Reply by cpshah99 October 26, 20102010-10-26
> > >cpshah99 wrote: >> Hi All > >Hi stupid studiot. > >> It is known from the books that NLMS is better than LMS when the
dynamic
>> range of the input signal to the equalizer is large. > >NLMS makes the convergence rate independent from the energy of the >reference signal. > >> But if we use an AGC before the equalizer and then use LMS to adapt the >> taps, what would be the performance compared to NLMS? > >NLMS *is* the AGC applied to the reference input of the equalizer >adaptation algorithm. If you apply the AGC to the signal input, you will >screw up the adaptation. > > >Vladimir Vassilevsky >DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant >http://www.abvolt.com >
%%% Hey Vlad Many thanks for your ans. Regards Chintan
Reply by Vladimir Vassilevsky October 26, 20102010-10-26

cpshah99 wrote:
> Hi All
Hi stupid studiot.
> It is known from the books that NLMS is better than LMS when the dynamic > range of the input signal to the equalizer is large.
NLMS makes the convergence rate independent from the energy of the reference signal.
> But if we use an AGC before the equalizer and then use LMS to adapt the > taps, what would be the performance compared to NLMS?
NLMS *is* the AGC applied to the reference input of the equalizer adaptation algorithm. If you apply the AGC to the signal input, you will screw up the adaptation. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by cpshah99 October 26, 20102010-10-26
Hi All

It is known from the books that NLMS is better than LMS when the dynamic
range of the input signal to the equalizer is large.

But if we use an AGC before the equalizer and then use LMS to adapt the
taps, what would be the performance compared to NLMS?

Best Regards

Chintan