john_ke5c wrote: > > > > Of course, it's infrequent that you have two very comparable systems to > > compare to, but we were lucky. As with most mobile radio applications, > > while you can model performance, the real test is in how it performs > > when you're out there. Note that the 10% value is consistent with the > > predicted difference presented by digital process gain. > > How do you compare the similar systems - full sync range vs full > quieting range? What parameter was 10 per-cent better?
We attempted to determine "communications-quality" audio. Thus, if we were unable to recover audio reliably on the analog systems, or lacked full sync on the digital systems, that constituted an end-point. > How similar were the systems with regard to antenna, antenna height, > feedline, duplexer quality, pre-amps, and power output? Common receive and transmit antennas on commercial multicouplers. Power output and sensitivities were documented similar. Good quality heliax from hardware to multicouplers. They were similar in performance, specifications. It was actually a planned test on VHF and UHF. > Thanks for the data! I just KNEW there'd be a skeptic in the crowd! 73 gerry -- Gerry Creager -- [email protected] Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983 Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
<<attachment: gerry_creager.vcf>>
