I COULD NOT AGREE MORE WITH THE BELOW STATEMENT
EX MT 63 I RUN IZ8BLY DECODE IS GREAT BUT SLOW COMPARED TO MULTI PSK
4.9/4.10 WHICH IS 2X FASTER DECODE BUT PRONE TO MORE ERRORS TEST DONE
ON SAME RECEIVER TO CPU'S AND GMFSK FOR LINUX PERSONALLY DOESN.T HOLD A CANDLE
TO THE OTHER TWO AND NOT ONLY SAMPLING RATE WHAT ABOUT RESOURCES USED TO RUN
TWO PROGRAMS IE RAM?
FOR MORE ACCURATE DATA USE TWO CPU'S
FLDIGI THOR 11 IS GREAT ON 180 M AT NIGHT AMAZING!
DRM IS REALLY GOOD BUT HAVE NOT USED IT IN A WHILE
GOOD LUCK IN TESTING
MATT
KC2PUA
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:digitalradi [EMAIL PROTECTED] com]On 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
>
>
