Why does increasing the message bandwidth decrease the FM bandwidth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tony Hau
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bandwidth Fm
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between message bandwidth and FM bandwidth, specifically addressing why increasing the message bandwidth may lead to a decrease in the modulation index and the overall FM bandwidth. Participants explore theoretical concepts, practical implications, and various models related to frequency modulation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the modulation index is defined as ##m=\frac{\Delta}{f_{m}}##, where ##f_{m}## is the message signal bandwidth and ##\Delta## is the peak frequency deviation, raising a question about the implications of increasing ##f_{m}## on FM bandwidth.
  • Another participant suggests that if the message bandwidth is doubled, the maximum deviation must also be doubled to maintain the same modulation index.
  • A different viewpoint indicates that if the message signal bandwidth increases while keeping frequency deviation constant, the modulation index decreases, leading to increased spacing between spectral components, which may affect overall FM bandwidth.
  • Carson's rule is referenced, stating that if frequency deviation is held constant while increasing message bandwidth, the overall bandwidth increases.
  • One participant emphasizes that increasing the deviation in FM can improve the signal-to-noise ratio, but also notes that this requires an increase in RF bandwidth, which can lead to challenges in low-grade communications.
  • Another participant discusses the FM Capture Effect, highlighting the benefits of high deviation FM in terms of interference management.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between message bandwidth and FM bandwidth, with some arguing that more bandwidth is needed for higher message frequencies, while others suggest that the modulation index's behavior complicates this relationship. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various theoretical concepts and equations, such as Harley's theorem and Carson's rule, but do not reach a consensus on how these apply to the specific scenario of increasing message bandwidth in FM.

Tony Hau
Messages
107
Reaction score
30
TL;DR
As the modulation index of FM is given by ##m=\frac{\Delta}{f_{m}}##, if we increase ##f_{m}##, why does the bandwidth of the FM decrease (as ##m## decreases, the bandwidth of FM, as given by Bessel equations, decreases accordingly)? We are trying to modulate more information into the carrier don't we need more bandwidth to achieve this, in common sense? Please help and thanks.
So I am trying to learning FM from textbooks and it says that the modulation index of FM is given by ##m=\frac{\Delta}{f_{m}}##, where ## f_{m}## is the message signal bandwidth and ##\Delta## is the peak frequency deviation of the FM modulated signal. What I do not understand is that normally, if we want to transmit more information (e.g. by increasing the ##f_{m}##), we will need more bandwidth to do this. Then, why the modulation index decreases by increasing the message signal bandwidth and hence the FM modulated signal bandwidth actually decreases (as indicated by Bessel equation)?

I have some ideas for this. For example, the Harley's theorem, which is given by $$C = B \log_2 (1+ \frac{S}{N})$$, states that even if we increase the bandwidth, if the signal-to-noise ratio of the modulated signal decreases, then the bits per second rate can actually stay the same. However, I don't know if it is possible too since decreasing the modulation index should not affect the SNR ratio.

Can anyone help? Please and many thanks.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
The modulation index m tells you how many times the message bandwidth will fit in the maximum deviation.

If you double the message bandwidth, you must double the maximum deviation, to maintain the same modulation index m.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Averagesupernova
Baluncore said:
The modulation index m tells you how many times the message bandwidth will fit in the maximum deviation.

If you double the message bandwidth, you must double the maximum deviation, to maintain the same modulation index m.
Hello thank you for your answer. However I just read about the topic at wikipedia (this) and here is the screenshot of this

Screenshot_20240821-133253_Samsung Internet.jpg


It seems like frequency deviation can be held constant while increasing the message frequency as shown in the 2nd paragraph. But I have another idea after reading this.

If we increase the message signal bandwidth and hold the frequency deviation constant, the modulation index decreases. So the spectra component spacing increases. Consider the general formula for FM modulated signal $$ x(t)=A_{c}\Sigma_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}J_{n}(m)\cos[2\pi(f_{c}+nf_{m})t]$$, where ##J_{n}(m)## is the Bessel function of the first kind of order n and argument m, and m is the modulation index.

If ##f_{m}## increases, the spacing between the first spectral components away from the carrier frequency ##f_{c}## increases. This will increase the overall FM bandwidth. (although there are fewer effective spectral components now due to decreased modulation index m.)

Actually, as given by the Carson's rule ##BW = 2(\Delta + f_{m})##, if we keep ##\Delta## constant while increasing ##f_{m}##, the overall bandwidth increases.

So in conclusion, you actually need more FM bandwidth if you want to modulate more information (e.g. higher message signal frequency ##f_{m}##).

What is your opinion?
 
Tony Hau said:
What is your opinion?
For any particular modulation index, m;
the maximum deviation, Δ = fm ⋅ m
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tony Hau
Baluncore said:
For any particular modulation index, m;
the maximum deviation, Δ = fm ⋅ m
thank you for your answer and let me try to figure that out for a while...
 
Tony Hau said:
So in conclusion, you actually need more FM bandwidth if you want to modulate more information (e.g. higher message signal frequency fm).
This is hardly surprising as a general principle for any modulation. The basic reason that FM is often "a good thing" is that the signal to noise ratio can be improved greatly by using high deviation, just by increasing the deviation. FM is basically a non-linear modulation system which has unexpected results. You are spreading the spectrum of the transmitted signal which increases the signal level that's demodulated by the discriminator but the effective noise power is limited by the receiver baseband low pass filter. This SNR increase is referred to as the FM Improvement (fewer channels available than for AM but increased quality).

There is, however, one big snag and that is that you need to increase the RF bandwidth of the transmitted signal. The peak noise amplitude (spikes) will be demodulated proportionally to the bandwidth so the 'noise threshold' is increased - meaning that the signal will break up earlier than for AM or narrow band FM. Great for high quality audio or video butnot so good for low grade comms where the receiver RF bandwidth can be low and so is the noise threshold. Narrow band FM 'dies gracefully' for low signals but high deviation FM 'crashes' sooner.

One great benefit of high deviation FM is the so-called FM Capture Effect. An interfering co-channel signal that's significantly lower level will be demodulated as a very low level baseband signal because the resultant of the added signal is a low level phase modulation, rather than a perturbation of the wanted frequency modulation. Wide band FM gives you better defined, interference free service areas - but, of course, disastrous interference outside the service area.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
6K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K