DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=kVMbAaklwWyBQK6oP9ZDMFY30xt8PI6UkeQ4CrwTM/2Tt3WQLD/7Ou40k6CDCd0OAX
         F1xejrjg+FQJprP+tOuBhQBS6EgcrjEd9RVoDxr0R6F3vK8Qol9sWnfUugN0xqo6iDQc
         7c3IBaVbd6Q14PK/pTiwR78jIR0N49hUSsX5I=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FD6D8E8A468143B0A140CEB16F993229@PCCasa>
References: <C841AB3DF1584779832A164969EF4A73@PCCasa>
	 <4EB4F8217FCC42CAB07AE666A6AB07B8@AGB>
	 <FBCMCL01B02rjW9xs0J001cfdb0@FBCMCL01B02.fbc.local>
	 <4BD5F358.8040508@freenet.de>
	 <FD6D8E8A468143B0A140CEB16F993229@PCCasa>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:15:03 +0100
Message-ID: <n2ifc7eccec1004261415z953851f0o98af75a1784c84cd@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Talbot <andy.g4jnt@googlemail.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
DomainKey-Status: good (testing) 
Subject: Re: LF: Probably not a new question...
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d9a312371b1304852a45b8
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


--0016e6d9a312371b1304852a45b8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I find the SDR-IQ a superb little box, and is better than any comms recive=
r
I've used over the years.   And that applies especially to several
professional, including early generation digital, receivers.  Some of whic=
h
are really horrible and non-user friendly.  That may be becasue they're
designed for the intercept / comin operator, but not nice

 The I/Q  receives, and is flat, down to 500Hz (yes, not a typo, really do
mean  0.0005MHz), has a calibrated screen for absolute power measurement,
two audio channels demod simultaneously (one in each ear !)  continuously
variable filters, a nice GUI,  up to 190kHz spectrum visible at any time,
with a waterfall FFT resolution down to a fraction of a Hz if wanted,
continuum mode for wideband noise measurement, CW SSB, AM, FM
demodulation and other things that don't come to mind at the moment.

I use it more as a piece of test equiment rather than a Rx, but it does th=
e
latter excellently.   Vastly prefer it to the RA1792 I got rid of because=
 it
wasn't as good as the SDR-IQ.  it has a serial output and can control a
subset of external receivers / converters.  One project on the list is a
direct upconverter with a DDS derived LO that is controlled by
point-and-click on the SDR I/Q for transceive operation.

Andy
www.g4jnt.com


On 26 April 2010 21:59, Daniele Tincani <daniele.tincani@alice.it> wrote:

> Hi Wolf, Marco, LF,
> Marco below cited some "classic" receivers (Racal 1792, Eddystone 1650,
> Rohde&Schwarz EK081...and I imagine some Watkins-Johnson's could join th=
e
> group) and Perseus. Despite of the fact that all of these are some dB's
> higher than my budget, I'm interested in your opinion about how best SDR=
's
> compare with "classics"...Probably I'm wrong, but I believed that top-ra=
ted
> radio's like Racal, Eddystone, R&S, W-J, etc. distinghished over the oth=
ers
> because of their superior construction, even from a mechanical point of=
 view
> (no wide-band circuits, lots of metal screens, etc.). How is this level=
 of
> quality achieved in modern SDR's?
> Cheers
> D.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfgang B=FCscher" <dl4yhf@freenet.=
de>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:11 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: Probably not a new question...
>
>
> Beware, the Perseus doesn't work at a few kHz; it's nice for LF (where=
 I
>> use it too), but not for the lower VLF range.
>> The reason is, I guess, the input filter which has an "L" between the
>> input and ground (unlike SDR-IQ) .
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  Wolf .
>>
>> Marco IK1ODO schrieb:
>>
>>> At 20.55 26/04/2010, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> You may  be  better  building a LF convertor ?
>>>>
>>>> G ..
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree... probably a better choice, if you already have a _decent_ HF
>>> receiver.
>>> If not... consider buying a Perseus, but the price is 4,4 dB higher
>>> than your target :-)
>>> Otherwise, Racal 1792, Eddystone 1650, Rohde&Schwarz EK081, all in the
>>> 500-1500 Euro range.
>>> I don't consider amteur radio receivers to be good radios, expecially
>>> at LF.
>>>
>>> 73 - Marco IK1ODO
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------
>
>
>
> Nessun virus nel messaggio in arrivo.
> Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com
> Versione: 9.0.814 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/2835 -  Data di rilascio=
:
> 04/25/10 20:31:00
>
>
>

--0016e6d9a312371b1304852a45b8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>I find the SDR-IQ a superb little box, and is better than any comms=
 reciver I&#39;ve used over the years.=A0=A0 And that applies especially=
 to several professional, including early generation digital, receivers.=
=A0 Some of which are really horrible and non-user friendly.=A0 That may=
 be becasue they&#39;re designed for the intercept / comin operator, but=
 not nice</div>

<div>=A0</div>
<div>=A0The I/Q =A0receives, and is flat, down to 500Hz (yes, not a typo,=
 really do mean =A00.0005MHz), has a calibrated screen for absolute power=
 measurement, two audio channels demod simultaneously (one in each ear !)=
=A0 continuously variable filters, a nice GUI,=A0 up to 190kHz spectrum vi=
sible at any time, with a waterfall FFT resolution down to a fraction of=
 a Hz if wanted, continuum mode for wideband noise measurement, CW SSB, AM=
, FM demodulation=A0and other things that don&#39;t come to mind at the mo=
ment.</div>

<div>=A0</div>
<div>I use it more as a piece of test equiment rather than a Rx, but it do=
es the latter excellently.=A0=A0 Vastly prefer it to the RA1792 I got rid=
 of because it wasn&#39;t as good as the SDR-IQ.=A0 it has a serial output=
 and can=A0control a subset of external receivers / converters.=A0 One pro=
ject on the list is a direct upconverter with a DDS derived LO that is con=
trolled by point-and-click on the SDR I/Q for transceive operation.</div>

<div><br clear=3D"all">Andy<br><a href=3D"http://www.g4jnt.com">www.g4jnt.=
com</a><br><br><br></div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 26 April 2010 21:59, Daniele Tincani <span=
 dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:daniele.tincani@alice.it">daniele.tinca=
ni@alice.it</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8e=
x; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">Hi Wolf, Marco, LF,<br>Marco=
 below cited some &quot;classic&quot; receivers (Racal 1792, Eddystone 165=
0, Rohde&amp;Schwarz EK081...and I imagine some Watkins-Johnson&#39;s coul=
d join the group) and Perseus. Despite of the fact that all of these are=
 some dB&#39;s higher than my budget, I&#39;m interested in your opinion=
 about how best SDR&#39;s compare with &quot;classics&quot;...Probably I&#=
39;m wrong, but I believed that top-rated radio&#39;s like Racal, Eddyston=
e, R&amp;S, W-J, etc. distinghished over the others because of their super=
ior construction, even from a mechanical point of view (no wide-band circu=
its, lots of metal screens, etc.). How is this level of quality achieved=
 in modern SDR&#39;s?<br>
Cheers<br>D.<br><br>----- Original Message ----- From: &quot;Wolfgang B=FC=
scher&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dl4yhf@freenet.de" target=3D"_blank">dl4=
yhf@freenet.de</a>&gt;<br>To: &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blackshe=
ep.org" target=3D"_blank">rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org</a>&gt;<br>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:11 PM<br>Subject: Re: LF: Probably not a=
 new question...<br><br><br>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8e=
x; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">Beware, the Perseus doesn&#39;=
t work at a few kHz; it&#39;s nice for LF (where I<br>use it too), but not=
 for the lower VLF range.<br>
The reason is, I guess, the input filter which has an &quot;L&quot; betwee=
n the<br>input and ground (unlike SDR-IQ) .<br><br>Cheers,<br>=A0Wolf .<br=
><br>Marco IK1ODO schrieb:<br>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8e=
x; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">At 20.55 26/04/2010, you wrote=
:<br>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8e=
x; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">You may =A0be =A0better =A0bui=
lding a LF convertor ?<br><br>G ..<br></blockquote><br>I agree... probably=
 a better choice, if you already have a _decent_ HF<br>
receiver.<br>If not... consider buying a Perseus, but the price is 4,4 dB=
 higher<br>than your target :-)<br>Otherwise, Racal 1792, Eddystone 1650,=
 Rohde&amp;Schwarz EK081, all in the<br>500-1500 Euro range.<br>I don&#39;=
t consider amteur radio receivers to be good radios, expecially<br>
at LF.<br><br>73 - Marco IK1ODO<br></blockquote><br><br></blockquote><br><=
br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------<br><br><br><br>Nessun virus nel messaggio in arrivo.<br>Controll=
ato da AVG - <a href=3D"http://www.avg.com/" target=3D"_blank">www.avg.com=
</a><br>
Versione: 9.0.814 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/2835 - =A0Data di rilascio=
: 04/25/10 20:31:00<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>

--0016e6d9a312371b1304852a45b8--