Digital & Communication Technology
Rethinking the RF design philosophy For years, RF front ends have been built around fixed, non-adaptive duplexers. The result has been a growing stack of compensations: additional tuners, more switches, broader matching networks, and repeated layout optimisations. Each layer addresses a symptom rather than the underlying constraint — the assumption of a stable 50 Ω environment that rarely exists outside the lab.
A more adaptive duplexer architecture changes this dynamic. Rather than forcing the rest of the system to converge toward 50 Ω, an adaptive duplexer can accommodate real antenna impedance directly. This simplifies RF architecture and enables more compact, power-efficient front ends. This is particularly important in low-band systems where mismatch impacts are most severe.
In controlled Band 28 measurements at 3:1 VSWR (180° phase) this type of approach demonstrated: Transmit-path insertion loss improved by 1.3 dB Receive-path insertion loss improved by 1.0 dB compared with a SAW-based implementation (normalised to include RF switch losses)
A 1.3 dB TX improvement translates to
roughly: 25 per cent reduction in PA current longer battery life less heat dissipation
For wearables and IoT devices, where size limitations often lead to poor antenna match, enhancing duplexer robustness to mismatch represents a meaningful shift in front-end architecture.
2. Band counts keep rising
As highlighted in recent low-band analyses, the number of supported RF frequency bands has exploded. More bands mean narrower antenna bandwidths, which inevitably increases mismatch. When a duplexer’s performance collapses under these conditions, it becomes a system-level bottleneck impacting coverage, efficiency and ultimately user experience.
4. IoT devices can’t afford tuning networks
Many IoT platforms lack the PCB area, RF routing space, or power budget required for adaptive tuning solutions. As these devices proliferate and diversify, architectures that rely on extensive tuning networks scale poorly. Improving duplexer resilience to mismatch is the only viable way forward.
Why this matters 1. Devices are getting smaller Antennas in smartwatches, fitness trackers, compact consumer electronics etc. operate far from 50 Ω most of the time. As form factors shrink and chassis constraints tighten, antennas experience higher mismatch, and the performance penalty has never been greater.
3. Power efficiency is now a differentiator In small form factor devices, even a few dB of excess loss in the front end can impact battery life, thermal behaviour, and compliance margins. With power budgets under heightened pressure, mismatch-induced loss is no longer a secondary concern, it directly shapes user experience and product viability
front ends
Across the industry, front ends are steadily moving towards software-configured architectures that respond dynamically to frequency, mode, region, and antenna state. This trend prioritises flexibility and consistency over static hardware assumptions. A mismatch-resilient duplexer plays a key role in this evolution. By reducing reliance on large tuning networks and fixed filters, it supports smaller footprints, more uniform performance across platforms, and supply- chain simplification. It also aligns with the growing emphasis on adaptive, software- defined behaviour.
Conclusion:
The longstanding 50 Ω model has been a useful abstraction, keeping labs tidy and datasheets comparable. But as devices shrink and band counts rise, it no longer reflects how real antennas behave. Crucially it has become a limiting factor in RF front-end design. Legacy SAW duplexers were originally built for the less demanding 2G era, and while adaptive tuners helped extend their lifespan, they were ultimately workarounds. The next generation of wearables and IoT devices need front ends that perform under real antenna impedance, not idealised assumptions. A duplexer architecture that is resilient to mismatch represents a key milestone in RF front end design. It reduces real-world loss, improves efficiency, and simplifies integration, ensuring RF performance reflects actual operating conditions. It also reinforces the industry’s move toward adaptive, software- defined architectures grounded in real antenna behaviour.
https://www.forefrontrf.com/
www.cieonline.co.uk Components in Electronics December/January 2026 27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
