On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:28:03 -1000, Ken Brown wrote:
>I agree with you on a lot of the points you have made.
DSP can be a double-edged sword. You can do all sorts of wild and wonderful
things with it, but you can easily "outrun your headlights" if you aren't
careful. The
biggest issue is, indeed, latency -- the time that it takes DSP to do it's
thing. I
work in pro audio, where we use DSP extensively. In our world, 5 ms is a big
deal, and it takes close to that to do A/D, simple processing, and a D/A to
feed
loudspeakers.
On the other hand, when you're sending and receiving CW and trying to
accomplish QSK, 5 ms is not a lot, and shouldn't degrade performance a lot if
you are reasonably 1) careful and 2) skillful. That is, the processing that you
are
doing on transmit can go in sequence with the processing on receive, so as long
as the 5ms is simply an overall delay (as opposed to being added to the
transitions from keydown to keyup).
Likewise, the quality of the DSP algorithms has a lot to do with how well it
works.
That seems to boil down to the DSP power available and the skill/experience of
the programmers. There are clearly learning curves at play, and later
generation
DSP is clearly more satisfactory than earlier stuff, both in pro audio and ham
radio.
The bottom line is that I don't think it's correct to say that just because
there is
DSP that QSK has to suffer. It MAY, but I don't think it MUST. It really does
depend on the implementation.
Jim Brown K9YC
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|