[hfsig] Performance of 24/192 soundcards? USB Soundcards
Robert McGwier rwmcgwier at comcast.netThu Sep 23 02:12:51 UTC 2004
- Previous message: [hfsig] Performance of 24/192 soundcards? USB Soundcards
- Next message: [hfsig] Performance of 24/192 soundcards? USB Soundcards
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
The AEA DSP2232 demodulator worked as well as it did on UO-14 and other NO DC transmitters because it had a fractionally spaced linear filter followed by a one tap per symbols DFE. However, be advised that this is the higher dimensional equivalent of "dividing by 0". There are better approaches "Viterbi equalizer" or EM algorithm. Both of these algorithm try to jointly find the channel filter and the data to produce a good replica of the observations. The former attempts to jointly find the channel and find the most likely emitted data path given the observations. The latter attempts to jointly find the channel and the emitted data at each symbol time that minimizes the probability of error given all of the observations. There is a neat algorithmic trick that uses Markovity of the data going forward and backward that makes this only slightly more expensive than the viterbi algorithm but is a better system for communications systems if it is computable. I wrote my doctoral thesis on the nonlinear really difficult versions of this algorithm. It is called nonlinear filtering and smoothing. One can also prove that the EM algorithm is the Kalman filter and smoother and then channel estimator to improve the probability of the observations. It is an iterative algorithm that can run over the data many times (unlike the viterbi or an equalizer). In practice, you usually do NOT need to do too many iterations, especially when known data is regularly sent as in HF modems for channel training purposes. Notice that these latter two algorithms do NOT attempt to invert the observations using an equalizer to get something that looks like filtered data. It finds data and a channel that most looks like the noise observation. The difference is in how you measure "most looks like". It is always better when doing DSP or sound card things to just not cripple yourself with the restrictions of analog, only realizable circuits. Interesting stuff. Bob N4HY -----Original Message----- From: hfsig-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:hfsig-bounces at lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Alexander Kurpiers Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 1:59 PM To: TAPR HF Modes SIG Mailing List Subject: Re: [hfsig] Performance of 24/192 soundcards? USB Soundcards Mark Jordan wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > I have sent you a 200kb ZIP file with the G3RUH circuit and partlist. > It would be very interesting having a 9k6bps modem that works without > needing DC frequency response. This could already be done with the original modem design, you just need a DFE in the receiver. This is done e.g. in the ALEF NULL project (see PAM-Signaling) ftp://ftp.tapr.org/dsp/Motorola/dsp56001/dsp_card_4/doc2.pdf The problem is: if you have a transceiver with bad DC response a receiver with DFE could still be used. But nobody we a "normal" receiver can copy your signal well. So you better go and improve your TX to be "compatible"... I would perhaps make sense to have something like that in the receiver of the digipeater to allow the users to have a bad DC response. Question is: is anybody still interested in 9k6 anyway :-(
- Previous message: [hfsig] Performance of 24/192 soundcards? USB Soundcards
- Next message: [hfsig] Performance of 24/192 soundcards? USB Soundcards
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the hfsig mailing list
