• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 8 subscribers
  • Views 1868 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

CC1101, CC1120, CC1190 - What to use?

Mikael Hygren
Intellectual 260 points
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CC1101, CC1120, CC1190, SMARTRFTM-STUDIO

Hello!

I am currently working on a new design for a customer and are developing a radio transciever unit. The unit is supposed to be able to transmit and recieve data with at least 57,6 kHz and the line of sight range requirement is 1000m. We have development kits of the CC1120 transciever and are quite happy with the test results. There is an existing solution today that uses the CC1101 transciever in combination with the CC1190 range extender but this solution is too sensitive to interference and the customer does not use the wireless module because of that.

So my question is if the CC1120 transciever will be better and more insensitive to interference compared to the CC1101? Or what is the main differences between the CC1101 and the CC1120 transcievers?

I also wonder if the CC1190 range extender can make the solution more sensitive to interference? The range of the CC1120 transciever is fine without the CC1190 so is there a reason to use the range extender?

Hopefully someone can help me.

/ Mikael

  • 0
    TI__Guru**** 317180 points

    CC1120 has far better blocking performance that CC1101. For CC1120+CC1190 it is possible to reach up to 27dBm output power and better sensitivity than a CC1101 based design.

    For which frequency band are you developing for? Which interferer frequencies are a problem with the existing design? Does the CC1101+CC1190 contain a SAW filter? 

    If a SAW filter is used in the existing design the SAW filter will attenuate signals outside the passband with >50dB dependent on the filter and the frequency offset. This makes a difference if the interferer frequencies are some MHz away and you compare CC1101+CC1190 with SAW filter against CC1120.

  • 0 in reply to TER
    Intellectual 260 points

    Thank you for your answer!

    The tests we have conducted today shows that the CC1120 is a lot better than the CC1101 and seems very promising.

    This design is for several different frequencies since the customer wants the transciever to be operate in as many countries as possible in the world. I am not sure what interferer frequencies that are causing problems but the customer said that the existing solution with the CC1101 was not reliable in environments with for example wireless microphones and such.

    As far as the SAW filter goes I have no idea if the solution today implements a SAW filter and neither does the customer.

    I am also wondering about the different frequency settings for the CC1120. How easy is it to use different frequencies? Is it programmable for all different frequency bands or just some or not at all?

  • 0 in reply to Mikael Hygren
    TI__Guru**** 317180 points

    You didn't say anything about which frequencies your customer want to operate on. Note that 433MHz and 868MHz require different filter/match and different antenna but 868MHz and 915MHz is possible to use on the same hardware.

    From a software standpoint it is easy to set CC1120 to the wanted frequency. You need to set 4 registers:

    FREQ2, FREQ1, FREQ0 and FS_CFG.FSD_BANDSELECT where the last one defines the frequency band. The easiest is to use SmartRF Studio (http://www.ti.com/tool/smartrftm-studio) to calculate these for you.

  • 0 in reply to TER
    Intellectual 260 points

    Thank you for your answer. We are now going for a solution where we are implementing two different filters and two different antennas for the CC1120. One filter for the 433 MHz band and one filter for the 868/915 MHz band. Thank you for your help!