Hi Marco, not... consider buying a Perseus, but the price is 4,4 dB higher than your target :-) do you think an attenuator could help? :-) Cheers D. -- Original Message -- From: [email protected] Ma
Hi LF, among the so-called "communications receivers" (0.1-30MHz, all modes, well-known brands, etc.) in the "< 300 euros" price range (used, of course :-)), which models have good characteristics at
Hi Alberto, I'm quite familiar with digital signal processing (I work in the embedded SW area for a big manufacturer of telecommunications equipments and digital streams of several Gbit/s are common
You may be better building a LF convertor ? G .. From: [email protected] Daniele Tincani Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 6:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: LF: Probably not a new q
Hello Daniele, LFers, If you can find a used Kenwood TS-440 at a good price, go for it. I'm using one here for 136, 160-190, and 500 kHz. with good results. Mitch, VE3OT, removed the attenuator to ma
Hi Daniele - I'm very pleased with the Kenwood TS850 - it cost £400 but it means I now have a spare HF transceiver. It is sensitive up to 504 kHz without modification (and all the way to 30 MHz with
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
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, bu
On 4/27/2010 12:50 AM, Daniele Tincani wrote: Hi Alberto, thank you very much for clarification. I was misled by the softrock example :-) Anyway, a doubt persists...I read on the frontpanel of the R&
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 the group) and Perseus. Despite of th
Yes, or building a simple "SoftRock style" direct conversion front end and feed the audio to the soundcard for further processing by Winrad or similar software capable of processing I/Q audio. What y
One thing to watch is the military radios are sometimes not 100 % compatible with ham operation , which oddly can be more demanding in term's of filtering , dynamic range , and add on's like noise su
Hi Alberto, thank you very much for clarification. I was misled by the softrock example :-) Anyway, a doubt persists...I read on the frontpanel of the R&S SDR that it is a "digital wideband receiver"
On 4/26/2010 10:59 PM, Daniele Tincani wrote: but I believed that top-rated radio's like Racal, Eddystone, R&S, W-J, etc. distinghished over the others because of their superior construction, even fr
I experienced building a softrock for 40m months ago, very interesting (and cheap :-)) Anyway I don't think a softrock-style SDR would fit the requirements, it is by far too simple to compete with a
On 4/27/2010 2:25 AM, Daniele Tincani wrote: Hi Alberto, I'm quite familiar with digital signal processing (I work in the embedded SW area for a big manufacturer of telecommunications equipments and
OK, now I see the concept much clearer than I knew before (with my apologies for having stressed the subject a bit :-)). All this stuff is very interesting and promising, with very high perfomance/co
Hi LF, among the so-called "communications receivers" (0.1-30MHz, all modes, well-known brands, etc.) in the "< 300 euros" price range (used, of course :-)), which models have good characteristics a
I find the SDR-IQ a superb little box, and is better than any comms reciver I've used over the years. And that applies especially to several professional, including early generation digital, receiv
