Message-ID: <9D5C745165354DCE8D0B48E7D4D2ECFE@MLB>
From: "Martin Evans." <books@mollies.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <4CCAED49.6030007@o2.ie>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:43:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: RFspace SDR-IQ
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


>
> Hello group.
>
> Has anyone any experience with this SDR ?
> It looks interesting and I'm a bit tempted, especially as it works full spec down to 500 Hz and "usable" to 
> 100 Hz.
> But as I have never used an SDR, I haven't got a clue if it's any good or not.
>
>Tony.

#########################################

Tony - I received SAQ two ways a few days ago -

1) wire antenna straight into sound card, using Winrad;

2) Same wire antenna through SDR-IQ using SDR-Radio.

Antenna is 100m inverted U tuned with around 100mH (can't really remember exactly).

I swapped the antenna physically between the two setups every few seconds.

I was using two separate computers, one for each method.

Result?  - really very little difference. A good clear signal on both.  The sound card/Winrad setup might have 
been marginally cleaner, but bearing in mind that this was a lashup, with no attempt at any kind of 
optimisation or minimalisation of computer noise,  I would say that the SDR-IQ was close to being the equal of 
the "wire into soundcard" method. With some careful filtering to clean up the computer noise, it would almost 
certainly equal or exceed it.

I found incidentally, that SDR-Radio software has a much more sensitive waterfall display than the Spectravue 
supplied with the SDR-IQ. The former gave a strong clear trace, while the latter's trace was barely 
discernable.

Get one - SDRs are the best thing since CW!

Hope this helps,

Martin  GW3UCJ Swansea.