<<<All Things Wireless>>>
LDPC codes were first proposed by Robert Gallager in 1960 but they did not get immediate recognition as they were quite cumbersome to code and decode. But in 1995 the interest in these codes was revived, after discovery of Turbo Codes. Both these codes achieve the Shannon Limit and have been adopted in many wireless communication systems including 5G.
Read moreConvolutional codes when decoded using Viterbi Algorithm (VA) provide significant gains over the no coding case. The performance is further improved by using soft metrics instead of hard metrics (Euclidean distance is used in this case instead of Hamming distance). In fact, the performance is even better than brute force ML decoded Hamming (7,4) Code discussed in the previous section.
Read moreIn this post we discuss Hamming (7,4) Code which transmits 4 information bits for every 7 bits transmitted, resulting in a code rate of 4/7. The 3 additional bits are called parity bits and these protect against single bit errors in the channel. This is called a systematic code since after performing the coding operation the information bits are preserved, parity bits are only appended to the information bits.
Read moreCarrier phase or frequency synchronization is a common problem in wireless communication systems. These two problems are interrelated as instantaneous frequency is just the rate of change of phase.
Read moreIt is widely believed that performance of non-coherent receivers is much worse than performance of coherent receivers in terms of Bit Error Rate (BER). Although this is true to some extent but as we show in this post the difference in performance is not that much in case of Minimum Shift Keying (MSK). In fact, there is only a difference of about one dB in an AWGN environment at high Signal to Noise Ratios (SNR). The difference is somewhat larger in flat fading environment but given the simplicity of implementation of a non-coherent receiver the trade-off might be worth it.
Read moreIn this post we consider a special case of MSK called Orthogonal MSK (OMSK) where the power of both the signals is the same (or almost the same) and there is no frequency offset. However, there is a phase offset of 90 degrees. As is evident from our previous posts MSK can be viewed as BPSK with information being transferred via in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) carriers alternatively. In OMSK the interferer is 90 degrees offset from the signal of interest. So, when there is information being transmitted via I, interferer is on Q and when information is being transmitted via Q, interferer is on I.
Read moreI – In the previous two posts we discussed MSK performance in an AWGN channel, first presenting the MATLAB/OCTAVE Code for one sample per symbol case [Post 1], and then extending it to the more general case of multiple samples per symbol [Post 2]. This helps us visualize the underlying beauty of Continuous Phase Modulation (CPM) which reduces out of band energy and consequently lowers Adjacent Channel Interference (ACI). We also briefly touched upon the case of MSK in Rayleigh fading, but did not go into the details. So here we take a deeper dive.
Read moreMinimum Shift Keying (MSK) is a type of Continuous Phase Modulation (CPM) that has been used in many wireless communication systems. To be more precise it is Continuous Phase Frequency Shift Keying (CPFSK) with two frequencies f1 and f2.
Read moreAs the data rates supported by wireless networks continue to rise the bandwidth requirements also continue to increase (although spectral efficiency has also improved). Remember GSM technology which supported 125 channels of 200KHz each, which was further divided among eight users using TDMA. Move on to LTE where the channel bandwidth could be as high as 20MHz (1.4MHz, 3MHz, 5MHz, 10MHz, 15MHz and 20MHz are standardized). This advancement poses a unique challenge referred to as frequency selective fading. This means that different parts of the signal spectrum would see a different channel (different amplitude and different phase offset). Look at […]
Read more