Re: [Flexradio] on filtering in general

2005-12-24 Thread jhurry
day, December 24, 2005 2:11 pm Subject: Re: [Flexradio] on filtering in general > Hi All > > I was going to bite my tongue on this one, but I've got to weigh > in. I think Gerald is very very correct. If anyone should be an > audiophile on the list it should be me. But "

Re: [Flexradio] on filtering in general

2005-12-24 Thread Bill Guyger
Hi All I was going to bite my tongue on this one, but I've got to weigh in. I think Gerald is very very correct. If anyone should be an audiophile on the list it should be me. But "I Aint". I come from a background with $200,000.00 SSL mixers and $80,000.00 Studer tape decks and the like (those

Re: [Flexradio] on filtering in general

2005-12-23 Thread Jim Lux
At 04:30 PM 12/23/2005, Gerald Youngblood wrote: Jim, I think we are in violent agreement that the bulk of the specialized audio processing should be outside PowerSDR. We want to provide basic audio processing that will be useful to most of our customers. I believe that basic EQ functionality

Re: [Flexradio] on filtering in general

2005-12-23 Thread Gerald Youngblood
L PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Lux > Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 9:55 AM > To: flexRadio@flex-radio.biz > Subject: [Flexradio] on filtering in general > > The discussion about Tx Eq brings up an interesting system > architecture issue. The audio process

[Flexradio] on filtering in general

2005-12-23 Thread Jim Lux
The discussion about Tx Eq brings up an interesting system architecture issue. The audio processing should really be distinct from the "radio IF processing", with some convenient interface exposed. That is, the SDR software should really just be exposing a logical baseband audio interface, an