Good testimonial to what the issue is and is not Duane!
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Duane Calvin <ac5aa1@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I don't claim to be a "real contester" as I don't sit in a chair for
> 48 hours or run at 45 wpm (then again, not many contesters run at this
> speed either.) I enjoy CW and RTTY contesting in small doses, and
> typically do S&P, and small runs since low power and poor antenna usually
> mean I get run off the frequency. What I've found on CW is that, running
> between 30 and 35 wpm when I make a call, often, if the other station is
> quick on the trigger, I hear "tC5AA" for my call (loss of the first dit in
> the leading A). At first, I thought they were getting my call wrong, then
> I realized it was the turnaround latency. No big deal, I just went from
> there. Now, if I were "running" instead of S&P, and the person at the
> other end sent his call once and was quick on his reply, then I might not
> get the first element of the first letter of his call. I've been running
> narrower filters than I usually do, and if I had realized this might be
> hurting the turnaround time, I would have de
> faulted back to my normal 1000 Hz with the APF engaged.
>
> Now on RTTY, it shows up a little more obviously because the baud rate is
> faster. Here, I was decoding "_c5AA" a lot of the time on the first pass
> of receiving my call. Not a real problem because most RTTY contesters
> include the call both at the beginning and end of the exchange because of
> similar turnaround problems with other gear.
>
> So, yes, for a contester who runs extremely high rates, this could impact
> them. Then again, due to their abilities, it might not. I can tell you
> that I'm as pleased with my FLEX-6500 in contests as I ever was with my
> Omni VI+ or my Orion, and that I enjoy using it just as much as I did
> either of them.
>
> Duane Calvin, AC5AA
> Austin, Texas
> ac5aa@ac5aa.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Nathan
> Moreschi via TenTec
> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 12:09 PM
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment; rick@dj0ip.de; 'Discussion of
> Ten-Tec Equipment'
> Cc: Nathan Moreschi
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Flex Radio for Contesting
>
> CW
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:43 PM, rick@dj0ip.de<Rick@dj0ip.de> wrote:
> Was that in SSB or CW, Nate?
>
> 73
> Rick, DJ0IP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Nathan
> Moreschi via TenTec
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 3:38 PM
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> Cc: Nathan Moreschi
> Subject: [TenTec] Flex Radio for Contesting
>
> I'm not sure about the differences in latency between the Flex 6500 and
> Flex 6700 (if any) but I wouldn't rule them out for serious contesting.
> Here's a post from K9CT during last week's ARRL 160 Contest:
> 3830 Show Score
>
> | |
> | | | | | |
> | 3830 Show ScoreGoal was to beat last year's effort. Not as many QSOs
> |but had more mults. Thefirst few hours are the best and most
> |important. If you miss any part of that,you can't make it up. | |
> |View on 3830scores.com | Preview by Yahoo | |
> | |
>
>
>
>
> 73,
> Nate/N4YDU From: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 8:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] TenTec Digest, Vol 156, Issue 4
>
> 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> 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 <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] 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 <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] 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 <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] 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
> >> > > 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|