1. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c Submission 25-Aug-2008 Slide 1 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Comparison of 8-star QAM and other 8-point constellations] Date Submitted: [ 25 August, 2008] Source: [Michael McLaughlin] Company [DecaWave] Contact: Michael McLaughlin Voice:[+353 1 511 1121], FAX: [N/A], E-Mail:[michael.mclaughlin@decawave.com] Re: [n/a] Abstract:[Why 8-star QAM is the best 8 point constellation for the SC-PHY] Purpose:[To resolve LB43 letter ballot comments] Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release:The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.15.

2. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c Submission 25-Aug-2008 Slide 2 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave Introduction  An 8 point constellation allows >4Gbps in low complexity, single carrier mode  There are many possible choices  Star 8QAM (Current draft)  8PSK (CID 156)  NS 8QAM (CID 589)  One comment even suggests substituting 16QAM  (CID 448)  This contribution compares these possibilities

3. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c Submission 25-Aug-2008 Slide 3 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave Proakis Digital Communications – 4th edition* * pp 279

4. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c Submission 25-Aug-2008 Slide 4 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave 8-PSK Constellation 45 o Constellation power = 6.83 d=2

5. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c Submission 25-Aug-2008 Slide 5 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave 8-QAM Constellation 60 o d=2 Constellation power = 4.73 90 o

6. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c Submission 25-Aug-2008 Slide 6 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave Expect Star 8-QAM ~1.5dB better than 8-PSK AWGN Comparison

7. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c Submission 25-Aug-2008 Slide 7 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave Star 8QAM vs 8PSK: Impaired AWGN Impaired AWGN 3 bit ADC, PA @ 5dB OBO, PN = -87dBc/Hz > 4dB difference 02468101214161820 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 10 0 EbNo Ber/Per AWGN with ADC, PA and PN impairments Star 8 QAM BER 8-PSK BER Star 8 QAM PER 8-PSK PER

8. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c Submission 25-Aug-2008 Slide 8 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave 051015202530 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 10 0 EbNo Ber/Per AWGN with ADC, PA and PN performance Star 8 QAM BER Star 8 QAM PER 16 QAM BER 16 QAM PER Star 8QAM vs. 16QAM: Impaired AWGN Impaired AWGN 3 bit ADC, PA @ 5dB OBO, PN = -87dBc/Hz Error floor

9. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c Submission 25-Aug-2008 Slide 9 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave 02468101214161820 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 10 0 EbNo Ber/Per CM1.3 with ADC, PA and PN impairments Star 8 QAM BER 8-PSK BER Star 8 QAM PER 8-PSK PER CM3.1 with PA, PN, ADC 3 bit ADC, PA @ 5dB OBO, PN = -87dBc/Hz Star 8QAM vs 8PSK: LOS CM1.3 > 4dB difference

10. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c Submission 25-Aug-2008 Slide 10 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave Star 8QAM vs 8PSK: NLOS CM2.3 CM2.3 with PA, PN, ADC 3 bit ADC, PA @ 5dB OBO, PN = -87dBc/Hz

11. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c Submission 25-Aug-2008 Slide 11 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave Summary  Star 8 QAM best theoretical 8 point constellation  16QAM unusable with Power Amp, Phase Noise  Performs significantly better than 8PSK in  AWGN  Impaired AWGN  LOS with PA,PN  NLOS with PA,PN  Can achieve >4Gbps at EbNo of 17dB with PA+PN  Distance ~10 meters  Reject all 3 comments (CID 156, 589, 448)  Best impaired or unimpaired performance