[USRP-users] twinrx_freq_hopping example

2018-02-26 Thread Андрей 1 via USRP-users 

Will there be a compiled example for windows?
Thank you
___
USRP-users mailing list
USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com

Re: [USRP-users] twinrx_freq_hopping example

2018-02-26 Thread Андрей 1 via USRP-users 

What you mean about timed commands?
Im only translate to C API twinrx_freq_hopping.cpp

Thank you

 26.02.2018, 18:10, Derek Kozel  I'm not sure how you
 are responding, but it is still not threading correctly. Thanks for trying
 though.

 I would not expect the C API to make a performance difference like that since
 it is only a wrapper. Are you still using timed commands? If not then the
 additional overhead of sending commands from the host computer to the USRP
 and back could account for some of the performance difference.

 On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Андрей 1 via USRP-users 

 wrote:
 Thank you for the clarification about set_rx_lo_freq.
 Can the problem with long setup time arise due to the fact that I use C API?
 Thank you

 On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Derek Kozel  wrote:

   Hello,

   Please can you keep your emails in a single thread so it is easier to
   read.

   The goal with the frequency hopping example is to instantly jump between
   frequencies. Normally those 3-5 ms of tuning would be dead time, no
   meaningful signal could be received. By using the RF synthesizers of both
   channels and switching the LO source back and forth you are always
   jumping to a frequency after the synthesizers have already tuned and
   settled.

   The text written at the top of the example should be rewritten to be a
   bit clearer. There are other situations, such as using an external LO,
   where the set_rx_lo_freq call is useful. In this example however the
   benefit comes from tuning the unused synthesizers. If all the frequencies
   which you wish to tune to the receiver to are known ahead of time it
   would be possible to have UHD pre-calculate all the LO frequencies, store
   them in your application, and then save a few microseconds by using the
   set_rx_lo_freq function to avoid UHD doing extra work to configure the
   filters on the unused channel. This is almost never useful since there is
   some margin in the 5 ms frequency hopping time. Also often applications
   will actually want to sit on one frequency longer than 5 ms and are only
   using the LO source swapping ability to avoid the dead time of
   synthesizer tuning.

   Regards,
   Derek

   On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Андрей 1 via USRP-users 

   wrote:
   I have no any error in twinrx_recv.If the tuning frequency is already
   sufficiently small, then why these special calls(set_rx_lo_freq) for
   twinRX?
   Thank you
   ___
   USRP-users mailing list
   USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
   http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com

   On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Андрей 1  wrote:

 Im using UHD 3.10.3 and have no error in twinrx_recv

   26.02.2018, 17:01, Derek Kozel  Hello,

   The tuning time is approximately 5 ms, which is why the example
   uses that number. The example should work the same on either
   Windows or Linux. What version of UHD are you using on Windows
   which does not include it?

   Are you seeing any streaming errors on Windows?

   Regards,
   Derek

   On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Андрей 1 via USRP-users 

   wrote:


 Hello
 Im using X300+TwinRX in Windows.In source UHD 3.10.3 for
 linux I found example twinrx_freq_hopping.How much I
 understand in this example the receiver is tuned with the
 period 5ms.As written in the title of the example, I need to
 use set_rx_lo_freq.But it is not in the source code of the
 example.When I compile and run this example in windows I
 found much more begger times (about 30-40 ms) to receive
 correct spectrum.(If I leave the time as in the example, then
 there are no parts of the spectrum and so the receiver does
 not have time to tune in).
 My questions
 What minimum tuning time for TwinRX+X300?Why is there no such
 example for Windows?Is it necessary to use set_rx_lo_freq to
 reduce setup time?
 Thank you
 .

 ___
 USRP-users mailing list
 USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
 http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
___
USRP-users mailing list
USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com

Re: [USRP-users] twinrx_freq_hopping example

2018-02-26 Thread Derek Kozel via USRP-users 
I'm not sure how you are responding, but it is still not threading
correctly. Thanks for trying though.

I would not expect the C API to make a performance difference like that
since it is only a wrapper. Are you still using timed commands? If not then
the additional overhead of sending commands from the host computer to the
USRP and back could account for some of the performance difference.

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Андрей 1 via USRP-users <
usrp-users@lists.ettus.com> wrote:
Thank you for the clarification about set_rx_lo_freq.

Can the problem with long setup time arise due to the fact that I use C API?

Thank you


On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Derek Kozel  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Please can you keep your emails in a single thread so it is easier to read.
>
> The goal with the frequency hopping example is to instantly jump between
> frequencies. Normally those 3-5 ms of tuning would be dead time, no
> meaningful signal could be received. By using the RF synthesizers of both
> channels and switching the LO source back and forth you are always jumping
> to a frequency after the synthesizers have already tuned and settled.
>
> The text written at the top of the example should be rewritten to be a bit
> clearer. There are other situations, such as using an external LO, where
> the set_rx_lo_freq call is useful. In this example however the benefit
> comes from tuning the unused synthesizers. If all the frequencies which you
> wish to tune to the receiver to are known ahead of time it would be
> possible to have UHD pre-calculate all the LO frequencies, store them in
> your application, and then save a few microseconds by using the
> set_rx_lo_freq function to avoid UHD doing extra work to configure the
> filters on the unused channel. This is almost never useful since there is
> some margin in the 5 ms frequency hopping time. Also often applications
> will actually want to sit on one frequency longer than 5 ms and are only
> using the LO source swapping ability to avoid the dead time of synthesizer
> tuning.
>
> Regards,
> Derek
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Андрей 1 via USRP-users <
> usrp-users@lists.ettus.com> wrote:
> I have no any error in twinrx_recv.
> If the tuning frequency is already sufficiently small, then why these
> special calls(set_rx_lo_freq) for twinRX?
>
> Thank you
>
> ___
> USRP-users mailing list
> USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Андрей 1  wrote:
>
>> Im using UHD 3.10.3 and have no error in twinrx_recv
>>
>>
>> 26.02.2018, 17:01, Derek Kozel 
>> Hello,
>>
>> The tuning time is approximately 5 ms, which is why the example uses that
>> number. The example should work the same on either Windows or Linux. What
>> version of UHD are you using on Windows which does not include it?
>>
>> Are you seeing any streaming errors on Windows?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Derek
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Андрей 1 via USRP-users <
>> usrp-users@lists.ettus.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> Im using X300+TwinRX in Windows.
>> In source UHD 3.10.3 for linux I found example twinrx_freq_hopping.
>> How much I understand in this example the receiver is tuned with the
>> period 5ms.As written in the title of the example, I need to use
>> set_rx_lo_freq.But it is not in the source code of the example.
>> When I compile and run this example in windows I found much more begger
>> times (about 30-40 ms) to receive correct spectrum.(If I leave the time as
>> in the example, then there are no parts of the spectrum and so the receiver
>> does not have time to tune in).
>>
>> My questions
>>
>> What minimum tuning time for TwinRX+X300?
>> Why is there no such example for Windows?
>> Is it necessary to use set_rx_lo_freq to reduce setup time?
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>> ___
>> USRP-users mailing list
>> USRP-users@lists.ettus.com 
>> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>>
>>
>>
>
___
USRP-users mailing list
USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com

[USRP-users] twinrx_freq_hopping example

2018-02-26 Thread Андрей 1 via USRP-users 

Thank you for the clarification about set_rx_lo_freq.
Can the problem with long setup time arise due to the fact that I use C API?
Thank you
___
USRP-users mailing list
USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com

Re: [USRP-users] twinrx_freq_hopping example

2018-02-26 Thread Derek Kozel via USRP-users 
Hello,

Please can you keep your emails in a single thread so it is easier to read.

The goal with the frequency hopping example is to instantly jump between
frequencies. Normally those 3-5 ms of tuning would be dead time, no
meaningful signal could be received. By using the RF synthesizers of both
channels and switching the LO source back and forth you are always jumping
to a frequency after the synthesizers have already tuned and settled.

The text written at the top of the example should be rewritten to be a bit
clearer. There are other situations, such as using an external LO, where
the set_rx_lo_freq call is useful. In this example however the benefit
comes from tuning the unused synthesizers. If all the frequencies which you
wish to tune to the receiver to are known ahead of time it would be
possible to have UHD pre-calculate all the LO frequencies, store them in
your application, and then save a few microseconds by using the
set_rx_lo_freq function to avoid UHD doing extra work to configure the
filters on the unused channel. This is almost never useful since there is
some margin in the 5 ms frequency hopping time. Also often applications
will actually want to sit on one frequency longer than 5 ms and are only
using the LO source swapping ability to avoid the dead time of synthesizer
tuning.

Regards,
Derek

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Андрей 1 via USRP-users <
usrp-users@lists.ettus.com> wrote:
I have no any error in twinrx_recv.
If the tuning frequency is already sufficiently small, then why these
special calls(set_rx_lo_freq) for twinRX?

Thank you

___
USRP-users mailing list
USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Андрей 1  wrote:

> Im using UHD 3.10.3 and have no error in twinrx_recv
>
>
> 26.02.2018, 17:01, Derek Kozel 
> Hello,
>
> The tuning time is approximately 5 ms, which is why the example uses that
> number. The example should work the same on either Windows or Linux. What
> version of UHD are you using on Windows which does not include it?
>
> Are you seeing any streaming errors on Windows?
>
> Regards,
> Derek
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Андрей 1 via USRP-users <
> usrp-users@lists.ettus.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello
>
> Im using X300+TwinRX in Windows.
> In source UHD 3.10.3 for linux I found example twinrx_freq_hopping.
> How much I understand in this example the receiver is tuned with the
> period 5ms.As written in the title of the example, I need to use
> set_rx_lo_freq.But it is not in the source code of the example.
> When I compile and run this example in windows I found much more begger
> times (about 30-40 ms) to receive correct spectrum.(If I leave the time as
> in the example, then there are no parts of the spectrum and so the receiver
> does not have time to tune in).
>
> My questions
>
> What minimum tuning time for TwinRX+X300?
> Why is there no such example for Windows?
> Is it necessary to use set_rx_lo_freq to reduce setup time?
>
> Thank you
>
> .
>
>
> ___
> USRP-users mailing list
> USRP-users@lists.ettus.com 
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
>
>
___
USRP-users mailing list
USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com

[USRP-users] twinrx_freq_hopping example

2018-02-26 Thread Андрей 1 via USRP-users 

I have no any error in twinrx_recv.If the tuning frequency is already
sufficiently small, then why these special calls(set_rx_lo_freq) for twinRX?
Thank you
___
USRP-users mailing list
USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com

Re: [USRP-users] twinrx_freq_hopping example

2018-02-26 Thread Derek Kozel via USRP-users 
Hello,

The tuning time is approximately 5 ms, which is why the example uses that
number. The example should work the same on either Windows or Linux. What
version of UHD are you using on Windows which does not include it?

Are you seeing any streaming errors on Windows?

Regards,
Derek

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Андрей 1 via USRP-users <
usrp-users@lists.ettus.com> wrote:

>
> Hello
>
> Im using X300+TwinRX in Windows.
> In source UHD 3.10.3 for linux I found example twinrx_freq_hopping.
> How much I understand in this example the receiver is tuned with the
> period 5ms.As written in the title of the example, I need to use
> set_rx_lo_freq.But it is not in the source code of the example.
> When I compile and run this example in windows I found much more begger
> times (about 30-40 ms) to receive correct spectrum.(If I leave the time as
> in the example, then there are no parts of the spectrum and so the receiver
> does not have time to tune in).
>
> My questions
>
> What minimum tuning time for TwinRX+X300?
> Why is there no such example for Windows?
> Is it necessary to use set_rx_lo_freq to reduce setup time?
>
> Thank you
>
> .
>
>
> ___
> USRP-users mailing list
> USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
>
___
USRP-users mailing list
USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com

[USRP-users] twinrx_freq_hopping example

2018-02-26 Thread Андрей 1 via USRP-users 

Hello
Im using X300+TwinRX in Windows.In source UHD 3.10.3 for linux I found example
twinrx_freq_hopping.How much I understand in this example the receiver is tuned
with the period 5ms.As written in the title of the example, I need to use
set_rx_lo_freq.But it is not in the source code of the example.When I compile 
and
run this example in windows I found much more begger times (about 30-40 ms) to
receive correct spectrum.(If I leave the time as in the example, then there are
no parts of the spectrum and so the receiver does not have time to tune in).
My questions
What minimum tuning time for TwinRX+X300?Why is there no such example for
Windows?Is it necessary to use set_rx_lo_freq to reduce setup time?
Thank you
.
___
USRP-users mailing list
USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com