On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:25:40AM -0700, George Nychis wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Johnathan Corgan <
> jcor...@corganenterprises.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 06:28, Dimitris Symeonidis
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Do we even need timestamps, or are the samples aligned (interle
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Johnathan Corgan <
jcor...@corganenterprises.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 06:28, Dimitris Symeonidis
> wrote:
>
> > Do we even need timestamps, or are the samples aligned (interleaved)
> > anyway, even with the standard FPGA image? We don't care about
> >
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 06:28, Dimitris Symeonidis wrote:
> Do we even need timestamps, or are the samples aligned (interleaved)
> anyway, even with the standard FPGA image? We don't care about
> absolute time, just time (phase) difference between the two channels.
With the standard image, if you
> Do we even need timestamps, or are the samples aligned (interleaved)
> anyway, even with the standard FPGA image? We don't care about
> absolute time, just time (phase) difference between the two channels.
I've done beamforming by modifying the standard build to have all the
DDCs running from on
Hi list,
we're trying to use the inband FPGA image (inband_2rxhb_2tx.rbf)
trying to get the samples coming from two channels (for now, maybe
more later) on the same rev4 USRP aligned. Our ultimate goal is to do
beamforming with the USRP.
We have noticed that the distance between the timestamps of
