The present invention relates generally to down-conversion mixers and more particularly to a direct down-conversion mixer with improved second order linearity.
A down-conversion mixer circuit translates the carrier frequency (fc) of an input RF signal to a lower carrier frequency. In a direct down conversion mixer, the output occurs at baseband, with a carrier frequency equal to zero.
Mixers typically display nonlinear properties. Even order nonlinearities translate strong interfering signals directly to baseband, which is particularly problematic in direct down conversion mixers. The even order distortion masks the wanted signal and thereby lowers the overall signal to noise ratio.
Communications receivers must process very strong unwanted signals without corrupting the oftentimes very weak desired signal. In a typical radio receiver, the down conversion mixer is the first block to operate at baseband frequencies and therefore has no filtering before it to minimize the strength of unwanted signals.
It would be therefore advantageous to have a direct down conversion mixer with low even order distortion.
The present invention includes a differential feedback system that minimizes the even order distortion and DC offsets for use in a mixer circuit. For example, in one embodiment of the invention, the system includes a feedback circuit that resolves even order distortion and DC offsets by analyzing the mean value of the mixer circuit's output waveform.
In one embodiment, a direct down-conversion mixer is provided. The mixer comprises an LO switching pair coupled to receive an RF input signal and produce a down converted output signal. The mixer also comprises an integrator coupled to receive the output signal and produce an integrator output signal. The mixer also comprises a control circuit coupled to receive an input voltage and the integrator output signal to produce a control signal that is coupled to the LO switching pair.
In another embodiment, a direct down-conversion mixer is provided. The mixer comprises an LO switching pair means for receiving an RF input signal and producing a down converted output signal. The mixer also comprises an integrator means for receiving the output signal and producing an integrator output signal. The mixer also comprises a control circuit means for receiving an input voltage and the integrator output signal and producing a control signal that is coupled to the LO switching pair.
In another embodiment, a method is provided for calibrating a direct down-conversion mixer. The mixer comprising an LO switching pair coupled to receive an RF input signal and produce a down converted output signal. The mixer also comprises an integrator coupled to receive the output signal and produce an integrator output signal. The mixer also comprises a control circuit coupled to receive an input voltage and the integrator output signal to produce a control signal that is coupled to the LO switching pair. The method comprises the steps of calibrating the mixer output, calibrating a the mixer input offset, and calibrating a gain of the control circuit.
The foregoing aspects and the attendant advantages of the embodiments described herein will become more readily apparent by reference to the following detailed description when taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings wherein:
There exists several different signal types with mean values that approach zero; that is, the average value of the signal waveform, measured over a period of time, is nearly zero, i.e.
Communication signals, such as the signals formed by frequency modulation and digital modulation techniques, show this property. For example, a local oscillator (LO) signal applied to a down conversion mixer shows this property.
When a modulation signal is subjected to even order distortion, its mean value is altered. Consider a modulated signal described generally by the following expression;
s(t)=ml(t)cos ωct+mQ(t)sin ωct
and subjected to distortion from a nonlinear circuit, modeled by the Taylor series expansion given as;
νout=a1νin+a2νin2+a3νin3+ . . .
where coefficients ai represent distortion. The resulting squared term, a2νin2, becomes
and shows that the message signal is translated to both baseband and two times the carrier frequency (ωc).
Even order distortion becomes problematic when it lowers the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the wanted signal. (Noise generally describes any unwanted energy including thermal, flicker (1/f) and shot noise plus distortion.) The even order distortion is straightforward to measure using the mean value of the signal, which is ideally zero. Any nonzero value indicates even order distortion or a DC offset.
where ωLO and ωRF are the carrier frequencies of the signals applied to the LO and the RF input ports, respectively. Two frequency terms are present at the output, the upper sideband at ωLO+ωRF and the lower sideband at ωLO−ωRF. The lower sideband is the wanted signal in a down conversion mixer. A direct down conversion mixer sets ωLO equal to ωRF and thereby translates ωRF directly to baseband.
Vout=α·m(t)·cos(ωRFt−ωLOt)
where α is the conversion gain of the mixer. In the direct down conversion mixer, ωLO=ωRF and
Vout=α·m(t)
There are two areas in this mixer structure where even order distortion can affect overall performance, the GM transconductance stage and the LO switching pair. The transconductance stage can be represented by the nonlinear transfer function;
Ix=a0+a1VRF+a2VRF2+a3VRF3 . . . anVRFn
where a0 describes the DC offset, a1 describes the ideal transconductance, a2n models the even order distortion, and a2n+1 models the odd order distortion. As discussed above, the even order distortion is particularly problematic for direct down conversion mixers.
The output signal Ix of the GM stage is;
Ix=a0+a1·m(t)·cos(ω0t)+a2·[m(t)·cos(ω0t)]2
where only the DC, linear and 2nd order terms are considered. The mixer multiplies this signal and the LO signal, described by a similar polynomial expression to form the output voltage;
with the following baseband terms
The
term is the desired signal term; while, all other components represent unwanted signals that mask the desired signal and thereby lower the SNR of the wanted signal. The unwanted terms also alter the mean value of the output signal making it straightforward to identify and measure these. Because of the multiplicative nature of this transfer function, the reduction of the b0 and b2 coefficients alone will reduce all of the unwanted components. It would therefore be advantageous to have a mixer circuit that minimizes the b0 and b2 coefficients.
The LO switching pair is a differential pair amplifier. In a perfectly balanced differential circuit, the even order distortion components generated by each half-circuit are identical, and therefore, cancel when the output difference signal is formed. For example,
Δνout=νout+−νout−
Unfortunately, a perfectly balanced circuit is difficult to realize in practice and any imbalance allows a fraction of the even distortion components to appear in the output difference signal.
The imbalance or lack of symmetry in differential circuits is due to small geometry and doping differences that occur during integrated circuit fabrication. These differences affect device parameters such as the saturation current Isat, ideality factor n, forward current gain β, and parasitic elements in bipolar transistors; and the values of lumped elements such as resistors, capacitors, and inductors. Furthermore, these mismatches change with temperature and operating voltage.
Differential circuits are also impacted by unbalanced input signals, νin+ and νin−. Phase and amplitude differences drive the half-circuits of the circuit differently, creating even order distortion components that do not cancel completely.
Resistor mismatch is another source of imbalance in differential circuits. A difference in the input bias resistors shifts the operating bias of the input transistors and their intrinsic gain. Any difference in the output resistors alters the composite gain of each half circuit.
An ideal differential-pair amplifier introduces only odd order distortion, whereas all even order distortion is rejected by the circuit topology. As a result, the mean value of the signal remains zero.
An unbalanced differential amplifier, however, cannot completely reject even order distortion and in the case where the differential amplifier is used in a mixer as the LO switching pair, causes non-zero values for the even order coefficients, b2n. This has the effect of lowering the overall SNR and altering the mean value of the output signal.
In one embodiment, the feedback circuit comprises an integrator 602 and a control circuit 604 (controller). The feedback circuit separates LO input and output imbalances, adjusting each independently. One reason for independently adjusting each is that a correction signal acting at only the LO input or the output can, in some cases, degrade symmetry. Additionally, the feedback circuit may be further calibrated to achieve even higher performance levels.
The feedback circuit comprises an integrator 804, the control circuit 802, a replica amplifier 806, and an LO buffer 808. Resistors R3 and R4 are also part of the feedback circuit and could be implemented as actual resistors or as the output resistance of the LO buffer 808 stage. Also included to facilitate calibration are first and second switches (Sw1, Sw2). In one embodiment, the control circuit 802, the replica amplifier 806, the LO buffer 808, the resisters R3, R4, and the switches (Sw1, Sw2) form the control circuit 604 of
To calibrate the feedback circuit of
Δνout=IB1R1−IB2R2
This minimizes the effects of output resistors, R1 and R2, and ideality factor n mismatches for the bipolar commutating transistors.
Ideally, the output of the integrator 804 should be centered at its common mode level νcm. A positive integrated signal (812) output level (νint>νcm) indicates the output difference signal from the differential amplifier is positive. Similarly, a negative integrated signal (812) output level (νint<νcm) indicates a negative output difference signal. The comparator 902 makes the above determinations.
In one embodiment, a comparator replaces the integrator 804 to provide more accurate calibration settings, since a comparator typically offers higher gain with lower input offset, and thus its output signal may be more accurate than the integrated signal (812) output from the integrator 804.
Initially, the counter 906 is cleared and bias current IB1 is maximum while bias current IB2 is zero. As such, the output difference signal (Vout) of the differential amplifier will be forced positive. This drives the output of integrator 804 positive, which drives the comparator 902 output positive and allows a clock signal to toggle the counter 906 via the AND gate 904. As the counter 906 value increases, the value of bias current IB2 increases and bias current IB1 decreases. The clock signal is disabled once the difference signal at the output of the comparator 902 switches negative and the AND gate 904 is disabled. The counter 906 then holds the calibration setting to compensate for the output mismatch effects of the differential amplifier.
Referring again to
Δνout=α(IB3R3−IB4R4)
Once the output of the integrator 804 equals its common mode level, νcm, the input offsets are minimized.
Next, step 3 of
Δνin′=ID3R3−ID4R4
The differential amplifier in turn amplifies the difference voltage and produces an output voltage given by AΔνin′. In parallel, transistors Q3 and Q4 steer currents to resistors R1 and R2 to ideally cancel the effects of the input voltage generated by transistors Q1 and Q2 and resistors R3 and R4.
A third circuit (not shown) is included in the control circuit 802 that is identical to the circuit shown in
Δνout=ID1R1−ID2R2→AΔνin′
and sets the gain of feedback circuit so that;
After calibration of the output effects (step #1), the input offset (step #2), and the gain of the replica amplifier 806 (step #3), step 4 of
The double balanced mixer exhibits the same susceptibility to even order distortion in each of the two LO switching pairs as the single balanced mixer. These effects can be reduced using one or more embodiments of the above feedback circuit that include minor modifications. The modifications allow each LO switching pair to be monitored and adjusted independently.
The new double balanced mixer comprises two LO buffers (1102 and 1104). These provide isolation and thereby allow each LO pair to be adjusted independently.
In one or more embodiments, a feedback circuit is provided that adjusts the symmetry of a differential LO port of a single balanced mixer by controlling key input and output parameters. A three-step calibration process, using only DC levels, easily corrects for output mismatches, lowers input offset, and sets the gain of the feedback circuit. The resulting feedback loop operates continuously to remove the effects of circuit mismatches, which may change with signal level, temperature, or voltage supply. Furthermore, the embodiments are effective for various types of transistors and are not limited to the specific realizations shown. The feedback technique works well with either single balanced or a novel double balanced mixer topology, which minimizes LO feedthrough.
The present invention includes a differential feedback system that minimizes even order distortion of a mixer circuit. The embodiments described above are illustrative of the present invention and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention to the particular embodiments described. Accordingly, while several embodiments of the invention has been illustrated and described, it will be appreciated that various changes can be made therein without departing from the spirit or essential characteristics thereof. Accordingly, the disclosures and descriptions herein are intended to be illustrative, but not limiting, of the scope of the invention, which is set forth in the following claims.
This application claims the benefit of priority of a U.S. Provisional patent application entitled, “DIRECT DOWN-CONVERSION MIXER ARCHITECTURE” Ser. No. 60/386,003, filed on Jun. 4, 2002, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety for all purposes.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
448539 | Morris | Mar 1891 | A |
599071 | Barr | Feb 1898 | A |
4263560 | Ricker | Apr 1981 | A |
4430627 | Machida | Feb 1984 | A |
4769588 | Panther | Sep 1988 | A |
4816772 | Klotz | Mar 1989 | A |
4926135 | Voorman | May 1990 | A |
4965531 | Riley | Oct 1990 | A |
4994768 | Shepherd et al. | Feb 1991 | A |
5006818 | Koyama et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5015968 | Podell et al. | May 1991 | A |
5030923 | Arai | Jul 1991 | A |
5289136 | DeVeirman et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5331292 | Worden et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5399990 | Miyake | Mar 1995 | A |
5491450 | Helms et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5508660 | Gersbach et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5548594 | Nakamura | Aug 1996 | A |
5561385 | Choi | Oct 1996 | A |
5581216 | Ruetz | Dec 1996 | A |
5631587 | Co et al. | May 1997 | A |
5648744 | Prakash et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5677646 | Entrikin | Oct 1997 | A |
5739730 | Rotzoll | Apr 1998 | A |
5767748 | Nakao | Jun 1998 | A |
5818303 | Oishi et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5834987 | Dent | Nov 1998 | A |
5862465 | Ou | Jan 1999 | A |
5878101 | Aisaka | Mar 1999 | A |
5880631 | Sahota | Mar 1999 | A |
5939922 | Umeda | Aug 1999 | A |
5945855 | Momtaz | Aug 1999 | A |
5949286 | Jones | Sep 1999 | A |
5990740 | Groe | Nov 1999 | A |
5994959 | Ainsworth | Nov 1999 | A |
5999056 | Fong | Dec 1999 | A |
6011437 | Sutardja et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6018651 | Bruckert et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6044124 | Monahan et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6052035 | Nolan et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6057739 | Crowley et al. | May 2000 | A |
6060935 | Shulman | May 2000 | A |
6091307 | Nelson | Jul 2000 | A |
6100767 | Sumi | Aug 2000 | A |
6114920 | Moon et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6163207 | Kattner et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6173011 | Rey et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6191956 | Foreman | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6204728 | Hageraats | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6211737 | Fong | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6229374 | Tammone, Jr. | May 2001 | B1 |
6234387 | Cuthbert et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6246289 | Pisati et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6255889 | Branson | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6259321 | Song et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6288609 | Brueske et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6298093 | Genrich | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6333675 | Saito | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6370372 | Molnar et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6392487 | Alexanian | May 2002 | B1 |
6404252 | Wilsch | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6476660 | Visocchi et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6515553 | Filiol et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6549078 | Sridharan et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6559717 | Lynn et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6560448 | Baldwin et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6571083 | Powell, II et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6577190 | Kim | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6583671 | Chatwin | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6583675 | Gomez | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6639474 | Asikainen et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6664865 | Groe et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6683509 | Albon et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6693977 | Katayama et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6703887 | Groe | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6711391 | Walker et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6724235 | Costa et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6734736 | Gharpurey | May 2004 | B2 |
6744319 | Kim | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6751272 | Burns et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6753738 | Baird | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6763228 | Prentice et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6774740 | Groe | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6777999 | Kanou et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6781425 | Si | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6795843 | Groe | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6798290 | Groe et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6801089 | Costa et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6845139 | Gibbons | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6856205 | Groe | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6870411 | Shibahara et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6917719 | Chadwick | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6940356 | McDonald, II et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6943600 | Craninckx | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6975687 | Jackson et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6985703 | Groe et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6990327 | Zheng et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7062248 | Kuiri | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7065334 | Otaka et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7088979 | Shenoy et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7123102 | Uozumi et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7142062 | Vaananen et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7148764 | Kasahara et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7171170 | Groe et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7215215 | Hirano et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
20020031191 | Shimizu | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020071497 | Bengtsson et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020193009 | Reed | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030078016 | Groe et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030092405 | Groe et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030118143 | Ballaouar et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030197564 | Humphreys et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040017852 | Redman-White | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040017862 | Redman-White | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040051590 | Perrott et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20050093631 | Groe | May 2005 | A1 |
20050099232 | Groe et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60386003 | Jun 2002 | US |