The frequency agility between the radios is 800 mhz. Vastly different radio filters. Both are capable of similar channel bandwidths. This is all done at MCS0 / QPSK
I'm comparing, basically, their sensitivity and selectivity. The radio that is frequency capable of 200mhz is also capable of hitting 4096QAM, while the radio capable of operating in a 1GHz range of frequencies is 256QAM capable. Basically, it's (the 256QAM radio) sensitivity at the same modulation and the same power is wayyyyyy closer than I would expect it should be - vastly different, and far cheaper components. TL;DR: I'm calling BS on the data sheet :) On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) < li...@packetflux.com> wrote: > 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 > <https://maps.google.com/?q=3577+Countryside+Road,+Helena,+MT+59602&entry=gmail&source=g> > forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> > <http://twitter.com/@packetflux> > >
