GeekGirl1
The Medium IS the Message
Premium
join:2007-01-28
Morrisville, PA
2 edits | Yet Another Proprietary Standard attempt
I just took a look at the full test report from the URL in their press release: »www.pulselink.net/press/pr-dec13-2007.htm. There's too much marketing hype. What I see is that it's limited to only 1 of the allocated UWB bands, 4.1 GHz and does BPSK modulation. FEC uses Low Density Parity Check / convolutional coding (Viterbi). You can't tell anything about the FEC unless both schemes are compared as Eb/N0 curves. Inconclusive on which is better.
From the plot on Figure 15, the CWave data rate drops like a rock after about 12' to 120 MBps. The other manufacturers show slow degradation. There are trade-offs of fast vs. slow rolloff. It's based on the application. Wonder why CWave's curve is different than the others (?).
Look at Figure 14. The Belkin F5U302 can do 35 MBps until about 20' from the transmitter. If 1080p needs 35 Mbps, this will do just fine.
One feature not mentioned in the report is the signal acquisition process. How long to lock / re-aquire? How robust is the receiver design to multipath? From Table 1: "The CWave reference design uses a 4.05 GHz carrier with the data rate values set to maintain the phase alignment between the carrier and the data signal..." There's a reason the other protocols have lower data rates and use more complex modulation techniques. This could be an Achilles heel. Just need more info (and real world testing).
I'll bet you can get even better performance if waveguide was used instead of coax. Now that's what I call "hard-wired"  . |
