I have the 2nd receiver ordered and it is coming in the first production
run.
What about diversity reception? The Flex home page mentions diversity
reception will be possible. I assume that means the hardware will support
it, but PowerSDR must be enhanced to support it. What are the plans for
div
I am basically happy with the CW performance of the 5000, especially with
the W2RF experimental console. I have some issues with audio popping with
the standard version from the trunk branch. Like Dale, I don't need full QSK
and find it a distraction. But I don't think the 5000, with the current
Po
I've been following this thread and have to attest that Bill's
suggestions work. But why?
As a test I put the Flex in USB at 8khz bandwidth. I limited the
response of my RE27 also to 8Khz. I listened to the raw audio from
the mic and it sounded great. I passed it through the 5k and it
sounded
Hello Jerry,
You stated:
"Sounds
like you have never actually used it or you would probably not have
made that comment."
I've operated primarily cw for 42 years, and have tried "close-enough
QSK" with my K2. However, I really dislike hearing band noise between
letters -- forget about betwee
Wow ... this discussion should be simulcast on the Enhanced SSB
reflector...
Well, one of the approaches to kill the muddiness, is a technique that has
been employed in recording/broadcasting over the years..
1.- There is a magic spot in everybody's voice that will increase clarity
and pull d
At 06:02 PM 6/3/2008, Lee Mushel wrote:
> What on earth is the point of
>worrying about whether or not there is space between dits at 60 wpm?
Not necessarily at 60 WPM - I would be happy with 35. Wouldn't you
prefer to hear your "channel" in full duplex? Think about it - how
would you like a te
Ah, good! I stepped on some toes! Radio Amateurs do not have unlimited
spectra! I think this two channel stuff would be better described by the
concepts of the old binaural sound which was used before some of you were
born. It's just a simple idea that can be of use under some very special
>>> On 6/3/08, Brian C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>
>>>
That said, everyone knows wider bandwidths should not be employed on very
crowded amateur bands, nonetheless, the key to intelligibility and
fidelity is b a n d w i d t h.
Hi all,
Actually, IARU recommends max. bandwidth
Ed,
Most microphone need some help, on the lower end. You can use the
internal EQ, the 3 band is usually sufficient, but if you use the 10
band, you might try pulling down the 125 and 250 range, usually right
around 160 is where most of the muddy sound comes from. Also try
brining up th
Not that it matters, but the 92/93 mentioned below really should be
02/03. My, how time flies!
- Jeff
Jeff Anderson wrote:
> Interestingly, one of the primary reasons why the Polycom white paper
> (see previous postings) was written was that it was to be a sales tool
> to help explain to cust
Interestingly, one of the primary reasons why the Polycom white paper
(see previous postings) was written was that it was to be a sales tool
to help explain to customers why they should purchase Polycom's VTX-1000
speakerphone (which was introduced sometime in the 92/93 time-frame, but
I've for
try 28435 at 12pm noon dst every day, 7 days a week for a group that
talks for 1 hour. Our center is South Eastern PA Jerry
___
FlexRadio Systems Mailing List
FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz
http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.b
I apologize in advance for getting sucked into this hot topic. I think
there is merit to both side of the argument, but I think the future
must be developing digital modes that will allow digital voice with a
natural sounding frequency response. In other words we need to cram
6Khz of audio (or more
Anyone for a QSO with your Flex on the 10m band? The band has been hot
lately. I'm in Virginia and right now (1 PM Eastern Time) I can hear strong
Beacon signals from Florida to California and in between. Park your Flex's
Panadapter on 28.250 MHz and watch all those Beacon's ID'ing from 28.200 t
> audio without EQ> > Any thoughts?
>Edwin MarzanAB2VW
According to hams on both sides of the issue, bandwidth is both the problem and
the cure, but you can't argue with the modern science of sound, based on almost
80 years of solid research since those outdated telephone studies were created:
Can anyone help me get this combination working ?
Thanks,
Art K8JK
___
FlexRadio Systems Mailing List
FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz
http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/fle
And the Phoenix communication system is working very well indeed! Great job
JPL!
73 Ross K9COX
>Jim, W6RMK
(who designs those deep space radios for a living)
___
FlexRadio Systems Mailing List
FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz
http://mail.flex-rad
Bob,
Thanks for posting this. I have modified our screen checks similarly to the
way you described in the latest RX2 SVN Branch. We'll be migrating this
soon to the test branch for Beta testing and then it will become the next
official release (v1.12.0). We would welcome feedback from any of yo
Interesting, the comments here have been most informative and helpful. Most of
all they make perfect sense. So far 2 of the responses here mention that their
microphones are plugged in and used without equalization.
Why doesn't the prevailing theory apply with them?Edwin MarzanAB2VW> From:
[
On 06/03/08 09:30 am [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Communication quality audio - yes, but from the original message, the
> muddiness described sounds like something isn't right, even within a
> 3KHz bandwidth.
>
> Even with my $20.00 Radioshack desk mic on the SDR-1000, I get good
> audio reports
Communication quality audio - yes, but from the original message, the
muddiness described sounds like something isn't right, even within a
3KHz bandwidth.
Even with my $20.00 Radioshack desk mic on the SDR-1000, I get good
audio reports with no TX EQ required and within normal 3KHz TX BW. If my
Quoting Mike Naruta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Tue 03 Jun 2008 06:12:51 AM PDT:
> I suspect that it is because we always try
> to push the limits in ham radio. Sort of
> like the hot-rodder tinkering with the
> vehicle to squeeze even more performance
> out of it.
>
>
> Stereo: why not? Using inde
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED], on Tue 03 Jun 2008 06:18:12 AM PDT:
> Interesting reading for all...
>
> http://www.polycom.com/common/documents/whitepapers/effect_of_bandwidth_on_speech_intelligibility_1.pdf
>
> I can appreciate the fact that we all have the FLEXibility to dial in o
Excellent link.
Quoting Lee Mushel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Tue 03 Jun 2008
06:00:12 AM PDT:
> How on earth did this high fidelity audio business ever get started? I
> suggest that all go to the library and find some of the papers on
> communications readability by the Western Electric engineers who studied
>
Interesting reading for all...
http://www.polycom.com/common/documents/whitepapers/effect_of_bandwidth_on_speech_intelligibility_1.pdf
I can appreciate the fact that we all have the FLEXibility to dial in our audio
bandwidth!
Mike K4EAR
-- Original message --
F
I suspect that it is because we always try
to push the limits in ham radio. Sort of
like the hot-rodder tinkering with the
vehicle to squeeze even more performance
out of it.
Stereo: why not? Using independent
sideband, we could do that. What better
place to experiment than ham radio? There
How on earth did this high fidelity audio business ever get started? I
suggest that all go to the library and find some of the papers on
communications readability by the Western Electric engineers who studied
this in the twenties and thirties! We communicate. We are not in the
entertainment m
-Original Message-
From: Jimmy Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:47 AM
To: 'Edwin Marzan'
Subject: RE: [Flexradio] The inherent muddiness of typical amateur
transceiver audio without EQ
Bandwidth Ed. You can't expect to sound like Walter Cronkite
28 matches
Mail list logo