UmTRX March 2012

umtrx@lists.osmocom.org

5 participants
3 discussions

Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX

by Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL

Hi Alexander, These last days, I tried to find a solution for the selectivity improvement. I have 5 solutions to propose. 1st and 2nd are inboard solutions. 3rd, 4th and 5th uses an external board. Some seems to be much better than others. 1/ We could use an IF frequency above 375 MHz to be able to connect the IF signal dirtectly to the LMS, without any upconvertion back to RF frequency. This would save some components. We could use the ADRF6601 (PLL/VCO + mixer) and the TB0448A IF SAW filter. The ADRF6601 is single chip PLL/VCO and mixer. This would be quite convenient. The TB0448A is cheap (< 3 USD), narrow band (good selectivity) and 400 MHz center frequency (> 375 MHz LMS lower limit). Cost of this solution would be about 60 USD and selectivity would be really good. The main disadvantage of this solution is the filter would restrict the signal to a single GSM carrier. This would avoid us to get both GSM carriers on each LMS. We would not be able to get true diversity. We would only be able to get switched diversity. After the LNA, RF SAW filter and the RF switches, we can split the signal between the current RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 and a new alternate RX path (ADRF6601 => TB0448A => LMS RX LNA 1). Depending of our need for selectivity, we would be able to select 1 of these 2 RX path (direct RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 or IF filter RX path to LMS RX LNA1). This would allow to use the board either as a normal wideband SDR board or with a very selective filter. 2/ A very nice option would be to use a variant of the 1st solution with a wider bandwidth SAW IF filter. For example, if we use a 400 to 600 KHz bandwidth IF filter, we would also get a very good selectivity and we would also be able to sample both GSM carriers on each LMS. This would allow a good selectivity and full diversity. The problem is we would need a 400 to 600 KHz SAW IF filter, with good selectivity, reasonable price and an IF center frequency above 375 MHz. I was not able to find such a filter. 3/ As suggested a few days ago, we may use the external selectivity improvement board design I sent you. Instead of the Triquint 856378 IF SAW filter, we could use the TAISAW TB0448A narrow band filter. This TAISAW filter is really much cheaper than the Triquint. This would save a lot of budget. However, we would still need 4 mixer and 2 PLL/VCO for each LMS RX path. This external board would cost approximately 100 USD (excluding PCB and assembly). We would need 2 of these boards for each UmTRX board. This would make 200 USD per UmTRX. Including PCB and assembly, toatl cost would be around 300 USD. This is not compeltely unrealistic but it seems still quite expensive. 4/ Another solution would be to build a single carrier version of the 3rd solution design. We would need only 1 RF path (PLL/VCO + mixer) with only 1 narrow band filter per LMS RX path. This would not need any splitter or combiner. Design would be quite simple and cost would be about 2 times lower. However, as we will have only 1 carrier on each antenna, we would not be able to get diversity at all. This solution would finally not have many advantages compared to 1st solution. It would cost more and would not allow any kind of diversity. 5/ Last solution would be to build an external diversity improvement board, as 4th solution, but with a wider band IF SAW filter. We could use the following RF path: LNA => RF SAW filter => mixer => IF SAW filter => mixer => RF SAW filter. Dual mixer could be the ADL5802 connected to the ADF4350 PLL/VCO. We could use the TB0218A IF SAW filter. This filter is quite affordable (< 10 USD). Selectivity is good and bandwidth is wide enough to select 2 GSM carriers (separated by 400 KHz). Cost of such external diversity improvement board would be quite reasonable. This would be a very nice solution to select 2 GSM carriers. Connected to the UmTRX, this selectivity improvement board would allow to get both switched or true diversity. As TB0218A center frequency is 140 MHz, we would not be able to connect directly the IF signal to the LMS. We would need to up convert the signal back to the RF frequency. As IF down converted signal is upconverted back to the original RF frequency, it would be possible to use this selectivity improvement board with any kind of existing OpenBTS (UmTRX, USRP, SSRP...) or OpenBSC (Sysmocom BTS, IP.access nanoBTS...) hardware to improve the Rx selectivity. This would offer a wider potential market than an inboard solution. Considering all these solution, I believe 1st and 5th solutions seems to be the best choices. 2nd solution would also be really nice but I was not able to find the appropriate IF SAW filter. Please let me know your opinion regarding each of these two solutions. By the way, the TB0448A and TB0218A SAW filters looks really good but I am not 100% sure the GSM carrier spectrum distortion due to the pass band ripple of the SAW filter is acceptable. Center part of the GSM carrier (f +/- 100 KHz) is fine but side parts of the GSM carrier (bellow f - 100 KHz and above f + 100 KHz) may be cut a bit by the SAW filter. Could you also please check the TB0448A and TB0218A datasheets to double check if the usable bandwidth is wide enough ? Especially, do you think cutting a bit the side parts of the GSM carrier may cause problem ? Anyway, please let me know your point of view regarding these selectivity improvement solutions. Best regards. Jean-Samuel. :-)

12 years

UmTRX hardware development plan

by Alexander Chemeris

Andrey Sviyazov, I think this question is mostly for you. Could you please outline the development plan for the UmTRX hardware (with all associated things, like RF board design)? What are critical dependencies? E.g. when we should decide on the casing? My feeling is that we've lost the track and focus on things which are important, but not at this stage. -- Regards, Alexander Chemeris. CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ООО УмРадио http://fairwaves.ru

12 years, 1 month

UmTRX marketing. Was: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX

by Alexander Chemeris

Andrey and all, 18.03.2012 2:31 пользователь "Andrey Sviyazov" <andreysviyaz(a)gmail.com> написал: >> Regarding the GSM spec, I believe these blocker tests are hard to pass and not that useful in most practical situations. However, I do not care that much about passing this spec for my network deployment in Mayotte but I really believe passing the spec will be very important for you if you wish to sell your hardware solution to some major operators. Moreover, as we would anyway need a superheterodyne selective filtering to get a reasonably narrow Rx sampling band (< 1.5 MHz LMS band), it does not cost that much more to try to pass the GSM spec. > > You right, it is important for us and may be it is really important for systems with high channel dencity. I completely support everything which could make our product better without increasing its cost. But we also must ensure to release UmTRX in time. What we all should keep on mind is that "the best is an enemy to a good". We should focus on those 10% of simple tweaks which bring us 90% of improvement. Otherwise we'll be swamped with the other 90% of tweaks and will miss the market opportunity. I can't stress it more - we MUST release UmTRX ASAP. Even if it doesn't meet macro-BTS requirements. We'll be able to fix this in the next version if ever needed - we can't know the real demand until we release the first version. I would be glad of what I've just said is obvious and already lives in your heart. Otherwise it's extremely important you understand this deeply, not formally. Please let me know if you don't, I'll explain in more details. > Furthermore, it is very easy to lose the reputation of the product, but it is very difficult then to fix it back. This is true. And the best way to keep the reputation is to realistically understand UmTRX capabilities and avoid overmarketing. In other words, with just reasonable product quality, our reputation depends solely on the right marketing. E.g. we might explicitly warn customers that it's not suitable for macro-BTS installations and they could do so on their own risk only. > I think, low cost doesn't sign low quality, so we must to have good hardware on market for good sales and promote OpenHW :) This is very true. Just keep in mind that "good hardware" means "minimally viable hardware at low price" and doesn't mean "super high quality mumbo jumbo with many zeros in the price". Our customers value simplicity and low cost over complexity and golden plates. That said, I can't help with decisions on the RF side and here I rely on you, guys. That's why it is so important for you to understand all these "abstract" marketing ideas. Sent from my Android device. -- Regards, Alexander Chemeris CEO, Fairwaves LLC http://fairwaves.ru

12 years, 2 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

UmTRX March 2012