[help] Low IF v.s. DLIF: which is suitable for GPS?

This is for the concern of frequency planning.

More detail? thanks

Sometimes (depend by the final application) is still used dual conversion, to optimize reception when is integrated in mobile phones.
http://www.betheltronix.com/products/gps/bt1575.pdf

Because the operation freq. of 802.11a is close to twice the op freq. of 802.11b/g. It is possible to use one LO to down convert 802.11a onto the band of 802.11b/g, then down convert to low-IF baseband. When operating at 802.11b/g, just bypass the 1st down converter.

That means if i design a GPS, there is no reason to use double low IF, right?
Thanks

Low-IF is certainly a reasonable choice. However, the zero-IF topology is also suitable for GPS receivers.
The choice of receiver topology should also reflect your own design preference.
(Allow me to use an example: Low-IF receiver topology is generally considered to be best suited for Bluetooth. However, you do also find many excellent zero-IF Bluetooth receivers because they are well designed.)

Good luck!

All the best

Thanks. But I mean DOUBLE low IF (for GPS), is it necessary (double)?

My point was that low-IF would be adequate for the GPS receiver, but you should also consider zero-IF as well.

You can find quite a few GPS receiver designs in the open literature.

All the best

Thanks. I prefer Low IF, zero-IF has the difficulty of filtering out the flicker noise and dc offset. I think double low IF is not necessary. Any suggestion?

I read some papers these days about the GPS radio, some of them use LIF and others use DLIF.

Added after 5 minutes:

Among them DLIF is mainly for image rejection purpose while LIF use Polyphase filter to do the job.

hi
see the following link

https://www.edaboard.com/viewtopic.php?p=978273#978273