>AMAY wrote:
>> Hi every body,
>> My question is: In vectored DSL transmission; what are the main
drawbacks
>> of reducing the length of the cyclic prefix ?, I suggest the increase
of
>> NEXT (Near end crosstalk) but if that is the case, is it possible to
relay
>> on windowing and puls shaping to overcome the effect of NEXT.
>
>That is interesting. Could you explain a bit more how reducing the
>cyclic prefix will decrease NEXT?
>
>Guenter

According to my understanding, pending a CS to a DMT block at the
transmission side delayes the transmission process untill the receiption
of another DMT block is completed, by this way the IFFT process (in
trasmission) do not happen at the same time of FFT process(in receiption),
hence no interference (no NEXT).
AMAY  

AMAY wrote:
> Hi every body,
> My question is: In vectored DSL transmission; what are the main drawbacks
> of reducing the length of the cyclic prefix ?, I suggest the increase of
> NEXT (Near end crosstalk) but if that is the case, is it possible to relay
> on windowing and puls shaping to overcome the effect of NEXT.

That is interesting. Could you explain a bit more how reducing the
cyclic prefix will decrease NEXT?

Guenter

Hi every body,
My question is: In vectored DSL transmission; what are the main drawbacks
of reducing the length of the cyclic prefix ?, I suggest the increase of
NEXT (Near end crosstalk) but if that is the case, is it possible to relay
on windowing and puls shaping to overcome the effect of NEXT.

Thank you
AMAY