Hey Tom,
I just re-read the section around eq 39, and you are right. I looked at 39
and thought he setup the ratio, Eq37/Eq38, but that's not what he did. It's
clear now and you're code is correct. Sorry about that.
Rich
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Tom Rondeau wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 20
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Richard Bell
wrote:
> I figured out what was causing my numbers to be incorrect using M2M4. I
> was overlooking the fact that I was injecting noise at sample rate, but
> estimating noise power and a decimated rate. Once I took this into account,
> the estimate was
I figured out what was causing my numbers to be incorrect using M2M4. I was
overlooking the fact that I was injecting noise at sample rate, but
estimating noise power and a decimated rate. Once I took this into account,
the estimate was in line with what I expect.
I have not reconciled the differe
I've been comparing the m2m4 algorithm from the Norman Beaulieu paper "A
Comparison of SNR Estimation Techniques" to what is implemented in the
mpsk_snr_est.cc file. I see two implementations of the algorithm in that
file, one of which looks perfectly in-line with the paper and the other
does not.
