Prev: Filtering with MATLAB's ifftshift
Next: Call for papers: IVPCV-10, USA, July 2010
From: HardySpicer on 16 May 2010 16:20
I have seen many IEEE papers on what is now called Blind Equalization
where a PBRS sequence is not needed for training. This is for muliple-
channel (multivariable) problems. A colleague of mine says this is
just academic rubbish and not used in practice. true or false and if
true would there be any advantage?


Hardy
From: Muzaffer Kal on 16 May 2010 16:27
On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:20:32 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
<gyansorova(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>I have seen many IEEE papers on what is now called Blind Equalization
>where a PBRS sequence is not needed for training. This is for muliple-
>channel (multivariable) problems. A colleague of mine says this is
>just academic rubbish and not used in practice. true or false and if
>true would there be any advantage?

Blind equalization is an accepted and robust technique by now. Its use
may be somewhat more difficult in packet based systems. Checkout
1000Base-T and 10GBase-T for multi-channel examples where channel is
is continously modulated.
--
Muzaffer Kal

DSPIA INC.
ASIC/FPGA Design Services

http://www.dspia.com
From: Jason on 16 May 2010 17:25
On May 16, 4:20 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I have seen many IEEE papers on what is now called Blind Equalization
> where a PBRS sequence is not needed for training. This is for muliple-
> channel (multivariable) problems. A colleague of mine says this is
> just academic rubbish and not used in practice. true or false and if
> true would there be any advantage?
>
> Hardy

Blind equalization is used in practice in some contexts. One example
of an algorithm of practical use is the constant-modulus algorithm
(CMA). It can be useful when your expected signal has constant
envelope (like PSK), but you don't know any details about the channel.

Jason
From: Eric Jacobsen on 16 May 2010 18:15
On 5/16/2010 1:20 PM, HardySpicer wrote:
> I have seen many IEEE papers on what is now called Blind Equalization
> where a PBRS sequence is not needed for training. This is for muliple-
> channel (multivariable) problems. A colleague of mine says this is
> just academic rubbish and not used in practice. true or false and if
> true would there be any advantage?
>
>
> Hardy

In a broad sense many, many systems use "blind" equalization, if by that
you mean that no preamble or formal training sequence is used.
Single-carrier systems with continuous signals (e.g., trunking,
satellite, backhaul, point-to-point, whatever) tend to do this. TV
broadcast tends to be done this way, too, although in that case there
may be some pilot and/or framing signals (although arguably not not
formal training sequences) that can be used to assist equalization.

--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com
From: Randy Yates on 16 May 2010 19:55
HardySpicer <gyansorova(a)gmail.com> writes:

> I have seen many IEEE papers on what is now called Blind Equalization
> where a PBRS sequence is not needed for training. This is for muliple-
> channel (multivariable) problems. A colleague of mine says this is
> just academic rubbish and not used in practice. true or false and if
> true would there be any advantage?

For old-style single-carrier systems like QPSK, QAM, etc., it is NOT
rubbish at all. John Treichler was a "codiscoverer" of the
constant-modulus algorithm and it was (is?) used extensively in the comm
systems developed there at Applied Signal Technology, and I'm sure many
other places as well.
--
Randy Yates % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
Digital Signal Labs % sliding, it's magic."
mailto://yates(a)ieee.org %
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*, ELO
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Filtering with MATLAB's ifftshift
Next: Call for papers: IVPCV-10, USA, July 2010