here - LS telcom

DVB-T2 MISO versus SISO Field Test in Norway second half 2012. Telenor Broadcast, Norkring / Bjørn Skog. 26.6.2013

Title:

DVB-T2 (T2) MISO versus SISO Field Test in Norway:

Coverage improvement (MISO gain) in a SFN network using the Distributed Alamouti Scheme or Space-Time Block Coding

MISO or SISO = Multiple or Single Input Single Output

Author: Bjørn Skog

Company: Norkring AS

Date: 26th June 2013.

1 www.norkring.com

is 100% owned by www.telenor.com

Abstract:

Test objectives were to investigate if using MISO versus SISO gave any coverage advantages or any technical problems. Investigative method was changing only one parameter (from SISO to MISO) and measure the required field strength for coverage or decoding of the video, in a real SFN environment with complex transfer channels between transmitters and receiver.

For high capacity T2 modes, approximately 3 dB gain or 3 dB lowered field strength requirement for zero dB echo receiving conditions was found. MISO can already be used with commercial T2 transmitters and receivers and has no additional network or equipment cost implications.

DD2 implies only 224 MHz bandwidth will be available for terrestrial TV 470 to 694 MHz (down from 320

MHz today in use in Norway). WRC-15 cannot dictate the use of this band to ensure more effective use of it, meaning much larger SFN size, in practice requiring T2, EU can decide in a new frequency conference.

Acknowledgments:

Many thanks to the Norkring transmitter Department installing the equipment: Espen Egeberg Christiansen

And Mier Comunicaciones for loaning the T2 transmitters and providing technical support

Also many thanks to Walther Fischer in Rhode & Schwarz for sharing his MISO results, measurement results which mutually supports each other (and the “credibility”).


Contents

2

Abstract: ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Acknowledgments:............................................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Background: ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Statement of the problem: ............................................................................................................................................... 4

Approach and how the problem was measured: ............................................................................................................. 4

Summary & Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Results: .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Consequences for T2 future networks in a post DD2 frequency regulated environment, of using MISO versus SISO versus MIMO: ................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Figure of MIMO transmitter network and receiver .................................................................................................. 7

The most cost effective strategy for DVB-Tx in Norway surviving DD2: ....................................................................... 8

The 2 most promising T2 modes for Norway in a post DD2 environment: .............................................................. 9

The best strategy for surviving a post DD2 regulated environment, proposal for this strategy in more detail: ... 10

T2 Norway Mjøsa area SFN field test autumn 2012 test results ................................................................................ 11

Conclusions from this report on the gain in using MISO vs. SISO for zero echo dB receiving conditions between two “neighboring” T2 transmitters ......................................................................................................................... 11

Table: Statistical summary results for different code rates and QAM constellation levels: .................................. 11

Our “problem”: ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

Utility of these results: ............................................................................................................................................ 11

The 2 most promising T2 modes for Norway in a pre DD2 environment: .............................................................. 11

Information about the measurements and why this method was selected: ......................................................... 12

Future test plan, proposal based on challenges in the setup and operation of the test equipment and because of the technological development related to feeding transmitter sites using Ethernet equipment: ............................ 12

1: Long term stability and interoperability ............................................................................................................. 12

2: IP distribution network ....................................................................................................................................... 13

3: T2 Decoder chip and RF sensitivity tests ............................................................................................................. 13

Statistical results: diagrams from the measurements: ........................................................................................... 13

Statistical values and differences between MISO and SISO for all measurements, ............................................... 17

References ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Detailed information about the transfer channels for each field measurement location, using the R&S ETL DVB-T2

Instrument for measurements. ................................................................................................................................... 20

Info of some test results with similar “MISO gain” from R&S Germany, Walter Fischer. .......................................... 60


Introduction:

3

During autumn 2012 around the Norwegian city Hamar, DVB-T2 transmitters was installed in existing transmitter sites and connected to existing transmitting antennas using antenna combiners.

A DVB-T MI Gateway from T-VIPS was located in the Telenor headquarters at Fornebu, and the signal was transferred to the T2 transmitters using existing radio links with ASI input and output.

The test was done for Norkring with the additional benefit that the transmitter manufacturer could improve the T2 modulator firmware before commercial deployment.

The value of results means we (Norkring as a terrestrial broadcasting network operator) can better utilize the benefits of the T2 technology presently available, during future T2 network planning of new or converted (from DVB-T) networks.

Particularly after digital dividend 2 (DD2) in the 700 MHz band in Norway and similar countries,

The following issues related to DD2 are in this report evaluated:

- the possible benefits and limitations for using MISO versus SISO in T2 for surviving such a RF channel / bandwidth constraint

- compared with the possible network and end-user cost increase (drawback) and possible benefits (larger capacity per MUX and RF channel used), when alternatively using future MIMO compatible equipment

( Multiple Input Multiple Output) .

Background:

To avoid the zero dB echo problem or increase in required C/N for decoding and to fully utilize the single frequency network (SFN) gain, a cost effective coverage improvement technique in DVB-T2 is the option of using multiple-input singleoutput (MISO) mode, using the Alamouti technique.

One transmitter (group) transmits a slightly modified version of each pair of data subcarriers in the reverse order of the other transmitter (group).

The T2 receiver uses only one receiving antenna while the Alamouti scheme allows coverage improvements equivalent to that obtained from a two antenna receiver diversity system and a maximal ratio combining scheme.

One transmitter (group 1) transmits an un-modified version of every constellation pair as in SISO (singleinput single-output) and DVB-T, neither buffering nor negation or complex conjugation is applied. One pair of constellation cell is labeled C0 and C1. The transmitter (group 2) transmits a slightly modified version of each constellation pair, and in reverse frequency order. Group 2 transmits -C1* and C0* where * denotes the complex conjugation operation. In practice co-located MISO SFN transmissions are too expensive for commercial deployment:

The number of transmitters (or power) and transmitter antennas would then (co-located) double and even if the transmitter power potentially could be lowered in a SFN, in average the MISO gain could not compensate for nearly doubling the transmitter or antenna network size.

DVB-T2 MISO versus SISO Field Test in Norway second half 2012. Telenor Broadcast, Norkring / Bjørn Skog. 26.6.2013 4

Figures from page 5 of http://www.lstelcom.com/fileadmin/content/marketing/flyer/general/white_paper_DVB-T2_planning.pdf

Statement of the problem:

MISO removes the RF spectrum ripples and notches that occur in a standard (SISO) SFN channel. This degrades the system’s signal quality (Modulation Error Ratio, MER) and do not occur in a MISO SFN because the two transmitted signals are no longer identical, so destructive signal combination between transmitters in group A and B is avoided.

Specific definition and limitation of the “scope” of the field testing measurements and effort:

The testing of MISO versus SISO, was selected because this was the last unknown possible advantage with the current T2 equipment implementation. I write possible because there are two diverging conclusions concerning this, based on field measurements.

The results of this report are similar to one of these conclusions which show a significant MISO gain.

The results are not equal because of different test methods,

This report strictly tested the gain using MISO vs. SISO for zero dB echo transfer channel receiving conditions (with the same RF levels received from the two transmitters, one in MISO Group 1, the other in

MISO group 2 versus when both transmitters were in “normal” SISO mode) stationary reception.

Approach and how the problem was measured:

Modulation modes that were allowed both in SISO and MISO were selected, and then the DVB-T2-MI

Gateway was remotely connected to: only the MISO/SISO parameter was changed during the measurement of MISO versus SISO gain in the whole transmission/reception chain.

This ensured that all measurement found the wanted difference between MISO and SISO and eliminated other variables in the transmitting and reception equipment. In addition this test used the same radio transfer channel for finding this MISO vs. SISO difference, the only possible difference was small changes in propagation characteristics over the short time between the MISO vs. SISOS measurements at each measurement location.


The advantage of using a field test versus a lab test is that real transmission channels with nearly unlimited number of transmission paths were used. In a lab test with a channel simulator, the number of transmission paths are limited.

Summary & Conclusions

Selecting the most appropriate mode for T2 involves optimizing multiple parameters that affect coverage, network cost and network capacity, selecting the optimum configuration is a problem or challenge depending on how we define it. This task is much more complicated and involves advanced analysis for T2 relative for T1, due to the large number of transmission mode parameters possible to select using T2.

Selecting a mode that gives significant coverage advantages with the least possible negative consequences for net bitrate capacity is the challenge.

The measurement approach was selected to minimize errors and maximize practically reusable results.

The MISO vs. SISO gain has previously (before the field test) had a lack of published field test reports, and the results found in this test is affecting the practical Network gain in the T2 SFN significantly.

Using MISO often gives a significant 3 dB SFN coverage advantage through reduction of practical zero dB echo coverage problems, for many high capacity modes.

The most cost effective strategy for DVB-Tx (T1 or T2) in Norway surviving DD2 depends partly on frequency coordination with neighboring countries, for Norway most importantly Sweden, for creating larger DVB-Tx SFN areas.

Nationwide SFNs are the most capacity maximizing strategy, but demands that both Norway and Sweden is using this to a large extent and also many other neighboring countries. It is not very likely to happen

“soon”.

If not nationwide SFN areas is decided because of regionalized content or other constraints/considerations, then probably the SFN size will be compatible with T2 guard intervals that is supported by MISO.

A subject for further study might be using maximum T2 Guard Interval in SFN field test and investigate if adjacent countries are interested in using nationwide SFNs.

A UHF frequency conference for European countries for re planning all TV channels at UHF frequencies between 470 to 694 MHz, without DD1 and DD2 frequencies, would be the best solution for optimizing net capacity by using large SFN areas. The UHF frequency use currently in Norway is mainly based on the

Stockholm 1961 frequency conference, where all analogue TV “main transmitters” got 5 frequencies. This is not optimal for T2, but was an OK or the best compromise then for T1, when the number of available RF channels was not the main limitation, but the network cost was. A large number of T1 transposers are currently used in Norway because of this and also because of zero dB echo SFN problems and limited guard interval size in T1, all the UHF frequencies available are used in many areas in Norway. A number of T1

Gapfillers, co-channel repeaters, were reconfigured to transposers because of zero dB echo reception problems in the T1 network previously built in Norway.

For surviving DD2, the most important tools are in this order: re-planning of SFN areas to better suit T2,

Use MISO when SFN areas are of appropriate size to get ca 3 dB better zero dB echo performance for high capacity modes “for free” (no network cost) and use H.265 video codec for achieving ca double bitrate video efficiency (relative MPEG4 H.264 currently used in commercial T2 receivers).


Results:

Both short and long echo delays (delays spread between the two transmitters relative the Guard Interval) were used and both gave good MISO gain.

The transfer channel from each of the two transmitters was possible for the T2 receiver Sony Bravia with second generation Sony T2 decoder chip to estimate, because each transmitter (MISO Group 1 and 2) has its own pilot pattern, generally the pilots are inverted in transmitter group 2. This enables channel estimation and correction of each individual transmitter (group) transfer channel. The advantage is less bit errors received for a given input signal RF level with MISO compared to SISO SFN, or the same reception stability at lower field strength levels, potentially meaning lower network cost or increased coverage.

Concerning coverage, the MISO gain was always positive, meaning no negative coverage results were measured for MISO versus SISO.

The measurement accuracy or possible error is estimated to less than 0,5 dB in average.

Consequences for T2 future networks in a post DD2 frequency regulated environment, of using MISO versus SISO versus MIMO:

The field test with similar positive MISO results in Munich in Bavaria, tested with different RF levels received from the two transmitters in MISO and SISO mode.

These two field trials from Norway and Munich with similar and significant positive MISO gain, proves the usability of MISO at zero network cost increase.

The report that concluded that there was no significant gain in using MISO versus SISO,

Tested mobile reception with different T2 receiver.

The more complex and advanced diversity technique called MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output)

Is mainly developed and used to overcome the limitations of the SISO (and MISO) Shannon capacity limit.

In wireless communication systems the path towards high spectral efficiency transmission techniques has been through the use of the diversity, provided by the rich scattering wireless channels. Diversity is in either time, frequency, space (antenna) or polarization diversity.

It has been used to combat the fading, by trying to stabilize the channel. But even if MIMO is technically advanced and attractive to the engineer; If the frequency cost is low as in Norway for Broadcasting:

This means in practice that there is no network cost advantage using MIMO for broadcasting.

Using MIMO, for the transmitter antennas this means new cross polarized antennas and 2 transmitters per site and for the receiving antennas this means new cross polarized dual direction antennas and new receivers. Figure from agilent.com comparing SISO, MISO, SIMO and “full” MIMO


Because MIMO allows more bits/sec/hertz to be transmitted in a given bandwidth, it improves spectral efficiency. It does also provide lower required field strength requirement, but as long as this MIMO (versus

MISO or SISO) gain alone does not compensate for the increased broadcasting network and end user equipment/antenna installation cost, it is not likely to be used for T2 broadcasting in rural areas.

Considering the DVB.org Technical Module:

TM-MIMO Study Mission report to the 94th TM meeting @ EBU, Geneva, 4th and 5th June 2013:

The possible lowered field strength requirement for a new DVB-Tx variant currently considered, simulated and possibly later developed may prove significant gains, using Non-Uniform QAMs (NU-QAM) possibly of ultra high order example:

• 256-NU-QAM, code rate 3/5, SNR 16 dB (256-QAM is today in DVB-T2, but not NU)

• 1k-NU-QAM, code rate 3/5, SNR 20 dB

• 4k-NU-QAM, code rate 3/5, SNR 24 dB, plus better error control coding (FEC) plus Time Frequency Slicing.

These techniques are considered being used in combination with MIMO.

This interesting work within DVB.org Technical Module can potentially give 100% to 200% more capacity per RF (8 MHz) channel or a significant reduction in the required field strength, and this work might end up with two terrestrial system descriptions:

• A simpler variant – not consisting of MIMO • A more complex one with MIMO

If only MIMO versus MISO gain is considered, my rough network cost estimate for rural areas stationary reception probably is valid, meaning MISO is the most cost effective. However, testing this would be interesting future work.

Figure of MIMO transmitter network and receiver

This figure is from the DVB.org TM-MIMO-SM report to the 93rd TM meeting @ EBU, Geneva, 16th and 17th January 2013, document: TM4801r2

This figure is from dvb.org TM-MIMO001y_130212FH_Primer_2nd_telco_130213.pdf page 10


If the broadcasting frequency band is getting narrowed by Digital Dividend 2 (DD2) in the 700 MHz Band,

MIMO for UHF broadcasting of TV may be used in relatively densely populated markets.

Probably the cost for using MIMO (2 transmitter at each site on one RF channel) in DVB-T2 in Norway and similar low population density areas is too high. The MIMO network coverage gain is less than the MIMO network cost increase, meaning that MISO T2 is probably the most attractive diversity technique for T2 even if it is less technical advanced than “full” MIMO.

One possible transmitter network and coverage cost effective technique, would be that the transmitter network is using “distributed MISO” (see figure 5: 1 transmitter per site and RF channel) and that receivers

(in low margin areas) were capable of diversity reception using two antennas and maximum ratio combining of all (32K) carriers. This would increase the coverage in general and only some of the end user equipment would be more costly. The purpose with this would be increased coverage, not increased capacity per RF channel. You could think about it as “distributed MIMO”.

Figure on the right with “distributed MIMO” where TX0 is at a different site that TX1, RX0 and RX1 is a T2 receiver with two tuners/antennas and maximum ratio combining of all 32K carriers.

If “normal MIMO” is commonly used, then these receivers can also be used in “distributed MIMO”.

These diversity receivers does not need any changes in the T2 standard, it is only a commercial question if they will be available, considering the development in Germany where commercial broadcasters are cancelling DVB-T transmissions.

On the transmitter network side, the network is the same as MISO and already possible to deploy without any additional cost and it is standardized.

Figure on the left is “normal MIMO”

The most cost effective strategy for DVB-Tx in Norway surviving DD2:

It would be to increase the SFN size significantly, reducing the number of SFNs to cover Norway today from over 40 to approximately 10 or less (we currently have 5 multiplexes, each with 430 transmitters).

Careful network planning with an improved coverage planning tool would be necessary to decide between using SISO with very large guard interval or MISO with the relatively limited maximum guard interval size.

Comparisons of Guard Intervals (GI) used currently in Norway and potentially for a modified T2 network after Digital Dividend 2 in the 700 MHz Band, including calculations to “convert” GI to µs between T1 and

T2 modes:

GI 1/8 (0,125) gives 112 µs GI today in T1 8K in Norway (in Kilometer this is 33,6 Km )

This T2 test used GI 1/16 which gives 224 µs GI in T2 with 32K # carriers (in Kilometer this is 67,2 Km )

(you divide by 2 because 1/16 is half of 1/8 and multiply by 4 because 32K has 4 time the symbol length of 8K)

Maximum T2 MISO GI is: 19/256 (0,07421875) in µs this is 112*4*0,07421875/0,125=266 µs

In Kilometer this is 79,8 Km .

DAB which uses a nationwide SFN in Norway at VHF (229,072 MHz) has a GI 73,8 Km and generally has a

OK or limited amount of SFN self interference (=inter-symbol-interference because the delay spread in practice received at most locations is less than the Guard interval).


Currently the DAB coverage is OK (but the network is not finished built yet) using the differential QPSK

(4QAM) mode, which in practice gives less SFN self interference because the required Carrier /

Interference level for decoding is much less than for 256 QAM.

The 2 most promising T2 modes for Norway in a post DD2 environment:

Potentially the best mode for converting the Norwegian T1 SFN to T2 for stationary reception after Digital

Dividend 2 in the 700 MHz Band is completed is (Goal: least network investments, similar coverage and the same number of multiplexes with maximum capacity):

256 QAM CR 2/3 GI 19/256 (79,8 Km) PP2 (Pilot Pattern) 32K MISO.

Both national network new advanced coverage/interference planning and traditional international frequency coordination is required. In practice this means that Sweden also will have to increase their SFN size similarly.

If the SFN size required for the limited frequency resources available for broadcasting after DD2 requires very large SFN “cell size” and the calculated self interference with this MISO maximum GI mode is too high,

Then SISO mode will have to be used.

For 32K and SISO, the maximum GI is 19/128 = 159,6 Km .

The next largest is GI 1/8 = 134,4 Km .

Both these potential modes for very large SFN size will have to use PP2, like the MISO mode above.

DD2 will in the Norwegian low margin terrestrial TV market

(because of the large network size 430 transmitters for the 4 commercial TV MUXes and nearly 1000 transmitter sites for the Public Broadcaster MUX, in a population only 5 million), in practice mean a considerable cost increase to maintain the number of multiplexes (5) in operation after the DD2 implementation. This is partly because of the number of slave transmitters (transposers and

Gapfillers), where many transposers because of less frequency resources post DD2, will have to be converted to transmitters with costly program feed.

This cost increase cannot be paid by the end users price increase, because of the hard competition from alternative TV distribution platforms, currently the satellite TV platform has a similar price but larger content.

The terrestrial TV T1 platform can in such a post DD2 market most cost effectively try to meet the competition from Satellite TV platforms (or not lose too much market share) by using T2 in combination with the new High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC, H.265, now approved by ITU), a promised video compression standard.

In addition increasing the SFN cell size significantly at the same time will be necessary. Several ”main transmitters” (which in Norway got their frequency already in 1961 in the “Stockholm conference”), will have to be run in the same SFN, and zero dB echo performance will be increasingly important then, a driving force for implementing MISO (MISO “distributed” meaning not using co-located sites, does not cost any additional investments relative SISO).


The best strategy for surviving a post DD2 regulated environment, proposal for this strategy in more detail:

If we after DD2, in a most cost effective way, shall maximize the terrestrial TV network capacity and coverage,

I think that the first and most important step would be, to have a frequency planning conference, that in general maximizes the SFN network size.

For Norway and Sweden this would mean country wide SFN networks, for all MUXes except perhaps one regionalized MUX.

This would maximize the number of multiplexes possible in a post-DD2 frequency regulated environment.

Having many multiplexes available will enable a robust modulation per multiplex, giving cost effective coverage (low power consumption).

One cost challenge for terrestrial TV network operators, is that all DVB-T transmitters and all combiners must be replaced by new equipment.

The most cost effective future DVB-T2 (or “T3”) transmitters would be that they enabled the transmission of many MUX in as many RF 8 MHz channels.

To reach this cost effective situation in practice, what is needed (requirement 1) is that the frequency planning conference group all RF channels adjacently for each country.

Example for 7 MUX:

Sweden gets RF UHF channels 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37

Norway gets RF UHF channels 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45 and 46 etc.

If one MUX shall be regionalized, to save frequencies it could be required that it uses more robust modulation, alternatively also gets lower population coverage in the country.

The second thing that is required (rolling out many new MUXes cost effectively) is that the new transmitters have new “multi-MUX”-modulators

(one modulator that can send many MUX in many RF 8 MHz channels,

TFS [Time Frequency Slicing] would be included in the functionality).

The antenna combiner cost is then zero and the space for large antenna combiners are also saved.

I have talked to one DVB-T2 transmitter manufacturer, and the only way to save the antenna combiner cost is to make “multi-MUX”-modulators,

Trying to do this using today’s modulators with one MUX per modulator and combining them before the amplification, only leads to large intermodulation products.

If you agree to the above text, I propose that “someone” promotes that the next UHF frequency conference in Europe adopts this “nation-wide SFN strategy”,

And that transmitter manufacturers are asked to make such DVB-T2 modulators.


T2 Norway Mjøsa area SFN field test autumn 2012 test results

(all modes used 32K number of (rotated) carriers)

11

Conclusions from this report on the gain in using MISO vs. SISO for zero echo dB receiving conditions between two “neighboring” T2 transmitters

(received with equal amplitude at the antenna output):

The gain here is defined as the required lowered input signal (or field strength) for decoding the video picture and audio for the T2 receiver (here using Sony’s 2 nd generation T2 Chip), when one of the transmitters was in MISO Group 1 and the other transmitter received was in MISO Group

2. (when both transmitters are received with the same RF level at the receiver, here commonly defined as a “zero dB echo”).

Table: Statistical summary results for different code rates and QAM constellation levels:

Code Rate: 3/4 Constellation: 256 QAM Guard Interval: 1/16 Pilot Pattern 2 MISO versus SISO gain = 4,1 dB





MISO average Input signal requirement is 3,4 dB lower than SISO for all modes/measurements using zero dB echo between two transmitters, the gain is higher for 256 QAM and when less error protection is sent.

Our “problem”:

As a terrestrial broadcasting network operator, our challenge is to design and build the most cost effective (per population covered and per capacity unit) media distribution network, within the limitations of available standardized equipment.

Within these goals and limitations the design problem was investigated and tested in the first two DVB-T2 tests in Norway.

Utility of these results:

the test has been helpful for selecting the appropriate modes and transmitter network configuration, to save time and money in a future conversion of T1 to T2 in Norway and for possible new T2 networks.

The 2 most promising T2 modes for Norway in a pre DD2 environment:

Code Rate: 2/3 Constellation: 256 QAM Guard Interval: 1/16 Pilot Pattern 2: #Carriers: 32K Mode: MISO

Input signal requirement is 28,4 dBµV using zero dB echo between two transmitters, this mode may be of particular interest for converting a DVB-T1 network (before DD2) using 64 QAM Code

Rate 2/3 because you will get similar SFN coverage. This T1 mode is used in Norway.

Using SISO T2 SFN network for converting this T1 mode in Norway and getting similar coverage, you need Code Rate: 3/5 Constellation: 256 QAM Guard Interval: 1/16 (or 1/32) Pilot Pattern 4: #Carriers: 32K.

This was one of the results from the first T2 field test in Norway, when switching between T1 and T2 modulation in each measurement location. Sony’s first generation T2 decoder chip was then used.


Information about the measurements and why this method was selected:

12

A measurement vehicle and a low gain log-periodic receiving antenna was used to always achieve the zero dB echo receiving conditions between the two T2 transmitters.

This is because the MISO technique is designed to combat the deep fading receiving conditions, caused by two carriers of equal magnitude that are received with opposite phase (180 degree phase shift).

The RF spectrum without MISO is always distorted by “zero dB echoes” between two transmitters.

The RF spectrum with MISO was not distorted when these two transmitters created zero dB echoes (when two transmitters are received, one was in MISO Group 1 and the other one was in MISO Group 2).

However, the RF spectrum can be distorted by reflections from terrain / multipath even when the transmitter network and two transmitters received, belongs to MISO Group 1 and 2.

This explains why the gain measured is a little lower than theoretically possible.

The gain is significant and the only practical reason not using MISO in a SFN is because the modulation parameters wanted (for either having very large SFN or because of maximum bitrate capacity considerations) is not allowed to be used in combination with MISO. This may quite often be valid considerations, all the details concerning advantages/ disadvantages needs careful considerations which are outside the scope of this report. Limitations concerning guard interval size for MISO versus SISO in relation to SFN network planning after Digital Dividend 2, is discussed above.

We changed the constellation between 256, 64 and 16 QAM to see difference in required input signal for zero dB echo.

Future test plan, proposal based on challenges in the setup and operation of the test equipment and because of the technological development related to feeding transmitter sites using Ethernet equipment:

This T2 field test has partly consisted of compatibility testing between the T2 MI (Modulator Interface)

Gateways using DVB-ASI (Digital Video Broadcasting Asynchronous Serial Interface) and T2 Transmitters, using absolute sync was not possible with these modulators. The transmitter’s calculation of network delay was varying sometimes above 1 second, causing the transmitters to shut down to protect the SFN (Single

Frequency Network).

Further compatibility testing between network equipment and using IP feeding of the transmitters are recommended next steps in the testing. New modulator hardware for solving these two issues are promised developed from the transmitter manufacturer which kindly supplied the test equipment for autumn 2012 test. Another transmitter manufacturer has promised they already can deliver this functionality.

1: Long term stability and interoperability

It is very important to test all T2 equipment for long term stability and interoperability (Gateway,

Transmitters, T2 decoders) because of following problems experienced:

-One identified problem is using absolute delay (allowing more than one second network delay)

-One identified problem is varying network delay (estimated by the transmitter to be above 1 second) causing transmitter to shut off

-One problem is modulator errors when parameters are changed on the T2 MI gateway, needing reboot to work properly again


2:

IP distribution network

13

Test IP feeding of transmitters, need new hardware particularly in feeding network but also transmitting network (T2 modulators).

3: T2 Decoder chip and RF sensitivity tests

to evaluate which end user equipment requires the lowest RF field strength to reliably decode the T2 RF signal, to increase the practical network coverage or potentially decrease the transmitting network cost (RF amplifier size and power consumption).

In practice an improvement here can potentially result in lower network cost for a new network, and selecting a mode with higher capacity when converting an existing T1 network to T2, when the requirement is equal coverage before and after the conversion.

MISO technique is a cost effective compromize for achieving the classical design goals of a terrestrial broadcasting network: coverage, capacity and cost.

Statistical results: diagrams from the measurements:


Figure 1: Required RF Input signal MISO (average 26,5 dBµV) and SISO (30,1 dBµV) CR for 2/3 256QAM

Zero dB echo receiving DVB-T2 mode: Code Rate=2/3 256QAM Gl=1/16 PP2

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of measurement locations

MISO average=26.5 dB SISO Average=30.1 dB

Figure 2: MISO gain over SISO for CR 2/3 256QAM. Average gain = 3,5 dB

Zero dB echo receiving DVB-T2 mode: Code Rate=2/3 256QAM Gl=1/16 PP2

6,0

10 11

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

1 2 3 9 10 11 4 5 6 7


Gain: Average=3.5 dB

8



Zero dB echo receiving DVB-T2 mode: Code Rate=3/5 256QAM Gl=1/16 PP2.

4,0

15

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

1 2 3 4 5 6





8,0

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

7,0

6,0

1,0

0,0

1 2 6 3 4



5

7

7


Figure 5: MISO gain over SISO for CR 3/4 64 QAM. Average gain = 2,4 dB


4,0

16

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

1 2 3 4 5 6



Figure 6: MISO gain over SISO for CR 3/4 16 QAM. Average gain = 2,2 dB


4,0

7

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

1 6 2 3 4



5 7


Statistical values and differences between MISO and SISO for all measurements,

17 which is a mix of coderates (3/5, 2/3 and ¾) and QAM levels (16, 64 and 256)

Average MISO 25,8 dBµV Average SISO 28,4 dBµV (required input signal for OK audio/video decoding)

MISO Input signal requirement is 2,6 dB lower than SISO for all modes/measurements using zero dB echo between two transmitters, the gain is higher for 256QAM than for 64 and 16

QAM.

The gain is much higher for Code Rate 3/4 than for 3/5, because the more robust mode 3/5 means bit errors caused by selective fading is less harmful, popularly can this be described as

“many carriers can be lost in noise” and still the signal be decoded.

This average just above is a mix of coderates (3/5, 2/3 and ¾) and QAM levels (16, 64 and 256).

Table 1:

Statistical values and differences (in required input signal for OK audio/video decoding) between different code rates for measurements all with 256 QAM:

All are MISO in this table

CR 3/5 is reference, dB difference in required input signal using code rate 3/4 on the same measurement locations and transfer channels (zero dB echo)

CR 3/5 0 dB

CR 3/4 4,6 dB

Table 2:

Statistical values and differences (in required input signal for OK audio/video decoding) between different constellation levels 16, 64 and 256 QAM for measurements all with code rate ¾:

All are MISO in this table

16QAM is reference, dB difference in required input signal using higher order modulation on the same measurement locations and transfer channels (zero dB echo)

16

64

0 dB

5,7 dB

256 13,0 dB

Table 3:

Statistical values and differences (in required input signal for OK audio/video decoding) between different code rates for measurements all with 256 QAM:

All are SISO in this table

CR 3/5 is reference, dB difference in required input signal using code rate 3/4 on the same measurement locations and transfer channels (zero dB echo)

CR 3/5

CR 3/4

Table 4:

0 dB

6,6 dB

Statistical values and differences (in required input signal for OK audio/video decoding) between different constellation levels 16, 64 and 256 QAM for measurements all with code rate ¾:

All are SISO in this table

16QAM is reference, dB difference in required input signal using higher order modulation on the same measurement locations and transfer channels (zero dB echo)

16 0 dB

64

256

5,9 dB

14,9 dB

Table 5: Average required input signal (for OK audio/video decoding)

DVB-T2 MISO versus SISO Field Test in Norway second half 2012. Telenor Broadcast, Norkring / Bjørn Skog. 26.6.2013 from the 10 different modes tested (all 32K # carriers):

MISO is 5 first:

A: CR 3/4 16 QAM GI 1/16 PP2 MISO Required Input Signal

Average 18,1 dBµV

B: CR 3/4 64 QAM GI 1/16 PP2 MISO Required Input Signal

Average 23,8 dBµV

C: CR 3/4 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2 MISO Required Input Signal

Average 31,0 dBµV

D: CR 3/5 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2 MISO Required Input Signal

Average 26,5 dBµV

E: CR 2/3 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2 MISO Required Input Signal

Average 26,5 dBµV

SISO is 5 last

F: CR 3/4 16 QAM GI 1/16 PP2 SISO Required Input Signal

Average 20,3 dBµV

G: CR 3/4 64 QAM GI 1/16 PP2 SISO Required Input Signal

Average 26,2 dBµV

H: CR 3/4 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2 SISO Required Input Signal

Average 35,2 dBµV

I: CR 3/5 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2 SISO Required Input Signal

Average 28,6 dBµV

J: CR 2/3 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2 SISO Required Input Signal

Average 30,1 dBµV

18

The RF signal measured by the ETL was not attenuated when documenting the impulse response, MER as a function of frequency and RF spectrum.

This was because the RF sensitivity was less than the DVB-T2 tuner/receiver in the Sony Bravia TV.

The same RF signal connected to the Bravia tuner was then attenuated until errors in audio and video picture was experienced, and then the attenuation using the variable attenuator was decreased slightly until the reception appeared to be error free to the end user.

The Pre LDPC BER measured by the Bravia was written down and was generally equal for the MISO to SISO comparisons for each mode (Code Rate in particular and constellation).

This insured a fair comparison between MISO and SISO reception stability.

Post LDPC BER was always zero when audio/picture was OK, the pre LDPC BER gives a good sign of margin and was generally between 4 to 8 x E -2 depending on the mode (Code Rate) when the video/margin was

“just good enough”.


Of the tested code rates, ¾ demanded least Pre LDPC BER for correctly decoding the audio/video, and 3/5 allowed the most Pre LDPC BER for correctly decoding the audio/video.

It was little or no difference between the required Pre LDPC BER for correctly decoding the audio/video, between the different constellation levels 16, 64 and 256 QAM, and between MISO and SISO.

The “MISO gain” was achieved due to the physical condition that the RF spectrum is flatter and that the

MER for each RF carrier received in the “zero dB transfer channel” is of better quality.

This physical phenomenon occurs due to the fact that for SISO a zero dB echo,

Meaning here that two T2 transmitters are received with equal amplitude at the TV antenna,

Results in many RF carriers with low level due to 180 degree phase shift between the two carriers. The mathematical condition is 1 + (-1) = 0, resulting in selective fading and low carrier level at that particular frequency. This means in practice that the T2 receiver using channel estimation amplifies this carrier and also the noise. The noise vector is large relatively the carrier vector, and the C/N or MER for that carrier is low.

This test used 32K mode exclusively, meaning the T2 transmitters had ca 32 000 carriers.

For visually most impressing demonstrating the MISO gain fast and effectively, I recommend using low delay spread between the transmitters and code rate ¾.

The average or median MER value per carrier may not often be so much higher,

But you avoid low MER values on a significantly percentage of RF carriers.

This is of particular usefulness, when code rates using less Error Protection bits are sent.

DVB-T2 receiver used during the measurements finding the thresholds for decoding:

Sony Bravia Model # KDL-22EX553 Serial # 1000266 Program version PKG1.114EUA-0001

R&S ETL with DVB-T2 option serial # 102502 Firmware version 2.53 was used to measure the input signal, impulse response, Modulation Error Ratio (MER) as a function of frequency (per carrier), RF spectrum.

References

https://mysite.wow.telenor.com/personal/telenor_ttbs2/Shared%20Documents/DVB-

T2_Field_Test_Report_January2011_Norkring_version1_March4th_2011.doc

Appendices

1: Detailed information about the transfer channels for each field measurement location

2: Info of some test results with similar “MISO gain” from R&S Germany, Walter Fischer.


Detailed information about the transfer channels for each field measurement location, using the R&S ETL DVB-T2 Instrument for measurements.

Measurement location 1 using only mode: CR 2/3 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2 (MISO vs. SISO gain=5 dB):

Impulse response for the 2 transmitters using MISO group A and B,

Each with its own color in the impulse response (with orange and blue impulses for each transmitter):

20

Measurement location 2 using only mode: CR 2/3 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2: (MISO vs SISO gain=4 dB)

Impulse response for the 2 transmitters using MISO group A and B,


Measurement location 3 using only mode: CR 2/3 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2: (MISO vs. SISO gain=3 dB)

21

Please note that the SISO decoding of the Physical Layer Pipe (data content with video) was not decoded

OK due to zero dB echo (by the ETL).

The Sony T2 decoder could however decode OK also SISO at 29,9 dBµV, 13 dB lower input signal.

MISO

SISO



22

This Impulse Response for MISO is using the Max Delay Spread for the Sony T2 Second generation decoder, increasing 10 µs gives too much BER for stable decoding. Here the delay spread is “maximum”

The Delay Spread is ca 220 µs and the Guard Interval is 224 µs



23

Impulse response curves for MISO and SISO:

Here the delay spread is “nearly minimum” (less than 1 µs), this gives a serious degradation of the SISO RF

Spectrum (next page) and none in the MISO RF Spectrum (next page)

Miso

SISO


Measurement location 5 continued RF spectrum curves for MISO and SISO:

24

Here the delay spread is “nearly minimum” (less than 1 µs), this gives a serious degradation of the SISO RF

Spectrum (#2 below) and none in the MISO RF Spectrum (the one just below)

MISO

SISO



25

Here the delay spread is 10 µs, this gives a “high frequency ripple” degradation of the SISO RF Spectrum

(next page #2 from top) and none in the MISO RF Spectrum (next page #1 from top)

MISO

SISO


Measurement location 6 continued RF spectrum curves for MISO and SISO:

26

Here the delay spread is 10 µs, this gives a “high frequency ripple” degradation of the SISO RF Spectrum

(below #2 from top) and none in the MISO RF Spectrum (below #1 from top)

MISO

SISO


Measurement location 7, Impulse response curves for MISO and SISO: (MISO vs. SISO gain=6 dB)

27

Here the delay spread is “minimum” (ca 0 µs), this gives a serious degradation of the SISO RF Spectrum

(next page #2 from top) and none in the MISO RF Spectrum (next page #1 from top)

MISO

SISO


Measurement location 7, RF spectrum curves for MISO and SISO:

28

Here the delay spread is “minimum” (ca 0 µs), this gives a serious degradation of the SISO RF Spectrum

(#2 below) and none in the MISO RF Spectrum (just below, the ETL settings was changed “by itself”)

MISO

SISO



Here the delay spread is “close to minimum” (ca 3 µs), this gives a serious degradation of the SISO RF

Spectrum (next page) and none in the MISO RF Spectrum (next page)

29

MISO

SISO


Measurement location 8 continued, MER per carrier curves for MISO and SISO:

Here the delay spread is “near minimum” (ca 3 µs), this gives a degradation of the SISO RF MER

(#2 below) and nearly none in the MISO RF Spectrum (just below, reflections is the cause of slight degradation, the transmitter MER quality is not the limiting factor)

30

MISO

SISO


Measurement location 8 continued, RF spectrum curves for MISO and SISO:

Here the delay spread is “nearly minimum” (ca 3 µs), this gives a degradation of the SISO RF Spectrum

(#2 below). The MISO RF Spectrum (just below), had a degradation because of reflections from terrain.

MISO

SISO



32

Here the delay spread is ca 6 µs, this gives a degradation of the SISO RF MER (next page) and none in the

MISO RF MER (next page)

MISO

SISO



Here the delay spread is ca 6 µs, this gives a degradation of the SISO RF MER

(#2 below) and nearly none in the MISO RF Spectrum (just below, reflections is the cause of slight degradation in MISO MER)

33

MISO

SISO



34

Here the delay spread is ca 6 µs, the degradation of both the SISO and MISO RF Spectrums are here mainly because of terrain reflections

MISO

SISO


Measurement location 10, Impulse response curves for MISO and SISO using CR 2/3 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2, and from this location onwards all of these modes were also used:

CR 3/5 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2; CR 3/4 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2; CR 3/4 64 QAM GI 1/16 PP2; CR 3/4 16 QAM GI 1/16 PP2



MISO

SISO




(#2 below) and nearly none in the MISO RF Spectrum (just below, reflections is the cause of slight degradation in MISO MER, the transmitter MER quality is not the limiting factor)

36

MISO

SISO



37


MISO

SISO


Measurement location 11, Impulse response curves for MISO and SISO using CR 2/3 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2, and on this location all of these modes were also used:




MISO

SISO






40

MISO


SISO



MISO

SISO






MISO

SISO





43

MISO

SISO



44


MISO

SISO






MISO

SISO





46

MISO

SISO



47


MISO

SISO


Measurements with very large delay spread to investigate the delay spread capabilities of the measurement equipment in practice with zero dB echo, relative the guard interval 224 µs long.

Mode: CR 3/5 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2, 32K:

48

For this transfer channel/measurement location 14, this 187 µs zero dB echo delay spread was the absolute maximum delay for the R&S ETL being able to decode the PLP (the difference between MISO and

SISOS tolerance for delay spread was insignificant). Impulse response curves:

MISO

SISO


For this transfer channel/measurement location 14, this 187 µs zero dB echo delay spread was the

49 absolute maximum delay for the R&S ETL being able to decode the PLP (the difference between MISO and

SISOS tolerance for delay spread was insignificant). MER per carrier curves

MISO

SISO


For this transfer channel/measurement location 14, this 187 µs zero dB echo delay spread was the

50 absolute maximum delay for the R&S ETL being able to decode the PLP (the difference between MISO and

SISOS tolerance for delay spread was insignificant). RF spectrum curve for SISO:

SISO


For this transfer channel/measurement location 14, this 222 µs zero dB echo delay spread was the absolute maximum delay for the R&S ETL being able to display the impulse response (the difference between MISO and SISOS tolerance for delay spread was insignificant): Impulse response

51

MISO

SISO


For this transfer channel/measurement location 14, this 222 µs zero dB echo delay spread was the absolute maximum delay for the R&S ETL being able to display the impulse response (the difference between MISO and SISOS tolerance for delay spread was insignificant): MER per carrier curves

52

MISO

SISO


For this transfer channel/measurement location 14, this 222 µs zero dB echo delay spread was the absolute maximum delay for the R&S ETL being able to display the impulse response (the difference between MISO and SISOS tolerance for delay spread was insignificant): RF spectrum curve for MISO

53

MISO

Continued Measurements with very large delay spread to investigate the delay spread capabilities of the measurement equipment in practice with zero dB echo, relative the guard interval 224 µs long.

Mode: CR 3/5 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2, 32K:

Measurement location # 15 with R&S ETL Impulse SISO 192µs Delay Spread for zero dB echo: at this transfer channel/location this was the maximum delay spread for the ETL with OK PLP Decoding.

SISO


Continued Measurements with very large delay spread to investigate the delay spread capabilities of the measurement equipment in practice with zero dB echoes, relative the guard interval 224 µs long.

Mode: CR 3/5 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2, 32K:

Measurement location # 16 with R&S ETL Impulse SISO 222µs Delay Spread for zero dB echoes: at this transfer channel/location this was the maximum delay spread for the ETL with OK PLP Decoding, it was very close to the guard interval 224 µs.

MISO


Measurement location # 18 with R&S ETL Impulse SISO 223µs Delay Spread for zero dB echoes:

55 at this transfer channel/location this was the maximum delay spread for the ETL with OK PLP Decoding, it was very close to the guard interval 224 µs.

Using a delay spread 14 µs more than the Guard Interval and zero dB echo, the Sony T2 chip could decode the picture successfully, but not reliably over time, then there was sometimes LDPC BER and audio/video errors heard/seen.

MISO

Conclusion1: for the R&S ETL with this firmware and hardware concerning large delay spreads: for some transfer channel profiles, there is room for improvements relatively the theoretically guard interval and what is also in practice decoded without problems with the Sony DVB-T2 Second Generation

Chip in the Sony Bravia TV.

Conclusion 2: This Sony T2 chip could fully in practice for these zero dB echo transfer channels, use the guard interval with delay spreads around 222 to 224 µs.


Measurement location 17, Impulse response curves for MISO and SISO using CR 2/3 256 QAM GI 1/16 PP2, and on this location all of these modes was also used:


Here the delay spread is ca 2 µs, this zero dB echo gives a degradation of the SISO RF MER (next page) and none in the MISO RF MER (next page)

MISO

SISO



57


(#2 below) and nearly none in the MISO RF Spectrum (just below, reflections between transmitter and receiver is the cause of degradation in MISO MER, the transmitter MER quality is not the limiting factor)

MISO

SISO



Here the delay spread is ca 2 µs, terrain reflections between transmitter and receiver is the cause of degradation in MISO and for SISO it is a combination of this and the zero dB echo between the two transmitters.

58

MISO

SISO


References: 1: http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3348.pdf

Page 53:

59

2: http://www.lstelcom.com/fileadmin/content/marketing/flyer/general/white_paper_DVB-T2_planning.pdf

3: http://www.dvb.org/technology/standards/a133_DVB-T2_Imp_Guide.pdf

How the T2 receiver decodes MISO is explained and mathematically calculated in page 182 and 183 of the document: http://www.dvb.org/technology/standards/a133_DVB-T2_Imp_Guide.pdf

This report author can be contacted like this: bjorn.skog@telenor.com

Mobile Phone: +47 9006 1049


Info of some test results with similar “MISO gain” from R&S Germany, Walter

Fischer.

60

From: Walter.Fischer@rohde-schwarz.com

[ mailto:Walter.Fischer@rohde-schwarz.com

]

Sent: 6. februar 2013 09:46

To: Skog Bjørn

Subject: RE: Antwort: T2 MISO vs. SISO gain: our meeting in October 17th 2012 + report field test attached from my measurements + possibilities for presenting results at conference or in report/article togheter?

Dear Bjorn, presenting this at LS Telcom Summit is a good idea but I have no time at that day. Maybe you could present both results.

We should find a way for a meeting.

Best Regards,

Walter

Walter Fischer

Analog and Digital Video Broadcasting Trainings

Rohde&Schwarz Training Center Munich

Rohde&Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG

Test and Measurement Division

- Training Center -

Mühldorfstr. 15

81671 München

Phone: +49 (0)89 4129 12910

Fax: +49 (0)89 4129 62910

Mobile: +49 (0)160 3657851

Email: Walter.Fischer@rohde-schwarz.com

--------------------------------------------------------------

Geschäftsführung / Executive Board: Manfred Fleischmann (Vorsitzender / Chairman), Christian Leicher, Gerhard

Geier, Sitz der Gesellschaft / Company's Place of Busine ss: München, Registereintrag / Commercial Register No.:

HRA 16 270, Persönlich haftender Gesellschafter / Personally Liable Partner: RUSEG Verwaltungs-GmbH, Sitz der

Gesellschaft / Company's Place of Business: München, Registereintrag / Commercial Register No.: HRB 7 534,

Umsatzsteuer-Identifikationsnummer (USt-IdNr.) / VAT Identification No.: DE 130 256 683, ElektroAltgeräte Register

(EAR) / WEEE Register No.: DE 240 437 86

Von: < bjorn.skog@telenor.com

>

An: < Walter.Fischer@rohde-schwarz.com

>

Datum: 05.02.2013 07:42

Betreff: RE: Antwort: T2 MISO vs. SISO gain: our meeting in October 17th 2012 + report field test attached from my measurements + possibilities for presenting results at conference or in report/article togheter?

Dear Walther

Thank you for your positive reply and results.

I also know the feeling and challenge in getting the time for writing the report, I try to push myself now in this regard.

I agree that we should meet.

A: Possibly we can present MISO results at the LS Telcom Summit? (which takes place on Wednesday, 3rd July 2013)

B: We are planning some more T2 tests with a new IP feed contribution network starting this ca this summer,

DVB-T2 MISO versus SISO Field Test in Norway second half 2012. Telenor Broadcast, Norkring / Bjørn Skog. 26.6.2013 61 and then I need some more T2 receivers, preferably with different T2 chipset manufacturers and RF frontends, to investigate potential differences in required input signal (not specifically/only for MISO, but in general).

If you have some T2 receivers (and which chipset they use) and ordering information for these to recommend, it will be appreciated.

All the best from Bjørn

From: Walter.Fischer@rohde-schwarz.com

[ mailto:Walter.Fischer@rohde-schwarz.com

]

Sent: 4. februar 2013 21:56

To: Skog Bjørn

Subject: Antwort: T2 MISO vs. SISO gain: our meeting in October 17th 2012 + report field test attached from my measurements + possibilities for presenting results at conference or in report/article together?

Dear Bjorn, thank you for your email. Our results are quite similar. I did further tests in the lab between Christmas and

New Year. I completely agree with you. But our results are different to a official final report from the

German North trial - available as a book.

Next week I have a meeting with Media Broadcast to discuss my results and comparing it with their results.

My lab results from end of December were (only some main examples):

32kext, g=1/16, PP2:

1 us / 0 dB (0 dB echo)

SISO, 64QAM, CR=2/3: Lmin = 27.6 dBuV

MISO, 64QAM, CR=2/3: Lmin = 24.2 dBuV





10 us / 20 dB ( 2nd path 20 dB attenuated)



SISO, 64QAM, CR=3/4: Lmin = 27 dBuV

MISO, 64QAM, CR=3/4: Lmin = 27 dBuV



Results only for one receiver type, only short examples.

(Setup for the lab test was: SFU, SFC-U combined via a 3 dB coupler, a special self-made attenuator with high resultion (PIN diodes) and then the receivers.)

We need to meet us again!!! You have the right results and I have the right results!!!

I will send you more material. Problem is only my limited time to write everything in a clear report ...

This was one slide from my presentation in Autumn last year:


Some month ago I did a presentation at LStelcom to show them the field test results.

Best Regards,

Walter

Walter Fischer

Analog and Digital Video Broadcasting Trainings

Rohde&Schwarz Training Center Munich

Rohde&Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG

Test and Measurement Division

- Training Center -

Mühldorfstr. 15

81671 München

Phone: +49 (0)89 4129 12910

Fax: +49 (0)89 4129 62910

Mobile: +49 (0)160 3657851

Email: Walter.Fischer@rohde-schwarz.com

--------------------------------------------------------------

Geschäftsführung / Executive Board: Manfred Fleischmann (Vorsitzender / Chairman), Christian Leicher,

Gerhard Geier, Sitz der Gesellschaft / Company's Place of Business: München, Registereintrag /

Commercial Register No.: HRA 16 270, Persönlich haftender Gesellschafter / Personally Liable Partner:

RUSEG VerwaltungsGmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft / Company's Place of Business: München,

Registereintrag / Commercial Register No.: HRB 7 534, Umsatzsteuer-Identifikationsnummer (USt-IdNr.) /

VAT Identification No.: DE 130 256 683, ElektroAltgeräte Register (EAR) / WEEE Register No.: DE 240

437 86


Von: < bjorn.skog@telenor.com

>

An: < walter.fischer@rohde-schwarz.com

>

Datum: 31.01.2013 14:31

Betreff: T2 MISO vs. SISO gain: our meeting in October 17th 2012 + report field test attached from my measurements + possibilities for presenting results at conference or in report/article togheter?

Dear Mr Walter Fischer January 31 st 2013

Thank you for your meeting between Norkring personnel (Espen and myself + Øyvind from R&S Norway) at your office in Munich 17.10.12, where you presented your very interesting MISO T2 measurements.

In the meeting it was invited to or discussed the possibility of presenting both reports or results to get more attention at a future event.

T2 MISO vs. SISO gain:

My report (in a preliminary internal version without organizing into chapters)

From the field tests near Oslo is attached (please do not distribute it to anyone).

I heard that LS telcom could be interested in T2 MISO measurement report on their LS Summit 2013 The 18th LS

Summit takes place on Wednesday, 3rd July 2013.

I just got a general mail from IBC 2013: www.ibc.org/callforpapers Submit Your Synopsis Today:

The final date for entries is Friday 8 February 2013 http://www.ibc.org/page.cfm/EMSLinkClick=1393_604_518_11278_262060_9859

If you like or prefer cooperating in any matter on T2 MISO, for presenting results at conference or in report/article together,

Please do not hesitate to contact me.

We will this year invest in a IP feed T2 network and field test.

Best regards from

Bjørn Skog

Technical Expert

Broadcast Technology

Norkring AS

Snarøyveien 30

Building M1a

1331 Fornebu

+47 9006 1049 bjorn.skog@telenor.com

www.norkring.com


here - LS telcom

Title:

DVB-T2 (T2) MISO versus SISO Field Test in Norway:

Coverage improvement (MISO gain) in a SFN network using the Distributed Alamouti Scheme or Space-Time Block Coding

Abstract:

Acknowledgments:

Contents

Introduction:

Background:

Statement of the problem:

Approach and how the problem was measured:

Summary & Conclusions

Results:

Consequences for T2 future networks in a post DD2 frequency regulated environment, of using MISO versus SISO versus MIMO:

Figure of MIMO transmitter network and receiver

The most cost effective strategy for DVB-Tx in Norway surviving DD2:

The 2 most promising T2 modes for Norway in a post DD2 environment:

The best strategy for surviving a post DD2 regulated environment, proposal for this strategy in more detail:

T2 Norway Mjøsa area SFN field test autumn 2012 test results

Conclusions from this report on the gain in using MISO vs. SISO for zero echo dB receiving conditions between two “neighboring” T2 transmitters

Table: Statistical summary results for different code rates and QAM constellation levels:

Our “problem”:

Utility of these results:

The 2 most promising T2 modes for Norway in a pre DD2 environment:

Information about the measurements and why this method was selected:

Future test plan, proposal based on challenges in the setup and operation of the test equipment and because of the technological development related to feeding transmitter sites using Ethernet equipment:

1: Long term stability and interoperability

IP distribution network

3: T2 Decoder chip and RF sensitivity tests

Statistical results: diagrams from the measurements:

Statistical values and differences between MISO and SISO for all measurements,

References

Appendices

Detailed information about the transfer channels for each field measurement location, using the R&S ETL DVB-T2 Instrument for measurements.

Info of some test results with similar “MISO gain” from R&S Germany, Walter

Fischer.

Related documents

Products

Support

here - LS telcom

Title:

DVB-T2 (T2) MISO versus SISO Field Test in Norway:

Coverage improvement (MISO gain) in a SFN network using the Distributed Alamouti Scheme or Space-Time Block Coding

Abstract:

Acknowledgments:

Contents

Introduction:

Background:

Statement of the problem:

Approach and how the problem was measured:

Summary & Conclusions

Results:

Consequences for T2 future networks in a post DD2 frequency regulated environment, of using MISO versus SISO versus MIMO:

Figure of MIMO transmitter network and receiver

The most cost effective strategy for DVB-Tx in Norway surviving DD2:

The 2 most promising T2 modes for Norway in a post DD2 environment:

The best strategy for surviving a post DD2 regulated environment, proposal for this strategy in more detail:

T2 Norway Mjøsa area SFN field test autumn 2012 test results

Conclusions from this report on the gain in using MISO vs. SISO for zero echo dB receiving conditions between two “neighboring” T2 transmitters

Table: Statistical summary results for different code rates and QAM constellation levels:

Our “problem”:

Utility of these results:

The 2 most promising T2 modes for Norway in a pre DD2 environment:

Information about the measurements and why this method was selected:

Future test plan, proposal based on challenges in the setup and operation of the test equipment and because of the technological development related to feeding transmitter sites using Ethernet equipment:

1: Long term stability and interoperability

IP distribution network

3: T2 Decoder chip and RF sensitivity tests

Statistical results: diagrams from the measurements:

Statistical values and differences between MISO and SISO for all measurements,

References

Appendices

Detailed information about the transfer channels for each field measurement location, using the R&S ETL DVB-T2 Instrument for measurements.

Info of some test results with similar “MISO gain” from R&S Germany, Walter

Fischer.

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib