doc.: IEEE /531 Submission July 2003 Hart/Skellern CiscoSlide 1 EVM vs PER Plot Not Promising for PSNI Brian Hart, David Skellern (Cisco Systems) TGk July 2003

doc.: IEEE /531 Submission July 2003 Hart/Skellern CiscoSlide 2 Background IEEE /218r2 (file r2-K- PSNI_Measurement_V2.ppt) proposed the use of a measure named PSNI to quantify the quality of the signal that is able to be recovered by a particular receiver In document IEEE /531r0 we suggested that a new measure was not needed because an appropriate measurement of output signal quality was already available in EVM which: –works for all digital modulations –has the desired properties specified on slides 9 & 10 of doc: IEEE /218r2 –can provide a direct indication of observed S/(N+I) considering all channel impairments and implementation losses when measured at the demodulator –is defined already in the standard as a signal quality measure –can be measured with commercially available test equipment

doc.: IEEE /531 Submission July 2003 Hart/Skellern CiscoSlide 3 Background cont. However, discussion in TGk at the May 2003 concluded that –Simulations and/or measurements were needed to verify the validity of EVM as an output signal quality measure –Even if EVM was a valid measure, it was a measure that needed to be extended to take into account the implementation characteristics of the receiver from the demodulator to the output (principally the FEC block) This submission is about the validity of EVM and reports on an investigation of the relationship between EVM and PER across different channels and practical systems.

doc.: IEEE /531 Submission July 2003 Hart/Skellern CiscoSlide 4 Investigation of EVM validity We thought that if any useful standardized PSNI measure existed it would be based on EVM because it captures all the degradations present on a communications link –in proportion to the impact they have –at a point where the cumulative degradation is easy to estimate –includes: quantisation, non-ideal converters, clock frequency offsets and phase noise, carrier frequency offsets and phase noise, power-amplifier distortions, multipath, co-channel interference, adjacent channel interference, other interference, thermal noise, and poor receiver algorithms. We therefore expected that if we plotted average EVM vs average PER for an IEEE a link operating at a given rate over a range of practical implementations and typical channels we would find a useful relationship between EVM and PER.

doc.: IEEE /531 Submission July 2003 Hart/Skellern CiscoSlide 5 Investigation of EVM validity We generated results using a Matlab a modeling framework –with a range of channels, from AWGN to Rayleigh, that we believe from our channel measurements to be representative of the indoor office environment –with a range of practical hardware settings and implementations, including ADC resolutions, datapath widths, Viterbi algorithm details, synchronization options, channel tracking methods and AGC strategies “practical hardware settings and implementations” = workable designs, many of which are in current manufacturers’ implementations

doc.: IEEE /531 Submission July 2003 Hart/Skellern CiscoSlide 6 EVM vs PER results for 6 Mbit/s

doc.: IEEE /531 Submission July 2003 Hart/Skellern CiscoSlide 7 These results show no useful relationship between EVM and PER across different channels and practical systems. While further study is needed, we conclude that obtaining an output data quality measure that would be useful across different designs and implementations (manufacturers) is unlikely in the short term – and not in any timeframe commensurate with timely completion of an 11k draft. We therefore propose that text related to PSNI not be included in the draft. Conclusion