What's new

Why access points use lower TX power when using higher modulation type?

  • SNBForums Code of Conduct

    SNBForums is a community for everyone, no matter what their level of experience.

    Please be tolerant and patient of others, especially newcomers. We are all here to share and learn!

    The rules are simple: Be patient, be nice, be helpful or be gone!

ndrp

Occasional Visitor
In all likelihood because of amplifier distortion. The is some amount of distortion in the signal and the higher the power, the higher distortion. At the higher coding rates, the distortion is likely too great to allow them to be intelligible by a client.

That is my guess.
 
yes, it's about transmitted signal distortion. Imagine a sine wave signal. Now imagine it with the peaks the wave flattened. That's a simplification of the problem. Its root is economics... it costs more to avoid waveform distortion as you increase power. So, most manufacturers reduce power rather than raising cost.

This applies to the "access point" inside a WiFi router as well. It's no different.

With 802.11g/n with OFDM, and 802.11ac moreso... a bit of math jargon here... The transmitted signal's peak to average (RMS) power ratio is rather high. The waveform is complex to get the bits/second/Hz of channel width increased in higher speed modes.

There's an infamous rule of thumb in OFDM engineering - "backoff". It means that the RMS power transmitted must be reduced as the modulation rate increases. The backoff in 802.11g/n is about 5-6dB at the higher OFDM modes.
In non-OFDM modes, the peak-to-average ratio is much smaller so no backoff is needed.

Numbers? In aggressive 802.11n modes, the backoff is to about 40mW RMS. In low rates like 802.11b and the lowest OFDM modes in '11g/n, some products can (but may not) step up to 100mW RMS.

This is also at the root of the issue with "Ampd" WiFi products. It is rather costly to get to 500, 800, or more mW and preserve the transmitted waveform quality. It's called "rho".

The IEEE doesn't get involved with product testing. The FCC does not either - they don't care if the transmitted signal quality is poor, so long as it stays in-band.

The WiFi alliance logo is supposed to be permitted only for products meeting WiFi's rho standards (rather technical). But it's not stringently enforced.
 
Hi,
Also harmonics causing spread band width. Familiar with Fourier series math?
 
With 802.11g/n with OFDM, and 802.11ac moreso... a bit of math jargon here... The transmitted signal's peak to average (RMS) power ratio is rather high. The waveform is complex to get the bits/second/Hz of channel width increased in higher speed modes.

I have never though the peak to average power ratio. I have imagined the OFDM in frequency domain where it looks flat.

Are the peaks high because sometimes subcarriers add together constructively?
Does higher modulation rates have higher peak to average power ratio because 16QAM, 64QAM and 256QAM have lower average subcarrier amplitude than QPSK and BPSK? Peaks are at the same level but RMS power is lower?

QPSK-QAM.gif

64QAM's 111 111, 16QAM's 11 11 and QPSK's 11 have same amplitude.


There's an infamous rule of thumb in OFDM engineering - "backoff". It means that the RMS power transmitted must be reduced as the modulation rate increases. The backoff in 802.11g/n is about 5-6dB at the higher OFDM modes.
In non-OFDM modes, the peak-to-average ratio is much smaller so no backoff is needed.

Is the amplification lowered when using higher modulation rate or is the RMS power lower for the reasont that the average amplitude of 16QAM, 64QAM and 256QAM is lower than average amplitude of QPSK and BPSK? So, it's the low RMS power "a natural thing"?


The WiFi alliance logo is supposed to be permitted only for products meeting WiFi's rho standards (rather technical). But it's not stringently enforced.

What does that WiFi alliance's rho mean? Aerohive AP121 and HP M220 are Wifi certified but the transmit power (RMS) at MSC7 is much lower than at MSC0.
Aerohive AP121 : http://www.aerohive.com/pdfs/Aerohive_Datasheet_AP121.pdf
HP M220: http://h17007.www1.hp.com/docs/whatsnew/coolidge/HP_M220_802.11n_Access_Point_Series.pdf

Sorry for my bad English.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_frequency-division_multiplexing, the issue isn't that the peaks are high, what happens is when you crank up the power, the "perfect" sine waves get distorted because at high out put power level, inexpensive amplifiers can't produce a perfect sine wave, you get cut offs. If this was not OFDM, this wouldn't really be all that much of a problem. OFDM however crams a bunch of sub-carriers together in very closely spaced frequencies. So if transmiting at something like 20MHz width and 2.42GHz, what is actually happening is you might have 16 sub-carriers being transmited in that frequency spread, one at 2.423GHz, one at 2.424GHz, etc. The wave forms have to be reasonably precise, otherwise you cannot distinguish the closely packed wave forms. So wave form distortion will result in read errors on the receiving end.

Really good high power transmiters have much better amplifiers that are able to maintain wave form shape and coherency at very high power levels. This isn't something most consumer and even business access points and routers need to worry about. The cases were a few dB of signal difference would truely mean much higher speeds isn't going to be a lot, because you don't have gradual drop-offs in received power, you have big drops as you move between obstructions. So the change in signalling power from the AP is going to mean relatively little in terms of ability to receive that signal.

Outside it could mean more pronounced changes and receive signal strength and performance as drop off in signal strength is exponential, but fairly smooth, meaning a change of just a few feet can result in a big drop in speed, where as constant Tx power through better amplifiers would mean a much smoother change in performance outdoors. In doors this doesn't really matter.

This is also why outdoor dedicated bridges, for what they are, tend to be a bit on the expensive side, because the manufacturers are often dedicating much more expensive components in to them to be able to manage 400mw, 600mw or even a full watt of transmit power relatively cleanly (and often even there, at the highest signaling rates they have to back off power a few dB).

This also gets in to part of the reason why different APs and routers can have such radically different performance at different signal strengths (and the client also comes in to this too, with how good its amplifiers and signal processors are). Antennas of course come in to this as well.

Anyway, that is why one AP at 300Mbps is not likely to perform at the same level as another AP at 300Mbps. Even with identical antennas and transmit power, one could have better amplifiers leading to a much cleaner signal or any number of other things.

One of the biggest take aways is that, like most things, there is no free lunch. You want high power? Want high speed? Want low cost? Pick any one. Occasionally with a really great design you can pick two, but that is the exception.
 
It's hard to test performance of modern digital communications.. adaptive transmitter power vs. data rate vs. error rate vs. multipath conditions vs. which client in/out, frame by frame. All changing 100 times a second or more.

It's easy to do a superficial/naive test with incorrect conclusions.
 
It's hard to test performance of modern digital communications.. adaptive transmitter power vs. data rate vs. error rate vs. multipath conditions vs. which client in/out, frame by frame. All changing 100 times a second or more.

It's easy to do a superficial/naive test with incorrect conclusions.

Almost makes me miss the heyday of Marconi.
 
It's hard to test performance of modern digital communications.. adaptive transmitter power vs. data rate vs. error rate vs. multipath conditions vs. which client in/out, frame by frame. All changing 100 times a second or more.

It's easy to do a superficial/naive test with incorrect conclusions.

Totally agree...

It can be done, but it's a serious investment - thousands of hours of test case development and time in the labs - can easily run into millions of dollars to set up and staff a good test lab.
 
Totally agree...

It can be done, but it's a serious investment - thousands of hours of test case development and time in the labs - can easily run into millions of dollars to set up and staff a good test lab.

That's right. I worked as a consultant to a major telco, building a lab to test 4G data techniques when the industry was debating Wireless DOCSIS with dynamic equalizers versus OFDM - both to mitigate multipath. We put about $500K in that lab's gear - fading/delay simulator hardware, lots of test and measurement gear. And still, one mistaken assumption and the whole conclusion was wrong. Especially in choosing assumed multipath conditions. These cannot be just theory - they have to be and were eventually (by our team) based on $$$ of time and effort in field data collection with test equipment, since there were no products at that time. This work resulted in IEEE's channel models for eaves height fixed wireless subscribers. This market started then pooped out due to the flawed business model for fixed wireless to the home. Truck rolls are too expensive and self-installed is impractical.

Soon thereafter, LTE happened, though it is still way to expensive in air time costs to replace cable modem or fiber to the home. I blame our FCC bureaucrats for the cost of cellular and LTE - the obscene $B spectrum auctions (find the auction income - I dare you) - a consumer-ripoff topic not taken up by the mass media.
 
Last edited:
Are the peaks high because sometimes subcarriers add together constructively?
Does higher modulation rates have higher peak to average power ratio because 16QAM, 64QAM and 256QAM have lower average subcarrier amplitude than QPSK and BPSK? Peaks are at the same level but RMS power is lower?

"An OFDM signal exhibits a high peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) because the independent phases of the sub-carriers mean that they will often combine constructively." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthog...ltiplexing#Linear_transmitter_power_amplifier

"If all the subcarriers are modulated by phase-shift keying (PSK), the theoretical upper bound of the PAPR in OFDM signals with N subcarriers is N . (It could be higher than N, if a multilevel constellation such as quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) is applied.)" http://cdcpc.ce.ncu.edu.tw/classbackup/wofdms03/ch3/clipping/Ochiai01.pdf

Can this result it 3 - 4 dB loss is transmit power or is the the amplification lowered when using higher modulation rate?
 
Last edited:
"An OFDM signal exhibits a high peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) because the independent phases of the sub-carriers mean that they will often combine constructively." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthog...ltiplexing#Linear_transmitter_power_amplifier

"If all the subcarriers are modulated by phase-shift keying (PSK), the theoretical upper bound of the PAPR in OFDM signals with N subcarriers is N . (It could be higher than N, if a multilevel constellation such as quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) is applied.)" http://cdcpc.ce.ncu.edu.tw/classbackup/wofdms03/ch3/clipping/Ochiai01.pdf

Can this result it 3 - 4 dB loss is transmit power or is the the amplification lowered when using higher modulation rate?
The peak-to-average ratio in OFDM often results in up to 6dB of power backoff in high modulation orders; that is, 6dB compared to non-OFDM modes.
 

Latest threads

Sign Up For SNBForums Daily Digest

Get an update of what's new every day delivered to your mailbox. Sign up here!
Top