Why?yes.
I was just wondering if there is any reason or any possible reason to think that 1 approach is better than the other for any reason? If there isn't, just say yes or no.Think about it. Are there signals and noise below 5ghz? Are there signals and noise above 5.8ghz?
Like everything else in this field, the devil is in the details. Building a bandpass filter at 5.8 GHz is not likely to be realizable with lumped components. It might be a better strategy to down convert the 5.8 GHz signal and filter at a lower frequency. It is also just a bit out of my lane, like other posters have mentioned. I certainly wouldn't want to try it without some pretty fancy (expensive) equipment which I cannot afford and am unlikely to receive funding for anytime soon.I was just wondering if there is any reason or any possible reason to think that 1 approach is better than the other for any reason? If there isn't, just say yes or no.
I mean is there any reason or any possible reason to think using a low pass filter and a high pass filter is a better approach than using a bandpass filter to filter unwanted signals and detect 5.8 ghz signal? Or is there any reason or any possible reason to think that using a bandpass filter is a better approach than using a high pass filter and a low pass filter to filter unwanted signals and detect 5.8 ghz? Just say yes or no. And it's a wireless connection.Depends.
Is this a wired or wireless connection?
Are there unwanted signals?
I think I can buy a prebuilt 5.8 ghz bandpass filter on ebay.Like everything else in this field, the devil is in the details. Building a bandpass filter at 5.8 GHz is not likely to be realizable with lumped components. It might be a better strategy to down convert the 5.8 GHz signal and filter at a lower frequency. It is also just a bit out of my lane, like other posters have mentioned. I certainly wouldn't want to try it without some pretty fancy (expensive) equipment which I cannot afford and am unlikely to receive funding for anytime soon.
You can probably buy the whole receiver on eBay, but why would you want to do that?I think I can buy a prebuilt 5.8 ghz bandpass filter on ebay.
I mean is there any reason or any possible reason to think using a low pass filter and a high pass filter is a better approach than using a bandpass filter to filter unwanted signals and detect 5.8 ghz signal? Or is there any reason or any possible reason to think that using a bandpass filter is a better approach than using a high pass filter and a low pass filter to filter unwanted signals and detect 5.8 ghz? Just say yes or no. And it's a wireless connection.
I mean the signal passes through a low pass filter first, then the signal passes through a high pass filter.Your question does not have the definitive answer you are looking for. If there is going to be a filter on the front end it should be a bandpass filter. A high pass or a low pass will only do half the job. this still leaves open the question of where in the chain the filter should be and how it should be implemented.
I am just trying to learn how an engineer builds radio communication systems.A wireless tuner IS a very sharp bandpass filter and a detector. Are you talking about an additional filter or the tuner itself?
Bob
For example to build a video receiver that wirelessly receive video at 433 Mhz, he wouldn't pass the signal through a low pass filter with cutoff frequency at 433 Mhz, which filters frequencies below 433, first, then pass the signal through a high pass filter with a cutoff frequency at 433 Mhz, which filters frequencies above 433Mhz or would he? The system has 2 filters, one for filtering frequencies below 433 Mhz and the other filter for filtering frequencies above 433 Mhz.A wireless tuner IS a very sharp bandpass filter and a detector. Are you talking about an additional filter or the tuner itself?
Bob