Message-ID: <000201bf63a4$78d255a0$618c01d5@default>
From: "Alan Melia" <Alan.Melia@btinternet.com>
To: "rsgb_lf_group" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: LF: re Gamal's Rx report.
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 20:38:41 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Hi Gamal, I tried to e-mail you direct some time ago but the message
bounced, I dont seem to have a working address for you.

It seems from your report that the old 'uns, could still be the best for
ultimate performance. I have been wondering about the DSP rxs that have been
around for some time in professional circles. I guess one has to balance
ultimate performance with ease of operation (by computer) now as there are
probably no 'real' radio ops (like all of us!) around still.

Lack of dynamic range suggests not enough bits in the ADC but I might be
wrong about that. One question I am not sure about....the concentration on
linear phase roofing filter....isn't this only really necessary for digital
signals?? Though I must admit it probably gives good impulse response, and
that seems important with the types of QRM and QRN on the 136 band.

I know what Toni means about design.....they don't make 'em like they used
to Toni. Now if I could only hide this AOR inside an old 51-J case with all
the knobs working on the functions directly.....

Thanks for the report Gamal very interesting.
Cheers de Alan G3NYK
Alan.Melia@btinternet.com