Mixer Design

• Introduction to mixers
• Mixer metrics
• Mixer topologies
• Mixer performance analysis
• Mixer design issues

1
 What is a mixer
• Frequency translation device
– Convert RF frequency to a lower IF or base band for
easy signal processing in receivers
– Convert base band signal or IF frequency to a higher
IF or RF frequency for efficient transmission in
transmitters
• Creative use of nonlinearity or time-variance
– These are usually harmful and unwanted
– They generates frequencies not present at input
• Used together with appropriate filtering
– Remove unwanted frequencies

2
 Two operation mechanisms

• Nonlinear transfer function

– Use device nonlinearities creatively!
– Intermodulation creates the desired
frequency and unwanted frequencies
• Switching or sampling
– A time-varying process
– Preferred; fewer spurs
– Active mixers
– Passive mixers

3
 An ideal nonlinearity mixer
If x(t )  A cos 1t x(t) x(t)y(t)
y (t ) B cos 2t
Then the output is y(t)

AB AB
A cos 1t B cos 2t  cos(1  2 )t  cos(1  2 )t
2 2
down convert up convert

4
 Commutating switch mixer

VLO (t)
VLO (t)
V RF (t)

V IF (t)

V RF (t) VLO (t)

 A RF sinω RF tsqω LO t
2  1 
 A RF  cos(
ω RF  ω LO )t  
cos3(ω RF  ω LO )t   
π  3 

5
 A non-ideal mixer

RF-IF

x aixi + + + output
Distortion
+ gain

noise
RF-LO
+
y'

LO-RF LO-IF

6
 Mixer Metrics
• Conversion gain – lowers noise impact of
following stages
• Noise Figure – impacts receiver sensitivity
• Port isolation – want to minimize interaction
between the RF, IF, and LO ports
• Linearity (IIP3) – impacts receiver blocking
performance
• Spurious response
• Power match – want max voltage gain rather
than power match for integrated designs
• Power – want low power dissipation
• Sensitivity to process/temp variations – need to
make it manufacturable in high volume
7
 Conversion Gain
• Conversion gain or loss is the ratio of the
desired IF output (voltage or power) to the RF
input signal value ( voltage or power).
r.m.s. voltage of the IF signal
Voltage Conversion Gain 
r.m.s. voltage of the RF signal
IF power delivered to the load
Power Conversion Gain 
Available power from the source

If the input impedance and the load impedance of the

mixer are both equal to the source impedance, then the
voltage conversion gain and the power conversion gain of
the mixer will be the same in dB’s.
8
 Noise Figures: SSB vs DSB

Signal Signal
Image band
band
band
Thermal Thermal
noise noise

LO LO

IF 0

Single side band Double side band

9
 SSB Noise Figure

• Broadband noise from mixer or front end filter will be

located in both image and desired bands
• Noise from both image and desired bands will combine
in desired channel at IF output
– Channel filter cannot remove this
10
 DSB Noise Figure

• For zero IF, there is no image band

– Noise from positive and negative frequencies combine, but the
signals combine as well
• DSB noise figure is 3 dB lower than SSB noise figure
– DSB noise figure often quoted since it sounds better
11
 Port-to-Port Isolations
• Isolation
– Isolation between RF, LO and IF ports
– LO/RF and LO/IF isolations are the most
important features.
– Reducing LO leakage to other ports can be
solved by filtering.

RF IF

LO
12
 LO Feed through

• Feed through from the LO port to IF output port due to

parasitic capacitance, power supply coupling, etc.
• Often significant due to strong LO output signal
– If large, can potentially desensitize the receiver due to the extra
dynamic range consumed at the IF output
– If small, can generally be removed by filter at IF output

13
 Reverse LO Feed through

• Reverse feed through from the LO port to RF

input port due to parasitic capacitance, etc.
– If large, and LNA doesn’t provide adequate isolation,
then LO energy can leak out of antenna and violate
emission standards for radio
– Must insure that isolation to antenna is adequate
14
 Self-Mixing of Reverse LO Feedthrough

• LO component in the RF input can pass back

through the mixer and be modulated by the LO
signal
– DC and 2fo component created at IF output
– Of no consequence for a heterodyne system, but can
cause problems for homodyne systems (i.e., zero IF)
15
 Nonlinearity in Mixers

• Ignoring dynamic effects, three nonlinearities around an

ideal mixer
• Nonlinearity A: same impact as LNA nonlinearity
• Nonlinearity B: change the spectrum of LO signal
– Cause additional mixing that must be analyzed
– Change conversion gain somewhat
• Nonlinearity C: cause self mixing of IF output
16
 Focus on Nonlinearity in RF Input Path

• Nonlinearity B not detrimental in most cases

– LO signal often a square wave anyway
• Nonlinearity C avoidable with linear loads
• Nonlinearity A can hamper rejection of interferers
– Characterize with IIP3 as with LNA designs
– Use two-tone test to measure (similar to LNA)
17
 Spurious Response
IF m RF  n LO
IF LO IF LO
 n   m , 0   1
RF RF RF RF
y  n x  m 0  y  x  1

y IF RF

IF Band

x LO RF
18
 Mixer topologies
• Discrete implementations:
– Single-diode and diode-ring mixers
• IC implementations:
– MOSFET passive mixer
– Active mixers
– Gilbert-cell based mixer
– Square law mixer
– Sub-sampling mixer
– Harmonic mixer

19
 Single-diode passive mixer
VLO
VLO 
L C RL VIF
t

VRF

ID VIF

VD t

• Simplest and oldest passive mixer

• The output RLC tank tuned to match IF
• Input = sum of RF, LO and DC bias
• No port isolation and no conversion gain.
• Extremely useful at very high frequency (millimeter wave band)
20
 Single-balanced diode mixer
VLO
VIF
VLO
L C RL t
VRF

VIF

• Poor gain
• Good LO-IF isolation t

• Good LO-RF isolation

• Poor RF-IF isolation
• Attractive for very high frequency applications where
transistors are slow.
21
 Double-balanced diode mixer
VLO

VLO VIF VRF t

VIF

• Poor gain (typically -6dB)

• t
Good LO-IF LO-RF RF-IF isolation
• Good linearity and dynamic range
• Attractive for very high frequency applications where
transistors are slow.

22
 CMOS Passive Mixer

RS
VLO M1 M2  VLO

VIF

 VLO M3 M4 VLO

• M1 through M4 act as switches

23
 CMOS Passive Mixer

• Use switches to perform the mixing operation

• No bias current required
• Allows low power operation to be achieved
24
 CMOS Passive Mixer
RF-

LO- LO+

IF

RF+

Same idea, redrawn

RC filter not shown
IF amplifier can be frequency selective [*] T. Lee
25
 CMOS Passive Mixer

I M1 t


VLO 

t  LO
 RF

VOUT V   4
GC  out IF 
VRF  RF  
t

4 4 4 
Vout VRF .Cos  RF t    Cos  LOt   Cos 3 LOt   Cos 5 LOt   ...
 3 5 

26
 CMOS Passive Mixer
• Non-50% duty cycle of LO results in no DC offsets!!

I M1 t
DC-term of LO

VLO

t


 LO
 RF
VOUT

 4 4 4 
Vout VRF .Cos  RF t    DC  Cos  LOt   Cos 3 LOt   Cos 5 LOt   ...
  3 5 
27
 CMOS Passive Mixer with Biasing
200
VLO 
VLO
VLO  Cbias 1nF Rsd

RS 200 Rgg RL 2k 

M1 M2
VLO Vsd
Vgg
VS
 VLOCbias 1nF
CL
M 2' M 1'
Rgg

Rsd

Cbias 1nF
28
 A Highly Linear CMOS Mixer

• Transistors are alternated between the off and triode regions by the
LO signal
• RF signal varies resistance of channel when in triode
• Large bias required on RF inputs to achieve triode operation
– High linearity achieved, but very poor noise figure
29
Simple Switching Mixer (Single Balanced Mixer)

• The transistor M1 RL RL
converts the RF Vout
voltage signal to the VLO M2 M3  VLO
current signal.
• Transistors M2 and
M3 commute the I DC  I RF
current between the
two branches. VRF M1

30
 Single balanced active mixer, BJT
• Single-ended input
VCC
• Differential LO
• Differential output RL RL
+ out -
• QB provides gain
for vin LO+ Q1 Q2 LO-

• Q1 and Q2 steer the

current back and vin + DC QB

forth at LO
vout = ±gmvinRL
31
 Double Balanced Mixer

RL VOUT RL

VLO M2 M3  VLO M2 M3 VLO

I DC  I RF I DC  I RF
VRF  VRF

• Strong LO-IF feed suppressed by double balanced mixer.

• All the even harmonics cancelled.
• All the odd harmonics doubled (including the signal).

32
 Gilbert Mixer

• Use a differential pair to achieve the transconductor

implementation
• This is the preferred mixer implementation for most radio
systems!
33
 Double balanced mixer, BJT
• Basically two SB mixers
– One gets +vin/2, the other gets –vin/2

VCC

RL RL
+ out -

LO+ Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 LO+

LO-

QB1 + vin - QB2

34
Mixers based on MOS square law
Cl arg e
I ds K SQ . VGSQ  VT 0 
2

Rb
VLO
VBB1

VRF

I ds K SQ . Vbias  VRF  VLO  VT 0 

2


K SQ . Vbias  VT 0   VRF  VLO   2 Vbias  VT 0 . VRF  VLO 
2 2

(VRF  VLO ) 2 gives rise to
cos( RF   LO )t and cos( RF   LO )t
35
 Practical Square Law Mixers
I ds K SQ . VGSQ  VT 0 
2
Cl arg e

Cl arg e
Rb

VRF VBB1
I BIAS VLO

The conversion gain can be shown to be

CoxW
K sqVLO  VLO
2L
36
 Practical Bipolar Mixer
VBE
Cl arg e IC  ICO . e VT

Cl arg e
Rb

VRF VBB1
I BIAS VLO

I CQ
The conversion gain can be shown to be 2
VLO
v
T

37
 MOSFET Mixer (with impedance matching)

VDD
Cmatch IF Filter

VBB2 RL

Cl arg e
RS Lg
I ds K SQ . VGSQ  VT 0 
2

RLO
Rb

VRF VBB1 Matching

Cl arg e Network
Le VLO

38
 Sub-sampling Mixer

• Properly designed track-and-hold circuit works

as sub-sampling mixer.
• The sampling clock’s jitter must be very small
• Noise folding leads to large mixer noise figure.
• High linearity
39
 Harmonic Mixer
•Emitter-coupled BJTs work as
two limiters.
•Odd symmetry suppress even
order distortion eg LO selfmixing.
•Small RF signal modulates zero
crossing of large LO signal.
•Output rectangular wave in PWM
•LPF demodulate the PWM

• Harmonic mixer has low self-mixing DC offset, very

attractive for direct conversion application.
• The RF signal will mix with the second harmonic of the
LO. So the LO can run at half rate, which makes VCO
design easier.
• Because of the harmonic mixing, conversion gain is
usually small 40
 Features of Square Law Mixers
• Noise Figure: The square law MOSFET mixer can be
designed to have very low noise figure.
• Linearity: true square law MOSFET mixer produces only
DC, original tones, difference, and sum tones
• The corresponding BJT mixer produces a host of non-
linear components due to the exponential function
• Power Dissipation: The square law mixer can be designed
with very low power dissipation.
• Power Gain: Reasonable power gain can be achieved
through the use of square law mixers.
• Isolation: Square law mixers offer poor isolation from LO
to RF port. This is by far the biggest short coming of the
square law mixers.

41
 Mixer performance analysis
• Analyze major metrics
– Conversion gain
– Port isolation
– Noise figure/factor
– Linearity, IIP3
• Gain insights into design constraints and
compromise

42
 Common Emitter Mixer
• Single-ended input
VCC
• Differential LO
• Differential output RL RL
+ out -
• QB provides gain
for vin LO+ Q1 Q2 LO-

• Q1 and Q2 steer the

current left and vin + DC QB

right at LO

43
 Common Emitter Mixer
• Conversion gain
VCC

Two output component: RL RL

vout1 = ±gmvinRL + out -

vout2 = ±IQBDCRL LO+ Q1 Q2 LO-

IF signal is the RF – LO

component in vout1 vin + DC QB

So gain = ?

44
 Common Emitter Mixer
• Port isolation
VCC

At what frequency is
Vout2 switching? RL RL
+ out -
vout2 = ±IQBDCRL
LO+ Q1 Q2 LO-

vout2 = SW(LO)IQBDCRL
This is feed through from vin + DC QB

LO to output

45
 Common Emitter Mixer
• Port isolation
VCC

How about LO to RF?

RL RL
+ out -
This feed through is
much smaller than LO
LO+ Q1 Q2 LO-
to output

vin + DC QB

46
 Common Emitter Mixer
• Port isolation
VCC

How about RF to LO?

RL RL
+ out -
If LO is generating a
square wave signal, its
LO+ Q1 Q2 LO-
output impedance is
very small, resulting in
small feed through
from RF to LO to vin + DC QB

output.

47
 Common Emitter Mixer
• Port isolation
VCC

What about RF to output?

RL RL
Ideally, contribution to + out -
output is:
SW(LO)*gmvinRL LO+ Q1 Q2 LO-

What can go wrong and

cause an RF component vin + DC QB

at the output?

48
 Common Emitter Mixer

• Noise Components: RL RL
+ out -
1. Noise due to loads
2. Noise due to the LO+ LO-
Q1 Q2
input transistor (QB)
3. Noise due to
switches (Q1 and Q2) QB

49
 Common Emitter Mixer
1. Noise due to loads:
– Each RL contributes
RL RL
vRL2 = 4kTRLf
+ out -
– Since they are
LO+ LO-
uncorrelated with Q1 Q2
each other, their noise
power’s add
– Total contribution of QB
RL’s: voRL2 = 8kTRLf

50
 Common Emitter Mixer
2. Noise due input
transistor (the
transducer): RL RL

– From BJT device + out -

model, equivalent
LO+ LO-
input noise voltage Q1 Q2
of a CE amplifier is:

 1 
v2
in CE  4kT  rb   f QB

 2gm 

51
 Common Emitter Mixer
2. Noise due to input
transistor:
RL RL
– If this is a differential
+ out -
amplifier, QB noise
would be common LO+ LO-
mode Q1 Q2

– But Q1 and Q2 just

switching, the noise just
appears at either QB

terminal of out: v in(CE)

2

gain  v
2 2 2
vout ,QB in CE 
52
 Common Emitter Mixer
2. Noise due to input
transistor:
RL RL
– Noise at the two
+ out -
terminals dependent?
– Accounted for by LO+ LO-
Q1 Q2
incorporating a factor
“n”.

n gain  v
2 2 2 QB
v
out ,QB in CE 
vin(CE) 2
 1 
g m RL 
2
2
v
out ,QB 4nkT  rb   f
 2gm 
53
 Common Emitter Mixer
• Total Noise due to RL
and QB:
RL RL
– If we assume rb is very + out -
small:
LO+ LO-
vT2  g m RL  Q1 Q2
8kTRL  1  
f  4 

When: QB

rb << 1/(2gm) and

n=1

54
 Common Emitter Mixer
3. What about the noise due
to switches?
– When Q2 is off and Q1 is RL RL
on, acting like a cascode or + out -
more like a resister if LO is
strong LO+ LO-
Q1 Q2
– Can show that Q1’s noise
has little effect on vout
– VE1~VC1, VBE1 has similar
QB
noise as VC1, which cause
jitter in the time for Q1 to
turn off if the edges of LO
are not infinitely steep
55
 Common Emitter Mixer
3. What about the noise
due to switches:
RL RL
– Transition time “jitter”
+ out -
in the switching signal:
LO+ LO-
Q1 Q2

QB
no noise
noise

Effect is quite complex, quantitative analysis later 56

 Common Emitter Mixer

• How to improve Noise

Figure of mixer: RL RL
+ out -
– Reduce RL
– Increase gm and LO+
Q1 Q2
LO-

reduce rb of QB
– Faster switches
– Steeper rise or fall QB

edge in LO
– Less jitter in LO
57
 Common Emitter Mixer
• IP3:
– The CE input transistor
(QB) converts vin to Iin RL RL
+ out -
• BJTs cause 3 -order rd

harmonics LO+ LO-

– Multiplying by RL is Q1 Q2

linear operation
– Q1 & Q2 only modulate
QB
the frequency
 IP3mixer = IP3CE’s Vbe->I
(VBB vin ) / vt 1 1 2 1 3
I QB I s e I DC (1  vin  2 vin  3 vin  ...)
vt 2v t 6v t 58
 Double Balanced Mixer
• Basically two CE mixers
– One gets +vin/2, the other gets –vin/2

VCC

RL RL
+ out -

LO+ Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 LO+

LO-

QB1 + vin - QB2

59
 Double Balanced Mixer

VC
+1 C

R R
L L
+ out -
-1
Local Oscillator

LO+ Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 LO+

vout = gmvinRL LO-

QB1 + vin - QB2

vout = – gmvinRL

60
 Double Balanced Mixer
• Benefits:
– Fully Differential
– No output signal at LO
• Three stages:
– CE input stages
– Switches
– Output load

61
 Double Balanced Mixer
• Noise:
– Suppose QB1 & QB2
VCC
give similar total gm
– Similar to CE Mixer RL RL

• IP3: + out -

– Similar Taylor series

expansion of LO+ Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 LO+

transducer transistors LO-

– Vin split between two QB1 + vin - QB2

Q’s, it can double

before reaching the
same level of
nonlinearity
– IIP3 improved by 3 dB
62
 Common Base Mixers
• Similar operation to CE VC C

mixers
RL RL
• Different input stage + out -

– QB is CB LO+ Q1 Q2 LO-

• Slightly different output

noise V Bias QB

– Different CB input noise

vin

• Better linearity
IDC

63
 Mixer Improvements
• Debiasing switches VCC

from input transistors:

– To lower NF we want RL
+ out
RL

high gm, but low Q1 -

and Q2 current LO+ Q1 Q2 LO-

• Conflicting!
I difference
ISwitches
– We can set low ISwitches
and high IQb using a I Qb

current source vin + DC QB

2c  g m RL 
NF 1  2 1  
g m RL RS  4 
64
 MOS Single Balanced Mixer

• The transistor M1 RL RL
converts the RF Vout
voltage signal to the VLO M2 M3  VLO
current signal.
• Transistors M2 and
M3 commute the I DC  I RF
current between the
two branches. VRF M1

65
MOS Single Balanced Mixer

I M1

t

VLO

VOUT

66
MOS Single Balanced Mixer

VOUT

IF Filter

VOUT t

67
 MOS Single Balanced Mixer
IF Filter

 RF  IF

 LO

LO  RF  RF  LO  LO   RF LO  RF

68
 MOS Single Balanced Mixer

RF SMIX

SLO LO

 


LO  RF  RF  LO 2 LO 3 LO

69
 Single Balanced Mixer
(Incl. RF input Impd. Match)
RL RL
Vout
VLO M2 M3  VLO

Cl arg e GM VRF
RS Lg

VS
Rb
Ls
VGG

This architecture, without impedance matching for the LO port, is very

commonly used in many designs.
70
 Single Balanced Mixer
(Incl. RF & LO Impd. Match)
VGG 2 VGG 2

RL RL
Lg Vout Lg
VLO M2 M3  VLO
Lm2 Lm3

Cl arg e GM VRF
RS Lg

VS Rb
Ls
VGG1

• This architecture, with impedance matching for the LO port,

maximizes LO power utilization without wasting it.
71
 Single Balanced Mixer Analysis: Linearity

RL RL
Vout
VLO M2 M3  VLO

Cl arg e
RS Lg GM VRF

VS
Rb
VGG Ls

• Linearity of the Mixer primarily depends on the linearity of the transducer

(I_tail=Gm*V_rf). Inductor Ls helps improve linearity of the transducer.
• The transducer transistor M1 can be biased in the linear law region to
improve the linearity of the Mixer. Unfortunately this results in increasing
the noise figure of the mixer (as discussed in LNA design).
72
Single Balanced Mixer Analysis: Linearity

RL RL
Vout
VLO M2 M3  VLO

VGG RS

Ibias VS
Cc

• Using the common gate stage as the transducer improves the linearity
of the mixer. Unfortunately the approach reduces the gain and
increases the noise figure of the mixer.

73
Single Balanced Mixer Analysis: Isolation

RL RL
Vout
VLO M2 M3  VLO

LO-RF Feed through 0.5TLO

Cl arg e GM VRF
RS Lg 0.5TLO

VS 0.5TLO  
Rb
Ls
0.5TLO  
VGG

• The strong LO easily feeds through and ends up at the RF port in the
above architecture especially if the LO does not have a 50% duty
cycle. Why?
74
Single Balanced Mixer Analysis: Isolation

VLO M2 M3  VLO

GM VRF
VBB2
Weak LO-RF Feed through
Cl arg e
RS Lg

VS
Rb
Ls
VBB1
• The amplified RF signal from the transducer is passed to the commuting switches
through use of a common gate stage ensuring that the mixer operation is unaffected.
Adding the common gate stage suppresses the LO-RF feed through.

75
Single Balanced Mixer Analysis: Isolation

RL RL
LO-IF Feed through
Vout
VLO M2 M3  VLO

Cl arg e GM VRF
RS Lg

VS
Rb
Ls
VBB1

• The strong LO-IF feed-through may cause the mixer or the amplifier following the
mixer to saturate. It is therefore important to minimize the LO-IF feed-through.

76
 Double Balanced Mixer

RL VOUT RL

VLO M2 M3  VLO M2 M3 VLO

I DC  I RF I DC  I RF
VRF  VRF

• Strong LO-IF feed suppressed by double balanced mixer.

• All the even harmonics cancelled.
• All the odd harmonics doubled (including the signal).

77
 Double Balanced Mixer

RL VOUT RL

Vout Vout
VLO M2 M3  VLO M2 M3 VLO

I DC  I RF I DC  I RF
VRF  VRF

• The LO feed through cancels.

• The output voltage due to RF signal doubles.

78
 Double Balanced Mixer: Linearity

RL VOUT RL

VLO M2 M3  VLO M2 M3 VLO

I DC  I RF I DC  I RF
VRF M1 M1  VRF

• Show that:

 K 
1/ 2
1  K 
3/ 2

 8 I DC
VIF 2 I DC RL  SQ
* V  . SQ
V 3
 ... IIP3 in  volts 
 RF   RF  3K SQ
2 I 2 2 I
 DC 
  DC  
 79
 Mixer Input Match
1
RS Rg  T LS   Lg  Ls  
 Cgs

RL RL
Vout
M2 M3
VLO  VLO

Cl arg e
RS Lg

VS
Rb
Ls
VBB1

80
 Mixer Gain

RL RL
Vout
M2 M3
VLO  VLO

I sig GM VRF GM ARF cos  RF t

VRF M1
1  T 
GM   
2 RS   
TLO
0 : Vout  Vcc   I DC  I sig .RL   Vcc    I DC  I sig .RL
2
TLO
 TLO : Vout Vcc    Vcc   I DC  I sig .RL   I DC  I sig .RL
2
4 1 1 1 
Vout  sig I sig RL * SW I sig RL  cos  t  cos 3 t  cos 5 t  cos 7 LO t  
81
LO LO LO
 3 5 7
 Mixer Output Match
• Heterodyne Mixer:
– If IF frequency is low (100-200MHz) and signal
bandwidth is high (many MHz), output impedance
matching is difficult due to:
– The signal bandwidth is comparable to the IF frequency
therefore the impedance matching would create gain
and phase distortions
– Need large inductors and capacitors to impedance
match at 200MHz

82
Mixer Output Match (IF)
400

L par 2nH
VCC 3.0V
RL 400
Vout
M2 M3
VLO  VLO

VRF M1

83
 Mixer Output Match (direct conversion)

RL CL RL

M2 Vout M3
VLO  VLO

Cl arg e
RS Lg

VS
Rb
Ls
VBB1

84
 Mixer Noise Analysis
Instantaneous Switching
RL RL
Vout
M2 M3 VOUT
VLO  VLO
t

I DC ,mix  I RF  I Noise

VRF M1

 
Noise in RF signal band and
in image band both mixed  LO   RF  RF  LO  LO   RF
into IF signal band
85
 Mixer Noise Analysis

Finite Switching Time

RL RL
Vout
M2 M3 VOUT
VLO  VLO
t

I DC ,mix  I RF  I Noise

VRF M1

• If the switching is not instantaneous, additional noise from the switching pair
will be added to the mixer output.
• Let us examine this in more detail.

86
 Mixer Noise Analysis
• Noise analysis of a single balanced mixer cont...:

Finite Switching Time

RL RL
Vout
M 2  on M 3  off VOUT
VLO  VLO
t

I DC ,mix  I RF  I Noise

VRF M1

• When M2 is on and M3 is off:

– M2 does not contribute any additional noise (M2 acts as
cascode)
– M3 does not contribute any additional noise (M3 is off)
87
 Mixer Noise Analysis
• Noise analysis of a single balanced mixer cont...:

Finite Switching Time

RL RL
Vout
M 2  off M 3  on VOUT
VLO  VLO
t

I DC ,mix  I RF  I Noise

VRF M1

• When M2 is off and M3 is on:

– M2 does not contribute any additional noise (M2 is off)
– M3 does not contribute any additional noise (M3 acts as
cascode)
88
 Mixer Noise Analysis
• Noise analysis of a single balanced mixer cont...:

RL RL
Finite Switching Time
Vout
M 2  on M 3  on
VLO  VLO VOUT

t
I DC ,mix  I RF  I Noise
VRF M1

• When VLO+ = VLO- (i.e. the LO is passing through zero), the noise
contribution from the transducer (M1) is zero. Why?
• However, the noise contributed from M2 and M3 is not zero
because both transistors are conducting and the noise in M2
and M3 are uncorrelated.
89
 Mixer Noise Analysis
• Optimizing the mixer (for noise figure):
Trise

RL RL
Vout VOUT
M 2  on M 3  on
VLO  VLO t

I DC ,mix  I RF  I Noise
g m  W ... fixed  I DC
VRF M1 1
T  ... fixed  I DC
W
• Design the transducer for minimum noise figure.
• Noise from M2, M3 minimized by fast switching :
– making LO amplitude large
– making M2 and M3 short (i.e. increasing fT of M2 and M3)
• Noise from M2, M3 can be minimized by using wide M2/M3 switches.

90
 Mixer Noise Analysis
• Noise Figure Calculation:
Trise
RL RL
Vout
VOUT
M 2  on M 3  on
VLO  VLO
t

I DC ,mix  I RF  I Noise
VRF M1

• Let us calculate the noise figure including the contribution

of M2/M3 during the switching process.

91
 Mixer Noise Analysis: RL Noise
• Noise Analysis of Heterodyne Mixer (RL noise):

RL RL
Vout
 RL 4kT 2 RL 
M2 M3 2
vnoise
VLO  VLO

I DC ,mix  I RF  I Noise

VRF M1  IF  RF  LO

92
Mixer Noise Analysis: Transducer Noise
• Noise Analysis of Heterodyne Mixer (Transducer noise):

RL RL
Vout
M2 M3
VLO  VLO VLO

t
I DC ,mix  I RF  I Noise

VRF M1

inoise  M 1 switch inoise  M 1 t .SW t 

4 4 4 
inoise  M 1 t .  Cos  LO t  Cos  3 LO t  Cos  5 LOt   ... 
 3 5 

93
 Mixer Noise Analysis: Transducer Noise
• Noise Analysis of Heterodyne Mixer (Trans-conductor noise):
inoise  M 1 switch inoise  M 1 t .SW t 
4 4 4 
inoise  M 1 t .  Cos  LO t  Cos  3 LO t  Cos  5 LOt   ... 
 3 5 

     

 IF  LO 3 LO 5 LO
2
4kT  4  1 1 
2
i
noise  M 1  f  . .4kTg m1 inoise  M 1  IF  2.  
2
.  1  2  2  .. . 4kTg m1
Rch    3 5 
4 4
SW  f     LO    3 LO   ...
 M 1  IF  4. 4kTg m1
2
 3 inoise
94
 Mixer Noise Analysis: Switch Noise
• Noise Analysis of Heterodyne Mixer (switch noise):
4 kT
id     4 kTgm
Rch

VLO M 2  on id 2 id 3 M 3  on  VLO

4kT
vgn  .
gm
 
gm vgs id gm vgs

95
 Mixer Noise Analysis: Switch Noise
• Noise Analysis of Heterodyne Mixer (switch noise):
iout   iout 
RL RL
Vout
M2 M3
VLO  VLO VLO

I DC ,mix  I RF  I Noise

VRF M1 Gm
Gm 0

VLO
• Show that:
2.I DC ,mix
Gm  g m 2  g m 3  g m 2,3 
V
96
 Mixer Noise Analysis: Switch Noise
• Noise Analysis of Heterodyne Mixer (switch noise) cont...:
VLO
vn  m 2,3

TLO
2

Gm
T

iout t  Gm t .vn  m 2,3 t 

iout

97
 Mixer Noise Analysis: Switch Noise
• Noise Analysis of Heterodyne Mixer (switch noise) cont...:
TLO  2 
2
 p  
Gm f T /
 LO 2
Gm t
T

 p 2 p 3 p
 T  p 
Sin  k. 
 T  1 
 2 
Gm t  Gm 0 .   T  T .Gm 0 . .2Cos k pt 
 LO   LO  k 1
T / 2   T  p 
   k . 
 2   2 
vn  m 2,3  vn2 m 2  vn2 m 3 4kT
vn  m 2,3  2..
vn  m 2,3  f  g m 2,3

p 2 p 3 p
98
 Mixer Noise Analysis: Switch Noise
• Noise Analysis of Heterodyne Mixer (switch noise) cont...:

Gm f
vn  m 2,3  f 

 p 2 p 3 p

Gm f
vn  m 2,3  f 

 p 2 p 3 p
1
 M 2,3  IF  
2
inoise .Gm2 0 .T .vn2 m 2,3
 TLO 
 
 2 
99
 Mixer Noise Analysis: Switch Noise
• Noise Analysis of Heterodyne Mixer (switch noise) cont...:
1 2.I DC ,mix
 M 2,3  IF  
2
inoise .Gm2 0 .T .vn2 m 2,3 G  g  g  g
 TLO  m m2 m3 m 2,3 
  V
2 I DC ,mix  2 
Gm 0  V Slope. T VLO t   ALO Cos  LO t 
V
 dV t   4kT
Slope  t 90  LO   ALO LO vn  m 2,3  2..
LO
 dt   LO t 90 g m 2,3
1 1  4kT 
inoise  M 2,3  IF  
2 2 2
.Gm 0 .T .vn  m 2,3  .Gm 0 .T .  2..
2

TLO / 2 TLO / 2  g
 m 2,3 

1 1 2.I DC ,mix
 .Gm 0 .T . 2..4kT   . .T . 2..4kT 
TLO / 2 TLO / 2 V
2 I DC ,mix T 2 I DC ,mix 1
 . 2..4kT .  . 2..4kT .
TLO / 2 V TLO / 2 ALO LO
 I DC ,mix 
4. 4kT   Total Noise Contribution due to switches M2 and M3
  A LO 

100
 Mixer Noise Analysis: Total Noise
• Noise Analysis of Heterodyne Mixer (total noise):
dI DS  short 1 I
v 2
4kT 2 RL  g m  short   WCox vsat  DS  short
noise  RL
dVGS 2 VGSQ  VT 0 
I DC ,mix
i2
 IF  4. 4kTg m1 4. 4kT .
noise  M 1
V GSQ  VT 0 
 I DC ,mix 
 M 2,3  IF 
 
2
inoise 4. 4 kT  
  A LO 

 MIX  IF  vnoise  RL  RL inoise  M 1  RL inoise  M 2,3

2 2 2 2 2 2
vnoise


 I DC ,mix I DC ,mix 

v2
 IF 
 4 kTRL 1  4.. .R  4.. . R L
noise  MIX

  GSQ T 0 
V  V
L
 A LO 


101
 Mixer Noise Analysis: Total Noise
• Noise Analysis of Heterodyne Mixer (total noise):

 I DC ,mix I DC ,mix 

v2
 IF 
 4 kTRL 1  4.. .R  4.. . R L
noise  MIX

  GSQ T 0 
V  V
L
 A LO 


(VGSQ-VT0) ↑  M1 linearity ↑ and noise↓

ALO ↑  noise contribution from M2/M3 ↓

VGSQ 0.8V
VGSQ 1.6V
 MIX  IF 
2
vnoise

VLO

102
 Homodyne Mixer Noise Analysis: Transducer Noise

• Noise Analysis of Homodyne Mixer (noise from transducer M1):

RL RL
Vout
M2 M3
VLO  VLO

I DC ,mix  I RF  I Noise 

VRF M1
 LO
 RF

103
 Homodyne Mixer Noise Analysis: RL Noise
• Noise Analysis of Homodyne Mixer (noise from RL):

RL RL
Noise from RL
Vout
M2 M3
VLO  VLO

I DC ,mix  I RF  I Noise 

VRF M1
 LO
 RF

104
 Homodyne Mixer Noise Analysis: non-50% duty LO
• Noise Analysis of Homodyne Mixer (M2,M3 mismatched or non-50% duty
cycle of LO)}: TLO TLO
 T  T
2 2
RL RL VLO
Vout
M2 M3
VLO  VLO t

VRF M1

4 4
I M 1    DC  Cos  LO t  

Cos 3 LO t   ... 
  3 

105
 Homodyne Mixer Noise Analysis: non-50% duty LO
• Noise Analysis of Homodyne Mixer (M2,M3 mismatched or non-50% duty
cycle of LO)--{Noise from M1}:

RL RL
Vout
M2 M3 I Noise  1/ f I Noise  thermal
VLO  VLO I Noise  M1

VRF M1

I DC , mix  I RF  I Noise  thermal  I Noise  1/ f 

106
 Homodyne Mixer Noise Analysis: non-50% duty LO
• Noise Analysis of Homodyne Mixer (M2,M3 mismatched or non-50% duty
cycle of LO)--{Noise from M1}:

DC-term of LO
RL RL
Vout
M2 M3
VLO  VLO


VRF M1
 LO 3 LO
 RF

 4 4 
 DC ,mix RF Noise thermal Noise 1/ f  
I  I  I  I . DC 

Cos  LO t  
3
Cos 3 LO t   ... 


107
 Homodyne Mixer Noise Analysis: non-50% duty LO
• Noise Analysis of Homodyne Mixer (M2,M3 mismatched or non-50% duty
cycle of LO)--{Noise from M2/M3}:
id id  thermal  id  1/ f

VLO M 2  on id 2 id 3 M 3  on  VLO

Kf 1
vgn  1/ f  .
Kf 1
2
CoxWL f
id  1/ f  .g . m
CoxWL f
 
gm vgs gm vgs

108
 Homodyne Mixer Noise Analysis: non-50% duty LO
• Noise Analysis of Homodyne Mixer (M2,M3 mismatched or non-50% duty
cycle of LO)--{Noise from M2/M3}:

RL RL
vgn  1/ f
Vout
VLO   M2 M3
 VLO

I DC , mix  I RF  I Noise  thermal  I Noise  1/ f 

vgn  1/ f
VLO

109
 Homodyne Mixer Noise Analysis: non-50% duty LO
• Noise Analysis of Homodyne Mixer (M2,M3 mismatched or non-50% duty
cycle of LO)--{Noise from M2/M3}:

vgn  1/ f
VLO

iout

iout iout  no  noise  inoise  1/ f

110
 Homodyne Mixer Noise Analysis: non-50% duty LO
• Noise Analysis of Homodyne Mixer (M2,M3 mismatched or non-50% duty
cycle of LO)--{Noise from M2/M3}: vgn  1/ f VLO

iout

T
iout iout  no  noise  inoise  1/ f
v t  Slope 2 A  vgn  1/ f t 
T t   gn  1/ f LO LO T t  
Slope 2 ALO LO
iout

111
 Homodyne Mixer Noise Analysis: non-50% duty LO
• Noise Analysis of Homodyne Mixer (M2,M3 mismatched or non-50% duty
cycle of LO)--{Noise from M2/M3}:

  TLO   vgn  1/ f t  
  TLO  
Noise  Energy T t .I DC ,max .   t  k    .I DC ,max 
.   t  k  
  2   2 A    2 
vgn  1/ f  f  k 0 LO LO k 0

 inoise  1/ f  .I DC ,max
2 ALO
vgn  1/ f  f 
vgn  1/ f t 

t 1 f

I DC ,mix 0.5TLO
iout
0.5TLO t f
1
 I DC ,mix 0.5TLO
iout
t f

112
Increasing Headroom in DBM (Option 1)

Vb
Rb Q2 1 Q2 2 Rb Q2'  2 Q2'  1

Vin Cc Cc Vin
VLO  VLO 
Vgnd

Q1 Vcc Q1'

Le Vgdcom Le

L par 2nH
113
 Increasing Headroom in DBM (Option 2)

VCC 3.0V

Vgg
RL RL

RL 200
Rb Rb Rb ' ' Rb
Vb Q2 1 Q2 2 Q2 2 Q2 1 Vb
Vb
I BQ I BQ
RS 200
VS Q1 Cc Cc Q ' VS
1
Vin Lb VLO  VLO  Lb Vin
C 10nF C 10nF
Le Vgdcom Le

Lpar 2nH
114
 Increasing Headroom in DBM (Option 3)

VCC 3.0V

Vgg
RL RL

RL 200
Rb Rb Rb ' ' Rb
Vb Q2 1 Q2 2 Q2 2 Q2 1 Vb
Vb
I BQ I BQ
RS 200
VS Q1 Cc Cc Q ' VS
1
Vin Lb VLO  VLO  Lb Vin
C 10nF C 10nF
Le Vgdcom Le

Lpar 2nH
115