L16: Noise Performance of SSB & AM

(P&S pp. 220-225; C&C 10.2)

Last lecture

 In-phase + quadrature representation of bandpass processes

 Output SNR of DSBSC
 DSBSC modulation does not improve SNR compared to
baseband transmission

Today
– SSB vs. DSBSC
– Approximate noise analysis of AM with envelope detection
– AM Threshold Effect

L16 1
 SSB with Noise

SSB signal at front end of receiver is

S(t)  Ac M (t) cos(2f ct)  Ac M̂ (t)sin(2f ct)  N (t)

where {N (t)}is mutually uncorrelated bandpass noise with psd

N 0 / 2 W/Hz over the frequency band [ f c , f c  W ].

Expressing the noise in terms of in-phase & quadrature

components, multiplying by a local oscillator and passing through
an LPF, the demodulator output is

Y (t)  0.5Ac M (t)  0.5N c (t)

L16 2
 SNR of SSB

As {M (t)},{N c (t)} are uncorrelated, the output power is just the

sum of the powers of the message term + noise term. Hence
SNR is a meaningful measure of signal quality.
We know that
S N ( f  f c )  S N ( f  f c )  N 0 / 2 if  W  f  W
SNc ( f )   .
 0 otherwise
So, PN c  N 0W and

2 2
 
S 0 .25 A P Ac PM
   c M
 - better than DSBSC…?
 N o 0.25 N 0W N 0W

L16 3
 SNR in Terms of Received SSB Power

Finding power of received SSB in time domain is tricky…

Easier approach – remember that SSB = DSBSC on a double

amplitude carrier, passed through unity gain ideal sideband filter.
2 2
We know (?) DSBSC signal power is 0.5(2Ac ) PM  2Ac PM .
Sideband filter removes symmetric lower sidebands of the
DSBSC signal psd. So received SSB power PR  Ac2PM .

 S P
   R
 N o N 0W

L16 4
 Figure of Merit for Linear Modulation

Recall that S 0.5 Ac2 PM PR S

      
 N o , DSBSC N 0W N 0W  N b

Hence, for the same received signal power & noise psd over the
transmitted signal frequency band, DSBSC, SSB & baseband
transmission have the same output SNR.

So their figure of merit  S   S 

    =1.
 N  o  N b

L16 5
Noise Analysis of AM with Asynchronous Detection

Received signal: S(t)  Ac 1  M (t) cos(2f ct)  N (t)

where {N (t)}is mutually uncorrelated bandpass noise with psd

N 0 / 2 W/Hz over transmission band [ f c  W , f c  W ] .

Putting {N (t)} into in-phase+quadrature form, the envelope

detector output is

Y (t)  Ac 1  M (t)   N c (t)

2 2
 N s (t) .

L16 6
 Approximate Analysis

If 2N 0W  E[N s (t) 2 ]  Ac2 , the 2nd term under the square root is
much smaller than the 1st, with high probability.

 Y (t)  Ac 1  M (t)   N c (t)

Applying an ideal notch filter to remove the DC term.

Y '(t)  Ac M (t)  N c (t)

SNR…?

L16 7
 Figure of Merit for AM

The received AM signal power is 0.5 Ac2 1   2 PM 

From this, we can show that for AM,

S S  2 PM
      1.
 N o  N b 1   PM
2

Typically, modulation index is 0.8-0.9 & speech power’s about

0.1W.

 FoM =0.075 = 11dB loss compared to other linear, or no,

modulation.
Reason…?

L16 8
 AM Threshold Effect

If 2N 0W  Ac2 , then with prob.  1 N c (t), N s (t)  Ac , yielding

Y (t)  N c (t) 2  N s (t) 2  2N c (t) Ac 1  M (t)   Ac21  M (t) 2
 N (t) Ac 1  M (t) 
 N c (t) 2  N s (t) 2 1  c 
 N c
(t) 2
 N s
(t) 2

 N (t) 2  N (t) 2  N c (t) Ac
1  M (t)
N c (t)  N s (t)
c s 2 2

 No meaningful SNR (why?)

Output SNR decreases linearly with signal power until Ac2 is
around N 0W . Around this point, signal quality suddenly decreases
much more rapidly to zero – threshold effect.

L16 9