# LoS Theoretical and Experimental MIMO Study from 1-40 GHz in Indoor Environments
## Appendix A  
In this section the comparison between the measured and the simulated RMS DS, mean delay and PL for the analyzed WRC bands is shown in Tables 15-16. Firstly, Tables 15 show the comparison for the microwave band 3.3-4.99 GHz. The accuracy of the simulated parameters in this band is lower than the full band case. Tables 16-17 show the results for the 24.25-27.5 GHz band and Tables 18-19 the comparison for the 37-40 GHz band. The accuracy in the low mm-wave bands is higher than in the microwave band. This is especially clear in the RMS DS; the mean accuracy in the first band is 58% and in the low mm-wave bands is 70.72% and 67.74%, close to the accuracy reached using the full band (73.50%). Moreover, the PL accuracy is also higher in the low mm-wave bands: the mean difference in the first band is 2.48 dB, whereas a difference of 1.29 dB and 1.07 dB is found in the 24.25-27.5 GHz and 37-40 GHz bands respectively. In comparison with the full band case, the reduced bandwidth used in the WRC bands decreases the delay resolution, making more difficult the identification of the multipath components. This is especially relevant in lower frequency bands. The multipath components have in general larger power levels in the microwave band than in higher frequency bands. Any error in the simulation of a multipath component will produce, in the microwave band, a larger error in the channel parameter estimation than in a higher frequency band, where multipath components undergo larger attenuations. The mean delay accuracy is similar in all bands. As explained in Section 5.1 an easily simulated LoS component exists in all positions influencing the mean delay value. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Position** & **Simulated (ns)** & **Measured (ns)** & **Acc. (\%)** \\ \hline
1 & 2.98 & 4.97 & 59.86 \\
2 & 3.40 & 4.21 & 80.63 \\
3 & 3.65 & 5.44 & 67.15 \\
4 & 4.17 & 6.23 & 66.86 \\
5 & 3.83 & 5.38 & 71.30 \\
6 & 3.36 & 5.27 & 63.74 \\
7 & 3.36 & 3.72 & 90.50 \\
8 & 3.71 & 4.53 & 81.92 \\
9 & 3.24 & 4.57 & 70.89 \\
10 & 2.69 & 4.76 & 56.58 \\
11 & 2.44 & 3.20 & 76.22 \\
12 & 1.55 & 2.50 & 61.90 \\
13 & 2.59 & 4.21 & 61.63 \\
14 & 2.62 & 2.20 & 80.87 \\ - & - & Mean & 70.72 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison between the measured and simulated RMS of the DS for the WRC band 24.25–27.5 GHz. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Position** & **Simulated (ns)** & **Measured (ns)** & **Acc. (\%)** \\ \hline
1 & 19.80 & 21.68 & 91.31 \\
2 & 21.54 & 21.78 & 98.91 \\
3 & 22.68 & 23.85 & 95.09 \\
4 & 20.20 & 19.94 & 98.68 \\
5 & 19.27 & 18.41 & 95.37 \\
6 & 18.69 & 16.51 & 86.77 \\
7 & 13.75 & 11.01 & 75.17 \\
8 & 16.26 & 13.71 & 81.41 \\
9 & 18.55 & 15.32 & 78.89 \\
10 & 11.25 & 12.67 & 88.76 \\
11 & 8.88 & 9.09 & 97.68 \\
12 & 5.87 & 4.95 & 81.53 \\
13 & 10.07 & 11.70 & 86.06 \\
14 & 6.52 & 6.55 & 99.66 \\ - & - & Mean & 89.66 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison between the measured and simulated mean delay for the WRC band 3.3–4.99 GHz. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Position** & **Simulated (ns)** & **Measured (ns)** & **Diff. (dB)** \\ \hline
1 & 44.47 & 44.01 & 0.46 \\
2 & 43.69 & 43.93 & 0.24 \\
3 & 45.11 & 44.31 & 0.80 \\
4 & 42.67 & 41.96 & 0.71 \\
5 & 42.60 & 42.28 & 0.31 \\
6 & 41.87 & 42.09 & 0.22 \\
7 & 43.06 & 39.14 & 3.93 \\
8 & 42.68 & 39.98 & 2.70 \\
9 & 43.12 & 40.70 & 2.42 \\
10 & 44.28 & 40.46 & 3.82 \\
11 & 42.77 & 37.88 & 4.89 \\
12 & 40.40 & 34.60 & 5.80 \\
13 & 43.86 & 40.35 & 3.51 \\
14 & 40.75 & 35.87 & 4.88 \\ - & - & Mean & 2.48 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison between the measured and simulated PL between for the WRC band 3.3–4.99 GHz.