## 5 Results
### Performance Evaluation of DVB-T2 Using BER
#### 5.1.2 UFMC-Based DVB-T2 Without LDPC Coder  
In this part, the CFO impact is shown in the UFMC-based DVB-T2 system (cf. Figure 11) when a fading channel is used or not.  
Figure 14 exhibits the BER evolution as a function of the SNR in the UFMC-based DVB-T2 when only Gaussian noise was used for various CFO values. One can note that when the CFO was not applied, the SNR value was equal to 18.4 dB at a BER of \(10^{-4}\). This result allows us to conclude that UFMC-based DVB-T2 and the native DVB-T2 present the same performance in the presence of Gaussian noise only. Furthermore, at a SNR value of 20 dB, the BER values of \(3.1\times 10^{-5}\), \(5.6\times 10^{-5}\), \(1.9\times 10^{-4}\), \(8.2\times 10^{-4}\), \(3.2\times 10^{-3}\), and \(10^{-2}\) were obtained for CFO values 0, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, and 0.05, respectively. One can note that the loss increased with the CFO value. However, the loss induced by the CFO values of 0.04 and 0.05 with UFMC-based DVB-T2 were lower than those induced by the CFO values of 0.04 and 0.05 with the native DVB-T2 system. At a BER of \(10^{-2}\), the loss induced by the CFO varied from 0.1 dB to 6 dB in the UFMC-based DVB-T2 case. In other words, the loss induced by CFO values of 0.04 and 0.05 in UFMC-based DVB-T2 system were 3 dB and 6 dB, respectively, at a BER of \(10^{-2}\), when the SNR values were compared to those obtained without CFO. In contrast, the losses induced by CFO values of 0.04 and 0.05 in the native DVB-T2 system were 3.8 dB and 7.8 dB, respectively, at a BER of \(10^{-2}\). Thus, we can conclude that the impact of the CFO is more noticeable with OFDM waveforms than UFMC waveforms. UFMC is less sensitive to the CFO than OFDM in the AWGN-only case, as highlighted in [27], which presents the SER vs. SNR UFMC performance compared with the OFDM performance.  
Figure 14: BER vs. SNR in the UFMC-based DVB-T2 system without coding: CFO evaluation in the AWGN-only case.  
Figure 13: BER vs. SNR in the native DVB-T2 system without coding: CFO evaluation in the TU6 and AWGN case.  
Figure 15 shows the BER evolution as a function of the SNR in the UFMC-based DVB-T2 when the TU6 channel was used. By comparing the UFMC-based DVB-T2 system performance to the native DVB-T2 system performance in the TU6 case in Figure 13, one can find that UFMC presented better performance than OFDM when the TU6 fading channel was used. When the CFO was not applied, at the same BER of \(10^{-4}\), the SNR value of UFMC-based DVB-T2 was equal to 32 dB instead of 42 dB in the native DVB-T2 system. Furthermore, this figure demonstrates that UFMC performance slowly degrades with the increase in the CFO value. The system performance without CFO was approximately equal to the system performance when the CFO value varied from 0.01 to 0.04. For a CFO value of 0.05, the system performance decreased, and the loss induced was equal to 14 dB at a BER of \(10^{-3}\). One can conclude that UFMC is less sensitive to the CFO than OFDM in the presence of a TU6 channel when the coding technique is not implemented in the system, as the induced losses are less than those for OFDM, which represents the same trend as when only adding AWGN.  
Table 4 presents a summary of the performance of OFDM and UFMC in the presence of a CFO when AWGN is the only impairment considered and when TU6 channel is additionally used.