TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

[TenTec] DSP (was 2.033)

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: [TenTec] DSP (was 2.033)
From: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@hawaiiantel.net>
Reply-to: ken.d.brown@hawaiiantel.net, Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 20:24:29 -1000
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
I hope this thread goes on for a while, because I am very interested in the question "how does DSP noise reduction work?"

I know that some methods of autocorrelation can find correlated signals that are at, or even significantly below, the noise level. However they require really long integration times. In our applications, SSB voice or CW tone detection, there are limitations imposed on the correlation function, because we can only tolerate a limited amount of latency. In other words, since our DSP algorithms have to work in near real time, we cannot necessarily take full advantage of all that is possible with DSP. As this discussion continues (and I hope it does) I would not be surprised that someone who knows a lot more about it than I do, explains that because of these limitations DSP as we use it really does not accomplish much more than automatic bandpass filtering and leveling.

I do not have an Orion, and the only DSP in Amateur Radio I have experienced is several years old technology. An Omni VI and also JPS NIR-12 is the DSP that I have listened to. They sound to me like bandwidth limiting and AGC and noise gate type of action. So far when using a really good receiver (Omni VI) , I don't believe that using this kind of DSP I have ever been able to copy a CW signal with the DSP that I could not copy without it. When I had the JPS NIR-12 hooked up to my old Kenwood TS-440, there were some times that the DSP made the difference between copying and not copying, but then the TS-440 is not nearly as good a receiver as the Omni VI.

I expect that the Orion has better DSP algorithms than the Omni VI and the JPS NIR-12, and there may be a large advantage in performing the DSP digitized IF instead of from audio. Still there may be limitations that are just unavoidable. DSP is after all NOT magic, and can only do what is physically and mathematically possible.

DE N6KB

Grant Youngman wrote:
work.)   My DSP theory is not fresh in my memory any more, but the
discussions here about DSP only being a narrow filter does not map with my experience in DSP. Maybe it's old knowledge, but BW filtering doesn't get the entire job done, it seems to me.

A common DSP algorithm as might be found in many amateur devices for noise
reduction uses autocorrelation to identify the primary spectral components,
and then adapts dynamic filters around those components.  That should sound
pretty familiar.   It isn't really a one or the other situation.  And
autocorrelation isn't the only method for spectral estimation.

There are as many fancy algorithms around as there are graduate students
working on dissertations in the area, speech-recognition companies trying to
get a leg-up on the competition regards recognition accuracy in noisy
places, and on and on.



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