On 2025-06-24 13:29, Martin Braun wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 9:56 PM tommytsui@w5tech.com wrote:
Hi Rob,
Thank you for your reply. Indeed, when I ran UHD probe on another
X310 with the old WBX daughter card installed, the old radio
daughter card model reported WBX-120, not WBX-40 as I first
thought. Your answer on another post explained it all. The max
lo_offset depends on the RF bandwidth of the radio card and the
signal bandwidth. Is such information available on any Ettus
Research Wiki website? I don’t recall I had seen such explanation
on internet. Anyway, thank you so much for your explanation!
It's one of those things that is not USRP-specific, but a generic RF
thing. We don't always document those (although there are plenty of
cases where we do). Anyway, glad you figured it out!
--M
It continues to be the case that there's a large amount of "background
knowledge" that we (and, really any OTHER vendor of SDRs) kind of assume
that our users/devs already know.
For many people developing in the SDR space these days, the radio and
DSP aspects are kind of "details" that are secondary to the project goals.
Not sure how ANY vendor can really address this without basically
offering the equivalent of (part of) an undergraduate EECS degree
program....
On 2025-06-24 13:29, Martin Braun wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 9:56 PM <tommytsui@w5tech.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thank you for your reply. Indeed, when I ran UHD probe on another
> X310 with the old WBX daughter card installed, the old radio
> daughter card model reported WBX-120, not WBX-40 as I first
> thought. Your answer on another post explained it all. The max
> lo_offset depends on the RF bandwidth of the radio card and the
> signal bandwidth. Is such information available on any Ettus
> Research Wiki website? I don’t recall I had seen such explanation
> on internet. Anyway, thank you so much for your explanation!
>
>
> It's one of those things that is not USRP-specific, but a generic RF
> thing. We don't always document those (although there are plenty of
> cases where we do). Anyway, glad you figured it out!
>
> --M
>
It continues to be the case that there's a large amount of "background
knowledge" that we (and, really any OTHER vendor of SDRs) kind of *assume*
that our users/devs already know.
For many people developing in the SDR space these days, the radio and
DSP aspects are kind of "details" that are secondary to the project goals.
Not sure how ANY vendor can really address this without basically
offering the equivalent of (part of) an undergraduate EECS degree
program....
