waterfall lack of sensitivity , all versions till now
|
ic8pof
HI again, as already written some days ago there is some lack of sensitivity in the waterfall.
I have tried either on SDR_IQ and also on SoftRocks. I am copying good cw signals abt S1-3 marked on the bandscope, but no indication on the waterfall. 73 Phil@IC8POF |
|
|
|
Simon HB9DRV <simon@...>
Screenshot please including the Whole console! Upload to the Photos area of this group.
Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com
From: sdr-radio-com@...
[mailto:sdr-radio-com@...] On Behalf Of ic8pof
Sent: 27 April 2010 18:29 To: sdr-radio-com@... Subject: [sdr-radio-com] waterfall lack of sensitivity , all versions till now
HI again, as already written some days ago
there is some lack of sensitivity in the waterfall.
|
|
|
|
Bruce Tanner
In a related issue of 'sensitivity'... I have been doing comparisons
with a copy of PSDR-IQ (I had to do that for some reason) and find that
SDR Radio does not seem to have the same sensitivity as the comparison
program. Usually, I use WWV frequencies of 2.5, 5.0 and 10 MHz for the
comparison. While, admittedly, the bands have been for crap,
propagation wise, I find I am able to copy all of these signals at the
expected time of day with PSDR-IQ fairly crisply and with expected
signal strength give the conditions, while they are barely readable and
quite muffled with SDR Radio console.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
All of the hardware hook and antenna arrangements are the same for this experiment. I am not seeing a means of altering what might be called 'RF sensitivity' in the new version of the console. It that possible to replace or add on? As usual, Thanks for your work on this project, Simon. Bruce, K2BET -------------------------- On 4/27/2010 12:28 PM, ic8pof wrote:
|
|
|
|
ic8pof
Just uploaded 2 screen dumps, but it is rather difficult to understand in this way. Under the tuning bar there are 2 cw signals very weak that I can see in the peaks of the band-scope but not in the WF.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
What I mean is that maybe the lack is not in sensitivity but in brightness of the waterfall. Look at the first carrier on the left, it is a s1-3 signal and barely visible in the WF. As the peaks are "running" very fast the only way to trace a signal is to observe it in the WF. I say that as I had the opportunity to test a QS1R sometime ago and there every signal present in the band-scope was seen also in the WF. 73 Phil@IC8POF --- In sdr-radio-com@..., "Simon HB9DRV" <simon@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Simon HB9DRV <simon@...>
Hi,
OK - Click the Waterfall button in the Toolbar and look at the waterfall options.
1) Switch off Advanced. 2) Click Colour and select the SpectraVue option.
I would like to see the Waterfall options in a screenshot please :)
Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com
From: sdr-radio-com@...
[mailto:sdr-radio-com@...] On Behalf Of ic8pof
Sent: 27 April 2010 20:02 To: sdr-radio-com@... Subject: [sdr-radio-com] Re: waterfall lack of sensitivity , all versions till now
Just uploaded 2 screen dumps, but it is rather
difficult to understand in this way. Under the tuning bar there are 2 cw
signals very weak that I can see in the peaks of the band-scope but not in the
WF.
|
|
|
|
Simon HB9DRV <simon@...>
Hi,
I'll look at this - obviously it has to be something quite simple :)
Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com
From: sdr-radio-com@...
[mailto:sdr-radio-com@...] On Behalf Of Bruce Tanner
Sent: 27 April 2010 19:27 To: sdr-radio-com@... Subject: Re: [sdr-radio-com] waterfall lack of sensitivity , all versions till now
In a related issue of 'sensitivity'... I have been doing comparisons with a
copy of PSDR-IQ (I had to do that for some reason) and find that SDR Radio does
not seem to have the same sensitivity as the comparison program. Usually, I use
WWV frequencies of 2.5, 5.0 and 10 MHz for the comparison. While, admittedly,
the bands have been for crap, propagation wise, I find I am able to copy all of
these signals at the expected time of day with PSDR-IQ fairly crisply and with
expected signal strength give the conditions, while they are barely readable
and quite muffled with SDR Radio console.
|
|
|
|
Bruce Tanner
Phil, do you have the latest version of beta 1.0 released just a few
days ago. That version, for me, seems to have much better contrast in
the WF. You can even copy the CW visually if the signal is strong
enough.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
If you have not made a recent download. Be sure to do so... it is a little difficult to make sure you have the right version because it is not labeled as a new version but as a 'new build', I believe, so be careful when you look for it. Bruce ----------------- On 4/27/2010 2:02 PM, ic8pof wrote:
|
|
|
|
Simon HB9DRV <simon@...>
Hi,
I'll make a few changes this evening and see how it goes. I'm on track so can spend a few extra hours on this today and tomorrow.
With the SoftRock I think the only thing I can do is to increase the soundcard gain (later) and the bits per sample (this evening).
Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com
From: sdr-radio-com@...
[mailto:sdr-radio-com@...] On Behalf Of Bruce Tanner In a related issue of 'sensitivity'... I have been
doing comparisons with a copy of PSDR-IQ (I had to do that for some reason) and
find that SDR Radio does not seem to have the same sensitivity as the
comparison program. Usually, I use WWV frequencies of 2.5, 5.0 and 10 MHz for
the comparison. While, admittedly, the bands have been for crap, propagation
wise, I find I am able to copy all of these signals at the expected time of day
with PSDR-IQ fairly crisply and with expected signal strength give the
conditions, while they are barely readable and quite muffled with SDR Radio
console.
|
|
|
|
Bruce Tanner
Thanks for the attention, Simon. I don't know how you keep going with
all of this! But is sure is nice... got to be some beer at the end of
it all, I guess. What an International Party we could create! "A six
pack with every remote".. how is that for a motto?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Bruce --------- On 4/27/2010 2:34 PM, Simon HB9DRV wrote:
|
|
|
|
jmiles56@sbcglobal.net <jmiles56@...>
I got 3 cases in the fridge.. Count me in!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Cheers Jim --- In sdr-radio-com@..., Bruce Tanner <bet110@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Simon HB9DRV <simon@...>
Hi,
I keep going because it's so interesting. It's also an amazing learning curve which I'm climbing :)
Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com
From: sdr-radio-com@...
[mailto:sdr-radio-com@...] On Behalf Of Bruce Tanner Thanks for the attention, Simon. I don't know how you keep going with all of this! But is sure is nice... got to be some beer at the end of it all, I guess. What an International Party we could create! "A six pack with every remote".. how is that for a motto?
|
|
|
|
Simon HB9DRV <simon@...>
Hi,
Just put my 2004 vintage SB Audigy 2 NX into action and am now using 24 bits per sample, seems to be OK. I do see the problems reported with adjusting the bottom tuning bar, I'll fix this tomorrow.
Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com
From: sdr-radio-com@...
[mailto:sdr-radio-com@...] On Behalf Of Simon HB9DRV I'll make a few changes this evening and see how it goes. I'm on track so can spend a few extra hours on this today and tomorrow. With the SoftRock I think the only thing I can do is to increase the soundcard gain (later) and the bits per sample (this evening).
|
|
|