<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Coherent demodulation of DBPSK</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/</link>
	<description>Signal Processing for Communication</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:03:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Krishna Sankar</title>
		<link>http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/#comment-56215</link>
		<dc:creator>Krishna Sankar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 00:31:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/#comment-56215</guid>
		<description>@Krisha: I believe the 3dB gap comes out only if we use non-coherent demodulation for DBPSK. This post uses coherent demodulation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Krisha: I believe the 3dB gap comes out only if we use non-coherent demodulation for DBPSK. This post uses coherent demodulation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Krisha G</title>
		<link>http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/#comment-54768</link>
		<dc:creator>Krisha G</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 May 2011 09:00:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/#comment-54768</guid>
		<description>I was expecting to see a 3dB difference between BPSK and DBPSK BER curves. This is not seen when I plot your DBPSK with a BPSK curve. Could you explain why this is the case?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was expecting to see a 3dB difference between BPSK and DBPSK BER curves. This is not seen when I plot your DBPSK with a BPSK curve. Could you explain why this is the case?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Krishna Sankar</title>
		<link>http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/#comment-31716</link>
		<dc:creator>Krishna Sankar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 00:45:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/#comment-31716</guid>
		<description>@Mohammad: Thanks :) 
Alternatively, one can download the code and use it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Mohammad: Thanks <img src='http://www.dsplog.com/db-install/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
Alternatively, one can download the code and use it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mohammad</title>
		<link>http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/#comment-31663</link>
		<dc:creator>Mohammad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:32:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/#comment-31663</guid>
		<description>Dear Fahed,

after copy--&gt; paste the code you should change the &#039;  &#039; sign because it will not paseted in the correct shape.( i.e randn(’state’,200) ), and the all commas shall be changed</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Fahed,</p>
<p>after copy&#8211;&gt; paste the code you should change the &#8216;  &#8216; sign because it will not paseted in the correct shape.( i.e randn(’state’,200) ), and the all commas shall be changed</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Krishna Sankar</title>
		<link>http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/#comment-24640</link>
		<dc:creator>Krishna Sankar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Apr 2010 22:27:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/#comment-24640</guid>
		<description>@B. Ahmet Dogrusoz: Sorry, I have not tried modeling the fourth approach which you listed above. Also, I have not studied the impact of ADC jitter on the BER performance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@B. Ahmet Dogrusoz: Sorry, I have not tried modeling the fourth approach which you listed above. Also, I have not studied the impact of ADC jitter on the BER performance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: B. Ahmet Dogrusoz</title>
		<link>http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/#comment-24532</link>
		<dc:creator>B. Ahmet Dogrusoz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:42:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/#comment-24532</guid>
		<description>I will have to work slowly to my question, so I beg your patience:

The third demod method (c) seems to refer to the OPTIMUM NON-COHERENT (or, as some authors define it, the optimum differentially coherent) dbpsk demodulation method (and its theoretical performance)

(a) and (b) requires phase tracking since thay can merely tolerate phase errors and can not tolerate any frequency errors (except for very short bursts)

(c) on the other hand, can tolerate a limited amount of frequency error and is not affected by phase errors at all. In (c) receiver produces a random phase copy of the carrier tone (not necessarily phase matched to received signal&#039;s tone). Hence, it requires only a frequency estimator.  Tracking is optional, and one can use a simpler tracker, with a first order loop filter without any cost, (whereas first order loop filtered tracker will cause phase bias and performance degradation in (a) and (b)) 

All these are fine, but I would like to compare the effect of Phase Jitter and/or the timing jitter of the ADC used in the receiver. (c) is not necessarily more immune to jitter than (a) and (b). Or is it?

There is also a fourth option, using a sub-optimum non-coherent receiver (as is defined in &quot;Digital Modulation techniques&quot; by Fuqin Xiong, Chapter 4.2) that does NOT produce a copy of the carrier tone (phase matched or otherwise). This receiver merely band pass filters the incoming IF (intermediate frequency) signal  and multiplies with delayed version of itself, then integrates for the symbol period to get detector outputs.  Theoretically, the cost in performance is about 1 dB.

My question is: How does the tolerance of this fourth option to ADC timing jitter, compares to other types of receivers? Does the fourth method have significantly more tolerance to jitter than (c) ? Does anyone have any experience on this type of system?

Best Regards</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I will have to work slowly to my question, so I beg your patience:</p>
<p>The third demod method (c) seems to refer to the OPTIMUM NON-COHERENT (or, as some authors define it, the optimum differentially coherent) dbpsk demodulation method (and its theoretical performance)</p>
<p>(a) and (b) requires phase tracking since thay can merely tolerate phase errors and can not tolerate any frequency errors (except for very short bursts)</p>
<p>(c) on the other hand, can tolerate a limited amount of frequency error and is not affected by phase errors at all. In (c) receiver produces a random phase copy of the carrier tone (not necessarily phase matched to received signal&#8217;s tone). Hence, it requires only a frequency estimator.  Tracking is optional, and one can use a simpler tracker, with a first order loop filter without any cost, (whereas first order loop filtered tracker will cause phase bias and performance degradation in (a) and (b)) </p>
<p>All these are fine, but I would like to compare the effect of Phase Jitter and/or the timing jitter of the ADC used in the receiver. (c) is not necessarily more immune to jitter than (a) and (b). Or is it?</p>
<p>There is also a fourth option, using a sub-optimum non-coherent receiver (as is defined in &#8220;Digital Modulation techniques&#8221; by Fuqin Xiong, Chapter 4.2) that does NOT produce a copy of the carrier tone (phase matched or otherwise). This receiver merely band pass filters the incoming IF (intermediate frequency) signal  and multiplies with delayed version of itself, then integrates for the symbol period to get detector outputs.  Theoretically, the cost in performance is about 1 dB.</p>
<p>My question is: How does the tolerance of this fourth option to ADC timing jitter, compares to other types of receivers? Does the fourth method have significantly more tolerance to jitter than (c) ? Does anyone have any experience on this type of system?</p>
<p>Best Regards</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fahad</title>
		<link>http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/#comment-18099</link>
		<dc:creator>Fahad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:53:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dsplog.com/2007/09/30/coherent-demodulation-of-dbpsk/#comment-18099</guid>
		<description>is code rite ??? am not getting the graph as shown in figure :(</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>is code rite ??? am not getting the graph as shown in figure <img src='http://www.dsplog.com/db-install/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Served from: www.dsplog.com @ 2012-02-11 00:36:32 -->
