Re: [Flexradio] I need advice about hooking up an amp
Bill, Do not connect the L4B directly to the 5K, but with the ARB704 buffer should work just fine for the L4B.. It's a good ideal to use a buffer relay if nothing else to help isolate the radio from any RF coming back from the amp. 73, Dudley WA5QPZ FlexRadio Systems (512) 250-8595, Option 2 Email: dud...@flex-radio.com Web: www.flex-radio.com "Tune in excitement!" ™ On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 7:10 PM, wrote: > I just got a Drake L4B amp today. Is it safe to run on my F5000A as long as > I have a ARB704 in between the radio and amp. I know it works for the > 811H, but I have no knowledge of the older amps. Thanks in advanceBill > N8VWI > ___ > 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ > Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: > http://www.flexradio.com/ > ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
[Flexradio] I need advice about hooking up an amp
I just got a Drake L4B amp today. Is it safe to run on my F5000A as long as I have a ARB704 in between the radio and amp. I know it works for the 811H, but I have no knowledge of the older amps. Thanks in advanceBill N8VWI ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] USB vs Firewire
Let end the debate and just start making Flex Radios that use Fibre Channel and require z/OS. Then we could run banks of Flexii simultaneously. ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] Noise Reduction.
Ron, This in in the bug list to be fixed (DE94). Gerald Gerald Youngblood, K5SDR President and CEO FlexRadio Systems(TM) 13091 Pond Springs Road, #250 Austin, TX 78729 Phone: 512-535-4713 Ext. 202 Email: ger...@flex-radio.com Web: www.flex-radio.com Tune In Excitement (TM) PowerSDR(TM) is a trademark of FlexRadio Systems On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Ronald A. Stunden wrote: > I seem to remember an email about the NR Function, I can't seem to find any > reply to the problem. My F5K has the problem of the NR having to be re > selected after a period of time maybe 1-2 minutes it slowly goes' to > nothing and has to be reselected. Any comments ? SDR is 2.06 SVN 3804. > Thanks > Ron VE7YC > > ___ > 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ > Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: > http://www.flexradio.com/ > ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
[Flexradio] Noise Reduction.
I seem to remember an email about the NR Function, I can't seem to find any reply to the problem. My F5K has the problem of the NR having to be re selected after a period of time maybe 1-2 minutes it slowly goes' to nothing and has to be reselected. Any comments ? SDR is 2.06 SVN 3804. Thanks Ron VE7YC ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] USB vs Firewire
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Peter G. Viscarola wrote: > > > > It does support isochronous streaming transfers, > > something that Flex is just now trying to get going on USB. I > > > > USB inherently supports isochronous transfers. OK, that is news to me. I thought that USB was a single-master, asynchronous transfer bus, and that all transfers had to be originated by the master. > I have personally written Windows USB drivers that support isochronous > endpoints. It's not difficult. The driver and the device firmware make ALL > the difference. > > At THIS point, neither USB NOR 1394 would be the best choice, IMNSHO. The > best choice would be Gigabit Ethernet. Oh, by the way: Even THEN you'll > have to be concerned about DPCs and latency... > And I agree, Gig-E is preferred over either USB or Firewire. -- Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL 3191 Western Dr. Cameron Park, CA 95682 br...@lloyd.com +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica) +1.931.492.6776 (USA) (+1.931.4.WB6RQN) ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] USB vs Firewire
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Gerald Youngblood wrote: > Neil, sure is funny how many times that dead horse gets resurrected. ;>) > > Just for fun, everyone should go look at http://www.presonus.com/ to see > how > many ports (channels) they have on their single USB recording system > product > vs. their many IEEE1394 (FireWire) recording system products. Since they > sell both USB and FireWire systems, there is intelligence in the answer to > the question. > Yes. I have and use a Presonus Firepod. It is amazing how many 96/24 channels I can run at the same time on my Mac over the firewire interface. But that does point out an orthogonal issue: Apple seems to know how to make IEEE1394 work better than Microsoft does. It sure would be nice if PSDR or something like it ran on MacOS. (Wink wink, nudge nudge.) -- Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL 3191 Western Dr. Cameron Park, CA 95682 br...@lloyd.com +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica) +1.931.492.6776 (USA) (+1.931.4.WB6RQN) ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] USB vs Firewire
> > Neil, sure is funny how many times that dead horse gets resurrected. ;>) > Sigh... Even *I'VE* heard this debate enough times that I'm sick of it. When you design a product, you make decisions. The reason the 3000 and 5000 use 1394 is that Flex made that decision back when they were designing the radios. Over the EONS we've been having this discussion, Gerald has told us (in detail, repeatedly) that with the information they had at the time, and the requirements they were using, 1394 appeared to be the best choice at that time to the engineers who were responsible for the decision. Search the archives... you'll find all the details. We can -- and have -- debated ad infinitum whether USB 2.0 would work. It just doesn't matter. The decision's been made. It was NOT a bad decision then, and it has not proven to be a bad decision even now... several years later. For the record (the following is pure redundant trivia -- don't read it if you don't want to read the semi-technical ramblings of an engineer): > even if the 3000 and 5000 could run on USB 2.0 it would present the same set > of latency requirement as firewire Absolutely. There's nothing about USB that would lead us to believe that the types of latency issues that we see on 1394 would be any better on USB. The latency issues are really related to the drivers involved, not the underlying bus technology. The Windows USB stack (Host Controller Driver, etc) presents its own stunningly unique set of challenges, just like the Windows 1394 stack. With USB there are other common issues as well, like hubs... that can greatly influence the throughput on a bus. > > I realize you won't get 480 megabit/sec across a USB 2.0 interface, but many > applications routinely get many tens of >megabits/sec across them. > Actually, applications routinely get tens of megaBYTES per second across USB. At least 200Mbps... maybe 300Mbps. > > IEEE 1394 (Firewire) is actually a better protocol than USB. > The protocols are sufficiently different that you have to define "better." Any X can be said to be "better" than any Y, if one defines "better" so that this is true. Firewire is more costly, less interoperable, and much more complex. This would mean that USB is "better" if better is defined based on those factors. > > It does support isochronous streaming transfers, > something that Flex is just now trying to get going on USB. I > USB inherently supports isochronous transfers. I have personally written Windows USB drivers that support isochronous endpoints. It's not difficult. The driver and the device firmware make ALL the difference. At THIS point, neither USB NOR 1394 would be the best choice, IMNSHO. The best choice would be Gigabit Ethernet. Oh, by the way: Even THEN you'll have to be concerned about DPCs and latency... Peter K1PGV ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] USB vs Firewire
Neil, sure is funny how many times that dead horse gets resurrected. ;>) Just for fun, everyone should go look at http://www.presonus.com/ to see how many ports (channels) they have on their single USB recording system product vs. their many IEEE1394 (FireWire) recording system products. Since they sell both USB and FireWire systems, there is intelligence in the answer to the question. Gerald Gerald Youngblood, K5SDR President and CEO FlexRadio Systems(TM) 13091 Pond Springs Road, #250 Austin, TX 78729 Phone: 512-535-4713 Ext. 202 Email: ger...@flex-radio.com Web: www.flex-radio.com Tune In Excitement (TM) PowerSDR(TM) is a trademark of FlexRadio Systems On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Neal Campbell wrote: > I think people believe that USB is a better alternative because they > believe > that its the firewire interface that is giving the sporadic "radio cannot > connect" or distorted audio issues. > > While there are definitely more USB ports on "best buy" computers than > firewire, I doubt that even if the 3000 and 5000 could run on USB 2.0 it > would present the same set of latency requirement as firewire (although it > would make debugging them easier since I have a USB sniffer but a 1394 > monitor is out of my budget!). > > I also think that chipsets like the ICH9 and ICH10 have grown so complex > and > have crept into so many different device controls that it is its own > minefield. Almost every issue I have seen with the 1500 has been on a board > with those two chips. Granted a high percentage of motherboards have those > chips but I haven't seen any issues with other southbridge chip makers on > USB. > > One difference between the radios Lyle mentioned and the Flex is they are > all receivers not transceivers so are not carrying all of the channels that > the 3000 and 5000 do. > > But, as Ray said, we have beaten this dead horse so many times on this list > that I fell asleep while typing this note. > > Zz > > Neal Campbell > Abroham Neal Software > www.abrohamnealsoftware.com > (540) 645 5394 NEW PHONE NUMBER > > Amateur Radio: K3NC > Blog: http://www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/blog/ > DXBase bug reports: email to ca...@dxbase.fogbugz.com > Abroham Neal forums: http:/www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/community/ > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Ray - K9DUR wrote: > > > Brian, > > > > Right on! At the time that the FLEX-5000 was being developed, the design > > decision was clear: At that stage in the technology, IEE1394 was the > > better > > choice. > > > > 73, Ray, K9DUR > > http://k9dur.info > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ > > Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: > > http://www.flexradio.com/ > > > ___ > 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ > Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: > http://www.flexradio.com/ > ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] USB vs Firewire
I think people believe that USB is a better alternative because they believe that its the firewire interface that is giving the sporadic "radio cannot connect" or distorted audio issues. While there are definitely more USB ports on "best buy" computers than firewire, I doubt that even if the 3000 and 5000 could run on USB 2.0 it would present the same set of latency requirement as firewire (although it would make debugging them easier since I have a USB sniffer but a 1394 monitor is out of my budget!). I also think that chipsets like the ICH9 and ICH10 have grown so complex and have crept into so many different device controls that it is its own minefield. Almost every issue I have seen with the 1500 has been on a board with those two chips. Granted a high percentage of motherboards have those chips but I haven't seen any issues with other southbridge chip makers on USB. One difference between the radios Lyle mentioned and the Flex is they are all receivers not transceivers so are not carrying all of the channels that the 3000 and 5000 do. But, as Ray said, we have beaten this dead horse so many times on this list that I fell asleep while typing this note. Zz Neal Campbell Abroham Neal Software www.abrohamnealsoftware.com (540) 645 5394 NEW PHONE NUMBER Amateur Radio: K3NC Blog: http://www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/blog/ DXBase bug reports: email to ca...@dxbase.fogbugz.com Abroham Neal forums: http:/www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/community/ On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Ray - K9DUR wrote: > Brian, > > Right on! At the time that the FLEX-5000 was being developed, the design > decision was clear: At that stage in the technology, IEE1394 was the > better > choice. > > 73, Ray, K9DUR > http://k9dur.info > > > > > ___ > 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ > Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: > http://www.flexradio.com/ > ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] USB vs Firewire
Brian, Right on! At the time that the FLEX-5000 was being developed, the design decision was clear: At that stage in the technology, IEE1394 was the better choice. 73, Ray, K9DUR http://k9dur.info ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] USB vs Firewire
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Lyle Johnson wrote: > > ...it has to do with the data transfer rates required. >> >> --- >> > > This was true of USB 1.0 and 1.1 which were limited to a maximum raw data > rate of 12 megabit/sec, but is not true of USB 2.0 which has a raw data rate > capability of 480 megabit/sec. I realize you won't get 480 megabit/sec > across a USB 2.0 interface, but many applications routinely get many tens of > megabits/sec across them. > > The HPSDR Mercury receivers and Penelope transmitters operate in full > duplex, as do the prototype Hermes transceivers. Receiver bandwidths are > routinely at 192 kHz, including using dual Mercury receivers for diversity > reception. > > The QS1R, Mercury and Perseus receivers are also using available software > that allows continuous coverage of 2 MHz rather than only 192 kHz. > > All of these systems are interfaced to the host PC using USB 2.0, streaming > audio and interleaving commands, etc. > You certainly are technically correct, Lyle. IEEE 1394 (Firewire) is actually a better protocol than USB. It does support isochronous streaming transfers, something that Flex is just now trying to get going on USB. I suspect that, when the Flex 5000 was under development, it was possible to do what needed to be done using IEEE1394 and not USB. Later, when the 3000 was being developed, Flex had a working IEEE1394 interface and an investment in the drivers. It was an easy decision to go with the working IEEE1394 interface. When Flex started working with the 1500 I bet they started to see that IEEE1394 was not going to continue to be a supported interface while USB was continuing strong so they opted to invest the engineering resources to start to move to USB. So while there are lots of reasons, I think a lot of people are ignoring the valid business reasons for using the interfaces that they have. Ultimately it doesn't really matter. Both interfaces, IEEE1394 and USB, are supported on the various platforms of interest and both work with the radios. It doesn't help a lot to try to second guess or try to castigate anyone for the decisions that were made. They look like reasonable decisions to me and I don't see where USB or IEEE1394 makes that big a difference at this point. -- Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL 3191 Western Dr. Cameron Park, CA 95682 br...@lloyd.com +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica) +1.931.492.6776 (USA) (+1.931.4.WB6RQN) ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] USB vs Firewire
Lyle, This has been discussed extensively on this reflector previously. It does not matter what the THEORETICAL data transfer rate capabilities of USB 2.0 are, the fact remains that in a real-world application, the actual attainable rate is MUCH lower. You must take into account the capability of the hardware (PC) to attain the maximum data transfer rate, including interrupt request handling, etc. When FlexRadio Systems was developing the FLEX-5000, they did extensive testing using USB 2.0 as the communications link, & it simply was not capable of sustaining the data transfer rate required. 73, Ray, K9DUR http://k9dur.info ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] USB vs Firewire
...it has to do with the data transfer rates required. The FLEX-5000 allows a sampling rate of up to 192 kbps for the A/D& D/A converters and the FLEX-3000 allows up to 96 kbps. Add to this the fact that the FLEX-3000& FLEX-5000 are full duplex radios. That is, the TX& RX audio streams across the firewire connection are both running at the same time. Remember that there are 2 signals each for RX& TX. Throw into the mix RX2 in the case of the FLEX-5000& the data transfer rate required is considerably greater than what USB 2.0 can ever support. One thing that Tim did not mention is the fact that the FLEX-1500 is not full duplex. USB 2.0 can handle 2 audio signals with a sampling rate of 48 kHz plus the control signals. However, it can never handle 4 or 6 audio signals with sampling rates of 96 kbps or 192 kps plus the control signals. --- This was true of USB 1.0 and 1.1 which were limited to a maximum raw data rate of 12 megabit/sec, but is not true of USB 2.0 which has a raw data rate capability of 480 megabit/sec. I realize you won't get 480 megabit/sec across a USB 2.0 interface, but many applications routinely get many tens of megabits/sec across them. The HPSDR Mercury receivers and Penelope transmitters operate in full duplex, as do the prototype Hermes transceivers. Receiver bandwidths are routinely at 192 kHz, including using dual Mercury receivers for diversity reception. The QS1R, Mercury and Perseus receivers are also using available software that allows continuous coverage of 2 MHz rather than only 192 kHz. All of these systems are interfaced to the host PC using USB 2.0, streaming audio and interleaving commands, etc. 73, Lyle KK7P ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] PrettyBetty
Pretty Betty is no more. The "skins" provided for use with PowerSDR 2.x are delivered as a package with the new installer program which is used to install PowerSDR 2.x, the needed drivers and the skins. Just install the latest version of PowerSDR (v2.0.8) and you will have all you need to run the software. http://support.flex-radio.com/Downloads.aspx?id=348 http://support.flex-radio.com/Downloads.aspx?id=349 -Tim -Original Message- From: flexradio-boun...@flex-radio.biz [mailto:flexradio-boun...@flex-radio.biz] On Behalf Of Michael Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 10:16 AM To: flexradio@flex-radio.biz Subject: [Flexradio] PrettyBetty Is there a currently available source for acquiring the prettybetty skins ? Can one use them with the current driver etc., of the 5000a.or does one need to revert to earlier files 5000 files? I can't seem to find a source that is current. Thanks. Mike VE3BGE ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/ ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] USB vs Firewire
Burt, As Tim indicated, it has to do with the data transfer rates required. The FLEX-5000 allows a sampling rate of up to 192 kbps for the A/D & D/A converters and the FLEX-3000 allows up to 96 kbps. Add to this the fact that the FLEX-3000 & FLEX-5000 are full duplex radios. That is, the TX & RX audio streams across the firewire connection are both running at the same time. Remember that there are 2 signals each for RX & TX. Throw into the mix RX2 in the case of the FLEX-5000 & the data transfer rate required is considerably greater than what USB 2.0 can ever support. One thing that Tim did not mention is the fact that the FLEX-1500 is not full duplex. USB 2.0 can handle 2 audio signals with a sampling rate of 48 kHz plus the control signals. However, it can never handle 4 or 6 audio signals with sampling rates of 96 kbps or 192 kps plus the control signals. 73, Ray, K9DUR http://k9dur.info ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
[Flexradio] PrettyBetty
Is there a currently available source for acquiring the prettybetty skins ? Can one use them with the current driver etc., of the 5000a.or does one need to revert to earlier files 5000 files? I can't seem to find a source that is current. Thanks. Mike VE3BGE ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] USB vs Firewire
It is due to sampling rate. The 1500 has a max sampling rate of 48K whereas the 3000 and 5000 are 96K and 192K respectively. Higher sampling rate require higher isochronous throughput between the radio hardware and the PC. USB will not cut it for the higher sampling rates when you have multiple data channels needed for RX and TX. -Tim -Original Message- From: flexradio-boun...@flex-radio.biz [mailto:flexradio-boun...@flex-radio.biz] On Behalf Of Burt Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 9:54 AM To: flexradio@flex-radio.biz Subject: [Flexradio] USB vs Firewire Why does the 1500 work so well on USB but Firewire is required for the 3000 and 5000A? Burt ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/ ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
[Flexradio] USB vs Firewire
Why does the 1500 work so well on USB but Firewire is required for the 3000 and 5000A? Burt ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
[Flexradio] Any Chance of a progress report on Deep Impact ?
Hello Fellows, I am one of those Flex users that has only had the radio up a few minutes. Although I do support Windows as part of my day job, I have been hoping we would see something working cross platform so I don't have to do so at the house. Is there any info you can give me on what general progress has been made on the software? Although I am not much at writing software, I would be glad to help during what time I can get away from my day job (which isn't much). If we still have interfacing issues I would be glad to tackle that again. I know Ubuntu, Jack and FFADO have been a moving target (I have been participating in that shooting gallery). Dave KU4B ___ 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/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flexradio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flexradio.com/
