Can you give specific examples? Having a hard time understanding for sure the exact specs you're comparing.
In relation to the thermal noise floor: just reducing from 1000mz to 200mhz will gain you ~7db of noise floor. But usually that's in a channel, not in the entire 'frequency agility' area. Maybe they aren't all that selective within the 1Ghz bandwidth. I've never been able to find a chart of theoretical required s/n ratio for each of the QAM's so I can't comment on how much difference there is supposed to be - after all, with everything else being the same (channel, modulation, power, etc), 256QAM should definitely require a lower signal strength than a 4096QAM radio. They definitely shouldn't be the same with the same channel width, unless one radio is noisier or more susceptible to noise. And sensitivity should just be about the receiver, not the transmitter. On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: > Can someone smarter than I fill me in on something? I'm comparing some > radios here (no names...) > > One radio is 256 QAM, with a 1000mhz operating range > > Another one is 4096 QAM, with a 200mhz operating range > > Can you explain to me how the sensitivity on the 256QAM radio, at the > same modulation rate, same (scaled) power level, claims to be with a > single dB or two as sensitive as the 4096QAM radio with an 800mhz > smaller operating range? > > Anyone? > > Thanks :) > > --- > Josh Reynolds > -- *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.* Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux>
