Talk:Turbo code

User:HughSW -- hats off to your addition How Turbo codes work -- really nice work! technopilgrim

Compared with Reed-Solomon

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? --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. 194.106.59.2 20:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How turbo codes work

I think the emphasis of the How turbo codes work section is wrong: the focus is on soft-bits while this is not what Turbo codes made different, it is the fact that two codes in parallel (interleaved) are used. The soft decoding was already known before ([1]: "It is well known that soft decoding is better than hard decoding") Emvee 20:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nitty gritty

Wow this article has the lame term "nitty-gritty" twice. (Once with a hyphen and once without, heh.)