A comparison of passband and baseband transmission schemes for HDSL

Using an ideal decision feedback equalizer (DFE), the SNR of quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) and baseband pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) in the presence of self near-end crosstalk is computed for a large sample of loops within a carrier serving area (CSA). When baud-space feedforward filters...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inIEEE journal on selected areas in communications Vol. 9; no. 6; pp. 885 - 894
Main Authors Sistanizadeh, K., Kerpez, K.J.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York, NY IEEE 01.08.1991
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Subjects
Amplitude modulation
Applied sciences
Baseband
Computational modeling
Crosstalk
Decision feedback equalizers
Error analysis
Exact sciences and technology
Filters
Passband
Pulse modulation
Quadrature amplitude modulation
Systems, networks and services of telecommunications
Telecommunications
Telecommunications and information theory
Transmission and modulation (techniques and equipments)
Coding
High speed
Subscriber line
Base band
Amplitude modulation
Quadrature modulation
Pulse modulation
Information transmission
Comparative study
Digital transmission
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Using an ideal decision feedback equalizer (DFE), the SNR of quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) and baseband pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) in the presence of self near-end crosstalk is computed for a large sample of loops within a carrier serving area (CSA). When baud-space feedforward filters are used, PAM has 1-2 dB more SNR than QAM, where the type of PAM is the 2B1Q line code. However, when using fractionally spaced feedforward equalizers (FSEs), the SNRs of 2B1Q and QAM are almost equal for loops at the extreme range of a CSA. Four- and 16-state trellis-coded modulation is applied to PAM and QAM. Coded and uncoded PAM and QAM are simulated with parallel decision feedback estimation. Viterbi receivers and coding gains are computed. QAM has up to 1 dB higher coding gains that PAM. However, the higher coding gains of QAM do not compensate for the lower SNR of uncoded QAM, and coded QAM has worse performance than coded PAM in the presence of self near-end crosstalk. The error rates of PAM and QAM with impulse noise are computed using a collection of measured impulse noise events. Results indicate that QAM has a lower error rate than PAM in the presence of impulse noise.< >
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0733-8716
1558-0008
DOI:10.1109/49.93099