| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Brian, As you already pointed out, the channel suppliers were forced to supply the raw data for the channel. This allows easy plotting for individuals to load multiple channels on top of each other for comparison sake. Doing that with a jpg is not easy(especially if they are on different scales.
And I don't think it is just independent validation, but also independent assessment.
John
-----Original Message-----
Hi John,
The objective is to provide at least some level of independent validation.
The equalized pulse response would be a list of over-sampled (~100x) signal values.
A picture of a pulse response is as useful as a picture of s-parameters J
Brian
From:
owner-stds-802-3-blade@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-blade@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of DAmbrosia, John F
Guys, I am concerned about ease of comparison using equalized pulse responses as an input. If this is the case, then probably as a Matlab figure, which would then enable users to do comparisons easily. A jpg would only allow a visual comparison of the figures that one could fit pictures on a given screen at a given time.
John
-----Original Message-----
Hi Joe,
My thought for including the tap values was to offer some ability for independent verification of the results including architecture complexity. Not to acquire proprietary information.
With the board/connector vendors, we have asked that they make s-parameter data available while we have not required them to specifically show how they achieved these results. Similarly, I was thinking that supplying the tap values for a few channels does not explicitly reveal the algorithm used to generate these tap values.
Would an acceptable alternative be to supply an equalized pulse response?
Thanks, Brian
|