> "Randy Yates" <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:m3zmj5s268.fsf@ieee.org...
> > Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
> >
> >> Randy Yates wrote:
> >>> "Anonymous" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>I usually oversample by 4 just so I don't have to do any baud tracking.
> >>>>In
> >>>>my simulations I just take the sum of the magnutide of the four phases
> >>>>and
> >>>>then use the largest as the resampling phase for everything else, i.e.
> >>>>
> >>>>for i=1:4
> >>>> baud_phases(i) = sum(abs(xin(i:4:end)));
> >>>>end
> >>>>[y, best_phase] = max(baud_phases);
> >>>>
> >>>>symbols = xin(best_phase:4:end)
> >>>>
> >>>>The alternative is to run the signal through a non-linearity, pick out
> >>>>the
> >>>>baud line, and track the sample phase with a PLL tied to the baud line.
> >>>>But
> >>>>since the loop takes a while to converge you either have to run it
> >>>>through
> >>>>the data twice or throw away the first portion of the simulation result.
> >>>>
> >>>>-Clark
> >>> What if the ideal baud timing lies between samples?
> >>
> >> Just a guess, but I think that's the whole point. If you're
> >> oversampled by enough, the ideal time can't be too far from a sample.
> >
> > Maybe. I'm just thinking through this for the first time (obviously).
> >
> > What I don't understand is, presuming the timing doesn't change throughout
> > the sequence, why don't we just find the timing once at the beginning and
> > then shift it to the proper sampling points at the baseband rate using
> > an all-pass filter? Then instead of running the entire simulation at N
> > times
> > the symbol rate, you just run a small timing recovery piece at the
> > beginning.
> > Seems like it'd save oodles of simulation time.
> I usually do do that, just to make sure it agrees with the calculated delay
> and gain. check out any phase shift with amplitude dependencies then run
> everything with a cheat wire and noise free as much as possible. Even so I
> like using at least 16 complex samples/symbol cos I'm usually using table
> look-up non-linearities and filter responses with some ACI in the system and
> at this rate linear interpolation isn't bad. Plus you get pretty looking
> constellation plots / eye diagrams etc. without any extra processing.
>
> For me, the idea of simulation is to get some information about some small
> part of your system's behaviour without having to model all the aggravating
> reality that gets in the way in test. You can always put more and more
> reality in later to slow your sims down more and more 'til finally it's so
> real you can't tell what on earth is happening without massive amounts of
> post processing to remove the effects of all the clutter you have wasted
> most of your processor power introducing.
>
> Best of luck - Mike
Here's a minor trick that can be used to apply sampling rate error in
increments of one PPM using Matlab's interpolation routines, which
don't directly support small changes:
P1=999;Q1=1000;P2=1001;Q2=1000;
if(PPM > 0)
for k = 1:abs(PPM)
z = resample(z,P1,Q1);
z = resample(z,P2,Q2);
end
elseif(PPM < 0)
for k = 1:abs(PPM)
z = resample(z,Q1,P1);
z = resample(z,Q2,P2);
end
end
John
Reply by Mike Yarwood●April 1, 20062006-04-01
"Randy Yates" <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:m3zmj5s268.fsf@ieee.org...
> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
>
>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>> "Anonymous" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>I usually oversample by 4 just so I don't have to do any baud tracking.
>>>>In
>>>>my simulations I just take the sum of the magnutide of the four phases
>>>>and
>>>>then use the largest as the resampling phase for everything else, i.e.
>>>>
>>>>for i=1:4
>>>> baud_phases(i) = sum(abs(xin(i:4:end)));
>>>>end
>>>>[y, best_phase] = max(baud_phases);
>>>>
>>>>symbols = xin(best_phase:4:end)
>>>>
>>>>The alternative is to run the signal through a non-linearity, pick out
>>>>the
>>>>baud line, and track the sample phase with a PLL tied to the baud line.
>>>>But
>>>>since the loop takes a while to converge you either have to run it
>>>>through
>>>>the data twice or throw away the first portion of the simulation result.
>>>>
>>>>-Clark
>>> What if the ideal baud timing lies between samples?
>>
>> Just a guess, but I think that's the whole point. If you're
>> oversampled by enough, the ideal time can't be too far from a sample.
>
> Maybe. I'm just thinking through this for the first time (obviously).
>
> What I don't understand is, presuming the timing doesn't change throughout
> the sequence, why don't we just find the timing once at the beginning and
> then shift it to the proper sampling points at the baseband rate using
> an all-pass filter? Then instead of running the entire simulation at N
> times
> the symbol rate, you just run a small timing recovery piece at the
> beginning.
> Seems like it'd save oodles of simulation time.
I usually do do that, just to make sure it agrees with the calculated delay
and gain. check out any phase shift with amplitude dependencies then run
everything with a cheat wire and noise free as much as possible. Even so I
like using at least 16 complex samples/symbol cos I'm usually using table
look-up non-linearities and filter responses with some ACI in the system and
at this rate linear interpolation isn't bad. Plus you get pretty looking
constellation plots / eye diagrams etc. without any extra processing.
For me, the idea of simulation is to get some information about some small
part of your system's behaviour without having to model all the aggravating
reality that gets in the way in test. You can always put more and more
reality in later to slow your sims down more and more 'til finally it's so
real you can't tell what on earth is happening without massive amounts of
post processing to remove the effects of all the clutter you have wasted
most of your processor power introducing.
Best of luck - Mike
Reply by john●April 1, 20062006-04-01
Randy Yates wrote:
> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
>
> > Randy Yates wrote:
> >> "Anonymous" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>I usually oversample by 4 just so I don't have to do any baud tracking. In
> >>>my simulations I just take the sum of the magnutide of the four phases and
> >>>then use the largest as the resampling phase for everything else, i.e.
> >>>
> >>>for i=1:4
> >>> baud_phases(i) = sum(abs(xin(i:4:end)));
> >>>end
> >>>[y, best_phase] = max(baud_phases);
> >>>
> >>>symbols = xin(best_phase:4:end)
> >>>
> >>>The alternative is to run the signal through a non-linearity, pick out the
> >>>baud line, and track the sample phase with a PLL tied to the baud line. But
> >>>since the loop takes a while to converge you either have to run it through
> >>>the data twice or throw away the first portion of the simulation result.
> >>>
> >>>-Clark
> >> What if the ideal baud timing lies between samples?
> >
> > Just a guess, but I think that's the whole point. If you're
> > oversampled by enough, the ideal time can't be too far from a sample.
>
> Maybe. I'm just thinking through this for the first time (obviously).
>
> What I don't understand is, presuming the timing doesn't change throughout
> the sequence, why don't we just find the timing once at the beginning and
> then shift it to the proper sampling points at the baseband rate using
> an all-pass filter? Then instead of running the entire simulation at N times
> the symbol rate, you just run a small timing recovery piece at the beginning.
> Seems like it'd save oodles of simulation time.
> --
> % Randy Yates % "Watching all the days go by...
> %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % Who are you and who am I?"
> %%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
> %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % *A New World Record*, ELO
> http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
This is frequently done in burst-mode receivers, even if the timing
does change. From the PPM error, one can compute the burst length
before the timing shifts too far. One PPM error is one full bit shift
in one million bits, etc.
John
Reply by Jerry Avins●April 1, 20062006-04-01
Randy Yates wrote:
> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
>
>
>>Randy Yates wrote:
...
>>>What if the ideal baud timing lies between samples?
>>
>>Just a guess, but I think that's the whole point. If you're
>>oversampled by enough, the ideal time can't be too far from a sample.
>
>
> Maybe. I'm just thinking through this for the first time (obviously).
>
> What I don't understand is, presuming the timing doesn't change throughout
> the sequence, why don't we just find the timing once at the beginning and
> then shift it to the proper sampling points at the baseband rate using
> an all-pass filter? Then instead of running the entire simulation at N times
> the symbol rate, you just run a small timing recovery piece at the beginning.
> Seems like it'd save oodles of simulation time.
Not knowing the details, I can't answer intelligently. Maybe the final
system is to run oversampled, and the simulation reflects reality.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Randy Yates●April 1, 20062006-04-01
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
> Randy Yates wrote:
>> "Anonymous" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
>>
>>>I usually oversample by 4 just so I don't have to do any baud tracking. In
>>>my simulations I just take the sum of the magnutide of the four phases and
>>>then use the largest as the resampling phase for everything else, i.e.
>>>
>>>for i=1:4
>>> baud_phases(i) = sum(abs(xin(i:4:end)));
>>>end
>>>[y, best_phase] = max(baud_phases);
>>>
>>>symbols = xin(best_phase:4:end)
>>>
>>>The alternative is to run the signal through a non-linearity, pick out the
>>>baud line, and track the sample phase with a PLL tied to the baud line. But
>>>since the loop takes a while to converge you either have to run it through
>>>the data twice or throw away the first portion of the simulation result.
>>>
>>>-Clark
>> What if the ideal baud timing lies between samples?
>
> Just a guess, but I think that's the whole point. If you're
> oversampled by enough, the ideal time can't be too far from a sample.
Maybe. I'm just thinking through this for the first time (obviously).
What I don't understand is, presuming the timing doesn't change throughout
the sequence, why don't we just find the timing once at the beginning and
then shift it to the proper sampling points at the baseband rate using
an all-pass filter? Then instead of running the entire simulation at N times
the symbol rate, you just run a small timing recovery piece at the beginning.
Seems like it'd save oodles of simulation time.
--
% Randy Yates % "Watching all the days go by...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % Who are you and who am I?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Reply by Anonymous●April 1, 20062006-04-01
"Randy Yates" <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:m3acb5tl7l.fsf@ieee.org...
> "Anonymous" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
>
> > I usually oversample by 4 just so I don't have to do any baud tracking.
In
> > my simulations I just take the sum of the magnutide of the four phases
and
> > then use the largest as the resampling phase for everything else, i.e.
> >
> > for i=1:4
> > baud_phases(i) = sum(abs(xin(i:4:end)));
> > end
> > [y, best_phase] = max(baud_phases);
> >
> > symbols = xin(best_phase:4:end)
> >
> > The alternative is to run the signal through a non-linearity, pick out
the
> > baud line, and track the sample phase with a PLL tied to the baud line.
But
> > since the loop takes a while to converge you either have to run it
through
> > the data twice or throw away the first portion of the simulation result.
> >
> > -Clark
>
> What if the ideal baud timing lies between samples?
> --
> % Randy Yates % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
> %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % sliding, it's magic."
> %%% 919-577-9882 %
> %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*,
Yes, this is only coarse accuracy. You can be off by as much as +/-.125 a
symbol period but its usually good enough especially if you follow it with
an equalizer.
-Clark
Reply by Anonymous●April 1, 20062006-04-01
Sort of. Most baud tracking loops work on data that is 2x the baud rate. You
need the symbol peaks and the transition points to make it work. If you
sketch a bpsk signal, for example, sample it a 2 times per symbol, take the
absolute value, it's easy to see that optimal alignment is when you
maximize the amplitude of the resulting signal that "looks like" a sinusoid
at Pi.
"Randy Yates" <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:m3hd5dtlbp.fsf@ieee.org...
> Thanks john and Anonymous. So the main reason is to aid in symbol timing?
>
> By the way, if you are not oversampled and you do a nonlinearity (e.g.,
> absolute value) as part of finding the baud line, then don't you run the
> risk of reflecting the nonlinearity spurs back into the baseband? In
> other words, even if we don't oversample the main data stream, don't
> we need to oversample the nonlinearity function to avoid this?
>
> --Randy
>
>
> "john" <johns@xetron.com> writes:
>
> > Anonymous wrote:
> >> I usually oversample by 4 just so I don't have to do any baud tracking.
In
> >> my simulations I just take the sum of the magnutide of the four phases
and
> >> then use the largest as the resampling phase for everything else, i.e.
> >>
> >> for i=1:4
> >> baud_phases(i) = sum(abs(xin(i:4:end)));
> >> end
> >> [y, best_phase] = max(baud_phases);
> >>
> >> symbols = xin(best_phase:4:end)
> >>
> >> The alternative is to run the signal through a non-linearity, pick out
the
> >> baud line, and track the sample phase with a PLL tied to the baud line.
But
> >> since the loop takes a while to converge you either have to run it
through
> >> the data twice or throw away the first portion of the simulation
result.
> >>
> >> -Clark
> >>
> >
> > An enhancement to this is to run a leaky integrator or boxcar on all
> > the baud phases over time, and choose the highest smoothed baud phase.
> > That performs better in low Eb/No situations.
> >
> > John
> >
>
> --
> % Randy Yates % "Watching all the days go by...
> %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % Who are you and who am I?"
> %%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
> %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % *A New World Record*, ELO
> http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Reply by Jerry Avins●April 1, 20062006-04-01
Randy Yates wrote:
> "Anonymous" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
>
>
>>I usually oversample by 4 just so I don't have to do any baud tracking. In
>>my simulations I just take the sum of the magnutide of the four phases and
>>then use the largest as the resampling phase for everything else, i.e.
>>
>>for i=1:4
>> baud_phases(i) = sum(abs(xin(i:4:end)));
>>end
>>[y, best_phase] = max(baud_phases);
>>
>>symbols = xin(best_phase:4:end)
>>
>>The alternative is to run the signal through a non-linearity, pick out the
>>baud line, and track the sample phase with a PLL tied to the baud line. But
>>since the loop takes a while to converge you either have to run it through
>>the data twice or throw away the first portion of the simulation result.
>>
>>-Clark
>
>
> What if the ideal baud timing lies between samples?
Just a guess, but I think that's the whole point. If you're oversampled
by enough, the ideal time can't be too far from a sample.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Randy Yates●April 1, 20062006-04-01
"Anonymous" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
> I usually oversample by 4 just so I don't have to do any baud tracking. In
> my simulations I just take the sum of the magnutide of the four phases and
> then use the largest as the resampling phase for everything else, i.e.
>
> for i=1:4
> baud_phases(i) = sum(abs(xin(i:4:end)));
> end
> [y, best_phase] = max(baud_phases);
>
> symbols = xin(best_phase:4:end)
>
> The alternative is to run the signal through a non-linearity, pick out the
> baud line, and track the sample phase with a PLL tied to the baud line. But
> since the loop takes a while to converge you either have to run it through
> the data twice or throw away the first portion of the simulation result.
>
> -Clark
What if the ideal baud timing lies between samples?
--
% Randy Yates % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % sliding, it's magic."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Reply by Randy Yates●April 1, 20062006-04-01
Thanks john and Anonymous. So the main reason is to aid in symbol timing?
By the way, if you are not oversampled and you do a nonlinearity (e.g.,
absolute value) as part of finding the baud line, then don't you run the
risk of reflecting the nonlinearity spurs back into the baseband? In
other words, even if we don't oversample the main data stream, don't
we need to oversample the nonlinearity function to avoid this?
--Randy
"john" <johns@xetron.com> writes:
> Anonymous wrote:
>> I usually oversample by 4 just so I don't have to do any baud tracking. In
>> my simulations I just take the sum of the magnutide of the four phases and
>> then use the largest as the resampling phase for everything else, i.e.
>>
>> for i=1:4
>> baud_phases(i) = sum(abs(xin(i:4:end)));
>> end
>> [y, best_phase] = max(baud_phases);
>>
>> symbols = xin(best_phase:4:end)
>>
>> The alternative is to run the signal through a non-linearity, pick out the
>> baud line, and track the sample phase with a PLL tied to the baud line. But
>> since the loop takes a while to converge you either have to run it through
>> the data twice or throw away the first portion of the simulation result.
>>
>> -Clark
>>
>
> An enhancement to this is to run a leaky integrator or boxcar on all
> the baud phases over time, and choose the highest smoothed baud phase.
> That performs better in low Eb/No situations.
>
> John
>
--
% Randy Yates % "Watching all the days go by...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % Who are you and who am I?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr