Also, there is no reason to believe that the two applications would be
equally penalized by a compromise sampling rate -- so the results of the
comparison would be suspect unless its known that both applications use the
same sampling rate.

     73,

          Dave, AA6YQ

-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 8:14 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes



Its my understanding that when multiple simultaneously running applications
are using the soundcard with different sampling rates, that Windows delivers
a compromise sampling rate. Thus comparisons run on the same PC may not
accurately reflect each application's performance in isolation.

     73,

        Dave, AA6YQ

-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Rick W
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 7:23 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Comparing data modes


To do simple test comparisons of the modes, I will bring up two software
programs and visually see how the print compares between the two. The
main comparisons have been between Multipsk, HRD/DM780, and fldigi. For
most of these tests I have been using my emachines tower with Intel 2.93
GHz running Windows XP.

I also have an HP Pavilion tower with AMD 4600+ chip running Vista and
have been using it primarily for tests with my SignaLinkUSB interface to
my ICOM IC-7000, which also allows me to have two digital data stations
in the shack to perform ARQ testing with NBEMS. I can not view both
computers at the same time since I use a KVM switch to work between them.

I have not been able to see any situations where one program is clearly
superior to another in decoding the signals.

73,

Rick, KV9U

> Rick previously had written:
>
>
>> When I have done some crude comparisons with actual off air tests
>> between different programs, there is usually not a lot of difference
>>
> Tony wrote:
>
> I'm interested in your test method.
>
> Tony, K2MO
>
>





Reply via email to