Do the processor usage for the various mod/demod schemes change that
much?
Which scheme is the least processor intensive?
Thanks!
-William
On 11/17/2010 09:52 AM, William C. wrote:
Do the processor usage for the various mod/demod schemes change that
much? Which scheme is the least processor intensive?
Thanks!
-William
Wildly and vastly!
Consider AM, for example (or OOK in the data world) it’s just a multiply
operation on the carrier.
Simple, easy, and demodulation is just as cheap.
From that point, it’s all over the place!
OFDM is probably the most expensive one in the arsenal these days.
–
Principal Investigator
Shirleys Bay Radio Astronomy Consortium
I guess it’d be nice if there was a way to compare spectral efficiency
vs.
processing power.
In terms of complex modulation schemes, which would be least intensive?
QAM,
QPSK, GMSK?
I ask because I’m trying to use an Atom-based system for running
GNURadio
and I’d like to minimize the overhead as much as possible. I’ve been
using
GMSK so far, but I got to wondering if I could save any appreciable
amount
by switching to an “easier” modulation scheme.
Thanks!
-William
On 11/17/2010 12:26 PM, William C. wrote:
I guess it’d be nice if there was a way to compare spectral efficiency
vs. processing power.
In terms of complex modulation schemes, which would be least
intensive? QAM, QPSK, GMSK?
Consult a modern signal processing book.I ask because I’m trying to use an Atom-based system for running
GNURadio and I’d like to minimize the overhead as much as possible.
I’ve been using GMSK so far, but I got to wondering if I could save
any appreciable amount by switching to an “easier” modulation scheme.
For low-bit-rate stuff, OOK works fairly well, but it isn’t particularly
spectrally efficient, and it’s a bugger to correctly demodulate in
low-SNR situations AFAIK.