Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] Receiver performance

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] Receiver performance
From: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:14:38 -0500
> 24 bits sounds good, but I guess it's at low frequency. 

I'd guess about the IF frequency technology of a Hallicrafters SX-
101. 

> one bit toggling on internal noise, and two bits at the top end to handle
> the fact that the ADC has to handle the peak voltage, not the rms. 

I'd want more than one bit toggling on noise. I don't know about 
you, but I (like most CW DX ops) can copy signals below noise 
level. That requires the receiver to not alter the noise.

I have a certain "DSP rig" I won't name sitting right next to me now, 
and the DSP is useless for signal processing unless the signal is 
equal or above noise. Not only that, strong signals "block" the 
receiver or generate IMD when they are within the crystal IF filter 
BW.

I actually read signals much better on a standard receiver when at 
or near noise level, but when they are well out of noise the DSP 
makes the listening much better.

I swore the DSP improved things, until I A-B'ed the signals on a 
non-DSP receiver in comparison.  
    
IMO, DSP receivers are great for casual use in ragchews...but not 
for digging out marginal signals or on crowded bands with strong 
signals when listening to weak stations.

> gives you a theoretical 126dB range from noise floor to overload (AGC
> doesn't apply because you've got to handle signals outside the bandwidth
> of the AGC loop) which should be pretty good. But the analogue circuitry
> prior to the ADC has got to be able the handle the signals without
> distortion and feed the ADC at a level and frequency such that its noise
> doesn't dominate. So a crystal filter probably gets needed to protect that
> circuitry. 

That's right. A 500Hz  8 pole IF filter right after the second mixer 
works about right to protect the DSP filter on CW.
 
> It seems peculiar to me that every 'advance'  in receiver technology that
> I've seen in the last 40 years (and I'm only 53) has always initially
> produced worse performance than the old technology it was supposed to
> replace. Eventually, of course, the advantages shine 
through........

I'll keep waiting.


73, Tom W8JI
w8ji@contesting.com

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>