Super Bob, This is one of the most important "operating enhancements" I have seen in PowerSDR. The performance just keeps getting better. Is there no end in sight to all the good things you guys dream up? Now give us a variable, manually controller notch filter, and we will really enjoy a fine receiver.
Chas W1CG At 04:08 PM 11/11/2007, Robert McGwier wrote: >Shortly this filter difference will be resolved. All filters, >irrespective of sampling rate, will have the exact same shape factor as >the 48000 Hz. Shortly after that, we will be able to support even >better filters if the user can live with the latency through the RX >chain and with this second change, we will have an extra benefit. We >will be able to reduce the computational complexity at all sample rates >to the minimum required by the bandwidth chosen for the filter up to >some coding practicalities. This yoga/magic/dsp/software engineering >should have been accomplished a long time ago and the code to do it has >been in dttsp since the first day of its existence. The weekend I >introduced 96000 and 192000, I should have done this at least 1/2 way >step immediately and done this with the other code. > >QRX for this as Frank and I discuss the design for this and he makes it >fit into the dttsp v2.0 version of things. It will turn up in PowerSDR >shortly thereafter in some form and I sure it will be greeted kindly by all. > > >Bob >N4HY > > >Steve Kallal wrote: > > I've have tried to achieve 512 buffers at 96 kHz. I'm not using 192 kHz > > because I want a sharper CW rx filter shape. 192 kHz would be OK for SSB, > > but on CW the display is too compressed. > > > > I can do 512 buffers at 96 kHz, but it gets unstable. CW break-in can crash > > the system. The 5000A gets stuck in a state where the panadapter display > > looks frozen even when changing the frequency. Cycling the 5000A power off > > and back on again, gets me going again. I've found 1024 buffers fixes it. > > Also listening to WWV has get choppy at 512. > > > > 1024 buffers are OK, except I would like to get the latency reduced. I am > > using a 2.6 GHz P4 with 1 GB RAM. Is this typical with a P4 system? Would a > > dual core help? I've tried two Firewire cards with the same results. I can > > try to trim down Windows XP and turn off some services. > > > > The bottom line is I'd like to know if the buffer size for the sample rate > > is typical, or if I need to do some system tweaks. > > > > 73, > > > > Steve N6VL > > > > > >-- >AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, >TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair >"An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why >must the pessimist always run to blow it out?" Descartes > >_______________________________________________ >FlexRadio mailing list >FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz >http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz >Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ >FlexRadio Knowledge Base: http://kb.flex-radio.com/ >FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/ _______________________________________________ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Knowledge Base: http://kb.flex-radio.com/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
