Hi all, I am a bit stuck in a demodulation thing. Lets say I have a system that generates an AM signal and wants to detect distorsions of the LF signal after feeding the AM modulated signal through a potentially nonlinear system. This means I have phase locked TX and RX. Lets say I modulate a signal at f0 with sine at f1 with 100% modulation: signal = sin(w0*t) * (0.5 + 0.5 * sin(w1*t)) I then receive this signal and downmix it by multiplying with sin and cos of the carrier frequency, in complex writing: baseband = received_signal * e^(i*w0*t) I have then a complex baseband signal, in which I expect sidebands at +- f1. Lets say I am after the overtones of that f1 in the complex baseband signal. For example, I want to detect components at +-f2 with f2 = 2*f1. Can I not just multiply the complex baseband signal with e^(i*w2*t) to get the (compelex)component at f2? Like: what_i_look_for = baseband * e^(i*w2*t) Or do I miss some conjugate etc? As said above, everything is phase locked, so I do not need to recover any phase. best regards, Andre

# Question on AM demodulation...

Started by ●June 13, 2014

Reply by ●June 13, 20142014-06-13

On 6/13/14 9:26 AM, Andre wrote:> Hi all, > > I am a bit stuck in a demodulation thing. > > Lets say I have a system that generates an AM signal and > wants to detect distorsions of the LF signal after feeding > the AM modulated signal through a potentially nonlinear system. > > This means I have phase locked TX and RX.well, we normally get phase locking between TX and RX because the carrier is not suppressed. commercial AM that is not over-modulated is not quite the same thing as DSB-SC. it is because of this that one can use a simple rectifier (like the 1N34 i used in a crystal radio 5 decades ago - sheeesh i'm getting old!) to demodulate the AM.> > Lets say I modulate a signal at f0 with sine at f1 > with 100% modulation: > > signal = sin(w0*t) * (0.5 + 0.5 * sin(w1*t))so now, the right-hand factor is fully non-negative, right?> > I then receive this signal and downmix it by multiplying > with sin and cos of the carrier frequency,dunno why you would use cos(w0*t) since the carrier is sin().> in complex > writing: > > baseband = received_signal * e^(i*w0*t) > > I have then a complex baseband signal, in which I expect > sidebands at +- f1. > > Lets say I am after the overtones of that f1 in the complex > baseband signal. For example, I want to detect components > at +-f2 with f2 = 2*f1.if the nonlinearity is applied to "signal", you're gonna get components at more than that. to analyze this, you need to express "signal" as a sum of the the individual frequency components. i think you'll get f0-f1, f0, and f0+f1 (and all of the negatives of those 3). *then* run that through the nonlinearity and see what frequency combinations come out.> > Can I not just multiply the complex baseband signal with > e^(i*w2*t) to get the (compelex)component at f2? > Like: > > what_i_look_for = baseband * e^(i*w2*t) > > Or do I miss some conjugate etc? > > As said above, everything is phase locked, so I do not need to recover > any phase.of course you don't. it's AM with unsupressed carrier. -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Reply by ●June 13, 20142014-06-13

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:26:22 +0200, Andre <lodwig@pathme.de> wrote:>Hi all,Hello Andre,>I am a bit stuck in a demodulation thing. > >Lets say I have a system that generates an AM signal and >wants to detect distorsions of the LF signal after feeding >the AM modulated signal through a potentially nonlinear system.Humm, it's hard for me to imagine what you mean by a "potentially nonlinear system.">This means I have phase locked TX and RX. > >Lets say I modulate a signal at f0 with sine at f1 >with 100% modulation: > >signal = sin(w0*t) * (0.5 + 0.5 * sin(w1*t)) > >I then receive this signal and downmix it by multiplying >with sin and cos of the carrier frequency, in complex >writing: > >baseband = received_signal * e^(i*w0*t)If by the strange word "downmix" you mean "complex down-conversion", then there should be a minus sign before the 'i' in the above exponent.>I have then a complex baseband signal, in which I expect >sidebands at +- f1.Sounds correct so far. (After down-conversion it's typical to pass the down-converted signal through a lowpass filter so that only energy in the neighborhood of zero Hz remains. This, of course, requires two real-valued filtering operations.)>Lets say I am after the overtones of that f1 in the complex >baseband signal. For example, I want to detect components >at +-f2 with f2 = 2*f1.Ah, now I think I understand what you mean in your earlier text about a "nonlinear system." It appears you want detect the power of unwanted spectral components in your complex baseband signal that were caused by the original real-valued AM signal passing through some sort of nonlinear process.>Can I not just multiply the complex baseband signal with >e^(i*w2*t) to get the (compelex)component at f2? >Like: > >what_i_look_for = baseband * e^(i*w2*t)Multiplying your complex baseband signal by e^(i*w2*t) does *NOT* "get the component at f2." Multiplying your complex baseband signal by e^(i*w2*t) performs frequency translation of your baseband signal up in frequency by f2 Hz.>Or do I miss some conjugate etc?I don't know what "miss some conjugate" means. OK, let's step back for a moment. It looks like you have a real-valued AM signal whose carrier freq is f0 Hz. And you want to detect the average power of the spectral component whose frequency is f0 + f2, where f2 = 2f1. It seems to me that you have a few options: Option #1: Perform an FFT on your AM signal and monitor the magnitude of the FFT bin whose freq corresponds to the f0 + 2f1 frequency. (This ooption may be too computationally intense.) Option #2: Perform your complex f0 Hz down-conversion, lowpass the baseband signal, decimate the filtered baseband signal, and perform an FFT on the decimated signal. Then monitor the magnitude of the FFT bin whose freq corresponds to the 2f1 frequency. Option #3: Perform a complex f0+f2 Hz down-conversion, lowpass the baseband signal. Then monitor the magnitude of the lowpass filter's output. Option #4: Perform your complex f0 Hz down-conversion, lowpass the baseband signal and decimate the filtered baseband signal. Pass the real-part of the decimated signal through a Goertzel filter that's tuned to 2f1 Hz. Then monitor the magnitude of the Goertzel filter output. Hope that helps. [-Rick-]

Reply by ●June 13, 20142014-06-13

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:26:22 +0200, Andre wrote:> Hi all, > > I am a bit stuck in a demodulation thing. > > Lets say I have a system that generates an AM signal and wants to detect > distorsions of the LF signal after feeding the AM modulated signal > through a potentially nonlinear system. > > This means I have phase locked TX and RX.How so? AM has never required phase locking -- the TX can free run, and the RX can do envelope detection.> Lets say I modulate a signal at f0 with sine at f1 with 100% modulation: > > signal = sin(w0*t) * (0.5 + 0.5 * sin(w1*t)) > > I then receive this signal and downmix it by multiplying with sin and > cos of the carrier frequency, in complex writing: > > baseband = received_signal * e^(i*w0*t)As mentioned, it's e^(-i*w0*t), but that's a nit -- particularly because the operation will still work (why is left as an exercise to the reader). For that matter, if the receiver really is phase locked, then you only need to down-convert with sin(w0*t).> I have then a complex baseband signal, in which I expect sidebands at +- > f1.Again, as mentioned, you're neglecting the signal at 2*f0 here, which one would usually filter out.> Lets say I am after the overtones of that f1 in the complex baseband > signal. For example, I want to detect components at +-f2 with f2 = 2*f1. > > Can I not just multiply the complex baseband signal with e^(i*w2*t) to > get the (compelex)component at f2? > Like: > > what_i_look_for = baseband * e^(i*w2*t)You could, yes. That'll only yet you the second harmonic of the fundamental, though -- it'll miss the third, fourth, etc.> Or do I miss some conjugate etc? > > As said above, everything is phase locked, so I do not need to recover > any phase.I don't know if your "everything is phase locked" statement comes from naiveté or from some system feature you're not sharing with us, but in conventional AM reception you _do_ need to recover phase, usually via a PLL, or you do envelope detection and stay blithely unaware of phase. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com

Reply by ●June 13, 20142014-06-13

robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On 6/13/14 9:26 AM, Andre wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I am a bit stuck in a demodulation thing. >> >> Lets say I have a system that generates an AM signal and >> wants to detect distorsions of the LF signal after feeding >> the AM modulated signal through a potentially nonlinear system. >> >> This means I have phase locked TX and RX. > > well, we normally get phase locking between TX and RX because the > carrier is not suppressed. commercial AM that is not > over-modulated is not quite the same thing as DSB-SC. it is > because of this that one can use a simple rectifier (like the > 1N34 i used in a crystal radio 5 decades ago - sheeesh i'm > getting old!) [SNIP]You youngster. Believe I have you beat by almost a decade ;/ P.S. y father told stories of operating a legal _land based_ spark gap transmitter. PPS Have seen a spark gap transmitter in operation - OK already, its operating permit specified that it have no antenna, and IIRCC it could operate for no more than 10 minutes per week.(mid late 50's).

Reply by ●June 14, 20142014-06-14

On 6/13/14 10:32 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:> robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> On 6/13/14 9:26 AM, Andre wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am a bit stuck in a demodulation thing. >>> >>> Lets say I have a system that generates an AM signal and >>> wants to detect distorsions of the LF signal after feeding >>> the AM modulated signal through a potentially nonlinear system. >>> >>> This means I have phase locked TX and RX. >> >> well, we normally get phase locking between TX and RX because the >> carrier is not suppressed. commercial AM that is not >> over-modulated is not quite the same thing as DSB-SC. it is >> because of this that one can use a simple rectifier (like the >> 1N34 i used in a crystal radio 5 decades ago - sheeesh i'm >> getting old!) [SNIP] > > You youngster. Believe I have you beat by almost a decade ;/ > P.S. y father told stories of operating a legal _land based_ spark gap > transmitter. > PPS Have seen a spark gap transmitter in operation - OK already, its > operating permit specified that it have no antenna, and IIRCC it could > operate for no more than 10 minutes per week.(mid late 50's).like 1956? (my birth year) i remember seeing a Titanic movie (not the one with Leonardo Dicaprio) where they were sending SOS out on a spark-gap transmitter. never seen one in real life. but i seen a lotta TVs with tubes in them. hell, even my ham radio (the Heathkit HW-100) was tube (except for a couple of transistors in the VFO). we're gonna have to get together and commisuerate about them olden daze someday. L8r, -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Reply by ●June 14, 20142014-06-14

Hi, multiply with exp(i 2 pi f t) => upconversion by f exp(-i 2 pi f t) => downconversion by f Note the minus sign, for downconversion, which could be rewritten as conj(exp(i 2 pi f t). So here's the conjugate. So if you want to move f2 to 0 Hz, multiply with exp(-i 2 pi f2 t) and lowpass filter. Note that distortion at RF and baseband are related, but not the same. I wrote about this in a blog article a couple of years ago, here: http://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/108.php There is also a Matlab script in the second half for OFDM-ish signals that could be trivially modified for sine waves. It shows positive and negative frequencies, for example. _____________________________ Posted through www.DSPRelated.com

Reply by ●June 14, 20142014-06-14

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:26:22 +0200, Andre <lodwig@pathme.de> wrote:>Hi all, > >I am a bit stuck in a demodulation thing. > >Lets say I have a system that generates an AM signal and >wants to detect distorsions of the LF signal after feeding >the AM modulated signal through a potentially nonlinear system. > >This means I have phase locked TX and RX. > >Lets say I modulate a signal at f0 with sine at f1 >with 100% modulation: > >signal = sin(w0*t) * (0.5 + 0.5 * sin(w1*t)) > >I then receive this signal and downmix it by multiplying >with sin and cos of the carrier frequency, in complex >writing: > >baseband = received_signal * e^(i*w0*t) > >I have then a complex baseband signal, in which I expect >sidebands at +- f1. > >Lets say I am after the overtones of that f1 in the complex >baseband signal. For example, I want to detect components >at +-f2 with f2 = 2*f1. > >Can I not just multiply the complex baseband signal with >e^(i*w2*t) to get the (compelex)component at f2? >Like: > >what_i_look_for = baseband * e^(i*w2*t) > >Or do I miss some conjugate etc? > >As said above, everything is phase locked, so I do not need to recover >any phase. > >best regards, > >AndreHi Andre, My my. How strange is life. I was searching around the web today an ran across a web page that could be helpful to you. (It discusses complex down-conversion). If you're interested, start reading the Section "Sampling Theorem Misconception" on page 36 of the paper at: http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/rmorelos/ee160f10/Nyquist_Barrier_Misconception.pdf See Ya', [-Rick-]

Reply by ●June 15, 20142014-06-15

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 17:39:41 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> wrote:>On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:26:22 +0200, Andre wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am a bit stuck in a demodulation thing. >> >> Lets say I have a system that generates an AM signal and wants to detect >> distorsions of the LF signal after feeding the AM modulated signal >> through a potentially nonlinear system. >> >> This means I have phase locked TX and RX. > >How so? AM has never required phase locking -- the TX can free run, and >the RX can do envelope detection. > >> Lets say I modulate a signal at f0 with sine at f1 with 100% modulation: >> >> signal = sin(w0*t) * (0.5 + 0.5 * sin(w1*t)) >> >> I then receive this signal and downmix it by multiplying with sin and >> cos of the carrier frequency, in complex writing: >> >> baseband = received_signal * e^(i*w0*t) > >As mentioned, it's e^(-i*w0*t), but that's a nit -- particularly because >the operation will still work (why is left as an exercise to the reader).Hi Tim, For normal symmetrial bandpass (commercial) AM, yes the e^(-i*w0*t) is a "nit". But for single-sideband AM, the e^(-i*w0*t) is not a "nit." (I'm bein' nit-picky pain in the neck here.) See Ya', [-Rick-]

Reply by ●June 15, 20142014-06-15

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 20:13:56 -0700, Rick Lyons wrote:> On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 17:39:41 -0500, Tim Wescott > <tim@seemywebsite.really> wrote: > >>On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:26:22 +0200, Andre wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am a bit stuck in a demodulation thing. >>> >>> Lets say I have a system that generates an AM signal and wants to >>> detect distorsions of the LF signal after feeding the AM modulated >>> signal through a potentially nonlinear system. >>> >>> This means I have phase locked TX and RX. >> >>How so? AM has never required phase locking -- the TX can free run, and >>the RX can do envelope detection. >> >>> Lets say I modulate a signal at f0 with sine at f1 with 100% >>> modulation: >>> >>> signal = sin(w0*t) * (0.5 + 0.5 * sin(w1*t)) >>> >>> I then receive this signal and downmix it by multiplying with sin and >>> cos of the carrier frequency, in complex writing: >>> >>> baseband = received_signal * e^(i*w0*t) >> >>As mentioned, it's e^(-i*w0*t), but that's a nit -- particularly because >>the operation will still work (why is left as an exercise to the >>reader). > > Hi Tim, > For normal symmetrial bandpass (commercial) AM, > yes the e^(-i*w0*t) is a "nit". But for single-sideband AM, the > e^(-i*w0*t) is not a "nit." > (I'm bein' nit-picky pain in the neck here.)True. I just think of SSB as SSB, though. -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com