I can't imagine that this wouldn't bug the heck out of K9CT but perhaps he
had beta software/firmware with lower latency filtering.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
|