The link I posted explains that there's 165msec latency for all bandwidths
<= 400Hz and latency improves as you progressively get wider than 400Hz
Barry N1EU
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:45 PM, rick@dj0ip.de <Rick@dj0ip.de> wrote:
> And try 100 Hz which is where I run in CW contests.
>
> 73 - Rick DJ0IP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Carl
> Moreschi
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 4:17 PM
> To: tentec
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] TenTec Digest, Vol 156, Issue 4
>
> There's a big difference between 600 and 400. The steep skirts add a lot
> of
> latency. Try 600 or 800.
>
> Carl Moreschi N4PY
> 58 Hogwood Rd
> Louisburg, NC 27549
> www.n4py.com
>
> On 12/8/2015 10:14 AM, Barry N1EU wrote:
> > 400Hz in all cases was the receive bandwidth setting.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Carl Moreschi <n4py3@earthlink.net
> > <mailto:n4py3@earthlink.net>> wrote:
> >
> > That's a function of the receive filter used. The narrower the
> > filter, the more latency. What receive filter were you using?
> >
> > Carl Moreschi N4PY
> > 58 Hogwood Rd
> > Louisburg, NC 27549
> > www.n4py.com <http://www.n4py.com>
> >
> > On 12/8/2015 8:41 AM, Barry N1EU wrote:
> >
> > I just measured 170msec latency on the 6500 in cw receive. It's
> > a lot (too
> > much for serious contesting IMHO) but it's not 350msec.
> >
> > My methodology was to transmit a single dit using another rig
> > and used a
> > microphone/soundcard to record the tx sidetone of rig 1 and then
> the
> > received dit on rig 2.
> >
> > For comparison, my Orion II measured 45msec and my ANAN-100D SDR
> > 70msec for
> > cw rx latency.
> >
> > 73, Barry N1EU
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Barry N1EU<barry.n1eu@gmail.com
> > <mailto:barry.n1eu@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I will personally measure the latency of the Flex 6500 and
> > get back to
> > you. I'm not believing 350msec at this point.
> >
> > 73, Barry N1EU
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:59 AM, rick@dj0ip.de
> > <mailto:rick@dj0ip.de><Rick@dj0ip.de
> > <mailto:Rick@dj0ip.de>> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry Barry, latency measured on the Anan does not
> > necessarily apply to
> > the
> > FLEX 6000.
> >
> > Less than a year ago it was 350mS on the 6xxx, as
> > measured by Rob
> > Sherwood.
> >
> > We've had this discussion before and Rob jumped in and
> > confirmed the 350
> > number.
> > I'm not sure which reflector it was on. Might have been
> > here, might have
> > been on the Eagle or OM7 reflector.
> >
> > As I said, it may have changed but not long ago it was
> > at 350.
> > Until someone steps up and states that (s)he has
> > measured it and found it
> > better, that's the number I'm sticking with for the Flex
> > 6xxx radios.
> >
> > FB on the Anon latency numbers.
> >
> > At 25mS you can still hear in between dits at 40 wpm but
> > just barely.
> > When you go above that, you no longer hear between dits.
> >
> > After about 40 or 50ms latency, you (or rather I and a
> > few friends) can no
> > longer transmit clean CW by listening to the real time
> > signal. In that
> > case
> > we have to mute the radio and listen to the sidetone of
> > the keyer because
> > the delay is annoying and confuses the OP.
> >
> > Delay is still an issue but it has gotten a lot better.
> >
> > 73 - Rick, DJ0IP
> > (Nr. Frankfurt, Germany)
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com
> > <mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com>] On Behalf Of
> Barry
> > N1EU
> > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 1:49 PM
> > To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> > Subject: Re: [TenTec] TenTec Digest, Vol 156, Issue 4
> >
> > Ha, I love a good tussle ;-)
> >
> > I measured it on an ANAN-100D about a year ago. I've
> > seen numbers for the
> > Flex 6K that are similar. Latency of about 100-150msec
> > for cw receive and
> > ssb receive and transmit. CW transmit latency in the
> > ANAN and Flex is
> > very
> > low (on the order of tens of msec) because they both
> > optimize it in the
> > FPGA.
> >
> > 73, Barry N1EU
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 5:45 AM, rick@dj0ip.de
> > <mailto:rick@dj0ip.de><Rick@dj0ip.de
> > <mailto:Rick@dj0ip.de>> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it used to be much worse.
> > It is now 350 mS unless there has been some VERY
> > recent change.
> >
> > Barry, if you say it's better, please specify who
> > measured it and
> > approximately when.
> > Otherwise I strongly disagree.
> >
> > I am quoting recent measurements by Rob Sherwood.
> > Somewhere buried in 10,000 emails I have a recent
> > email from Rob
> > confirming this.
> > It was while running one of the big contests earlier
> > this year.
> >
> > I'm not talking about old 5000 rigs, I mean the new
> > flagship line, 6xxx.
> >
> > 73 - Rick, DJ0IP
> > (Nr. Frankfurt, Germany)
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com
> > <mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com>] On Behalf Of
> > Barry
> > N1EU
> > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:29 AM
> > To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> > Subject: Re: [TenTec] TenTec Digest, Vol 156,
> > Issue 4
> >
> > Rick, the latency on the latest SDR offerings has
> > come WAY down,
> > especially on the Flex 6000 series. They ARE
> > contest capable.
> >
> > I agree on the knobs. I applaud the Flex Maestro
> > interface panel - I
> > think it's a harbinger of products to come in the
> > future, where many
> > vendors can offer various front panels that can be
> > interfaced to many
> > different SDR types. Or someone could write the
> > code to use an Orion
> > front panel to control an SDR, etc.
> >
> > For me, the draw of the direct sampling SDR radios
> > (ANAN, Flex 6K) is
> > that their receivers simply sound better than the
> > best superhet/dsp i.f.
> >
> > radios.
> >
> >
> > With the introduction of the not-overly-impressive
> > IC-7300, perhaps
> > we'll be seeing several direct sampling (DDC/DUC)
> > bundled in a fully
> > knobbed self-contained box in the next 1-3 years.
> >
> > 73, Barry N1EU
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:24 AM, rick@dj0ip.de
> > <mailto:rick@dj0ip.de><Rick@dj0ip.de
> > <mailto:Rick@dj0ip.de>> wrote:
> >
> > EXCEPT . . . for latency and lack of affordable
> > knobs.
> >
> > Last reviews I saw still had turnaround latency
> > between TX and RX at
> > 350 mS.
> > If both ops are running SDR, and trying to run
> > full QSK, that's 0.7
> > seconds.
> > It's gonna sound like "Chop Phooey" on the air!
> >
> > The set of knobs (Maestro) for the lowest cost
> > $2000 Flex Radio (in
> > the class that interests most of us) is $1200 or
> > so. OR...the big
> > single knob from Flex will set you back $200 if
> > you are willing to
> > wait long enough to get one.
> >
> > A decent 3rd party set of knobs, such as the
> > Wood Box Radio T-MATE-2
> > probably has enough knobs for most of us, but it
> > will set you back
> > $300 AND Flex software won't support it. You
> > need a 3rd party
> > software (i.e. N4PY Radio Control Software) to
> > use it with your Flex.
> > Get it all set up and working with your WIN7
> > computer, then upgrade
> > to
> >
> > WIN10 and watch the "real"
> >
> > fun begin.
> >
> > Other than that, there's not much wrong with the
> > current crop of SDR
> > radios...
> >
> > 73 - Rick, DJ0IP
> > (Nr. Frankfurt, Germany)
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TenTec
> > [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com
> > <mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com>] On
> > Behalf Of Kim
> > Elmore
> > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 2:40 AM
> >
> > There's absolutely nothing wrong with SDR; I
> > don't fully understand
> > why so many people complain about it
> >
> >
> > -------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> <mailto:TenTec@contesting.com>
> >
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com <mailto:TenTec@contesting.com>
> >
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com <mailto:TenTec@contesting.com>
> >
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com <mailto:TenTec@contesting.com>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com <mailto:TenTec@contesting.com>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com <mailto:TenTec@contesting.com>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com <mailto:TenTec@contesting.com>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|