zed mean-squared tracking error of the DLL, 6cActually, Gill and Hartmann considered only the "one-delta" loop, i.e., N = 2. Pseudonoise Code Tracking in Direct-Sequence Receivers namely (2.62) A similar analysis to Gill's was performed by Hartmann for the TDL. His result for the normalized mean-squared tracking error (analogous to (2.54)) (2.63) which for BT = 4 becomes = (2.64) Numerical comparison of (2.62) and (2.64) with the results in Figures 2.8 and 2.15 reveals that both Gill's and Hartmann's simple results are optimistic by about .9 dB [7]. One should also note that if arm filter band-limiting effects were totally ignored for the TDL, then again K L = M2 = M4 = 1 and M'4 and K'L would achieve their upper bounds as in (2.56), in which case, (2.54) would simplify (for N = 2) to (2.65) Comparing (2.65) with (2.62), we observe the often-quoted (although incor- rect) result that the TDL suffers a 3 dB degradation in signal-to-noise per- formance relative to the DLL. Finally, we point out that increasing N (decreasing the advance (retard) interval) decreases the mean-squared tracking jitter for both the DLL and TDL. This observation is easily concluded from (2.29) and (2.54) together with (2.16). However, increasing N also decreases the linear tracking region of the discriminator characteristic (see Figure 2.3) and thus increases the loop's tendency to lose lock. This tradeoff between decreasing mean-squared tracking jitter at the expense of increased sensitivity to loss of lock is char- acteristic of all early-late gate types of loops [15, Chapter 9]. 2.3 ACQUISITION (TRANSIENT) BEHAVIOR OF THE DLL AND TDL In this section, we discuss the transient response of the DLL and TDL with particular emphasis on their acquisition behavior in the presence of an ini- tial code rate offset of the incoming PN code relative to that of the clock that generates the local PN code replica at the receiver. When discussing the transient response behavior of a DLL or TDL, or for that matter any PN Acquisition (Transient) Behavior 