I'm still of the opinion --right or wrong-- that there will *always* be
hams using analog technology that will be able to out-hear anyone using an
SDR (even DDS) to copy very weak CW signals at the low end of 160. *But I
have an open mind.* I think it was Barry N1EU that disagreed with me on
that (I think he has an Anan DDS SDR). But we need people like him that
drive us to investigate SDR further. :-)
Regardless of whether analog or DSP eventually proves superior for digging
the very weakest of CW signals out of the noise, today's SDR technology
still has a place in the serious Topbander's shack. Its auto-notch and
advanced noise blanking features can reduce operator fatigue. Rather than
constantly tuning up and down the band searching, an SDR display
simultaneously displays most of the signals from (for example) 1800 to
1835. And CW Skimmer even takes it beyond that, even displaying all but the
weakest callsigns in the waterfall.
SDR technology is rapidly advancing. I've been trying to learn some of the
concepts of the unbelievably complex mathematics behind DSP software, even
though I don't understand most of it, don't know calculus, or (yet) how FFT
(Fast Fourier Transform) algorithms work their magic. What I've learned so
far almost makes me want to take some online advanced math courses at the
Khan Academy. (Not that it will help me copy anything. :-)
Perhaps what we need is a video of some real-world digital vs. analog
comparisons.
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Tom W8JI <w8ji@w8ji.com> wrote:
> I still never find any SDR I listened to, even that one without a
> transmitter running, better than analog detection for my ears on
> "in-the-noise" signals.
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|