re is not given.
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>
>> I would add front end filter loss adds directly to noise figure which
>> affects sensitivity.
>>
>> *From:* Chris Gustaf
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:11 PM
>>
, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
> I would add front end filter loss adds directly to noise figure which
> affects sensitivity.
>
> *From:* Chris Gustaf
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:11 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] radio specifica
Thanks Chris, that helps point me in the right direction.
On Sep 21, 2017 1:11 PM, "Chris Gustaf" wrote:
You are correct that wider front end filters give up masking and rejection
of out of band interferers, but the intermediate frequency (IF) and
baseband filters are what determines RX sensitiv
I would add front end filter loss adds directly to noise figure which affects
sensitivity.
From: Chris Gustaf
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:11 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] radio specifications... HOW?
You are correct that wider front end filters give up masking and
You are correct that wider front end filters give up masking and rejection
of out of band interferers, but the intermediate frequency (IF) and
baseband filters are what determines RX sensitivity.
In the case you outlined, if the channel width was say 56 MHz for both QAMs
and the tuning range was 2
It is my understanding that the larger the operational range of the radio,
it is using vastly different filters to accommodate that range. These
filters give up masking performance outside of the channel mask for an
increase in range.
Those wider range filters end up costing the radio *selectivity
In general for each increase in modulation level it requires about 3 dB
more SNR (see below), and for each doubling of channel bandwidth you lose 3
dB sensitivity.
SNR Requirements for Trango and others:
QAM/SNR (dB)
256QAM/26.1
512QAM/29
1024QAM/32.5
2048QAM/35.8
4096QAM/40
The frequency tuning
I would rather not name the vendors at this time.
On Sep 21, 2017 2:30 AM, "Mitch Koep" wrote:
> Josh
>
> Will you shall the radio info?
>
> Mitch
>
> On 9/21/2017 12:57 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
>
> The frequency agility between the radios is 800 mhz. Vastly different
> radio filters.
> Both ar
Josh
Will you shall the radio info?
Mitch
On 9/21/2017 12:57 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
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 sensiti
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 hittin
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
For clarification, at the same modulation rate AND at the same channel
bandwidth.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Josh Reynolds 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
>
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,
13 matches
Mail list logo
