Software algorithms are intellectual property.
When you deny companies the right to keep it secret and proprietary, you run
the risk that they all stop developing and wait for others to do the work.
If someone can improve my radio through software innovation, I'm willing to
pay for it.
What I would like to see is honest advertising.
One company that recently announced a new HF rig is apparently guilty of
vastly misrepresenting their product in their advertising.
The post on eHam which knocked the Eagles' DNR, didn't really say why or
what he was comparing it to.
I tried mine on 160m and saw a huge reduction in noise.
I'd like to know how that guy came to his conclusion.
73
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of Martin Ewing
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 1:46 PM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Question for techies
A lot of the functionality of DSP radios now come from algorithms, not
electronics. Those features, like DNR, NB, auto-notch, etc., are hard to
reduce to a numerical spec.
Vendors really ought to specify the algorithms used (with literature
references if possible - and even source code) so that users can know what
they're buying. (And reviewers know what they're reviewing.) They will say
it's all proprietary, but I will favor those with open-source solutions...
Otherwise we get all these comments about liking or not liking what we hear
- from users who may or may not have wide experience or discriminating ears.
My experience is that what you get is a (more-or-less) monotonic but
non-linear function of what you pay, at a given level of technology. [A
$10K radio is not likely to be 3x better than a $3K radio across the board,
but it will probably have a better paint job.]
73 to all
Martin AA6E
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Rick - NJ0IP / DJ0IP <Rick@dj0ip.de> wrote:
> John, I saw 3 reviews and 2 of them said the NR was good.
> I believe it is excellent.
> Please send a link to the post you are talking about.
>
> 73
> Rick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
> On Behalf Of John Rippey
> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:47 PM
> To: tentec@contesting.com
> Subject: [TenTec] Question for techies
>
> I notice a comment by the first Eagle reviewer on eHam.net that the DNR
> feature was unimpressive.
>
> Similar comments have been made about the DNR feature in the Kenwood
> TS-590,
> including it continues the (to me awful) SPAC
> setup of the TS-570.
>
> On the other hand, Icom's 7700 and 7600 seem to provide the best DNR
> iteration so far, based on the comments I've seen. Yaesu, as usual, seems
> to
> lag behind in the effectiveness of its various DNR iterations. So, why
does
> it seem so difficult for manufacturers (other than Icom) to get DNR right
> in
> a DSP environmnent? Is it the cost of the hardware, firmware, software
> engineers, or what?
>
> 73,
>
> John, W3ULS
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
--
Martin S. Ewing, AA6E
Member IEEE, URSI, AAS, ARRL
Branford, Connecticut
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|