[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] constellation object
From: |
Ben Reynwar |
Subject: |
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] constellation object |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:01:14 -0700 |
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Martin Braun <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 01:36:46PM -0700, Ben Reynwar wrote:
>> > You've got that right: a soft decider doesn't really decide, but rather
>> > gives a value how good the estimate is. Say you have a binary output,
>> > 1 and -1. A soft decider can also give any value in between. If you get
>> > a 0, then the soft decider really has no clue what was actually
>> > transmitted and instead of guessing a binary value, it relays this
>> > uncertainty.
>> > One place this is really important is the channel decoding.
>> >
>>
>> That makes sense. What kind of values would you output when you have more
>> than 2 symbols? Would you just give the distances to the closest n points?
>
> Good question--but it also depends on where you need the soft values.
> Say you have a 4-QAM and a binary channel code. Then you'd split every symbol
> in two soft values, one for each bit. In this case, assuming phase was
> corrected, the real and imaginary values.
>
OK. I think I need to do some reading on channel coding before I can really get
what's going on here. Thanks for your help.
Cheers,
Ben
- [Discuss-gnuradio] constellation object, Ben Reynwar, 2011/01/15
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] constellation object, Tom Rondeau, 2011/01/16
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] constellation object, Ben Reynwar, 2011/01/17
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] constellation object, Tom Rondeau, 2011/01/18
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] constellation object, Ben Reynwar, 2011/01/19
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] constellation object, Martin Braun, 2011/01/20
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] constellation object, Ben Reynwar, 2011/01/20
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] constellation object, Martin Braun, 2011/01/21
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] constellation object,
Ben Reynwar <=