Post Go back to editing

LO Feed-through improvement

Category: Hardware
Product Number: LTC5589

Hi,

I am looking at some pulses created using the LTC5589 in the time domain and see a large increase in the noise floor as soon as I enable the 1GHz LO (provided by a ADF4351). My guess is that this could just be LO leaking into the RF but wanted to make sure and ask if there is any way to improve (lower the feedthrough) on it?

I have attached a screenshot of what I am seeing in the time domain. The noise is at about -70dBm then when I enable the LO it jumps up to about -48dBm. The two pulses afterwards is just a test signal and expected. This higher noise will remain until I disable the LO again. Adjusting the IQ gain moves this floor up and down by about the same amount as the test signal amplitude. I also played with the IQ offsets which slightly (about 1 to 2dB) lowers this floor. Disabling the Q channel makes a significant difference and drops it by about 6dB.

The datasheet gives carrier leakage at LO=800MHz as -46dBm, so maybe my result are as expected. If so what can I do with external circuitry to reduce the LO leakage?

Thank you for your time

  • Are you able to turn on a noise marker in your setup so that you can get a reading of the output noise in dBm/Hz? If not, can you let me know what the resolution bandwidth setting is when you measure -70 dBm of noise? For example, if the RBW was I MHz, then your noise floor in dBm/Hz would be -140 dBm/Hz (i.e. -70 dBm - 10log(1e6)). The datasheet includes various plots the  that show how the noise floor is affected by the output frequency, the output power and the VCTRL VGA control voltage. Not also that any noise on your baseband inputs or on the LO will degrade the output noise dB-for-dB. I don't think that what you are seeing is LO Leakage. The LO leakage will manifest itself as a tone at the output that will have the same frequency as the LO. 

    As a next step, can we do a baseline measurement where the four baseband inputs are tied to a low noise 1.4V source (or ac-coupled to ground). Set the VCTRL voltage to 3.3V (AGCTRL bit set to 1). Set the LO to 1.5GHz (or your frequency of interest). Then measure the noise floor at 1.6 GHz with the resolution bandwidth set to 1Hz (if the machine will allow this). Under these conditions, the datasheet says you should see a noise level of about -155 dBm/1Hz (see plot at bottom left corner of page 10). This assumes that your LO source is very low noise. 

    Please try this and let me know how it goes. - Eamon 

  • Hi Eamon,

    Thank you for taking a look.

    If I remember correctly the IF bandwidth was set to 1MHz when making the screenshot.

    I don't think that what you are seeing is LO Leakage. The LO leakage will manifest itself as a tone at the output that will have the same frequency as the LO. 

    In my time domain (zero span) plot I am tuned to the LO frequency (1GHz) with 1MHz bandwidth, therefore I was expecting to see LO leakage.

    The baseband inputs just AM modulates the carrier to create the two Gaussian shaped pulses.

    At the moment I don't have access to the equipment. On Monday I will have access again and will then try to perform the test with the baseband inputs AC coupled to ground. Will let you know how it went.

  • Hi Eamon,

    This morning I made the following test:
    AC coupled the baseband inputs (and verified that they are at 1.4V), set AGCTRL bit to 1 and applied 3.3V to VCTRL. Then I triggered again the test transmission at 1GHz and recorded the following traces.

    Frequency domain trace with noise markers at about 6MHz offset (Note 3, page 7 in datasheet) from the 1GHz LO. Except for the noisy LO, I suppose the noise floor looks reasonable.


    I also performed again the time domain trace which looks pretty similar to my previous result (except of course that there is no modulation applied). So I guess I can conclude that the roughly -47dBm level I see is purely LO leakage right?

    By adjusting the IQ offsets I could make small (maybe 1dB to 2dB) changes to this level. Is there something else I could do to lower it even more (except for disabling Q) ? By the way, what is the correct method to adjust the offsets? At the moment I just start with both values at 128 and increase/decrease one of them until I see an improvement.

    Thank you again for the support!

  • Hi Jan,

    I'm better understanding now the time domain and frequency domain plots. I would have expected both to be equal. Shouldn't   the marker in the frequency plot (-63 dBm) be equal to the time domain level (-47dBm). But, leaving that aside, yes, if you have the inputs ac-coupled, your dominant output power should come from LO Leakage. 

    I think that you should be able to get more out of the I and Q offset adjustment. The datasheet says that it can be reduced from -43 dBm to -64 dBm. There is a section in the datasheet that discusses the approach to tweaking the I and Q offset. I'm also attaching a link to an old ap-note on the topic. In this we suggest sweeping the I offset until you find an initial minimum. Then with I value held, you sweep Q and look for a deeper trough. Finally, you can do a third sweep of I to fine tune things. It can be done in any order, that is, I first or Q first. But when the temperature changes, much of this good work goes out the window (unless you are willing to re-cal over temperature). 

    The noise floor does look a bit messy in the frequency domain plot. But it's well below the fundamental tone (the LO Leakage) at -63 dBm. It may be from your signal generator or it may be pick-up. 

  • Hi Enash,

    Thank you for all your help.

    The lower marker level in the frequency trace was due to me using the wrong detector (average), using the peak detector I also get about -47dBm in the frequency trace.

    So I also tried the method you described for tuning the IQ offsets and it indeed made a big difference. Here is an updated time trace:

    Now getting LO leakage levels close to the specified -64dBm.

    I missed the link to the application note, if you could just send it again.