Any idea on this? Should I post the images somewhere else?

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Francois Gervais <
[email protected]> wrote:

> I tried using the M&M clock recovery block as suggested and I have a
> little fidelity problem. I added two screenshot links below which show the
> problem. I would say 70% of the time the recovered data is fine but for
> some reason it's sometimes badly distorted. By looking at it, the input
> signal looks always about the same. Is there something obviously wrong in
> what I'm doing?
>
> ASK demodulation GRC
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_ApAHfP4naZaE5WRUJHWUtHUEU/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Signal in and out of Clock recovery block
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_ApAHfP4naZY3Ryblp3cFlrdGs/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 5:27 PM, John Malsbury <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> I don't know if I would call it overkill.  It is just one of several
>> methods you can use to achieve synchronization.  Other options for
>> synchronization include correlate and sync (probably needs modification),
>> or possible the polyphase resync.  Others on the list would have more
>> expertise on these blocks.
>>
>> In my experience 10 samples per symbol seems to work well with M&M.  I've
>> heard very high samp/sym (ie. >20) can cause problems, but I haven't seen
>> this myself.
>>
>> The amplitude going into M&M should be as close as possible to +/- 1.0,
>> which is why you want the scaling functions before this block.  The AGC
>> block assures you're working with something constant amplitude for
>> demodulation.
>>
>> -John
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Francois Gervais <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks guys for the information,
>>>
>>> I looked a little about the M&M recovery block but it seemed to me like
>>> and advance algorithm, overkill for what I'm trying to achieve. I'm I
>>> mistaken?
>>>
>>> If I'm using the M&M clock recovery block what is the quality of input
>>> signal I should aim to avoid translation errors? Should my signal be
>>> filtered with a really narrow band and should I allow more harmonics in to
>>> the signal is more square? Can the input signal have too much sample per
>>> bit? Right now I'm at 16. Is more better? Is it better to have more
>>> amplitude?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:31 PM, John Malsbury 
>>> <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Depending on various factors the implementation may vary, but you could
>>>> probably start with a chain that looks something like this:
>>>>
>>>> I/q source -> filter -> AGC -> AM demod (complex to mag) -> scaling for
>>>> am depth -> m&m clock recovery -> slicer -> do something with the data
>>>>
>>>> Other, more advanced implementations might use correlation for
>>>> synchronization.
>>>>
>>>> -John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Francois Gervais <
>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm new to gnu radio and I'm trying to demodulate a 125kpbs ASK signal
>>>>> from a device I have, as a first project. I'm using RTL-SDR as the input
>>>>> device.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm slowly getting there. I receive the signal, at 2Msample/s, I
>>>>> low-pass filter it to 300khz, I send it through the AM demodulation block
>>>>> and then through the DC blocker.
>>>>>
>>>>> From there I have my signal and it looks fine i.e I could retrieve the
>>>>> information manually by looking at it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I think the goal is to somehow synchronize with the bits and
>>>>> re-sample to get 1 sample per bit. This could then be sent to a file. Is
>>>>> that it?
>>>>>
>>>>> At first glance I'm thinking I should have a PLL which ouputs a clock
>>>>> at about 250khz (twice the bit rate) and synchronize the rising edge with
>>>>> every bit transitioning from 0 to 1 so unless I receive only ones ou zeros
>>>>> I should be quite in sync. Then I could toggle a sample every falling edge
>>>>> of the clock which should be at about the middle of the bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this a viable solution? Can it be done with gnuradio? Other
>>>>> alternatives?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
>>>
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio

Reply via email to