DVB-S2X Improvements
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
3 recomendaciones•9,561 vistas
DVB-S2X performance overview Benefits of DVB-S2X: Lower roll-off Finer granularity Extended SNR range Channel bonding
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a DVB-S2X Improvements
Similar a DVB-S2X Improvements (20)
Más de Newtec
Más de Newtec (20)
Último
Último (20)
DVB-S2X Improvements
- 1. 1 Newtec Proprietary – Unrestricted DVB-S2X PANEL SESSION DVB-S2X improvements
- 2. Shaping the Future of Satellite CommunicationsNewtec Proprietary – Unrestricted2 OVERVIEW • DVB-S2X performance overview • Benefits of DVB-S2X • Lower roll-off • Finer granularity • Extended SNR range • Channel bonding
- 4. 4 1dB 10%
- 5. 5 • Low roll-off allows to increase symbolrate within same bandwidth • Eg. increase symbol rate from 30 MBaud to 32.8MBaud (10% throughput increase) • Power loss of 0.4 dB can be fully recovered by applying predistortion at transmitter • DVB-S2X + predistortion = 10% more channels in DTH service 0.4dB power loss RO 20% RO 10% 20% 10% 36MHz 36MHz 30Mbaud 32.8Mbaud Advantage of Lower Roll-off
- 6. 6 Advantage of Finer MODCOD Granularity • Requested coverage (Egypt) • EIRP footprint definitions • DVB-S2 (27.5Mbaud; 25% RO) specific contours for 99.5% availability • DVB-S2X (33Mbaud, 10%RO) specific contours for 99.5% availabilility DVB-S2X 16% higher bitrate 44 dBW 46.5 dBW 8PSK 5/6 8PSK 3/4 Or smaller dishes !
- 7. 7 Advantage of Extended SNR range
- 8. 8 Advantage of Extended SNR range VL-SNR (Very Low Signal-to-Noise Ratio) • DVB-S2 minimal Es/No = -2.5dB • DVB-S2X minimal Es/No = -10dB • Why? • Link budget • Emission regulations -> adjacent satellites • How? • Traditional spreading = entire stream is spreaded • DVB-S2X spreading = only frames that require low Es/No
- 9. 9 Advantage of Extended SNR range Up to 51% efficiency improvement over DVB-S2
- 10. 10 Advantage of Channel Bonding • HDTV • channel ~ 8Mbps • 7 channels in 1 tpx (60Mbps) • UHDTV • channel ~ 16 Mbps • 3 channels in 1 tpx (60Mbps) • Bonding: 11 channels in 3 tpx 36MHz 60Mbps 36MHz 60Mbps 36MHz 60Mbps 9 UHDTV channels 11 UHDTV channels (+22%) Bond 3 TS into 1 large TS
- 11. 11 MORE INFORMATION DVB-S2X Calculator www.newtec.eu/services-training/dvb-s2-calculator DVB-S2X Whitepaper & Survey www.newtec.eu/technology/dvb-s2x DVB-S2X Official Whitepaper https://www.dvb.org/resources/public/standards /a172_dvb-s2x_highlights_-_white_paper.pdf
- 12. Get in touch FOLLOW US
Notas del editor
- AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option. I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.
- AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option. I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.
- AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option. I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.
- AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option. I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.
- AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option. I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.
- AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option. I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.
- AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option. I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.
- AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option. I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.