OK, but I'm running full QSK CW. And that doesn't explain the similar RTTY
miss unless those were hair-trigger operators at the other end who were
anticipating the "over."
73, Duane
Duane Calvin, AC5AA
Austin, Texas
ac5aa@ac5aa.com
-----Original Message-----
From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Carl
Moreschi
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 1:15 PM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Flex Radio for Contesting
The slow turn around between transmit and receive would be caused by running
semi-breakin with a delay of 300 msec or so before you go back to receive.
This would cause you to miss the first elements of characters often.
Carl Moreschi N4PY
58 Hogwood Rd
Louisburg, NC 27549
www.n4py.com
On 12/8/2015 2:09 PM, Duane Calvin wrote:
> So, if that's true, what is the effect I was hearing? I hadn't
> related it to the latency question until this discussion started. The
> receive audio is running on a delay from "real time" all the time,
> while transmit sidetone is in real time. Is this a recovery problem then?
>
> 73, Duane
>
> Duane Calvin, AC5AA
> Austin, Texas
> ac5aa@ac5aa.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Carl
> Moreschi
> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 12:55 PM
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Flex Radio for Contesting
>
> That's not what the latency does. You don't miss the guy coming back
> at all. You hear him 170 msec later, in full. Nothing gets chopped.
> He just thinks you are slightly slow on the trigger.
>
> Carl Moreschi N4PY
> 58 Hogwood Rd
> Louisburg, NC 27549
> www.n4py.com
>
> On 12/8/2015 1:49 PM, Barry N1EU wrote:
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|