Indeed. The thing people will probably notice most quickly in our
narrow bandwidth zoomed windows (given the horrid key clicks on most CW
transmitters) is that the "detail" in the noise floor and in the "speech
formants", etc. become sharper and more detailed. It is a win and the
increased computational complexity is low. I am very grateful to Alex
for exposing us all to this technology. It is amazing to me how much
there is to learn in all of this. By the way, Alex also helped us get
the WDM-KS software going. He is my favorite amateur radio software
"for pay" author and I own (having paid for) all of Alex's programs.
You can check out his other offerings at his DxAtlas page
http://www.dxatlas.com
His offerings interoperate with Dave Bernstein's software (dxlabs) in
the same way that Simon Brown's software interoperates with dxlabs.
Alex's work on ionoprobe alone is worth investigating if you care about
HF propogation. Alex is extremely talented.
Bob
Trevor Smithers wrote:
I attach my "worst case difference" screen captures. One is blackham
harris operating on a pure tone. The other is polyphase operating on
exactly the same tone. I presume you can see the difference here.
Certainly can - most impressive.
To demonstrate this for myself I used an Elecraft XG1 on the 50uV range and the
100hz filter - the result using Spectrum, and even more so with Waterfall is really
dramatic.
The problem I was having previously was trying to find an steady (and clean) enough
on air carrier to do the test.
Trevor G0KTN
--
Laziness is the number one inspiration for ingenuity. Guilty as charged!
