IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. ASSP-33, NO.

6, DECEMBER 1985 1417

The Intermodulation and Distortion due to
Quantization of Sinusoids
NELSON M. BLACHMAN, FELLOW, IEEE
Abstract-The Fourier series representation of the quantization er-
ror sawtooth yields exact expressions and convenient approximations
for all intermodulation (IM) and distortion components produced by
quantization of the sum of two sinusoids whose respective amplitudes
are A and a. The mean-squared values of the IM components are also
calculated in the case where A and a fluctuate over several quantization
steps. When A and a are many times the quantization-step size Q, these
mean-squared values turn out to be approximately Q4/(180 **Aa) ex-
cept for high-order IM. The quantization is generally assumed to be
uniform, but nonuniform quantization is also discussed. The case of A
>>Q and a <<Q is considered as well as that of a =0. The inclusion
of even a small amount of additive noise in the input, however, is found
to reduce the IM and distortion to undetectable levels, thus ensuring
that IM cannot be mistaken for an imput signal unless, contrary to
assumption, the quantization staircase is curved, i.e., the quantization
is nonlinear. Hence, not many quantization bits are needed in order to
avoid IM problems.
S
I. INTRODUCTION
INCE digital signal processing involves quantization,
and since the quantization staircase (Fig. 1) is a mem-
oryless nonlinearity, a single sinusoidal input suffers har-
monic distortion, and intermodulation products arise when
the input is the sum of two or more sinusoids. A previous
paper [l ] investigated the intermodulation problem, con-
centrating on the case in which the amplitude of one input
sinusoid is much less than the quantization-step size. Abu-
elmaatti [2] has recently made use of the Fourier series
for the quantization error to obtain other expressions for
the intermodulation products that illuminate their behav-
ior as functions of the two input amplitudes, emphasizing
the case where one amplitude is large and the other is
small.
The present paper employs Abuelmaattis approach to
study the intermodulation (IM) when both input ampli-
tudes well exceed the quantization-step size and may fluc-
tuate on account of modulation or fading. As a preparation
for the two-input case, Section I1 treats the case of a single
input sinusoid and includes some consideration of non-
uniform quantization.
Section I11takes up the two-input case, obtaining simple
approximations for the IM amplitudes when the input am-
plitudes are large and determining the effective number of
Manuscript received J anuary 28, 1984; revised February 18, 1985 and
J uly 15, 1985. This work was done at the GTE Sylvania Government sys-
tems Corporation.
The author is with the Naval Research Laboratory (7591), Washington,
DC 20375 on a one-year leave of absence from the Western Division, GTE
Sylvania Government Systems Corporation, P.O. Box 7188-6209, Mountain
View, CA 94039.
IM products. To establish the relationship to earlier re-
sults, attention is also given to the case in which one input
amplitude is very small. Finally, Section IV discusses the
effect of additive input noise on the IM.
To simplify our equations, we may suppose that input
and output voltages are expressed in units of quantization
steps. Thus, the quantization-step size (the significance of
the least significant bit) is represented by unity. The quan-
tization staircase y(x) of Fig. l(a) is seen to be the sum of
the ideal ramp y =x , plus an unsymmetrical periodic saw-
tooth [Fig. l(c)], which can be expressed as a Fourier se-
ries [3]; thus
O31
y(x) =x +C - sin 2nnx
n =l n p
=x +Im [ 5 ej2*x] , (1)
n =l nIr
If the unit jumps of y(x) occur half way between integer
values of x, as in Fig. l(b), instead of at integer vaIues,
as in Fig. l(a), the only change needed in (1) and in sub-
sequent equations is the insertion of the factor (- 1) in
the summands on account of the half-period shift in the
error sawtooth [Fig. l(d)]; for weak inputs ( ( x ( <4) the
output is then zero instead of 4 sgn x, like that of a hard
limiter. Although the imaginary-exponential form on the
right in (1) is not needed when the input x(t) is a single
sinusoid, it facilitates the analysis of the case of two or
more input sinusoids.
11. SINGLE INPUT SINUSOID
Making use of the fact that
m
e jzsinfl - - Jp(z)ejpe and J-,,(z) =(- 1>JP(Z),
p =--m
(2)
x(t) =A( t ) sin +(t) (3)
we find that,when the input is
with +(t) =2nFt +*(t ), the output is
y =A sin ++Im
m
=C A,, sin p a , (4)
p = l
where
0096-3518/85/1200-1417$01.00 0 1985 IEEE
1418 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. ASSP-33. NO. 6, DECEMBER 1985
Y
Y
Y
ic ) id)
Fig. 1. (a) Quantization staircase with a riser at the origin. (b) Quantiza-
tion staircase with a tread centered at the origin. (c) Resolution of the
first staircase into an ideal ramp and the sawtooth quantization error. id)
The same for the second.
2 A. Large Input Amplitude
A~ % I A +n = l - ?la J~( 2nPA) for Odd p ( 1 When A >>1, we can use [2] the asymptotic expression
and AP =0 for evenp is the amplitude of thepth-harmonic
J , ( ~ ) & cos for >> +1
output component; S,, 0 for p #q, and 6,, 1. The
odd symmetry of the quantization staircase results in the (8)
generation of only odd harmonics. for the Bessel function in ( 5) to obtain for odd p
The expression ( 5) for A, is similar to one of the forms
found by Bennett [4]. Apart from a sign convention, A,(A)
is the pth-order Chebyshev transform [SI of the quantiza- 7r 4 n =l
tion staircase y(x) and, as the pth Fourier-series sine coef-
ficient of y(A sin a)? can be expressed as =6PlA +(- 1)(,- I* h(A)l &
~ I n-3!2
m
for A >>p, p odd
A (A) =(- l)(P- I )/* -
P 3- ST* , -7/2 y(A cos 0) cos p0 d8. (6)
where
Applying the Poisson summation formula to ( 5) or putting
A cos 0 =x in (6) and integrating by parts, for A >0 we
get
(7)
where [A] is the largest integer not exceeding A, and
UP - ](cos 0) =(sin p0)/sin 0 is the Chebyshev polynomial
of the second kind, e.g., U&) =1, U2(z) =4z2 - 1,
U4(z) =16z4 - 12z2 +1. Equation (7) is similar to an-
other of Bennetts expressions [4] and is easily used when
A is not too large. Fig. 2(a) shows A, as a function of A,
and Table I gives values of f i times 41 - A, - A3, A5,
-A,, A9, and - Al J .
is a periodic function of A with unit period, i.e., a func-
tion of { A ) =A - [ A] , the fractional part of A. Since this
infinite series converges only slowly, h(A) is not readily
evaluated from (10). However, by applying to (7) the terms
of the Euler summation formula [l ] involving the sum-
mand and its derivative as well as its integral, taking sin-
(1 - z) E 43- - & - z&/12, and giving Up- , ( k/ A)
the value Up-l (f 1) =p [which cancels the p in the de-
nominator of (7)] because AP comes mainly from the terms
of (7) with k near f A when A >>1, we obtain the very
good approximation
h(A) =- JqTj -
4 16{A}2 +20{ A} +5
3 P J20+2
7 (11)
P
BLACHMAN: IM AND DISTORTION FROM QUANTIZATION OF SINUSOIDS 1419
4
h(A)
A
0.2 -
-0.2 r
-0.3 -
-0.4 -
(a) (b)
Fig. 2. (a) The fundamental output amplitude A , as a function of the am-
plitude A of a single input sinusoid. (b) h ( A) as a function of the frac-
tional part { A } of A . For odd p <<A , h ( A) approximates &(A, - A)
and (- l ) ( p- I) &A 1
which is shown in Fig. 2(b). The first term on the right
here comes directly from the first and last terms of (7),
which were excluded from the Euler summation process
because of their singularities.
As a check on the approximation (11) (Table I), we may
notice that the value of h(A) [defined by (lo)], when av-
eraged (integrated) over one period, is zero, while the av-
erage (integral) of the right-hand side of (11) is (&/157r)
(41 - 29 A) =-0.00037. It is interesting to note that
41/29 is the best rational approximation to & with a de-
nominator less than 70, as obtained by truncating the sim-
ple continued fraction
For A >>p, h(A)l& thus fairly accurately describes the
scallops of Al(A) seen in Fig. 2(a), and, in general, for
oddp >1, we have A, =( - l ) ( p- ) 2h( A) / &.
B. Fluctuating I nput Amplitude
As the fractional part {A} of the input amplitude A >>
p fluctuates because of modulation or fading, the magni-
tude of A,, for odd p >1 thus varies between zero (when
{ A } is 0.0668 or 0.6566) and a maximum of approxi-
mately 0.3751/& (when {A} =0). If this fluctuation of
A causes ( A} to be uniformly distributed between 0 and
1, the resulting average value of h(A) and, hence, of A, is
zero, while that of h2(A) is (2/7r4)r(3), where l(3) =1 +
2-3 i 3-3 +4-3 +- * * =1.202 is the Riemann zeta
function, since, on squaring (10) and averaging we get &
from the square of each sine and nothing from crossprod-
ucts. Hence, the rms value of A, for A >>p >1 is 0.157/
&, and the average power in the pth-harmonic output is
half the square of this quantity, 0.01234/A.
To determine the average power of the higher harmonics
forp H A, we observe that all harmonic-distortion com-
ponents come from the sawtooth quantization error y(x) -
x, which, forx =A sin (27rFt i 9) with A >>1, becomes
a slowly frequency-modulated sawtooth waveform (with
successive teeth having nearly the same duration). Its fun-
damental frequency varies from zero (when the input si-
nusoid is at one of its peaks and is thus changing only
slowly) up to 27rFA teeth per second (when x is passing
through zero and is changing most rapidly). Thus, the
fundamental component of the sawtooth (the n =1 term)
yields odd harmonics up to about the (27rA)th multiple of
the input frequency, while the weaker higher-frequency ( n
>1) components contribute a small amount of harmonic
output at frequencies higher than 27rAF. Ignoring the lat-
ter, we see that there are effectively about TA output har-
monics-all of them of odd order.
Because the error y(x) - x is uniformly distributed be-
tween --; and when A >>l, with mean-squared value
the sum of the powers (mean-squared values) of all of
the harmonic-distortion components must be A. Dividing
by nA, we see that the average power of such a component
is 1/(127rA) =O.O2653/A. This exceeds the value 0.01234/
A found above for p <<A because (8) underestimates the
order of magnitude of J,,(z) for p comparable with but less
than z >>1 inasmuch as the input sinusoid spends a larger
proportion of the time changing at rates near k27rFA
quantization steps per second than at rates nearer zero.
According to Woodwards theorem [6], [ 191 , the power
1
1420 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. ASSP-33. NO. 6, DECEMBER 1985
0. 1
0. 2
0. 3
0.4
0. 5
0. 6
0. 7
0.8
0. 9
1.0
1.1
1. 2
1. 3
1. 4
1.5
1. 6
1.7
1.8
1. 9
2.0
3. 1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3. 7
3. 8
3. 9
4.0
7. 1
7. 2
7. 3
7. 4
7. 5
7. 6
7. 8
7. 7
7. 9
8. 0
15. 1
15. 2
15. 3
15.4
15. 5
15. 6
15.7
15. 8
15. 9
16.0
0.0572
0.1450
0.1677
0.1522
0.1093
-0.0379
0.0448
-0.1364
- 0.2491
-0.3745
0.0572
0.1450
0.1677
0.1522
0.1093
0.0448
- 0.0379
- 0.1364
- 0.2491
- 0.3745
0.0572
0.1450
0.1677
0.1522
0.1093
0.0448
- 0.0379
- 0,1364
- 0.2491
- 0.3745
0.0572
0.1450
0.1677
0.1522
0.1093
-0.0379
0.0448
- 0.1364
- 0.2491
- 0.3745
0.0572
0.1450
0.1677
0.1522
0.1093
0.0448
- 0.0379
- 0,1364
- 0.2491
- 0.3745
0.1697
0.1844
0.1953
0.1497
0.0966
0.0284
-0.0530
- 0.1461
-0.2499
-0.3634
0.0703
0.1538
0.1712
0.1511
0.1049
0.0386
-0.0440
- 0.1405
- 0.2492
-0.3687
0.0623
0.1486
0.1693
0.1519
0.1076
0.0422
- 0.0406
- 0.1382
- 0.2490
- 0.3715
0.0598
0.1469
0.1686
0.1522
0.1087
0.0437
- 0.0391
- 0.1372
- 0.2489
- 0.3729
0.0588
0.1462
0.1684
0.1524
0.1092
0.0444
- 0.0384
- 0.1367
- 0.2489
- 0.3736
- 0.0671
- 0.0949
- 0.1162
-0.1342
- 0.1501
- 0.1644
- 0.1775
- 0.1898
- 0.2013
- 0.2122
0.2050
0.2244
0.1807
0.1147
- 0.0327
0.0414
-0.1048
-0.1736
-0.2388
- 0.3001
0.1101
0.1789
0.1780
0.1412
0.0829
- 0.0699
0.0109
- 0.1566
- 0.3390
- 0.2468
0.0806
0.1609
0.1734
0.148;
0.0290
0.0977
- 0.0535
-0.1467
- 0.2485
- 0.3571
0.0686
0.1529
0.1708
0.1506
0.1040
- 0.0455
0.0373
- 0.1415
- 0.2489
- 0.3658
TABLE I
& TIMES THE AMPLITUDES OF THE THI RD TO ELEVENTH HARMONICS CALCULATED FROM (7) WI TH THE
APPROXIMATION (11) TO h( A) FOR A VARI ETY OF VALUES OF THE SI NGLE INPUT AMPLITUDEA FOR THE
QUANTI ZATI ON STAIRCASE OF FIG. l(aj
COMPARISON OF & TIMES THE DEPARTURE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL OUTPUT AMPLITUDE FROM A AND
approx.
A h( A) fi(A,-A) -&A3 V Z A
5 - 6 A 7 &A9 - f i A l l
0.0403 - 0.0288 0.0224 - 0.0183
0.0569 - 0.0407 0.0316 - 0.0259
0.0697 - 0.0498 0.0387 - 0.0317
0.0805
0.0900
0.0986
0 . l o65
0.1139
0.1273
0.1208
0.3573
0.1985
0.0527
- 0.0513
- 0.1167
- 0.1523
-0.1660
- 0.1643
- 0.1517
- 0.1318
0.2019
0.2222
0.1738
0.1014
0.0234
-0.0515
-0.1190
- 0.1773
- 0.2255
- 0.2639
0.1222
0.1859
0.1786
0.1358
0.0731
- 0.0008
- a .0804
- 0.1621
- 0.2435
-0.3228
0.0881
0.1658
0.1747
0.1460
0.0929
-0.0593
0.0229
- 0,1503
- 0.2471
- 0.3496
- 0.0575
- 0.0643
- 0.0704
- 0.0813
- 0.0761
-0.0863
-0.0909
-0.0700
- 0.2626
- 0.3091
- 0.2703
- 0.1973
- 0.1182
- 0.0462
0.0136
0.0601
0.0942
0.2287
0.3037
0.1120
- 0.0753
0.0057
- 0.1289
-0.1577
-0.1658
- 0.1577
- 0.1374
0.1821
0.2144
0.1752
0.1078
0.0312
- 0.0447
- 0.1146
- 0.1755
- 0.2260
- 0.2655
0.1833
0.1174
0.1367
0.1780
0.0749
-0.0789
0.0011
- 0.1613
- 0.2435
- 0.3235
0.0447
0.0500
0.0548
0.0592
0.0633
0.0671
- 0.0243
0.0707
- 0.0539
0.0734
0.1907
0.2529
0.2646
0.2420
0.2003
0.1506
0.3158
0.1000
- 0.0473
0.1166
- 0.1411
- 0.1742
- 0.1646
-0.1290
- 0.0805
- 0.0286
0.0206
0.2512
0.2320
0.1495
- 0.0233
0.0557
- 0.0972
- 0.1747
- 0.1456
-0.1862
- 0.1826
0.1555
0.2030
0.1778
0.1204
0.0486
-0.0276
- 0.1715
-0.1022
-0.2332
- 0.2860
- 0.0366
- 0.0409
-0.0448
-0.0484
- 0.0518
- 0.0549
- 0.0579
- 0.1821
- 0.0433
0.0386
0.0625
- 0.1339
- 0.0465
-0.1970
-0.2300
-0.2366
-0.2236
0.1191
- 0.1351
-0.2456
- 0.2337
- 0.0710
- 0.1612
0.0115
0.0742
0.1135
0.1307
0.3086
0.2164
0.0867
- 0.1017
-0.0245
- 0.1440
- 0.1562
-0.1449
-0.1167
- 0,0780
0.2003
0.2207
0.1698
0.0939
0.0132
- 0.0619
- 0.1262
- 0.1770
- 0.2136
- 0.2363
spectral density of a sinusoid of slowly varying frequency,
e.g., any component ( l l nr) sin [2nrA sin (27rFt +q)] of
the sawtooth, is approximately proportional to the proba-
bility density function of the instantaneous frequency f,
which is here f =2nrAFIcos (2rFt +\E) 1 . When multi-
plied by the power 1/(2n2r2) of this component, the prob-
ability density function off yields n-27r-3(4n2r2A2F2 -
f 2)-12 for f <2nrAF.
Putting f =pF in this approximation to the power spec-
tral density of the nth-harmonic component of the saw-
tooth and multiplying by the spacing 2F between the odd
harmonics of the input frequency F that are generated by
quantization, we get ET l/(n3r4A) for the average of the
power $A; of the pth-harmonic output for p <<2nrA in
agreement with the result obtained from (9) with the co-
sine rereplaced by its rms value, I/&. As p increases to-
ward 2n7rA, the mean-squared value of (2/n7r)J p(2nrA) as
A fluctuates grows to a larger order of magnitude and then
falls sharply toward zero for p >2nrA, as indicated by
the foregoing approximation for the power spectral den-
sity. This sharp drop occurs primarily near p =2rA, as
.the n =1 term is the principal contributor to Ap. In the
neighborhood of p =2n7rA >>1, J J 2nrA) is better ap-
proximated by Airy functions [7], but (X) suffices for the
lower harmonics, which will be our principal interest,
since, when p >>1, Ap sin [2prFt +p\k(t)] will gener-
ally be very wideband.
C. Fractional-Integral Relationship
There is an interesting relationship between the Fourier
series (10) for h(A) and the Fourier series in (1) for the
error sawtooth which can be expressed in terms of the Weyl
integral of order $ [X]. To understand it we need only to
observe that
(&LIZ) cos (cz +0) =cm cos (cz +I3 +i mr) (12)
when m is any nonnegative integer and can be interpreted
as a (-m)fold integral when m is a negative integer. The
usual rules regarding successive differentiations and in-
tegrations remain valid when (12) is extended to all values
of m and, in particular, to m =-$. We thus see that h(A)
BLACHMAN: IM AND DISTORTION FROM QUANTIZATION OF SINUSOIDS
142 1
TABLE I (Continued)
31. 1
31.2
31.3
31.4
31.5
31.7
31.6
31.8
31.9
32.0
63. 1
63.2
63.3
63.4
63.5
63.6
63.7
63.9
63. 8
64.0
127. 1
127.2
127.3
127.4
127. 5
127. 6
127.7
127.8
127.9
128.0
255.1
255.2
255.3
255.4
255.5
255.6
255.7
255.8
255.9
256.0
511.1
511.2
511.3
511.4
511.5
511.6
511.7
511.8
511.9
512 . O
0.1677
0.1522
0.1093
0.0448
-0.0379
- 0.1364
- 0.2491
- 0.3745
0.0572
0.1677
0.1450
0.1522
0.1093
0.0448
- 0.0379
-0.1364
- 0.2491
-0.3745
0.0572
0.1450
0.1677
0.1522
0.1093
0.0448
- 0.0379
-0.1364
- 0.2491
- 0,3745
0.0572
0.1450
0.1677
0.1522
0.1093
0.0448
-0.0379
-0.1364
- 0.2491
- 0.3745
0.0572
0.1450
0.1677
0.1093
0.1522
0.0448
- 0.0379
-0.1364
- 0.2491
- 0.3745
approx.
A h( A) fi(Al-A) - S A \ m A -m
3
-f i A
7
0. 0581 0.0611 0.0726 0.0868 0.1058 0.1292
0.1556 0.1649 0.1766 0.1898 0.1459
~. ... 0.0572
0.1450
0.1682
0.1524
0.1094
0.0447
-0.0380
- 0.1365
-0.2489
-0.3740
0.0582
0.1456
0.1682
0.1525
0.1095
0.0448
-0.0378
- 0.1364
- 0.2489
- 0.3741
0.0583
0.1455
0.1683
0.1526
0.1096
0.0450
-0.0382
- 0.1365
-0.2487
- 0.3744
0.0575
0.1465
0.1690
0. 1541
0.1093
0.0464
- 0.0364
-0.1367
-0.2492
-0.3718
0.0593
0.1380
0.1663
0.1035
0.1546
0.0456
-0.0380
-0.1346
- 0.2499
- 0.3694
0.1694
0.1516
0.1069
0.0412
-0.0416
- 0.1389
- 0.2489
- 0.3701
0.0604
0.1688
0.1473
0.1521
0.1082
0.0431
- 0.0396
- 0.1376
- 0.2489
- 0.3722
0.0592
0.1465
0.1684
0.1523
0.1090
-0.0387
0.0441
-0.1369
- 0.2489
- 0.3733
0.0582
0.1459
0.1683
0.1525
0.1093
0.0443
- 0.0384
-0.1368
-0.2487
- 0.3741
0.0581
0.1449
0.1682
0.1514
0.1098
0.0455
- 0.0380
- 0.1368
- 0,2490
- 0.3735
0.1717
0.1497
0.1016
0.0342
-0.0486
- 0.1436
-0.2487
- 0.3622
0.0651
0.1699
0.1506
0.1512
0.1057
0.0397
- 0.0431
- 0.2489
- 0.1400
- 0.3683
0.0615
0.1480
0.1690
0.1519
0.1077
- 0.0404
0.0424
- 0.1381
-0.2489
-0.3714
0.0596
0.1468
0.1686
0.1522
0.1086
0.0437
-0.0392
-0.1372
- 0.2489
- 0.3729
0.0583
0.1461
0.1682
0.1092
0.1522
0.0446
- 0.0386
- 0.1366
- 0.2491
- 0.3735
0.1744
0.1462
0.0934
0.0235
- 0.0588
- 0.1500
- 0.2477
- 0.3499
0.0721
0.1716
0.1553
0.1497
0. 1018
0.0344
- 0.0483
-0.2487
- 0.1434
-0.3624
0.0649
0.1505
0.1699
0.1512
0.1058
-0.0430
0.0398
-0.1399
- 0.2489
- 0.3685
0.0614
0.1480
0.1690
0.1520
0.1077
0.0424
-0.0404
- 0.1381
- 0.2489
- 0.3715
0.0598
0.1471
0.1683
0.1086
0.1521
0.0437
-0.0392
- 0.1374
- 0.2489
- 0.3731
0.1770
0.1405
0.0818
0.0092
- 0.0719
- 0.1576
-0.2452
-0.3327
0.0815
0.1615
0.1734
0.1475
0.0964
0.0273
-0.0552
- 0.2481
-0.1478
- 0.3543
0.0695
0.1536
0.1710
0.1502
0.1032
-0.0466
0.0362
- 0.1423
- 0.2488
-0.3645
0.0635
0.1494
0.1694
0.1513
0.1063
0.0405
-0.0422
- 0.1394
- 0.2491
- 0.3696
0.0604
0.1471
0.1684
0.1076
0.1515
0.0424
- 0.0405
- 0.1384
- 0.2495
- 0.3724
0.1784
0.1317
0.0663
- 0.0872
-0.0087
- 0.1653
- 0.2403
- 0.3102
0.0932
0.1753
0.1689
0.1442
0.0893
0.0185
- 0.0635
- 0.2470
- 0.1529
- 0.3439
0.0751
0.1573
0.1720
0.1489
0.0996
- 0.0508
0.0318
- 0.1451
- 0.2488
-0.3598
0.0663
0.1513
0.1702
0.1506
0.1048
0.0377
-0.0448
- 0.1413
- 0.2490
- 0.3677
0.0605
0.1469
0.1681
0.1065
0.1505
0.0400
- 0.0427
- 0.1396
- 0.2499
- 0.3725
in (10) is J S/a times the halfth-order integral of the error
sawtooth with A replacing x.
From (12) it follows that halfth-order integration is
equivalent to low-pass filtering with a frequency response
lly52.f; such a filter has impulse response 1/ & for t >
0 and zero for t <0. Hence, halfth-order integration is
effected by convolution with Re {1/&}. Expressing (6)
as
where TP(cos 0) =cos p0 is the Chebyshev polynomial of
the first kind, which is -t 1 where x =+A, we see that
(13) approximates this sort of convolution near x =+A
and accounts for the factor &.
D. Nonuniform Quantization
This halfth-order integral relationship holds for non-
uniform as well as for uniform quantization with A >>1,
and it follows from (13) and from Woodward's theorem
that, for p <<A in the nonuniform case, it is the step
width near the extreme values + A of the input that largly
determines the harmonic amplitudes. More precisely, (7)
becomes
2
P77-
A P (A) =(-l)(p-')'2 - C QkUP-l(Rk/A)(l - R:/A2)1'2
(14)
for odd and even p >0 if the quantization staircase has a
rise Qk where x =Rk, with the summation extending over
every k for which - A <Rk <A, but the foregoing ap-
proximations should make it unnecessary to use (14).
111. TWO-INPUT SINUSOIDS
When the input to the quantization process is
x( t ) =A( t ) sin +(t) +a(t ) sin 4(t) (15)
instead of (3), with +(t) =277-ft +$(t), substitution into
(1) [with the help of (2) for each term in (15)] yields
m
CC sin (PQ' +q+),
(16)
=p+q=odd>O
where
1422 I EEE TRANSACTIONS ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. ASSP-33. NO. 0, DECEMBER 1985
Apq =6p16qoA +GpoSqla + - J,,(2n7rA)Jq(2nna).
L
n = I nn
(17)
Thus, after quantization (15) includes intermodulation and
distortion products whose frequencies have the form pF +
qf, wherep and q are integers with an odd, positive sum.
The second input sinusoid turns each spectral line of (4)
into a comb of lines with spacing IF - f I if the two input
frequencies F and f are relatively close together. In the
same way that we found there were of the order of 7rA
significant lines in the spectrum of ( 4) , we see that each
comb will contain roughly 47ra lines since Jq(2na) in (17)
becomes negligible when / q/ is much larger than 2na (note
that q can be even, odd, positive, and negative), and (16)
thus effectively includes something like 4n2Aa spectral
lines altogether. Dividing the total quantization-noise
power by this number, we find that the average power
of each of these lines is roughly 1/(48n2Aa), but again this
value overestimates the strength of the lines for which lpI
and 191are small and underestimates those with jpl near
27rA and 191near 2na. The sum of the output components
in each comb tends to have a pulse-train envelope with 21F
- f I pulses per unit time occurring whenever $( t ) - 4( t )
is a multiple of n.
A. Large Input Amplitudes
When A and a are both large, we can use (8) for both
of the Bessel functions in (17). [Note that, when A and a
exceed 1 the arguments of all of the Bessel functions
exceed 27r, which is already large enough to make (8) use-
ful if p and q are not large]. Expressing the resulting prod-
uct of two cosines as half the cosine of the sum of the
arguments plus half the cosine of the difference, we find
that, except for the cases of input-frequency output com-
ponents (i.e., p =1, q =0 and p =0, q =1) which
require an additional term A or a,
d A a
where
and { z > is the fractional part of z . The lower limit on the
integral can equally well be 0 or 1, with the same result,
but g( z) cannot be expressed in terms of a finite number
of elementary functions (however, it is expressible [9] in
terms of dilogarithms [7, p. 10041 of complex arguments).
Note that f(z) and g( z ) are periodic with a unit period,
shown in Fig. 3, and are a Hilbert-transform pair.
Fig. 3. . f (z) and g(z) as functions of the fractional part {z} of z. When A
>>1 +p , a >>1 +q, and p +4 is odd, the amplitude A,,, of any 1M
product is +4/ ( ~ a) times the sum or difference off(A +a) and g ( A
- a); A, , =0 whenp +q is even.
The right-hand expressions in (19) and (20) are obtained
by double integration of the second derivatives of the Fou-
rier series. These second derivatives are the real and
imaginary parts of the geometric series - Cy exp ( j 2nnz),
whose sum is $ - j : ctn TZ plus terms that oscillate at a
frequency that grows infinite as N -, co and hence are
removed by the integration. For { z > #0, the impulses at
integer values of z can be neglected. Constants of integra-
tion are determined by the zero average value (integral
over one period).
Equation (20) is well approximated by
and by
( 22)
These two expressions together with the identity g(l - z )
=- g( z) provide accurate values of g( z ) for all values of
z . For example, for z =$, (21) gives 0.0232365 and (22)
gives 0.0232012, while from (20) the true value is G/(4n2)
=0.0232017, where G is CatalBn's constant [lo]. Thus,
(22) gives better results than (21), and it can even be used
up to z =$, where it gives -0.00007 instead of the cor-
rect value, zero.
B. Fluctuating Large Input Amplitudes
Since f ( 4) =1 f 2-4 +3-4 +* =n4/90 and since
crossproduct terms average out to zero, the mean-squared
values off(z) and g( z ) are both Shf2(z) dz = g2( z) dz =
112880. Because of the opposite symmetries of these two
functions, their productf(A +a)g(A - a) becomes zero
when averaged over fluctuations of either input amplitude,
regardless of the value of the other. Hence, when A >>1
BLACHMAN: 1M AND DISTORTION FROM QUANTIZATION OF SINUSOIDS
1423
and a >>1 fluctuate independently over several quanti-
zation steps, the mean-squared value of each of the lower-
order distortion and intermodulation products (the average
value of ;A;,) is 1/(180r2Aa). This value may be compared
with our previous estimate, 1/(487r2Aa), which is biased
upward by the effect of the higher-order products.
As A and a vary, A,,, attains its largest value when both
f ( A +a) and g(A - a) have their maximum values, viz.
0.0417 and 0.0257, respectively. Hence, A,, is at most
0.0858/&. This maximum may be compared with the
rms value 1/ ( 90~*Aa) ~ =0.0336/&. Notice that both
values are well below one quantization step when A and a
are even moderately large; e.g. , the rms values is 49.5 dB
below it if A =a =10.
Intermodulation is often measured, on the other hand,
with equal input amplitudes. When A =a, (18) becomes
simply A,, =*4f ( 2A) / rA. If these amplitudes remain
equal but fluctuate so that the fractional pan of 2A is uni-
formly distributed between 0 and 1, the average value of
pl,, is only 1 / ( 3 6 0 ~ ~ A ~ ) , since there is no contribution
from g( A - a) .
C. One Strong and One Weak Input
Exact, closed forms [11]-[14] in terms of the complete
elliptic integrals K( k) and E(k) have been found for the
output-component amplitudes A,, when A 4- a <1 and
the quantizer accordingly acts like a hard limiter. Being
the Fourier coefficient [ 11 of order p , q of y( A sin 9 +a
sin d), A,, can presumably be expressed in increasingly
complicated closed forms involving K( k) and E( k) for in-
creasing values of A and a. For A >>1, these forms would
be cumbersome both to derive and to use, and so we now
seek instead to approximate (17) for A >>1 >>a as in
For a <<1 we have J,(2nna) E (nra)l 9l / (q(! in (17).
Hence, the intermodulation amplitudes A,, with 141 >1
are then negligible in comparison with those for I 141 =1.
The most important of the latter is A2, - 1 , since the fre-
quency 2F - f falls in the same band as the input fre-
quencies F and f. For it we have the approximation
1 2
[I], P I .
m
A2, - I E -2a J2(2nrA) for a <<1 (23)
n= 1
in agreement with Abuelmaatti [2]. Being -a times the
summation of J2(2n7rA) over all integer values of n, ( 23)
can be expressed in closed form, by means of the Poisson
summation formula, as the similar summation of the Fou-
rier transform of its summand. Since the Fourier trans-
form of J , , ( ~ T A~ ) is ~ - ~ T , ( ~ / A ) / T ( A ~ - t2)2 for - A <
t < A and is zero otherwise, (23) becomes
a 2k2 - A2
PA k = - [ A] (A2 - k2)2
A2,-1 G 7 for a <<1 (24)
in agreement with [ 11. This equation can also be obtained
from ( 7) by making use of the relation [15]
Aa d
2 dA
4 - 1 Gz - - [Al(A)/A] for a <i 1 . (25)
1
0.5
0
-0.5
A
Fig. 4. &/a times the third-order intermodulation amplitude A*, -, for A
>>1 >>u as a function of the fractional part { A } ofthe amplitude A
of the stronger input signal. This curve also represents times the
departure from unity of the voltage gain experienced by the weak input
signal.
Notice that this differentiation yields the halfth derivative
of the quantization staircase when A >>1.
Again using (8), we find that (23) becomes
for A >>1 >>a.
(26)
Alrhough this series converges only very slowly (and di-
verges when A is an integer), this expression [2] shows
A2,-1 to be proportional to l / & times a zero-mean peri-
odic function when A >>l >>a. Study of the first and
last terms of (24) shows the source of this behavior to be
the variation due to the presence of the weak signal in the
length of time the input spends on its extreme quantization
steps, the strong input being parabolic in the neighbor-
hood of its peaks.
Eulers summation formula with terms through the first
derivative yields a good approximation [ 11to (24), and
hence to (26), viz.,
A2, -1 5 - U 6 [ ~ 1 - 48(A}2 +84{A} +35
P 24({A} +)32 1
for A >>1 >>a, (27)
which is shown in Fig. 4. Integration of (27) with respect
to ( A } from 0 to 1 gives (29& - 41)/(12r&) =
0.000323/&, showing that (27) is a good but not perfect
zero-mean approximation to (26).
The other important output component with 141 =1 is
that of frequency f and amplitude Aol . Putting p =0 and
q =1 in (17), using the same approximation JI ( 2nra) E
n m for a <<1, and using (8) for Jo(2n7rA) for A >>1 ,
we again get the infinite series (26), and hence we have
Aol E a +A Z , - ~ for A >>1 >>a. Thus, Fig. 4 also
describes the variation with A of the difference between
the input and output amplitudes of the second signal when
A >>1 >>a.
If a <<1 but A is arbitrary, however, application of the
Poisson summation formula to
m
E p +2a C ~ ~ ( 2 n . r r ~ ) for a <<1
n= 1
yields
1424 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING. VOL. ASSP-33, NO. 6, DECEMBER 1985
Aol G c a/ [a( A2 - k2)Il2] for a <<1 (28)
k = - [ A ]
in agreement with the expression for eo found in [1] and
with the perturbation analysis [ 151, which found A, , G (a/
2 A) d[ AA, ( A) ] / dA for a <<1. Applied to (6) wi thp =1,
the latter gives
after substituting x =A cos 0 and integrating by parts.
For A >>1 the integral (29) again gives us the halfth-
order integral of the derivative of the quantization stair-
case, i.e., its halfth derivative.
Likewise, (25), when applied to (6) with p =1, yields
- A
U
A2,-I G __ 1 ~ (2x2 - A2) y' ( x) &/(A2 - x2)'12
aA2 - A
for a <<1. (30)
Both (29) and (30) are valid for nonuniform as well as for
uniform quantization-even if the steps are not ideal in
shape. While the fractional-calculus relationships hold for
A >>1 and show that it is the quantization-step size near
the extremes of the excusions of the input that principally
determine the distortion and intermodulation, these rela-
tionships are only special cases of the more exact, more
general transform relationships (29) and (30), which show
Aol and A2, - to be related to the zeroth- and second-order
Chebyshev transforms [5] of y '(x), respectively, for a <<
1.
D. One Weak Input and One Strong
and Fluctuating
Because (23)-(28) become infinite as A falls toward any
integer, better approximations are needed for a <<1
when A fluctuates through integer values. Using (8) with
p =2i n
- 2
A2, -, =- - J 2(2naA) J l(2naa), (3 1)
squaring, and integrating over a unit range of A, we find
that the crossproduct terms disappear, and we get for the
third-order intermodulation power
n=l n7T
. - .
1 1 I
- =7 c 3 J;(2naa) for A >>1. (32)
2 R A n = ~ n
Because J l (2naa) has not been approximated here by the
first term, rzaa, of its power-series expansion, (32) con-
verges well for all a.
Since J, ( z ) reaches a peak of 0.5819 when z =1.84 and
passes through zero when z =3.83, oscillating thereafter
as described by (8), it can be adequately approximated for
I z I <<1 by 4 c sin z/c with' c 1.2. Using this approx-
'Use of the same c in the amplitude and the period yields the right de-
rivative at z =0. I n ( 33) and (34) c is used to exhibit the dependence of
these approximations upon the somewhat arbitrary choice of c =1.2.
imation in (32), we get
(33)
Although our approximation for J l(2naa) is not good when
2naa >>1, the factor nP3 ensures that the resulting er-
rors hardly affect (33). Putting sin 2nnz =2 sin naz cos
naz in (20) and integrating, we see that (33) can be ex-
pressed as
From the first term on the right-hand side of (21) we thus
get
1 a2 ce3I2
- E{ A; , - , } =- In -
2 a 2 ~ 4aa
for A >>1 >>a. (34)
With a <<1, the dominant part of the logarithm here
comes from the a in its argument, and so the exact value
of c is not important. When a =ce/4a G 0.26, (34) at-
tains its maximum value, c2e2/327r4A =O.Oll/A. For A =
10, for example, this is 30 dB below the level of one quan-
tization step.
IV. THE EFFECT OF ADDITIVE INPUT NOISE
The effect of adding noise to the input (15) upon the
distortion and intermodulation depends only on the uni-
variate probability distribution of the noise and is inde-
pendent of its spectrum [16]. On the assumption that the
noise is narrowband, we could thus add a third input sin-
usoid of amplitude CY and average the resulting J o(2naa)
in (17) over the Rayleigh distribution of CY for the case of
Gaussian noise. An equally easy and perhaps more illu-
minating way to calculate this effect is to utilize the fact
[16], [5, pp. 100-1011 that, insofar as signal, distortion,
and intermodulation outputs are concerned, any nonline-
arity y( x +u) with input noise u is equivalent to another
nonlinearity Y(x) =E{y( x +u)lx}-the average of y(x +
u) for a given x-with only x as its input.
The calculation of this conditional expectation is equiv-
alent to convolving y( x) with the probability density func-
tion of the noise, which in the Gaussian case is ( 2 n ~ ~ ) - I ' ~
exp ( - x2/ 202) , and this convolution is equivalent to mul-
tiplication in the transform domain by the Fourier trans-
form, exp ( -2a2a2f2), of this probability density func-
tion, i.e., Gaussian low-pass filtering-where G is the rms
value of the noise and f is the frequency n (cycles per quan-
tization step). The factor exp (-2n2a2u2) is thus intro-
duced into (1) and all other equations involving n. For ex-
ample, (31) becomes
A2, =- - J2(2rz7rA) J 1(2naa). (35)
2
PI =I nT
BLACHMAN: IM AND DISTORTION FROM QUANTIZATION OF SINUSOIDS 1425
If (T =1, the exponential factor here is - 171 dB for n =
1 and diminishes so fast as n increases that it suffices to
retain just the first term of the summation. That term is
seen to be extremely small, suggesting that in the pres-
ence of even a small amount of wideband noise (which is
readily eliminated by output filtering), the intermodula-
tion due to quantization should be undetectable; even
without the noise the foregoing results show it to be very
weak unless both A + 1 and B #> 1.
Although the noise makes the quantization staircase look
very much like a straight ramp for the input signals, there
is still a mean-squared departure from the ideal ramp equal
to about A, which manifests itself almost entirely in the
form of signal X noise output [ 161. Returning to (17) with
an additional factor J r ( 2 n m) for narrow-band additive
Gaussian input noise and an additional subscript r on Ap4
and to (16) with a corresponding additional term in the
argument of the sine, we see that the variation of Jo(2nncy)
about its mean value exp ( - 2n T (T ) produces sup-
pressed-carrier modulation of the signals distortion and
intermodulation by the amplitude cy of the noise. The terms
with r >0 involve phase modulation as well as amplitude
modulation by the noise because of the additional term in
the argument of the sine in (16).
When the spectrum of the noise is substantially wider
than that of the signals, all of these signal X noise com-
ponents are noiselike and cannot be mistaken for signals.
Their wider spectra permit filtering to attenuate them, but,
even without it, they are likely to be masked by the un-
avoidable undistorted output noise when the input noise
has a wide spectrum.
2 2 2
V. CONCLUSIONS
By means of a transform-domain analysis we have ex-
tended the range of input-signal amplitudes for which sim-
ple expressions give good approximations for the ampli-
tudes of intermodulation products, output signals, and
harmonics. Our results are for the quantization staircase
of Fig. l(a), but those for that of Fig. l(b) can be obtained
by merely inserting the factor (- 1) into the summations.
Some of the foregoing results have been verified by com-
puter simulation [ 171.
All inputs and outputs have been expressed in units of
quantization-step size; if these steps have width and height
Q volts, the replacement of x and y by x / Q and y / Q will
allow the input x and the output y to be expressed in volts.
In the case of nonuniform quantization, the analyses in
Sections 11-D and 111-C show that, when one input signal
is much stronger than the other, the low-order intermo-
dulation and distortion are largely determined by the step
width at the extreme values of the stronger signal, since
there the quantization error traverses relatively few saw-
teeth per second.
Wehave seen that the presence of even a small amount
of additive input noise should reduce the intermodulation
and distortion to undetectable levels. J ust as a second input
signal breaks each harmonic produced by the first input
signal into a comb of spectral lines, the addition of noise
breaks each line of each comb into many components only
one of which is pure intermodulation while all the rest are
noiselike. Significant intermodulation and distortion may
remain, however, if the centers of the quantization steps
do not lie on a straight line. Curvature of the overall stair-
case would produce the well-known effects of nonlinear
distortion [3], [5], [6], [14]-[16].
When the input to the quantization process is sampled
and the output is suitably low-pass filtered, intermodula-
tion, and distortion frequencies exceeding half the sam-
pling rate are aliased to frequencies below it, yielding the
quantization noise that has been the subject of other in-
vestigations [3], [4], [ 181 , [ 191 ; in [ 191 Woodwards theo-
rem [6] is applied as in Section 11-B to the terms of a
Fourier series for the quantization error like that in (1) in
order to simplify the analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am grateful to Prof. R. N. Bracewell of Stanford Uni-
versity, Stanford, CA, for papers and references con-
nected with the fractional calculus and to D. R. Morgan
of AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany, NJ, for his very
careful reading of earlier versions of this paper and for
many valuable suggestions regarding its improvement,
particularly the idea of using the sinusoidal approximation
for J , ( 2 n ~ a ) in (32) when a <<1 and expressing the re-
sults in terms of Sg(z) &.
REFERENCES
[l ] N. M. Blachman, Third-order intermodulation due to quantization,
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. COM-29, pp. 1386-1389, Sept. 1981
[ 2] M. T. Abulemaatti, The intermodulation due to multicarrier quan-
tization, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. COM-32, pp. 1211-1214, Nov.
1984.
[ 3] H. E. Rowe, Signals and Noise in Communication Systems. New
York: Van-Nostrand Reinhold, 1965, p. 315.
[4] W. R. Bennett, in Part 11of M. Schwartz, W. R. Bennett, and S. Stein,
Communication Systems and Techniques. New York: McCraw-Hill,
[5] N. M. Blachman, Noise and Its Effect on Communication, 2nd
ed. Malabar, FL: Krieger, 1982, p. 96.
[6] N. M. Blachman, Noise and Its Effect on Communication. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1966, p. 46 or [S, p. 541.
[7] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Eds., Handbook of Mathematical
Functions. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards, 1964,
[8] A. Erdklyi and the Bateman Project Staff, 7i2bles of Integral Trans-
forms, Vol. 2. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954, chap. 13.
[9] W. Griibner and N. Hofreiter, Integraltafel, Part I. Vienna: Springer-
Verlag, 1949 (341.4b, c), p. 137.
[lo] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Tables of Integrals, Series, and
Products. New York: Academic, 1965, p. 1080.
[l l ] J . Granlund, Interference in frequency-modulation reception, MIT
Research Lab. Electron., Cambridge, MA, Tech. Rep. 42, J an. 1949.
[12] E. J. Baghdady, Interference rejection of FM receivers, MIT Re-
search Lab. Electron., Cambridge, MA, Tech. Rep. 252, Sept. 1956.
[13] J . J. J ones, Hard limiting of two signals in random noise, IEEE
Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-9, pp. 34-42, J an. 1963.
[14] N. M. Blachman, Two-signal interaction in a logarithmic IF ampli-
fier, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. COM-15, pp. 305-307, Apr. 1967.
[15] N. M. Blachman, Band-pass nonlinearities, IEEE Trans. Inform.
Theory, vol. IT-IO, pp. 162-164, Apr. 1964.
1966, pp. 260-262.
pp. 365-368.
1426 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. ASSP-33, NO. 6, DECEMBER 1985
[I61 N. M. Blachman, The signal X signal, noise X noise, and signal X
noise output of a nonlinearity, ZEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-
14, pp. 21-27, J an. 1968.
[17] D. R. Morgan and A. Aridgides, Discrete-time distortion analysis
of quantized sinusoids, ZEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Pro-
cessing, vol. ASSP-33, pp. 323-326, Feb. 1985.
[I S] W. R. Bennett, Spectra of quantized signals, Bell Syst. Tech. J . ,
[I91 T. A. C. M. Claasen and A. J ongepier, Model for the power spectral
density of quantization noise, ZEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal
v01. 27, pp. 446-472, J uly 1948.
Processing, VOI. ASSP-29. pp. 914-917. Aug. 1981.
ment of electroacoustic transducers and with the analysis of sonar system
designs. From 1945 to 1946 he worked at the Cruft Laboratory of Harvard
on signal and noise problems in radio communication, particularly FM. As
a member of the Theory Group of the Accelerator Project at the Brookhaven
National Laboratory, Upton, NY, from 1947 to 1951, he was concerned
with the theory and design of the Cosmotron, Brookhavens 3-GeV proton
synchrotron. From 1951 to 1954 he was a member of the Staff of the Math-
ematical Sciences Division of the Office of Naval Research, Washington,
DC. administering the program of supported research in the fields of com-
puters and mathematics. In 1954 he joined what is now the Western Divi-
sion of the GTE Government Systems Corporation, Mountain View, CA,
where he is now a Senior Scientist and Consultant on statistical communi-
cation theory. From 1958 to 1960 and from 1976 to 1978 he took leaves of
absence to do scientific liaison work in the field of electronics as a member
of the Staff of the London Branch of the United States Office of Naval Re-
search. In 1964-1965 he taught communication theory, in Spanish. at the
Escuela TCcnica Superior de Ingenieros de Telecommicacidn. Madrid,
and at the Facultad de Ciencias of the University of Madrid under the Ful-
bright program while on sabbatical leave from GTE Sylvania. He has also
taught at Stanford University and in the off-campus programs of the Uni-
versity of Maryland and the University of California.
Dr. Blachman is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science and the Institution of Electrical Engineers and a member
of the Acoustical Society of America, the American Statistical Association,
the Optical Society of America, the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, the
Mathematical Association of America, the Society of Industrial and Ap-
plied Mathematics, the U.S. National Commissions C and E of URSI, and
Sigma Xi. He holds an extra-class amateur radio operators licensc.