Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
Digital...when working is good, it has good and bad pointsI am using analog...which works properly for me. Digital is not a cure-all. VAC is crude and has many bugs ... and the author seems to have an attitude towards everyone (or at least me) who won't send him the money...I even wanted to send money, but had a few questions needing answers first. He refused to answer questions about VAC w/o me buying it first and then said no refund if it didn't do what I wanted it too. DUH!!! Tell answer the question first so I know to avoid problems. Anyway that is a different issue. VAC will NOT allow functioning with an external sequencer ...at least properly. Whereas a hard wired analog will...i.e.- rigblaster, Signalink, etc. Now that the F5K has delayed relays it might be possible...but before it was not. What we need is an open source type of VAC that we can configure to our own needs. It is also ashame that Flex is relying (not totally...there are work arounds) on a sole-source program by others for operation of parts of its PSDR, by putting reference to it in their code. Why haven't they put reference, links or buttons to logging programs, voice keyers, digital programs, etc? Makes you wonder Pete WA2ODO - Original Message - From: Jerry Flanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: flexradio@flex-radio.biz Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators At 02:28 PM 7/20/2008, Brian Lloyd wrote: SNIP If there ever was a compelling reason to use VAC, I missed it. Given its faults, why is VAC still being recommended? What else can replace it? I bought a lifetime supply of these for less than I paid for VAC: http://www.mpja.com/prodinfo.asp?number=15666+CB Jerry W4UK ___ 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
What does it make you wonder, Pete? 73, Bob, K5KDN -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Pete M Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:37 PM To: Jerry Flanders Cc: flexradio@flex-radio.biz Subject: Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators Digital...when working is good, it has good and bad pointsI am using analog...which works properly for me. Digital is not a cure-all. VAC is crude and has many bugs ... and the author seems to have an attitude towards everyone (or at least me) who won't send him the money...I even wanted to send money, but had a few questions needing answers first. He refused to answer questions about VAC w/o me buying it first and then said no refund if it didn't do what I wanted it too. DUH!!! Tell answer the question first so I know to avoid problems. Anyway that is a different issue. VAC will NOT allow functioning with an external sequencer ...at least properly. Whereas a hard wired analog will...i.e.- rigblaster, Signalink, etc. Now that the F5K has delayed relays it might be possible...but before it was not. What we need is an open source type of VAC that we can configure to our own needs. It is also ashame that Flex is relying (not totally...there are work arounds) on a sole-source program by others for operation of parts of its PSDR, by putting reference to it in their code. Why haven't they put reference, links or buttons to logging programs, voice keyers, digital programs, etc? Makes you wonder Pete WA2ODO - Original Message - From: Jerry Flanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: flexradio@flex-radio.biz Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators At 02:28 PM 7/20/2008, Brian Lloyd wrote: SNIP If there ever was a compelling reason to use VAC, I missed it. Given its faults, why is VAC still being recommended? What else can replace it? I bought a lifetime supply of these for less than I paid for VAC: http://www.mpja.com/prodinfo.asp?number=15666+CB Jerry W4UK ___ 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
There are some not understood faults in the use of VAC, it being closed source, etc. The following is a general rule of thumb. Open on the PowerSDR side, a VAC cable that is a integer divisor of the sample rate in the radio. Open the MixW, etc. AFTER this cable has been opened by PowerSDR. The internal sample rate conversion and buffering inside VAC then adjusts correctly. I really wish we had an open source, free replacement for VAC but I have stopped hoping for it. In general Windows sux and Vista sux worst of all and building a virtual sound card from the device developers kit to support all of these platforms is a painful process to say the very least. Bob N4HY ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. Trample the slow Hurdle the dead -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dudley Hurry Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:12 PM To: Brian Lloyd Cc: FlexRadio Reflector Subject: Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators Brian, Try DM780 that comes with Ham Radio Deluxe. You have to download the entire HRD package, but then you can run only DM-780 for the digital. In the Super Browser, you can have 20 to 30 PSK QSOs going at once, and it's decode rate is better than MixW I think.. 73, Dudley WA5QPZ Brian Lloyd wrote: Making progress here. VAC is working and I am trying different digital- mode applications. It is interesting to see how different the quality of the copy is. I have my MacBook Pro connected via analog cable to line out and am using CocoaModem to monitor the off-air signal as I fumble with VAC and various digital mode programs on the PC, i.e. MixW and MultiPSK. It is interesting to see the difference in the quality of the copy between the various programs. Right now I am looking at both the Mac and PC printing out a PSK31 QSO but the error rate for MixW is *MUCH* higher than the error rate in CocoaModem on the Mac. Not having any other experience with this what should I expect? No, I have not tried routing the analog signal to the sound card in the PC to see how that works. So, since I have no experience with Windows-based soundcard digital mode programs, should I be looking at something other than MixW? MultiPSK's UI is much more cluttered but seems to work pretty well. I occasionally play with PSK31 but am much more interested in more robust modes like MFSK and Olivia. -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
After initially buying and trying VAC just because everybody does it, I gave it up and use conventional audio cables now. I use RTTY predominantly, and when I copied my tx'ed signal on another radio. I could see periodic hiccups that garbled an occasional (maybe 1 of 10-20) characters with VAC 3.12. If there ever was a compelling reason to use VAC, I missed it. Given its faults, why is VAC still being recommended? Jerry W4UK At 06:56 AM 7/20/2008, Bob McGwier wrote: There are some not understood faults in the use of VAC, it being closed source, etc. The following is a general rule of thumb. Open on the PowerSDR side, a VAC cable that is a integer divisor of the sample rate in the radio. Open the MixW, etc. AFTER this cable has been opened by PowerSDR. The internal sample rate conversion and buffering inside VAC then adjusts correctly. I really wish we had an open source, free replacement for VAC but I have stopped hoping for it. In general Windows sux and Vista sux worst of all and building a virtual sound card from the device developers kit to support all of these platforms is a painful process to say the very least. Bob N4HY ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. Trample the slow Hurdle the dead -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dudley Hurry Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:12 PM To: Brian Lloyd Cc: FlexRadio Reflector Subject: Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators Brian, Try DM780 that comes with Ham Radio Deluxe. You have to download the entire HRD package, but then you can run only DM-780 for the digital. In the Super Browser, you can have 20 to 30 PSK QSOs going at once, and it's decode rate is better than MixW I think.. 73, Dudley WA5QPZ Brian Lloyd wrote: Making progress here. VAC is working and I am trying different digital- mode applications. It is interesting to see how different the quality of the copy is. I have my MacBook Pro connected via analog cable to line out and am using CocoaModem to monitor the off-air signal as I fumble with VAC and various digital mode programs on the PC, i.e. MixW and MultiPSK. It is interesting to see the difference in the quality of the copy between the various programs. Right now I am looking at both the Mac and PC printing out a PSK31 QSO but the error rate for MixW is *MUCH* higher than the error rate in CocoaModem on the Mac. Not having any other experience with this what should I expect? No, I have not tried routing the analog signal to the sound card in the PC to see how that works. So, since I have no experience with Windows-based soundcard digital mode programs, should I be looking at something other than MixW? MultiPSK's UI is much more cluttered but seems to work pretty well. I occasionally play with PSK31 but am much more interested in more robust modes like MFSK and Olivia. -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
On Jul 20, 2008, at 3:56 AM, Bob McGwier wrote: There are some not understood faults in the use of VAC, it being closed source, etc. The following is a general rule of thumb. Open on the PowerSDR side, a VAC cable that is a integer divisor of the sample rate in the radio. That is what I assumed and what I tried. In fact, I assumed it should be a power-of-2 divisor so that it just requires a shift rather than a divide. I am using a sampling rate of 96Ksps for the '5K and 12K for the VAC 'wire'. Open the MixW, etc. AFTER this cable has been opened by PowerSDR. The internal sample rate conversion and buffering inside VAC then adjusts correctly. This I also assumed. For more info, I also used the same buffer size (2048) and selected mono output which should present 1/2 the load. I also selected 1/2 duplex in MixW for its interface to the sound card. I can't think of anything else to do that would reduce the load on the system other than to reduce the sampling rate to the '5K. As it is, CPU utilization bounces between 13% and 20%. This is NOT a heavy load on the system. What this is telling me is that there is a task scheduling problem in WinXP. Something is causing context switching latency between the components and results in underrun and/or buffer starvation for MixW. So, would someone with enough understanding of this abortion of an operating system please tell me which unnecessary tasks I can turn off to avoid unnecessary context switching? I am betting that there is some useless, bug-ridden, cycle-stealing, Microsoft-provided feature in my XP installation that is causing this problem when it steals multiples of ms of CPU time periodically. And then there are the AMD vs. Intel and 32-bit vs. 64-bit issues as well. sigh I did install a tool called What's Running to try to see all the tasks that are consuming resources. It is a long and hair-raising list. I really wish we had an open source, free replacement for VAC but I have stopped hoping for it. In general Windows sux Amen Brother! and Vista sux worst of all I would have used stronger language but I am with you 100%. and building a virtual sound card from the device developers kit to support all of these platforms is a painful process to say the very least. No doubt. There is something to be said for allowing a protocol implement your interface. -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
On Jul 20, 2008, at 8:29 AM, Jerry Flanders wrote: After initially buying and trying VAC just because everybody does it, I gave it up and use conventional audio cables now. I am beginning to think I may have to do just that. Right now I am using an audio cable to my Mac which is running Cocoamodem. The copy is excellent. It just offends my sensibilities to have to convert back to the analog domain as an intermediate step. I use RTTY predominantly, and when I copied my tx'ed signal on another radio. I could see periodic hiccups that garbled an occasional (maybe 1 of 10-20) characters with VAC 3.12. Precisely what I am seeing! If there ever was a compelling reason to use VAC, I missed it. Given its faults, why is VAC still being recommended? What else can replace it? -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
At 02:28 PM 7/20/2008, Brian Lloyd wrote: SNIP If there ever was a compelling reason to use VAC, I missed it. Given its faults, why is VAC still being recommended? What else can replace it? I bought a lifetime supply of these for less than I paid for VAC: http://www.mpja.com/prodinfo.asp?number=15666+CB Jerry W4UK ___ 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
At 02:22 PM 7/20/2008, K0VM wrote: Jerry, I guess that VAC is still recommended , because for many of us, the current, paid for,version works reliably! I wonder if the hiccups don't reveal themselves in ordinary digital mode use, where the only person listening to the transmitted signal is a non-critical RTTY/PSK31 QSO partner who can tolerate an occasional garble and just mark it up to a propagation anomaly or QRM. I hear other guys complain about hiccups, so I am not the only one, and it is unlikely that they were using the same version of VAC I used. Perhaps more people should actually verify their off-air digital signals like I did on another local receiver. I was trying to set up a contest RTTY station at the time, and could not tolerate any unnecessary garbling of my exchange not caused by the ionosphere or QRM. I am not familiar with the use of VAC in the phone modes - the hiccups may not show at all there. SNIP With the SDR-1000, using cables might have required a total of three sound cards in the computer, with the F5K just one computer sound card is required. I don't see how you would ever need more than two with the SDR-1000. What mode would ever require three? Jerry W4UK ___ 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
On Jul 20, 2008, at 11:53 AM, Jerry Flanders wrote: At 02:28 PM 7/20/2008, Brian Lloyd wrote: SNIP If there ever was a compelling reason to use VAC, I missed it. Given its faults, why is VAC still being recommended? What else can replace it? I bought a lifetime supply of these for less than I paid for VAC: http://www.mpja.com/prodinfo.asp?number=15666+CB I understand what you are saying Jerry but I must reject it for philosophical reasons. There is no valid reason to have to convert back to the analog domain to solve this problem. That is just Rube Goldberg. Yes, it may work but it is just ... wrong. And yes, I am using that approach for now but there has to be a way to fix this properly. -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
We completely agree that you should not have to convert back to the analog domain. That is why we and VAC do NOT do it. ;-). Go read some more. Bob ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. Trample the slow Hurdle the dead -Original Message- From: Brian Lloyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:18 PM To: Jerry Flanders Cc: Bob McGwier; flexradio@flex-radio.biz Subject: Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators On Jul 20, 2008, at 11:53 AM, Jerry Flanders wrote: At 02:28 PM 7/20/2008, Brian Lloyd wrote: SNIP If there ever was a compelling reason to use VAC, I missed it. Given its faults, why is VAC still being recommended? What else can replace it? I bought a lifetime supply of these for less than I paid for VAC: http://www.mpja.com/prodinfo.asp?number=15666+CB I understand what you are saying Jerry but I must reject it for philosophical reasons. There is no valid reason to have to convert back to the analog domain to solve this problem. That is just Rube Goldberg. Yes, it may work but it is just ... wrong. And yes, I am using that approach for now but there has to be a way to fix this properly. -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
Hmmm. Seems like a recommendation of this sort should have been based on engineering considerations, not philosophical ones. My transmitted RTTY is now 100% garble-free. Is 90-95% good enough for everybody else? Jerry W4UK At 03:35 PM 7/20/2008, Bob McGwier wrote: We completely agree that you should not have to convert back to the analog domain. That is why we and VAC do NOT do it. ;-). Go read some more. Bob ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. Trample the slow Hurdle the dead -Original Message- From: Brian Lloyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:18 PM To: Jerry Flanders Cc: Bob McGwier; flexradio@flex-radio.biz Subject: Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators On Jul 20, 2008, at 11:53 AM, Jerry Flanders wrote: At 02:28 PM 7/20/2008, Brian Lloyd wrote: SNIP If there ever was a compelling reason to use VAC, I missed it. Given its faults, why is VAC still being recommended? What else can replace it? I bought a lifetime supply of these for less than I paid for VAC: http://www.mpja.com/prodinfo.asp?number=15666+CB I understand what you are saying Jerry but I must reject it for philosophical reasons. There is no valid reason to have to convert back to the analog domain to solve this problem. That is just Rube Goldberg. Yes, it may work but it is just ... wrong. And yes, I am using that approach for now but there has to be a way to fix this properly. -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
On Jul 20, 2008, at 1:29 PM, Jerry Flanders wrote: Hmmm. Seems like a recommendation of this sort should have been based on engineering considerations, not philosophical ones. My transmitted RTTY is now 100% garble-free. Is 90-95% good enough for everybody else? I understand Jerry and I agree that if there is no other way to achieve error-free transmission and reception, your approach is the right one. OTOH, I can see no reason that the problem cannot be solved in the digital domain. As far as I know, there is no basic science or engineering that demands the intermediate conversion to the analog domain to solve this problem properly, hence my desire to attack this problem in the digital domain to see if I can solve it there. FWIW, my current hypothesis is that there is some high-priority process that is part of Windows that is causing a problem. My next attack on the problem will be to remove all unnecessary tasks from the standard out-of-the-box Windows XP task mix. For example, things like automatic software updates, NETBIOS, SMB file sharing, etc., are not necessary and consume resources unnecessarily. I am going to turn all those features off to see what the impact is on performance. I will post the results of my experiment. While my background is in software development and while I do have a lot of experience with real-time, event-driven OS's doing communications software (I used to design routers), I have no experience with making Windows work properly so I am shooting in the dark here. I invite anyone with experience in this area to advise me. Thank you. -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, my current hypothesis is that there is some high-priority process that is part of Windows that is causing a problem... The way this problem is addressed under Linux is by using the so-called rt version of the kernel, and running the audio subsystem at a higher priority than typical user processes, even though it's running mostly in user space. One reason this is possible is that the window system and many critical system functions also run in user space, even though they might be essentially owned by the system rather than any individual user. The consequence is that, even with a monolithic kernel, routine but high-priority system operations spend a minimal amount of time hogging the kernel. What seems to matter most is the order in which tasks at the same high-priority level are scheduled for service. As long as the audio subsystem gets scheduled often and gets a chance to do its little bit of work ahead of things like paging, journal updates, etc., the audio hums along happily. In any case, the problem doesn't come up in the Linux world at all, at this point. We have had zero problems of this sort since adopting the multimedia configuration guidelines established in UbuntuStudio. Lately I've been running the FireBox at 192k on a slow laptop with 512M, on a loaded system that normally fills out 1.5MB swap space, with nary a glitch in days. 73 Frank AB2KT -- Travelling by airplane in the US is nothing more than mass training of Americans to the requirements of the coming police state. The whole point is to make you learn to acquiesce without question, en masse, to completely absurd directives by dull functionaries wearing uniforms. -- Atrios ___ 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
What Frank suggests and what Brian suggested before: modify threading priorities, has been done for the audio threads in PowerSDR for, literally, years. All threads in PowerSDR can be run at real time through a setting in the Setup panel but this is not necessary since what we really care about is having the processing of audio threads be high, and not blocking their ability to run free, etc. We went through all of this when we had that silly metering thread at below normal priority able to grabbing a semaphore which blocked the sdr thread, way be in the early days. Now there may be another threading error still lurking. I will be happy to look at it later but may I suggest that in this group in particular one needs to take a lot of what is said here when it comes to the down near the metal internals of the code, with a mountain of salt. Eric Wachsmann and I spent literally weeks looking for any of the non-dsp threads in the GUI, etc. blocking the high priority threads. I doubt there is a lot of meat left on that bone but I could be wrong. Bob ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. Trample the slow Hurdle the dead -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Brickle Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 6:28 PM To: Brian Lloyd Cc: flexradio@flex-radio.biz Subject: Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, my current hypothesis is that there is some high-priority process that is part of Windows that is causing a problem... The way this problem is addressed under Linux is by using the so-called rt version of the kernel, and running the audio subsystem at a higher priority than typical user processes, even though it's running mostly in user space. One reason this is possible is that the window system and many critical system functions also run in user space, even though they might be essentially owned by the system rather than any individual user. The consequence is that, even with a monolithic kernel, routine but high-priority system operations spend a minimal amount of time hogging the kernel. What seems to matter most is the order in which tasks at the same high-priority level are scheduled for service. As long as the audio subsystem gets scheduled often and gets a chance to do its little bit of work ahead of things like paging, journal updates, etc., the audio hums along happily. In any case, the problem doesn't come up in the Linux world at all, at this point. We have had zero problems of this sort since adopting the multimedia configuration guidelines established in UbuntuStudio. Lately I've been running the FireBox at 192k on a slow laptop with 512M, on a loaded system that normally fills out 1.5MB swap space, with nary a glitch in days. 73 Frank AB2KT -- Travelling by airplane in the US is nothing more than mass training of Americans to the requirements of the coming police state. The whole point is to make you learn to acquiesce without question, en masse, to completely absurd directives by dull functionaries wearing uniforms. -- Atrios ___ 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
On Jul 20, 2008, at 6:35 PM, Bob McGwier wrote: What Frank suggests and what Brian suggested before: modify threading priorities, has been done for the audio threads in PowerSDR for, literally, years. All threads in PowerSDR can be run at real time through a setting in the Setup panel but this is not necessary since what we really care about is having the processing of audio threads be high, and not blocking their ability to run free, etc. We went through all of this when we had that silly metering thread at below normal priority able to grabbing a semaphore which blocked the sdr thread, way be in the early days. Now there may be another threading error still lurking. I will be happy to look at it later but may I suggest that in this group in particular one needs to take a lot of what is said here when it comes to the down near the metal internals of the code, with a mountain of salt. Eric Wachsmann and I spent literally weeks looking for any of the non-dsp threads in the GUI, etc. blocking the high priority threads. I doubt there is a lot of meat left on that bone but I could be wrong. What you say makes a great deal of sense. I am not seeing any problems with PowerSDR itself. The problem appears to be with VAC. -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
Are you using the demo version of VAC? If so, the decode errors are from the embedded voice that says trial every few seconds. -Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:00 AM To: FlexRadio Reflector Subject: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators Making progress here. VAC is working and I am trying different digital- mode applications. It is interesting to see how different the quality of the copy is. I have my MacBook Pro connected via analog cable to line out and am using CocoaModem to monitor the off-air signal as I fumble with VAC and various digital mode programs on the PC, i.e. MixW and MultiPSK. It is interesting to see the difference in the quality of the copy between the various programs. Right now I am looking at both the Mac and PC printing out a PSK31 QSO but the error rate for MixW is *MUCH* higher than the error rate in CocoaModem on the Mac. Not having any other experience with this what should I expect? No, I have not tried routing the analog signal to the sound card in the PC to see how that works. So, since I have no experience with Windows-based soundcard digital mode programs, should I be looking at something other than MixW? MultiPSK's UI is much more cluttered but seems to work pretty well. I occasionally play with PSK31 but am much more interested in more robust modes like MFSK and Olivia. -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
On Jul 19, 2008, at 12:22 AM, Tim Ellison wrote: Are you using the demo version of VAC? No. I paid for it. They gave me a link for download. I presume this is the full version. It isn't asking for a serial number or anything. If so, the decode errors are from the embedded voice that says trial every few seconds. I am guessing that isn't the problem. More looking. I tried turning on audio repeater so I can listen to the stream between PowerSDR and MixW. Dropouts. I can now see what they look like on the waterfall and see that I am getting them even when I am not running audio repeater. So the bad copy seems to be caused by dropouts in the VAC stream. To try to fix things I have dropped the sample rate to 11025 and increased the number and size of the buffers. It hasn't fixed the problem. CPU utilization as reported by PSDR is 15%-20 so I don't think processing is the issue. Any suggestions? -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
Re: [Flexradio] differences between PSK31 demodulators
Brian, Try DM780 that comes with Ham Radio Deluxe. You have to download the entire HRD package, but then you can run only DM-780 for the digital. In the Super Browser, you can have 20 to 30 PSK QSOs going at once, and it's decode rate is better than MixW I think.. 73, Dudley WA5QPZ Brian Lloyd wrote: Making progress here. VAC is working and I am trying different digital- mode applications. It is interesting to see how different the quality of the copy is. I have my MacBook Pro connected via analog cable to line out and am using CocoaModem to monitor the off-air signal as I fumble with VAC and various digital mode programs on the PC, i.e. MixW and MultiPSK. It is interesting to see the difference in the quality of the copy between the various programs. Right now I am looking at both the Mac and PC printing out a PSK31 QSO but the error rate for MixW is *MUCH* higher than the error rate in CocoaModem on the Mac. Not having any other experience with this what should I expect? No, I have not tried routing the analog signal to the sound card in the PC to see how that works. So, since I have no experience with Windows-based soundcard digital mode programs, should I be looking at something other than MixW? MultiPSK's UI is much more cluttered but seems to work pretty well. I occasionally play with PSK31 but am much more interested in more robust modes like MFSK and Olivia. -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.2/1562 - Release Date: 7/19/2008 2:01 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.2/1562 - Release Date: 7/19/2008 2:01 PM ___ 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://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
