Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1233; Body=3 Fuz1=3 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id s7FKGBQV001292 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 22:16:11 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1XINsL-0006wX-KZ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 21:13:25 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1XINsK-0006wM-24 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 21:13:24 +0100 Received: from qmta08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.80]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XINsG-0001kn-TI for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 21:13:22 +0100 Received: from omta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.51]) by qmta08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id f63R1o00216AWCUA88DJdP; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 20:13:18 +0000 Received: from Owner ([69.143.126.216]) by omta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id f8DF1o00v4gFcuV8S8DHb8; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 20:13:17 +0000 X-DKIM-Result: Domain=comcast.net Result=Signature OK From: To: References: <53EE5E74.4030405@tiscali.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <53EE5E74.4030405@tiscali.co.uk> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 16:12:24 -0400 Message-ID: <02fc01cfb8c5$542235f0$fc66a1d0$@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJNiTEA9MDlhqgjsT1hTHN29lYXMQLYSqa2AkG7YyiaraFQ4A== Content-Language: en-us DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1408133598; bh=aP/s6Uol/lEWneQnqkjd2EV2BhWpmP7L9KKt+bowKck=; h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=R8bVAcfzzGYGzUC729dVho6qZ+3XFxA2rzkyLdkwyATgz3an9MBNBLbkskXRFBO0A W5pwPbwmqpQxTLzVatqOFLau8caYOHLu5dJnzRUrXFUriy94bA5ZVifOmlfbhY0iod 76sSosPIE4eDNjk3qq1I5ghL+oglO/v6gVBLi3mfgFClaqJZn94sqgxnBk+8B+wEiT cusB2XXjVAOdesaM40RFxG1xqO+/Akui4cKWdNdWaxUvoA0xFdZFI43sGjfDcRoW8I Ce3HtjmARWmGuwfgfhpHe7aejXISMmiRK4aYbRBjYVYmFlKjR87oZqYbqTp44j9PXX Toty4xu3eaC5w== X-Scan-Signature: fdb4503b0b8e76bf4559744a4a5663fa Subject: RE: LF: USB Sound Card? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02FD_01CFB8A3.CD11CE70" X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.10 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 220 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02FD_01CFB8A3.CD11CE70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gary, =20 I use a number of expensive and inexpensive external (USB) audio = interfaces, and I like them all (good sensitivity, good dynamic range); = but I experience the following limitations: =20 A) I have not been able to persuade Windows and/or Speclab to process 24 = bits (I have been successful in applying 24-bit settings in = Windows>ControlPanel>Sound and Speclab, but have not acquired valid = data after doing so; and accordingly have always used 16-bit settings = with 24-bit external audio interfaces, even though I need at least 24 = bits for dynamic range considering VLF and LF environmental noise in = some of my locations) =20 B) Similarly to the above, I have been able to set up Windows and Speclab = for 192kHz sample rates, but have not been able to view past 48kHz = without aliasing (and accordingly I settle for 96kHz settings and = interfaces in most cases) =20 C) All of my external audio interfaces have steep low-pass filters at or = near 22kHz pole frequency, so SNR is compromised for signals at 20kHz = and above. I=E2=80=99ve disassembled some of these interfaces in = attempts to modify the low-pass filter cutoff frequencies, but without a = schematic could not be certain regarding changes. =20 Have you seen any of the above issues with internal or external audio = interfaces that you have used? =20 73, Jim AA5BW From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org = [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Gary - G4WGT Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 3:25 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: USB Sound Card? =20 Hi Warren, Yes, I had an internal (on main board) & used it for a while for my = grabber when 73kHz was first allocated to USA. It was good to about 94kHz. The SB0490 I suggested is only 96kHz :-(( 73, de Gary - G4WGT =20 MF-LF-VLF Grabber : http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/grabber2.html Web : http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/index.html =20 . On 15/08/2014 20:09, Warren Ziegler wrote: I guess I should have been more specific .=20 What I am seeking is are some sound cards more stable with respect to = sampling rate and calibration? Also, any advantage to 24bit A/D for LF = data modes? I wonder if anyone has tried 192kHz sample rate for direct reception of = 73kHz? =20 73 & Tnx Warren =20 =20 =20 On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Warren Ziegler = wrote: I just acquired a Windows Vista tower computer - the price was right it = was free! Seems that there is a problem with the internal sound card, but = everything else checks out FB. I plan on using it with WSPR and other digital modes, am thinking of an = external USB sound card - will any old sound card do ? Or do I need one = with a calibrated sampling rate? I suspect that I will need something = really good for Spectrum Laboratory if I want to sample at microHertz = rates. =20 73 & Tnx Warren K2ORS =20 =20 =20 =20 --=20 73 Warren K2ORS WD2XGJ=20 WD2XSH/23 WE2XEB/2 WE2XGR/1 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_02FD_01CFB8A3.CD11CE70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Gary,

 

I use a number of expensive and inexpensive external (USB) audio = interfaces, and I like them all (good sensitivity, good dynamic range); = but I experience the following limitations:

 

A)

I have not been able to persuade Windows and/or Speclab to process 24 = bits (I have been successful in applying 24-bit settings in = Windows>ControlPanel>Sound =C2=A0and Speclab, but have not = acquired valid data after doing so; and accordingly have always used = 16-bit settings with 24-bit external audio interfaces, even though I = need at least 24 bits for dynamic range considering VLF and LF = environmental noise in some of my locations)

=C2=A0

B)

Similarly to the above, I have been able to set up Windows and = Speclab for 192kHz sample rates, but have not been able to view past = 48kHz without aliasing (and accordingly I settle for 96kHz settings and = interfaces in most cases)

 

C)

All of my external audio interfaces have steep low-pass filters at or = near 22kHz pole frequency, so SNR is compromised for signals at 20kHz = and above. I=E2=80=99ve disassembled some of these interfaces in = attempts to modify the low-pass filter cutoff frequencies, but without a = schematic could not be certain regarding = changes.

 

Have you seen any of the above issues with internal or external audio = interfaces that you have used?

 

73,=C2=A0 Jim AA5BW

From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org = [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Gary - = G4WGT
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 3:25 PM
To: = rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: USB Sound = Card?

 

Hi = Warren,

Yes, I had an internal (on main board) & used it for = a while for my grabber when 73kHz was first allocated to USA.
It was = good to about 94kHz.

The SB0490 I suggested is only 96kHz = :-((

73, de Gary - =
G4WGT
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =

MF-LF-VLF Grabber : http://myweb.t=
iscali.co.uk/wgtaylor/grabber2.html
Web =
: http://myweb.tisc=
ali.co.uk/wgtaylor/index.html
 
.

On 15/08/2014 = 20:09, Warren Ziegler wrote:

I guess I should have been more specific . =

What I am seeking is are some = sound cards more stable with respect to sampling rate and calibration? = Also, any advantage to 24bit A/D  for LF data = modes?

 I wonder if = anyone has tried 192kHz sample rate for direct reception of = 73kHz?

 

73 & Tnx Warren

 

 

 

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Warren Ziegler <wd2xgj@gmail.com> wrote:


I just acquired a Windows Vista tower computer - the = price was right it was free!

Seems that there is a problem with the internal sound = card, but everything else checks out FB.

I plan on using it with WSPR and other digital modes, = am thinking of an external USB sound card - will any old sound card do ? = Or do I need one with a calibrated sampling rate? I suspect that I will = need something really good for Spectrum Laboratory if I want to sample = at microHertz rates.

 

73 & Tnx Warren K2ORS

 

 

 



 

-- =
73 Warren K2ORS
              =   WD2XGJ
              =   WD2XSH/23
              =   WE2XEB/2
              =   WE2XGR/1

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_02FD_01CFB8A3.CD11CE70--