Hi DingJing,

I'm not sure what's going on here, but I think it could be likely that
your estimate of the preamble-autocorrelation simply doesn't work all
too well.

Generally: ditch benchmark_rx and the blocks it uses. They are really
superseeded by the OFDM blocks that were introduced in 2013 – they are
far better, and also, will simply give you the estimates you want, I think.

Make sure you have a recent version of GNU Radio, and look for the
rx_ofdm.grc example (likely somewhere in
/usr/share/gnuradio/examples/digital/ofdm). The "Schmidl & Cox OFDM
synch." block /actually/ has an output "freq_offset", and the "OFDM
Channel Estimation" block adds a stream tag containing the full
subcarrier offset (if any). **

Other than that:
> I've been trying to figure out the frequency offset of USRP recently.
Could you specify this a bit more?

Best regards,
Marcus


On 19.05.2016 05:53, DingJing wrote:
> Hi all,I've been trying to figure out the frequency offset of USRP
> recently. So I run the OFDM benchmark program and output the
> compensation value of fine offset.For detail,in benchmark.rx.py, we
> import ofdm_receiver,and ofdm_reciver import ofdm_sync_pn to calculate
> the fine offset and do time synchronization.The main procedure of
> ofdm_sync_pn(using Schmidl and Cox algorithm) is as following:
>
> And I output the S/H(sample and hold) block to file sink block to
> record the fine offset.However,the result figure are as following:
> X label can be regarded as time,Y label is the output fine offset by
> angle between -Pi to Pi.It is fiercely different from my expectation
> in which the figure should be a straight line approximately.I wonder
> why this happens.Thank you so much!
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio

_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio

Reply via email to