Hello, I am doing simulation studies for frequency and time domain equalization. From the complexit point of view I completely agreed to the fact that frequency domain is better in the number of multiplications/additions. Regarding the performance (BER ) point of view I can see there is a large 3-4 dB gap between time and domain equalization.i.e. time domain equalizer is performing better. I am not sure this result makes sense. Can anyone please clarify this. My simulation parameters are as follows: For time domain equalization I am using 31 tap MMSE filter For requency domain equalization I am using 128 point DFT. My channel impulse response is modeled as tapped delay line with 3 - tap Rayleigh channel with delay profile equal to that of Proakis channel B. Best Regards, -SaiRamesh.
Frequency /time domain equalization
Started by ●October 4, 2007
Reply by ●October 5, 20072007-10-05
On Oct 4, 10:26 am, "sairam...@gmail.com" <nammisairam...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hello, > I am doing simulation studies for frequency and time domain > equalization. From the complexit point of view I completely agreed to > the fact that frequency domain is better in the number of > multiplications/additions. Regarding the performance (BER ) point of > view I can see there is a large 3-4 dB gap between time and domain > equalization.i.e. time domain equalizer is performing better. I am > not sure this result makes sense. Can anyone please clarify this. > My simulation parameters are as follows: > For time domain equalization I am using 31 tap MMSE filter > > For requency domain equalization I am using 128 point DFT. > > My channel impulse response is modeled as tapped delay line with 3 - > tap Rayleigh channel with delay profile equal to that of Proakis > channel B. > > Best Regards, > -SaiRamesh.Did you use a cyclic prefix that is long enough to contain sufficient channel energy spread? Julius
Reply by ●October 5, 20072007-10-05