perhaps you can give me an overview? Bob
Reply by Greg Berchin July 11, 20082008-07-11
On Jul 11, 2:48&#2013266080;am, Andor <andor.bari...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You could try FDLS for this (at least to get sensible starting values > for the coefficients). Using FDLS for phase compensation was > discussed in the thread "Allpass filter with specific phase response > Options" by the FDLS inventor Greg Berchin.
I experimented a little bit with FDLS this morning, and with a "reasonable" filter size I can get 0dB&#2013266097;&#2013266109;dB and 90&#2013266096;&#2013266097;1&#2013266096; from approximately Fs/40 to just under Fs/2. Bob, would that satisfy your performance requirements? Greg Berchin