Message-ID: <3C5150AB.C0E78CC2@usa.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:33:47 +0100
From: "Alberto di Bene" <dibene@usa.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: LF: Re: Jason Tests
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020123175959.00ac4190@gemini.herts.ac.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20020124114059.00a7a518@gemini.herts.ac.uk> <3C5010A1.FA2F482C@att.net>
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>

Dexter McIntyre W4DEX wrote:

> Lyle, KØLR, made some test comparing JASON with other modes.  Here is
> his initial results:
>
>  Turns out that my Pentium 233 MHz "ham" computer requires the

> slow mode setting (Jason won't run on my 900
> MHz Pentium III). After switching to slow mode, it looked like Jason is
> farily solid down to -30 dB, and gives partial copy at -33 dB..

It would be interesting if the same comparison could be done using a PC
with Jason in "normal" mode. The  "slow" mode is a compromise, sort of,
where some statistic gatherings are traded of for a reduced CPU useage.
This could change the day I will stop computing a 2^17 points FFT ten
times per second, in favour of a zero-IF approach, as Johan Bodin
suggested in a private note. After all, Jason needs to keep his eyes only
on a few Hz of band...
But, as I told to Johan, I was too eager (and lazy) to release the program,
and I had some routines ready in my "software junkbox"...

73  Alberto  I2PHD