From: fsm12 on 1 Jan 2010 02:10 I want to know that for a particular viterbi decoder e.g for 1/2,7 type ,with traceback depth of 48, if input data frame contains 2000 bits ,IS it possible to correct only upto 4 errors in this data stream and is there any relation between error correcting capability and location of these errors in the data pattern?
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 1 Jan 2010 10:50 fsm12 wrote: > I want to know that for a particular viterbi decoder e.g for 1/2,7 type > ,with traceback depth of 48, if input data frame contains 2000 bits ,IS it > possible to correct only upto 4 errors in this data stream and is there any > relation between error correcting capability and location of these errors > in the data pattern? D >= 2t + 1 STUPIDENT
From: Tim Wescott on 1 Jan 2010 12:10 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:10:15 -0600, fsm12 wrote: > I want to know that for a particular viterbi decoder e.g for 1/2,7 type > ,with traceback depth of 48, if input data frame contains 2000 bits ,IS > it possible to correct only upto 4 errors in this data stream and is > there any relation between error correcting capability and location of > these errors in the data pattern? OK, think. "Can I only correct four errors ever, no matter how long my data stream is". If yes, why would Viterbi decoders be so popular? Yes, it's a thing of mathematical beauty, but engineers are paid because we help our clients make money. So, the answer must be no, because if it were yes then the cell phone companies (which use pretty good protocols, all in all) wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole (or, for that matter, a ten foot russian). In particular, a Viterbi decoder can massively reduce the error _rate_ in a stream that has a given error _rate_ -- there will always be clusters of errors that the Viterbi decoder cannot fix, but as the incoming error rate goes down the outgoing error rate goes down way, way faster. Why don't you experiment with a Viterbi decoder for a bit, and see for yourself how this is true? -- www.wescottdesign.com
From: fsm12 on 2 Jan 2010 10:19 > > > I want to know that for a particular viterbi decoder e.g for 1/2,7 type >,with traceback depth of 48, if input data frame contains 2000 bits ,IS it >possible to correct only upto 4 errors in this data stream and is there any >relation between error correcting capability and location of these errors >in the data pattern? > > This does not answer my query at all> Is it not possible to Quantify the values of errors corrected by a Viterbi decoder for a given input data stream (e.g. for a 2000 inputs bits fed to a decoder having free distance of 10.)
From: Eric Jacobsen on 2 Jan 2010 12:51 On 1/2/2010 8:19 AM, fsm12 wrote: >> >> I want to know that for a particular viterbi decoder e.g for 1/2,7 > type >> ,with traceback depth of 48, if input data frame contains 2000 bits ,IS > it >> possible to correct only upto 4 errors in this data stream and is there > any >> relation between error correcting capability and location of these > errors >> in the data pattern? >> >> > > This does not answer my query at all> Is it not possible to Quantify the > values of errors corrected by a Viterbi decoder for a given input data > stream > (e.g. for a 2000 inputs bits fed to a decoder having free distance of > 10.) Unlike algebraic codes, convolutional codes are more sensitive to input error distribution. Clumps of errors, especially as the clump lengths compare to the constraint length, are far harder to correct with a convolutional code than an algebraic code. So, no, it is not possible to strictly say that a CC can correct N out of M bits, because the distribution of the errors matters. Randomly distributed errors are easier to correct than clumps. This is why channel interleavers are sometimes used. -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 Prev: Goertzel Algorithm: Help Needed Next: low-cost audio waveform display doubles as space heater |