Scribd
Upload
39 views2 pages

Communication Lab Report 4

The document discusses the impact of receiver phase alteration on carrier modulation. It finds that errors are observed when the receiver phase is altered from π/2 to 3π/2 radians, with bit error rates reaching 1. It also analyzes the effect of receiver phase shifts on 4-PSK modulation.

Uploaded by

Aparna Sivakumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
39 views2 pages

Communication Lab Report 4

The document discusses the impact of receiver phase alteration on carrier modulation. It finds that errors are observed when the receiver phase is altered from π/2 to 3π/2 radians, with bit error rates reaching 1. It also analyzes the effect of receiver phase shifts on 4-PSK modulation.

Uploaded by

Aparna Sivakumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CARRIER MODULATION

Aparna.Sivakumar: aparna96.sivakumar@tum.de

1. With the receiver phase perfectly aligned (0 radians), the system exhibits error-free transmission, as expected in an
ideal, noise-free environment with perfect synchronization.
Impact of Receiver Phase Alteration: Experimental Change: The receiver phase of carrier demodulation is varied,
transmitter and receiver may not be perfectly synchronized, or phase errors may be introduced by the channel.
Error Observation: Errors in transmission are observed when the receiver phase is altered, particularly in the range
from π/2 to 3π/2 radians.
Analysis of Bit Error Rate (BER): BER at Specific Phases:
At π/2 receiver phase, BER is approximately 0.341. At 3π/2 receiver phase, BER is approximately 0.590. For receiver
phases between π/2 and 3π/2, BER is 1.
Reason for High BER: In 2-ASK which is similar to BPSK, the information is encoded in the phase of the carrier. A
phase shift due to receiver phase alteration can lead to the received signal being interpreted incorrectly. For receiver
phases between π/2 and 3π/2, the phase shift pushes the received signal across the decision boundary, resulting in
every bit being interpreted incorrectly (hence BER = 1). Specific BER Values at Boundary Phases (π/2 and 3π/2):
The non-unity BER at these specific phases arises due to the decision mechanism at the boundary. When the phase
shift is exactly π/2 or 3π/2, the received signal lies on the decision boundary, leading to ambiguity in bit determination.
This results in a significant but not complete error rate.
2. Observation and Analysis of BER:
BER Value: For receiver phases in the range π/4 to 3π/4 and 5π/4 to 7π/4, the BER is 0.5.
Reason for BER = 0.5: In 4-PSK, each symbol represents two bits. With receiver phases in these ranges, one of the
two bits is always decoded correctly while the other is consistently misinterpreted. This consistent misinterpretation
is due to the maximum likelihood decoder choosing the closest constellation point, which, due to the phase shift, is
no longer the correct one. As a result, you observe a BER of 0.5, implying that half the bits are in error.
Impact of Changing Receiver Phase: Altering Receiver Phase: Changing the receiver phase will rotate the scatter
plot further, potentially leading to different constellation points being misinterpreted. The impact on BER will de-
pend on how the new phase alignment correlates with the 4-PSK constellation points. BER with Different Phases:
Depending on the exact phase shift, the BER can vary. For phases that align the received symbols closer to their
correct constellation points, the BER will decrease. However, if the phase shift aligns the received symbols closer to
incorrect constellation points, the BER will increase.
3. Yes , Differential Encoding: Unlike traditional PSK, 4-DPSK encodes information in the phase change between
consecutive symbols, not the absolute phase of each symbol. This means that the exact phase of the carrier is not
critical for correct demodulation.
Resilience to Phase Mismatch: The constant phase mismatch between the received signal and the local oscillator
signal at the receiver does not significantly impact the 4-DPSK demodulation process. Since 4-DPSK focuses on the
phase difference between successive symbols, any constant phase offset is inherently canceled out during the decoding
process.
In summary 4-DPSK modulation is a practical solution to overcome the challenges posed by a constant phase mismatch
in the receiver. By focusing on the phase difference between consecutive symbols, 4-DPSK effectively negates the
impact of such mismatches, leading to reliable and robust communication even in the presence of synchronization
issues.
4. System and Challenge:
• Modulation: 4-PSK
• Settings:
5
– Transmitter Frequency: Ts
5.01
– Receiver Frequency: Ts

author 2024-01-21 1
– Frequency Mismatch: ∆ f = 0.01/Ts
• Issue: Frequency mismatch leads to phase drift in received signal.
Signal Behavior Analysis:
• Phase Drift Equation: Received signal experiences phase drift:

cos(2πf t + bπ) × cos(2π(f + ∆f )t) → cos(2π∆f t + bπ)

• Impact: Subsequent symbols increasingly rotated in constellation diagram.


Observations:
• Scatter Plot: Points progressively rotate, tracing a circle for larger sequence lengths.
• Trajectories of yi: Continuous phase rotation.
Solution with 4-DPSK:
• Applicability: Effective for low frequency mismatches (e.g., ∆ f = 0.01/Ts).
• Limitation: Less effective for larger frequency mismatches.
Other Possible Solutions:
• Phase-Locked Loop (PLL)
• Adaptive Equalization
In summary, the frequency mismatch in a 4-PSK system causes a continuous phase rotation in the received signal,
making standard demodulation challenging. 4-DPSK offers a potential solution for low mismatches, but other tech-
niques like PLL or adaptive equalization might be required for larger mismatches.
1
5. In a communication system with an activated bandpass channel limitation, reducing the bandwidth below Ts (symbol
period) leads to increased errors and closure of the eye diagram, indicating greater intersymbol interference (ISI).
A practical solution to mitigate these issues in a band-limited channel is to decrease the carrier frequency. This ad-
justment helps fit more of the signal’s critical components within the limited bandwidth, thereby reducing ISI and
improving signal clarity. However, this approach must be balanced with overall system requirements and environ-
mental constraints.
6. The inclusion of a lowpass filter at the demodulator in a digital communication system can have varying effects on the
Bit Error Rate (BER) performance. Scenarios can be identified where the lowpass filter improves BER performance
compared to a scenario without it. The effectiveness of the lowpass filter depends on its cutoff frequency relative to
the signal’s bandwidth:
• If the lowpass filter’s cutoff frequency is set appropriately, it can reduce the noise, especially high-frequency
noise, improving BER performance.
• However, when the cutoff frequency of the lowpass filter is set too low, specifically below 0.5/Ts (where Ts is the
symbol period), it leads to a significant increase in BER. This is due to the filter attenuating essential components
of the signal, thereby distorting it and increasing the error rate.
In summary, the use of a lowpass filter at the demodulator can be beneficial for BER performance, but only if its cutoff
frequency is properly calibrated to the characteristics of the signal and the channel.
7. In a bandwidth-limited communication system experiencing high ISI, the use of equalization techniques becomes
crucial for improving BER. Two common equalization methods are Zero Forcing (ZF) and Linear Minimum Mean
Square Error (LMMSE) equalizers.
Performance Comparison in Band-Limited Scenario:
• In a scenario with bandwidth limitations, the LMMSE equalizer generally outperforms the ZF equalizer in terms
of BER., example snr = 5db along with bandwith limit = 0.4(1/Ts)
• Reason: While ZF eliminates ISI, it can significantly amplify noise, which becomes problematic in band-limited
channels where noise is more pronounced. LMMSE offers a compromise by reducing both ISI and noise impact,
leading to a lower overall BER.
In conclusion, the LMMSE equalizer is typically more effective than the ZF equalizer in bandwidth-limited channels
due to its ability to simultaneously mitigate ISI and control noise amplification.

author 2024-01-21 2

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy