Return-Path: Received: from mtain-mh11.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-mh11.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.96.223]) by air-di02.mail.aol.com (v128.3) with ESMTP id MAILINDI022-eabb4bd61009144; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:13:29 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-mh11.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 601A638000131; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:13:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1O6WX6-0000Yq-NC for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 23:12:04 +0100 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1O6WX5-0000Yh-Uc for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 23:12:04 +0100 Received: from mail-bw0-f218.google.com ([209.85.218.218]) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1O6WX3-0006o9-HS for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 23:12:03 +0100 Received: by bwz10 with SMTP id 10so12487728bwz.4 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:11:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=KS88sVJvuHSp/uZqAXavpZ9TjI5A1Ugx54OF6K7M3sU=; b=as+7RVO/XEdRHQ2vannGXU8oYMNh9PE6Y9Mzy1uPHHzI9gC+2BDd33a37hKRLvIl2j pCM65y11gAIot6IrzVvH+kHvaeExWk7iPL8LmROFkvHHLNw8jIbQWkxTypEfETnyk9vM Rxtrdn21/66V6ZphqntqwrCJoBMiBDYrs1my4= 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 Received: by 10.204.80.36 with SMTP id r36mr3026381bkk.75.1272316503202; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.70.77 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:15:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4EB4F8217FCC42CAB07AE666A6AB07B8@AGB> <4BD5F358.8040508@freenet.de> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:15:03 +0100 Message-ID: From: Andy Talbot To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org DomainKey-Status: good (testing) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-0.000,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Probably not a new question... Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d9a312371b1304852a45b8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 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-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-m222.2 ; domain : googlemail.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60df4bd61007733f X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) --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 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" > To: > 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
I find the SDR-IQ a superb little box, and is better than any comms= reciver I'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're designed for the intercept / comin operator, but= not nice
=A0
=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't come to mind at the mo= ment.
=A0
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'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.
On 26 April 2010 21:59, Daniele Tincani <daniele.tinca= ni@alice.it> wrote:
Hi Wolf, Marco, LF,
Marco= below cited some "classic" receivers (Racal 1792, Eddystone 165= 0, Rohde&Schwarz EK081...and I imagine some Watkins-Johnson's coul= d join the 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&#= 39;m wrong, but I believed that top-rated radio's like Racal, Eddyston= e, R&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's?
Cheers
D.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfgang B=FC= scher" <dl4= yhf@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" betwee= n the
input and ground (unlike SDR-IQ) .

Cheers,
=A0Wolf .
Marco IK1ODO schrieb:
At 20.55 26/04/2010, you wrote= :
You may =A0be =A0better =A0bui= lding 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



<= br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------



Nessun virus nel messaggio in arrivo.
Controll= ato da AVG - www.avg.com=
Versione: 9.0.814 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/2835 - =A0Data di rilascio= : 04/25/10 20:31:00



--0016e6d9a312371b1304852a45b8--