Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works

To: Chuck Dietz <w5prchuck@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works
From: Eugene Popov /RA0FF/ via Topband <topband@contesting.com>
Reply-to: Eugene Popov /RA0FF/ <ra0ff@mail.ru>
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 01:42:28 +0300
List-post: <mailto:topband@contesting.com>
Hi,
we use 4ports-RX-splitter

https://www.ebay.com/itm/4-WAY-HF-ANTENNA-SPLITTER-COMBINER-RX-0-1-50-MHz-SO-239-connectors/322564884873?hash=item4b1a5d8989:g:JJ4AAOxyM89Sbujo:rk:1:pf:0
  



73! de Eugene RA0FF
http://www.qsl.net/ra0ff/

>Вторник, 25 декабря 2018, 8:17 +11:00 от Chuck Dietz <w5prchuck@gmail.com>:
>
>I think I understand much of what you are saying, but I know that I was on 160 
>meter FT=8 two nights ago with the speaker up fairly loud. I only heard noise. 
>I set the AGC off and adjusted the RF gain so that it did not overload. Still 
>no hint of any signals, but I decoded two stations!
>
>Just sayin’.
>
>Chuck W5PR
>
>Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
>From: K4SAV
>Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 2:10 PM
>To:  topband@contesting.com
>Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 - How it really works
>
>Although I have finished my FT8 testing, there is one final thought I 
>would like to leave with you, and also to correct one statement I made 
>earlier.  Someone thought FT8 measured the noise in the interval when 
>the FT8 signals were off, and I replied that would result in a real S/N 
>number.  That is not true as you will see in the info below.  You would 
>get a real S/N number if the RF was sampled, but not if the audio is 
>sampled.
>
>I spent many years designing electronic circuits professionally, so I 
>still think that way.  So for a few minutes lets think about a circuit 
>that can decode something below the noise floor .If you think about FT8 
>or anything similar, from a designers point of view, you suddenly 
>realize that making a statement of "the circuit can decode down to X dBs 
>below the noise floor" is almost an impossible task, that is, if you are 
>talking RF noise floor as most people will be assuming.
>
>Since you will be dealing with audio, not RF, the receiver will convert 
>the RF into audio and compress it into something that has a lot less 
>dynamic range.  How much less? Say the volume is set to a level such 
>that the strongest signals do not clip, then how far down is the noise? 
>You can expect that to vary on each band too.
>
>Now comes a real complication.  If you were taking samples in the RF 
>world, you could see the noise level on your S meter and estimate it 
>relative to the strongest signals.  However your circuit will be dealing 
>with audio.  Surprisingly, when the signals disappear, the receiver AGC 
>voltage drops and the receiver gain increases.  That produces a lot more 
>audio signal.  The audio noise in the case of no signals becomes higher 
>than the audio level for strong signals if you are using USB bandwidth 
>and receiving something similar to FT8. That condition is not nearly as 
>pronounced when using a narrow CW bandwidth.  Even if you put the 
>receiver into AGC slow mode it won't hold for the 3 seconds when FT8 is 
>off, so you still get the increased audio in the off period.  Then there 
>will be a sudden increase in audio when the first signal reappears, 
>until the ACG kicks in and lowers it.  This happens even with fast AGC 
>selected. It's fast enough that you don't notice it when listening, but 
>if you put a scope on it you can see it.  Yeah, all that surprised me 
>too when first thinking about it.  Take a close listen and see if you 
>agree. If you can't hear it, put it on a scope or anything that displays 
>an audio waveform and it will become very obvious.
>
>If you made a statement that this circuit can decode X dBs below the 
>noise floor, most people will be thinking RF noise floor.  So what is it 
>in the audio world that represents the noise floor in the RF world, and 
>what would your statement mean?
>
>Of course you could turn off the AGC and decrease the receiver RF gain 
>and that would make the audio very low when the signals disappear.  That 
>would also severely limit the dynamic range for your circuit since you 
>would no longer have the compression supplied by the receiver.. Your 
>circuit would have to cover a much wider dynamic range, similar to what 
>a receiver does.  So your circuit would need what? maybe 100 dB dynamic 
>range to cover the strongest signals to the weakest noise floor, 
>forgetting about decoding below the noise floor.  Actually that wouldn't 
>really happen because receivers can't produce a dynamic range of 100 dB 
>in the audio. They may do it in the RF world, but not in audio. 
>Receivers have no need to do that.
>
>Jerry
>_________________
>Searchable Archives:  http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>
>_________________
>Searchable Archives:  http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>