Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
Some years ago, a few of us would occasionally have QSOs that we called "Martin Luthers" -as in "I had a DREAM last night!" and we'd send off the QSLs and would often get one back! This was especially true on 160. I still, occasionally , have a "Martin Luther"! Straining right down into the noise level and QSB for ESP-level signals! 73 Charlie, K4OTV Greg Zenger wrote: > I suspect a well trained and practiced brain may be able to out perform a DSP assisted average brain... However over the course of a contest (24-48 hours of [near] continuous operating) a DSP assisted average brain may have an advantage due reduced listening fatigue... Of course some DSP can positively contribute to listening fatigue and others negatively... Quality of DSP and operators ability to adjust are key factors here. This is a topic I follow closely, but can't think of any articles or studies off hand that would answer your question... A sold PhD thesis topic this would be. Greg N2GZ On Aug 4, 2015 9:02 PM, "Roger D Johnson" wrote: > Although I don't consider myself among the "highly-skilled and talented", > I > can't think of an instance where DSP made the difference between making > a contact or not. I do have an Autek QF-1A wired into the audio of the main > receiver of the K3 as the AudioPeakingFilter on the K3 is too sharp. > > 73, Roger N1RJ > > > On 8/4/2015 8:25 PM, Art Snapper wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> Are you referring to a specific modulation mode? >> >> How about adjacent channel interference issues? >> >> I like your question. >> >> Art >> ᐧ >> >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Mike Waters wrote: >> >> I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very >>> talented >>> hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled >>> ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter >>> contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes >>> to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? >>> >>> I always thought Linrad was the best DSP software, though I never got it >>> working right here (older sound card issues in Xubuntu). >>> >>> I asked the following question at >>> >>> >>> http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=104388.msg861047#msg861047 >>> : "Are there any people who can hear weak signals with a good analog >>> receiver, who --if they could instantly switch their antenna and >>> headphones >>> from the analog RX over to the best SDR made today-- simply couldn't hear >>> any better with today's best SDRs and/or DSP software?" >>> >>> There's been a few opinions, but how about multiple valid tests? >>> >>> 73, Mike >>> www.w0btu.com >>> _ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >>> >>> _ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
I suspect a well trained and practiced brain may be able to out perform a DSP assisted average brain... However over the course of a contest (24-48 hours of [near] continuous operating) a DSP assisted average brain may have an advantage due reduced listening fatigue... Of course some DSP can positively contribute to listening fatigue and others negatively... Quality of DSP and operators ability to adjust are key factors here. This is a topic I follow closely, but can't think of any articles or studies off hand that would answer your question... A sold PhD thesis topic this would be. Greg N2GZ On Aug 4, 2015 9:02 PM, "Roger D Johnson" wrote: > Although I don't consider myself among the "highly-skilled and talented", > I > can't think of an instance where DSP made the difference between making > a contact or not. I do have an Autek QF-1A wired into the audio of the main > receiver of the K3 as the AudioPeakingFilter on the K3 is too sharp. > > 73, Roger N1RJ > > > On 8/4/2015 8:25 PM, Art Snapper wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> Are you referring to a specific modulation mode? >> >> How about adjacent channel interference issues? >> >> I like your question. >> >> Art >> ᐧ >> >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Mike Waters wrote: >> >> I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very >>> talented >>> hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled >>> ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter >>> contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes >>> to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? >>> >>> I always thought Linrad was the best DSP software, though I never got it >>> working right here (older sound card issues in Xubuntu). >>> >>> I asked the following question at >>> >>> >>> http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=104388.msg861047#msg861047 >>> : "Are there any people who can hear weak signals with a good analog >>> receiver, who --if they could instantly switch their antenna and >>> headphones >>> from the analog RX over to the best SDR made today-- simply couldn't hear >>> any better with today's best SDRs and/or DSP software?" >>> >>> There's been a few opinions, but how about multiple valid tests? >>> >>> 73, Mike >>> www.w0btu.com >>> _ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >>> >>> _ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> > _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
> > Are you referring to a specific modulation mode? > No, I'm not; but I was thinking of CW first and SSB second. How about adjacent channel interference issues? > Let's assume for now that there is none. > I like your question. > 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
CW skimmer is very impressive to see in action. But nowhere as good as an average CW contester at picking callsigns from the noise. Tim N3QE On Tuesday, August 4, 2015, Mike Waters wrote: > I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very talented > hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled > ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter > contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes > to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? > > I always thought Linrad was the best DSP software, though I never got it > working right here (older sound card issues in Xubuntu). > > I asked the following question at > > http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=104388.msg861047#msg861047 > : "Are there any people who can hear weak signals with a good analog > receiver, who --if they could instantly switch their antenna and headphones > from the analog RX over to the best SDR made today-- simply couldn't hear > any better with today's best SDRs and/or DSP software?" > > There's been a few opinions, but how about multiple valid tests? > > 73, Mike > www.w0btu.com > _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
Although I don't consider myself among the "highly-skilled and talented", I can't think of an instance where DSP made the difference between making a contact or not. I do have an Autek QF-1A wired into the audio of the main receiver of the K3 as the AudioPeakingFilter on the K3 is too sharp. 73, Roger N1RJ On 8/4/2015 8:25 PM, Art Snapper wrote: Mike, Are you referring to a specific modulation mode? How about adjacent channel interference issues? I like your question. Art ᐧ On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Mike Waters wrote: I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very talented hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? I always thought Linrad was the best DSP software, though I never got it working right here (older sound card issues in Xubuntu). I asked the following question at http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=104388.msg861047#msg861047 : "Are there any people who can hear weak signals with a good analog receiver, who --if they could instantly switch their antenna and headphones from the analog RX over to the best SDR made today-- simply couldn't hear any better with today's best SDRs and/or DSP software?" There's been a few opinions, but how about multiple valid tests? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
Mike, Are you referring to a specific modulation mode? How about adjacent channel interference issues? I like your question. Art ᐧ On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Mike Waters wrote: > I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very talented > hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled > ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter > contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes > to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? > > I always thought Linrad was the best DSP software, though I never got it > working right here (older sound card issues in Xubuntu). > > I asked the following question at > > http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=104388.msg861047#msg861047 > : "Are there any people who can hear weak signals with a good analog > receiver, who --if they could instantly switch their antenna and headphones > from the analog RX over to the best SDR made today-- simply couldn't hear > any better with today's best SDRs and/or DSP software?" > > There's been a few opinions, but how about multiple valid tests? > > 73, Mike > www.w0btu.com > _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very talented hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? I always thought Linrad was the best DSP software, though I never got it working right here (older sound card issues in Xubuntu). I asked the following question at http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=104388.msg861047#msg861047 : "Are there any people who can hear weak signals with a good analog receiver, who --if they could instantly switch their antenna and headphones from the analog RX over to the best SDR made today-- simply couldn't hear any better with today's best SDRs and/or DSP software?" There's been a few opinions, but how about multiple valid tests? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
