Coincidentally I was planning to write a blog post about what I/Q are, inspired by this very terrible explanation. I recently started playing around with SDR and went to look up what I & Q are, found this page (it is one of the very few explanations) and got completely confused. My main objections:
1. It's actually a fairly simple concept but this page jumps into pages of formulas and irrelevancies. It is also missing motivation for why I/Q exist. No way is this "for dummies"
2. This: "I'd say the true signal is complex, and the real signal is an incomplete projection of it" is factually incorrect. The signal coming down the antenna is real.
I feel like I could explain it better in 1/4 of the text. Would anyone be interested in that?
1. It's actually a fairly simple concept but this page jumps into pages of formulas and irrelevancies. It is also missing motivation for why I/Q exist. No way is this "for dummies"
2. This: "I'd say the true signal is complex, and the real signal is an incomplete projection of it" is factually incorrect. The signal coming down the antenna is real.
I feel like I could explain it better in 1/4 of the text. Would anyone be interested in that?