Reply by Vladimir Vassilevsky December 7, 20102010-12-07

Darol wrote:

> On Dec 2, 1:54 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >>>One non-coherent approach is to use a differential detector followed >>>by a decision feedback equalizer (DFE). The output from the >>>differential detector could be sampled at twice the baud rate before >>>being fed to the DFE, and the phase of of the sampling doesn't have to >>>be controlled because the DFE will adapt. >> >>He uses RECTANGULAR pulses. What is the point of DFE ? > > Even with rectangular modulating pulses, isn't a DFE beneficial > because of the memory required to implement CPFSK?
That memory is already taken into account by the differential detector.
>>>This method may not be generic enough for you because it works best >>>with signals that contain a preamble. >> >>Any method works with or without preamble. Preamble is a small matter of >>convenience, no more then that. > > With a preamble, cannot the DFE train faster and with greater accuracy > than using a blind technique (e.g. constant modulus)? This would lower > BER, especially for bursty signals.
By preamble, I meant a regular sequence for carrier and sync acquisition. Unless for some special cases, equalizer can't train on the regular sequence. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by Victor Vector December 7, 20102010-12-07
On Dec 7, 9:30&#2013266080;am, Darol <darol.klawet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Any method works with or without preamble. Preamble is a small matter of > > convenience, no more then that. > > With a preamble, cannot the DFE train faster and with greater accuracy > than using a blind technique (e.g. constant modulus)? This would lower > BER, especially for bursty signals. > >
I have already learned DSP theory. Preamble is not needed, so preamble does nothing to help/hurt signals. I think poreambles are put into system to justify some asshole system engineer salary.
Reply by Darol December 7, 20102010-12-07
On Dec 2, 1:54&#2013266080;pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Darol wrote: > > On Dec 2, 11:52 am, "gobruins" <chunmei.kang@n_o_s_p_a_m.gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>It is rectangular pulse, not sure how many samples per bit, it is > >>programmable. Modulation index can be any number from 0 to 1. It is really > >>a generic CPFSK demodulator. And I am looking for a demodulator and > >>synchronization technique which would give me a reasonably good BER > >>performance, and suitable for SDR application. > > >>Seems if I use correlation receiver I would need many samples per bit > >>period, but using Viterbi algorithm, only the phase sampled at the end of > >>each bit period is required. Is it right? > > >>ZCD detector requires large over clocking within the bit period. > > >>For the problem I have is it necessary to use a coherent demodulator? If i > >>choose to use correlation receiver based demodulator, what type of clock > >>and carrier synchronization method I can use? > >>From the reference I read that I can also use a noncoherent correlation > >>receiver which does not require carrier sync, and if I observe 5 bit symbol > >>interval then I could loss less than 0.5dB, is it true? If in this case > >>again what type of clock synchronization I can use. > > >>If I want to use costas loop type of synchronization, in the decision stage > >>is there any ML type of decision method that gives better performance than > >>hard decision? The reason I am hesitating using this sync technique is the > >>BER performance. &#2013266080; > > >>>gobruins <chunmei.kang@n_o_s_p_a_m.gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>I am trying to build a binary CPFSK demodulator with self > > >>synchronization. > > >>>>Modulation index is not fixed. I kind of prefer coherent demodulation, > > >>but > > >>>>not sure how to do the synchronization. > > >>>What is your preamable design like? &#2013266080;How long are your packets? > >>>Is it rectangular or shaped? &#2013266080;And (perhaps most importantly) what is > >>>the frequency offset? > > >>>Steve > > > One non-coherent approach is to use a differential detector followed > > by a decision feedback equalizer (DFE). The output from the > > differential detector could be sampled at twice the baud rate before > > being fed to the DFE, and the phase of of the sampling doesn't have to > > be controlled because the DFE will adapt. > > He uses RECTANGULAR pulses. What is the point of DFE ?
Even with rectangular modulating pulses, isn't a DFE beneficial because of the memory required to implement CPFSK?
> > > This method may not be generic enough for you because it works best > > with signals that contain a preamble. > > Any method works with or without preamble. Preamble is a small matter of > convenience, no more then that.
With a preamble, cannot the DFE train faster and with greater accuracy than using a blind technique (e.g. constant modulus)? This would lower BER, especially for bursty signals.
> > VLV
Reply by glen herrmannsfeldt December 2, 20102010-12-02
Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:
(snip, someone wrote)

>> This method may not be generic enough for you because it works best >> with signals that contain a preamble.
> Any method works with or without preamble. Preamble is a small matter of > convenience, no more then that.
Traditionally it was used to give the PLL something to lock to before the actual data started. That explanation doesn't work for continuous signal systems, such as newer ethernet, though. Another is that it allows a little delay for a repeater. I believe that is true for USB. Each additional hub loses some preamble bits, though there will still be some left at the end. -- glen
Reply by brent December 2, 20102010-12-02
On Dec 2, 12:54&#2013266080;pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > Any method works with or without preamble. Preamble is a small matter of > convenience, no more then that. >
After a comment like that I suggest you do what you do best... insulting people and suggesting that they pay you.
Reply by Vladimir Vassilevsky December 2, 20102010-12-02

Darol wrote:

> On Dec 2, 11:52 am, "gobruins" <chunmei.kang@n_o_s_p_a_m.gmail.com> > wrote: > >>It is rectangular pulse, not sure how many samples per bit, it is >>programmable. Modulation index can be any number from 0 to 1. It is really >>a generic CPFSK demodulator. And I am looking for a demodulator and >>synchronization technique which would give me a reasonably good BER >>performance, and suitable for SDR application. >> >>Seems if I use correlation receiver I would need many samples per bit >>period, but using Viterbi algorithm, only the phase sampled at the end of >>each bit period is required. Is it right? >> >>ZCD detector requires large over clocking within the bit period. >> >>For the problem I have is it necessary to use a coherent demodulator? If i >>choose to use correlation receiver based demodulator, what type of clock >>and carrier synchronization method I can use? >>From the reference I read that I can also use a noncoherent correlation >>receiver which does not require carrier sync, and if I observe 5 bit symbol >>interval then I could loss less than 0.5dB, is it true? If in this case >>again what type of clock synchronization I can use. >> >>If I want to use costas loop type of synchronization, in the decision stage >>is there any ML type of decision method that gives better performance than >>hard decision? The reason I am hesitating using this sync technique is the >>BER performance. >> >> >> >> >>>gobruins <chunmei.kang@n_o_s_p_a_m.gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>I am trying to build a binary CPFSK demodulator with self >> >>synchronization. >> >>>>Modulation index is not fixed. I kind of prefer coherent demodulation, >> >>but >> >>>>not sure how to do the synchronization. >> >>>What is your preamable design like? How long are your packets? >>>Is it rectangular or shaped? And (perhaps most importantly) what is >>>the frequency offset? >> >>>Steve > > > One non-coherent approach is to use a differential detector followed > by a decision feedback equalizer (DFE). The output from the > differential detector could be sampled at twice the baud rate before > being fed to the DFE, and the phase of of the sampling doesn't have to > be controlled because the DFE will adapt.
He uses RECTANGULAR pulses. What is the point of DFE ?
> This method may not be generic enough for you because it works best > with signals that contain a preamble.
Any method works with or without preamble. Preamble is a small matter of convenience, no more then that. VLV
Reply by Vladimir Vassilevsky December 2, 20102010-12-02

gobruins wrote:

> It is rectangular pulse, not sure how many samples per bit, it is > programmable. Modulation index can be any number from 0 to 1. It is really > a generic CPFSK demodulator. And I am looking for a demodulator and > synchronization technique which would give me a reasonably good BER > performance, and suitable for SDR application. > > Seems if I use correlation receiver I would need many samples per bit > period, but using Viterbi algorithm, only the phase sampled at the end of > each bit period is required. Is it right? > > ZCD detector requires large over clocking within the bit period. > > For the problem I have is it necessary to use a coherent demodulator? If i > choose to use correlation receiver based demodulator, what type of clock > and carrier synchronization method I can use? > From the reference I read that I can also use a noncoherent correlation > receiver which does not require carrier sync, and if I observe 5 bit symbol > interval then I could loss less than 0.5dB, is it true? If in this case > again what type of clock synchronization I can use. > > If I want to use costas loop type of synchronization, in the decision stage > is there any ML type of decision method that gives better performance than > hard decision? The reason I am hesitating using this sync technique is the > BER performance.
1. Equalizers and ML algorithms like Viterbi or such do make sense only if there is some kind of memory in the channel. This memory includes transmit/receive shaping filters, error correction and channel encoding, and multipath propagation effects. If there is no memory, there is absolutely no point in using such algorithms. 2. With or without Viterbi, the first thing to do is lock on the carrier and symbol sync. Unless you are after something very special, the Gardner and Costas trivia works just as good as anything else. 3. You already have all books, references and received a lot of good advice here. What is exactly do you need? Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by Darol December 2, 20102010-12-02
On Dec 2, 11:52&#2013266080;am, "gobruins" <chunmei.kang@n_o_s_p_a_m.gmail.com>
wrote:
> It is rectangular pulse, not sure how many samples per bit, it is > programmable. Modulation index can be any number from 0 to 1. It is really > a generic CPFSK demodulator. And I am looking for a demodulator and > synchronization technique which would give me a reasonably good BER > performance, and suitable for SDR application. > > Seems if I use correlation receiver I would need many samples per bit > period, but using Viterbi algorithm, only the phase sampled at the end of > each bit period is required. Is it right? > > ZCD detector requires large over clocking within the bit period. > > For the problem I have is it necessary to use a coherent demodulator? If i > choose to use correlation receiver based demodulator, what type of clock > and carrier synchronization method I can use? > From the reference I read that I can also use a noncoherent correlation > receiver which does not require carrier sync, and if I observe 5 bit symbol > interval then I could loss less than 0.5dB, is it true? If in this case > again what type of clock synchronization I can use. > > If I want to use costas loop type of synchronization, in the decision stage > is there any ML type of decision method that gives better performance than > hard decision? The reason I am hesitating using this sync technique is the > BER performance. &#2013266080; > > > > >gobruins <chunmei.kang@n_o_s_p_a_m.gmail.com> wrote: > > >>I am trying to build a binary CPFSK demodulator with self > synchronization. > >>Modulation index is not fixed. I kind of prefer coherent demodulation, > but > >>not sure how to do the synchronization. > > >What is your preamable design like? &#2013266080;How long are your packets? > >Is it rectangular or shaped? &#2013266080;And (perhaps most importantly) what is > >the frequency offset? > > >Steve
One non-coherent approach is to use a differential detector followed by a decision feedback equalizer (DFE). The output from the differential detector could be sampled at twice the baud rate before being fed to the DFE, and the phase of of the sampling doesn't have to be controlled because the DFE will adapt. This method may not be generic enough for you because it works best with signals that contain a preamble. Darol Klawetter
Reply by gobruins December 2, 20102010-12-02
It is rectangular pulse, not sure how many samples per bit, it is
programmable. Modulation index can be any number from 0 to 1. It is really
a generic CPFSK demodulator. And I am looking for a demodulator and
synchronization technique which would give me a reasonably good BER
performance, and suitable for SDR application. 

Seems if I use correlation receiver I would need many samples per bit
period, but using Viterbi algorithm, only the phase sampled at the end of
each bit period is required. Is it right?

ZCD detector requires large over clocking within the bit period.

For the problem I have is it necessary to use a coherent demodulator? If i
choose to use correlation receiver based demodulator, what type of clock
and carrier synchronization method I can use?
From the reference I read that I can also use a noncoherent correlation
receiver which does not require carrier sync, and if I observe 5 bit symbol
interval then I could loss less than 0.5dB, is it true? If in this case
again what type of clock synchronization I can use. 

If I want to use costas loop type of synchronization, in the decision stage
is there any ML type of decision method that gives better performance than
hard decision? The reason I am hesitating using this sync technique is the
BER performance.   




>gobruins <chunmei.kang@n_o_s_p_a_m.gmail.com> wrote: > >>I am trying to build a binary CPFSK demodulator with self
synchronization.
>>Modulation index is not fixed. I kind of prefer coherent demodulation,
but
>>not sure how to do the synchronization. > >What is your preamable design like? How long are your packets? >Is it rectangular or shaped? And (perhaps most importantly) what is >the frequency offset? > > >Steve >
Reply by Steve Pope December 2, 20102010-12-02
gobruins <chunmei.kang@n_o_s_p_a_m.gmail.com> wrote:

>I am trying to build a binary CPFSK demodulator with self synchronization. >Modulation index is not fixed. I kind of prefer coherent demodulation, but >not sure how to do the synchronization.
What is your preamable design like? How long are your packets? Is it rectangular or shaped? And (perhaps most importantly) what is the frequency offset? Steve