Content deleted Content added
Compared to reed-solomon? |
|||
Line 4:
I am interested to know if turbo code is more efficient than [[Reed-Solomon error correction]] for those areas that Reed-Solomon is particularly used for. For example, given the same number of additional bits, is turbo code better able to handle errored signals? Is turbo code better able to handle missing signals? Is turbo code well suited to 'bursty' errors? Also, on modern desktop CPUs, which is most time-efficient for encoding and decoding? --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] 18:08, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
In terms of encoding efficiency, Turbo Codes are the best known (as mentioned in the first paragraph). Bursty errors are usually handled by interleaving/rearranging the bits (as in read solomon's usage on CD's). Sorry I can't tell you which is most time-efficient. [[User:194.106.59.2|194.106.59.2]] 20:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
| |||