Connect with us

Modulate difference freq.

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Harry Lang, Jun 10, 2007.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Harry Lang

    Harry Lang Guest

    I am producing a 100Hz beat signal by mixing 3KHz and 3.1KHz

    As an experiment, I was wondering if it is possible to frequency
    modulate the two KHz sinewaves while keeping the 100Hz difference
    frequency constant.

    If so, what type of circuit would be required.

    Harry Lang
  2. Guest

    Best to do this as a simulation on a PC unless you use DDS that is.
  3. Jamie

    Jamie Guest

    2 very stable and maybe MILL spec VCO's that get biased
    from the same source using all the same component values that
    are closely selected for matches..
    You could at least then discover the linearity of the components
    you're using ..something on the same lines as CMR (common mode
    rejection) I guess.
  4. Phil Allison

    Phil Allison Guest

    "Harry Lang"

    ** A linear frequency modulator - silly.

    ........ Phil
  5. MooseFET

    MooseFET Guest

    Do you have a control input to the 3KHz signals? Are you using VCXOs
    or DDSes to make the signals?

    If you have no control over the signal source, you can use phase
    modulation to do the frequency modulation. Phase and frequency
    modulation differ by one integration. If you are working over a
    modest frequency range, this may be the way to go.

    How accurately do you need to keep the 100Hz difference?

    Do you have to start with the 3KHz and 3.1KHz or can you change the
    circuit however you wish so as to make the desireed output?
  6. Suppose there were a modulation ratio that could do that.
    (3100 * Am * c) - (3000 * Am) = 100
    where Am is instantaneous modulation amplitude, and c is some
    Then (3100 * c) - (3000) = 100 / Am
    and 3100 *c = 100/Am + 3000
    Suppose Am = 1; then c = 1
    Suppose Am = 2; then c= 0.983...

    You would either have to supply a non-linear modulation function to
    one of the modulators, or use something other than simple FM on the
    two signals. Maybe a PLL on one of the signals.
  7. Tom Bruhns

    Tom Bruhns Guest

    An FM modulated signal offset a constant frequency is still an FM
    modulated signal. Imagine one signal is the FM-modulated 3kHz. Mix
    that signal with a constant 6.1kHz and take the difference; be sure
    the mixer is very well balanced with respect to the input
    frequencies. Now you have an FM-modulated 3.1kHz signal. Mix the
    3.1kHz and 3.0kHz signals and take the difference; it will always be

  8. Right, that's something other than simple FM applied to two starting
    signals; and it sounds like a good way to do it.
  9. Tom Bruhns

    Tom Bruhns Guest

    Well, actually, that was a brain fart on my part! That SHOULD have
    been a circuit to simply add 100Hz to one, not to generate one that
    goes up while the other goes down. Sigh. Replace the 6.1kHz with
    0.1kHz, but then be careful that you filter out the difference
    frequency, and do the filtering in a way that preserves the phase
    relationships: in other words, make sure that you delay both the
    3.0kHz and 3.1kHz paths by the same amount, including the filtering.
    It would likely be easier to generate, say, 100kHz FM and mix that
    down to 3.0kHz and 3.1kHz, passing each through a low-order filter
    that has essentially the same delay for both of the outputs.

    The problem if the delay is unequal: imagine a modulation frequency
    of, say, 200Hz, and a delay in the two paths that differs by 1/400 of
    a second. The the modulations will be out of phase: one will go up
    while the other goes down in frequency, and the difference is
    modulated. That's extreme, but to have the difference exactly
    constant, you need to have equal delays.

  10. That's interesting. It seems to be a pretty high precision
    requirement. Would it be possible to detect the 100 Hz difference, and
    trim the delay accordingly?
  11. Tom Bruhns

    Tom Bruhns Guest

    Well, yes, I suppose so, though _why_ anyone would actually want to do
    something like this I don't know!

    Actually, things aren't all that bad if you start with a high
    frequency and mix it down with two mixers fed by local oscillators
    100Hz apart to 3.0kHz and 3.1kHz. If you start with a high enough
    frequency, say several hundred kHz, a simple filter will kill the
    local oscillator and FM source feedthrough and the sum frequencies,
    and it can have high enough cutoff frequency that the delay difference
    between two copies of the filter can be well under a microsecond with
    no trimming of 5% tolerance parts (for the one I just simulated,
    anyway). But as you say, it's possible to get things like this to
    auto-calibrate if it's important.

Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day