Talk:Software-defined radio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amateur radio, which collaborates on articles related to amateur radio technology, organizations, and activities. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] External Links
The link for SDR Forum Software Defined Radio Design Process and Tools Work Group Wiki was removed. This was a valuable link to a collaborative forum for the SDR community. I do not see this as spam. It is a place to discuss how to design and implement SDR's. How do we get it added back in? AndrewDauman 22:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)AndrewDauman
- The WP:EL guideline says to avoid external links to wikis. Besides, this SDR article already has 3 sdrforum.org external links, any more would be excessive. (Requestion 22:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC))
Can we whittle down the list of external links. It would be better to cite some of these as references at specific points in the article, while removing the rest. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 16:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Can I add a Seminar Paper Presented On SDR? Virtual11234 03:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redirects
It appears that there are three pages for Software Defined Radio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_radio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-defined_radio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_defined_radio Even though it appears as though they somehow sync-up, I suggest one be maintained and the other two deleted Jennifersteinberg 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Two of those are redirects to the main Software-defined radio page. Software Receiver is another redirect. Only the main page is being maintained. (Requestion 20:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC))
[edit] It isn't 2003 anymore
Current (2003) digital electronics is to slow to process signals from 10kHz to 2.4GHz? Might be a bit outdated. In 2007, I think we're either there or getting there, and while we cannot receive the entire radio spectrum, projects such as HPSDR are developing hardware (the mercury board) that can directly sample the radio spectrum from 0-65MHz. - Ryan 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] contradiction in definition?
from the intro: SDR [uses] … the soundcard of a general purpose computer (PC), or a reconfigurable home-made piece of digital electronics. But, the military examples given don't sound like either 'a soundcard' or 'home-made digital electronics'. Should it instead say that the processing is done in a type of computer hardware known as a DSP such as what is found in soundcards? 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 06:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why "Soundcard"?
In the second paragraph: "An SDR performs significant amounts of signal processing with the soundcard of a general purpose computer (PC)..." Why soundcard? In my opinion soundcard equals to audio card. It's kind of confusing here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.139.171 (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] comparsion to oscope/fn-generator
It seems that digital oscilloscopes and function-genertors are bit similar to sdr. any comments? 193.167.107.251 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Misinterpretation of the Nyquist Theorem
There are several technical inaccuracies in the section on practical receivers. The statement that digital electronics are too slow to receive signals over 40 MHz is incorrect. Remember that the Nyquist Theorem states that the sampling rate must be at least twice the bandwidth of the signal. This means that, in theory, we can sample signals anywhere in the spectrum (with some limitations depending on where the signal is located in relation to the sampling frequency). The limiting factor in actual radios is a measure called the aperture jitter, which quantifies the ability of the ADC to sample at a precise interval (assuming a jitter-free sampling clock, of course). If you are interested more in the subject a google of "undersampling" turns up several excellent references.
The statements on recovering the phase and bit timing are also incorrect. The reason we need to recover phase and bit information is that the transmitter and receiver clocks are not in sync with each other. By recovering this information we will be able to integrate over the entire bit and thus receive the most power and improve the accuracy of the entire radio.
As far as authority goes, I am an electrical engineer who designs digital radios for a living. Roddefig (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
