At 12:12 AM 4/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:
W4ZV wrote:
> For anyone intested in an in-depth comparison
>of DSP Blaster and DSP-10 by EME contester W3SZ read:
>
>http://www.elecraft.com/TechNotes/w3sz_dsp/w3szdspnew.htm
>
>Bottom line:
>"By the end of the night I had essentially put the DSP-10 away and was
>running with just the K2 / Transverter / DSP Blaster combination, and very
>happy."
G'day
I had not seen the W3SZ piece before and it is a really great
introduction/analysis to the kinds of DSP devices that are currently
available - and their relative performance under different circumstances.
As Bill says, W3SZ found the DSP Blaster ultimately the best tool for his
EME operation (although not necessarily all the time, particularly when he
first started to compare these (and other) tools of this kind - see W3SZ's
comments below).
>"Nevertheless, to my surprise I felt I could find the stations more easily
and found listening to them/copying them more comfortable on the DSP-10
hardware than on the SSB LT2S/K2 combination, whether I was running the
LT2S/K2 with no DSP, with DSP-blaster, with the AUDIO version of DSP-10, or
with Spectran. I think this relates primarily to the fact that the
binaural implementation on the DSP-10 is very much to my liking, and I like
it far better than the DSP-Blaster's, even though I previously liked the
DSP-Blaster's version very much."> (W3SZ)
One important point to make for those unfamiliar with this kind of device
is DSP Blaster is basically software that one uses with a PC, in
conjunction with its sound card, whereas the DSP-10 can be used
independently of a PC, as the back end of a radio, - which is why I am
interested in it as the basis of a stand-alone direct conversion/single
conversion receiver.
However, for those who have a PC and don't mind using it with their radio,
the DSP Blaster looks a fascinating and very reasonably priced tool to use
for 160m DXing. Looking at W3SZ's article, when hooked up to a pc, both
DSP Blaster and the DSP10 can show you in visual 'waterfall terms' how much
in dB terms a DX signal you are listening is above the band's ambient noise
level. To be able to 'see' in visual terms how good (in dB abover noise
level) is your ability to read weak CW must be an amazing experience!
On a final note, I wonder if anyone on the reflector is aware of the
SDR-1000 software-based transceiver? This is a development device (using
an FST3125) and my RF engineer friend (who likes to live on the what he
calls the "bleeding edge" of RF design) has had one of these for several
months. I have sat in his shack and played with it and to be able to bring
the CW filter bandwidth down to 20Hz (or smaller) with absolutely no
ringing and atenuation of signals is a fantastic experience.
For someone like me who is PC-phobic (use one all day, every day for work
and hate 'em when I get home) for ham radio, the downside of the SDR-1000
is the current need to use a PC with it. However, once its operational
characteristics have been refined sufficiently (I am driving my friend to
help do this as quickly as possible!!!) and some enterprising engineer puts
the sofware features into firmware (so no PC is required), the SDR-1000
(and its brothers and sisters) are going to be an awesome combo for
dinosaurs like VK6VZ for 160m CW.
Now back to restoring my AR-88D and R-4C...
Vy 73
Steve, VK6VZ
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|