Hi Warren, I am a bit of a "Nerd" but I run Spectran on my internet machine
so I can listen on the PC using the audio filters and play with parameters
in a way that is not always possible on ARGO, which is running on another PC
alongside and used for overnight captures. I use ARGO for serious monitoring
cos it is a lot less likely I will make a mess of it, particularly on long
dot length modes. I can change ARGO quickly to a given mode and know I have
got optimised conditons, and spot-on calibration. It would also seem that
ARGO will run on almost any soundcard whereas Spectran is a lot more
choosey. Spectrum Lab is terrific but very complex and takes too long to
relearn if I want to do something quickly....I save that for particular
experiments using the other built in features.....logging, LF receiver, data
modes,etc. ARGO was built by Alberto as a fairly painless QRSS
receiver/display, with a lot of the decisions made for you when you select a
mode.
Its like they used to say about word processors.....the best one is the one
you are used to, and comfortable with.
Cheers de Alan G3NYK
.
----- Original Message -----
From: Warren K2ORS/WD2XGJ <[email protected]>
To: rsgb lf reflector <[email protected]>
Cc: LWCA LF Reflector <[email protected]>
Sent: 08 March 2006 14:59
Subject: LF: ARGO or SPECTRAN?
> Hello the list,
>
> I have been using Spectran for my QRSS receiving, mostly out of habit.
I have had excellent results with Spectran and Wolf's Spectrum Lab so I saw
no reason to change. I saw the following notice on the lwca main web page:
>
> "Argo has somewhat similar performance to Spectran, but interacts better
with the user's soundcard and is customized for QRSS modes. "
>
> Am I missing something by using Spectran instead of Argo?
>
>
> --
> 73 Warren K2ORS/WD2XGJ
> FN42hi
> http://www.w4dex.com/wd2xgj.htm
>
|
