Talk:IQ imbalance

This article needs the attention of an expert. I'm relatively new at this or I'd volunteer. Some low-hanging fruit, in case someone who's not currently at work (like I am) wants to put in some time on the article, but is not themselves an expert, would be to make sure that acronyms are expanded/wikified on first use, but not repeatedly thereafter, and just generally proofread the article for style/usage. Also, I completely agree with the poster below. This is a major issue in radio engineering and should be covered in Wikipedia somewhere, consonant with Wikipedia's generally comprehensive coverage of physics/engineering. However, I'm agnostic about whether it should have its own article or be merged into something else.50.58.96.2 (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because...

it's about one of 2 major problem during RF conversion, I knew the content is not enough,so I put the formula to explain how it happened. if you come to IQ imbalance again, you'll see the full explaination. hope i could keep the page

best regard, kcy781105 --Kcy781105 (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

IQ imbalance also present in some heterodyne receivers

Some heterodyne receivers also use a complex analog mixer, and are thereby contaminated with IQ imbalance. This happens for example in modern low-IF receivers, where usually the A-D conversion is performed between the two mixers (the second mixer being fully digital). This radio architecture allows the IF position of the wanted channel to be far enough away from DC so as to avoid any DC-offset or 1/f noise problems. The IQ correction is, as usual, performed in the digital domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.255.246.230 (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Text formatting

I feel like using the math formatting for things like ${\texttt {I}}{\texttt {Q}}$ for IQ and 90° is a bit much. I've never seen an article written in this way, and it makes copying text impossible! Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter or object to reformatting it with normal text? For now I'm going to apply the copy edit template. —— Jonathan FarnhamJ 12:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it doesn't accomplish anything and is distracting when reading the article. 80.220.64.120 (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. As a first step I suggest we

• treat the phrase IQ balance as simply the English name of the topic, and put it into normal type throughout.
• keep ${\texttt {I}}$ and ${\texttt {Q}}$ in this format only if they're being used as mathematical symbols.
• treat numerals as ordinary text unless they're part of a formula or referring to a formula.

The point of the styling of ${\texttt {I}}$ and ${\texttt {Q}}$ is presumably that in an electronics context, $I$ and $Q$ normally represent current and charge and are used constantly. So there is a point to the formatting when they're used mathematically. But I can't imagine any publisher agreeing to style them like that when just being used as ordinary letters in an English phrase. Also the styling is so unusual that it probably needs to be explained in the article. Musiconeologist (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've had a look at the three online papers: none of them uses this styling, and the one which does make extensive use of I and Q uses $I$ and $Q$ for the mathematical symbols. Musiconeologist (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Further update: I've now put 90° and IQ balance into normal type throughout. Looking at the result, I think ${\texttt {I}}$ and ${\texttt {Q}}$ probably ought to become $I$ and $Q$ as well, though that raises the daunting prospect of changing them within the formulae, where they're used as subscripts . . . Musiconeologist (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Final update (I hope): I believe I have finally fixed this, including the occurrences of ${\texttt {I}}$ and ${\texttt {Q}}$ in the formulae. It's not a task I hope ever to do again. Apologies for the 2-year hiatus.Musiconeologist (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)