If an SDR radio needed to be tuned like a radio with a knob-based
user-interface, then tuning via any kind of computer interface would (to
me) be a chore, and at the very least, not much fun.
However -- if you've ever used the PowerSDR console with either the
SDR-1000 or the SoftRock, then you know that having the ability to see
many signals in the panadapter, well outside of the current filter
bandwidth, and being able to click on any one of those signals and have
it immediately centered in your passband (in the case of a cw signal) is
a fantastic way to operate. The most direct way to do that is via a
simple mouse click. Fine-tuning around that point is easily accomplished
via the mouse wheel (on which you'd already have your hand), or an
actual knob connected to the computer via a USB port.
Operating an SDR (Software *defined* radio) radio with a high-resolution
panadpator display is vastly different than operating a Software
*controlled* radio, or a 'standard' radio with knobs and switches.
Remember, without a panadapter, you have to hear a signal in order to
find it. With an SDR radio, you'll *see* stations well before you hear
them -- and hearing them is a single mouse-click away.
Fun stuff, these panadapters!
73, Dale
WA8SRA
K2 S/N: 3039
Craig Rairdin wrote:
Flex 5000: GREAT specs, zero radio-ness. One method of "tuning the
band" is to use a "hand tool" (like you use on a pdf file) and you
"pull" the band across your display (like Goole Maps). Very, ummmm,
different. User interface (tactile) is all but lacking.
Just get three of those sexy USB knobs. There should be a way to bind
them to the various knob-functions in software.
This is one of the problems I have with the whole SDR concept. I don't quite
understand the attractiveness of a radio where the UI has just been ignored
or placed onto a device that is not really designed for the task.
It's like they're saying "We're smart enough to do all this great RF design
but we just can't handle the human interface. (In fact we'll even leave a
lot of the RF design up to you.)" The PC is a non-optimum (but convenient)
UI for many of the things we ask it to do. This is definitely one of them.
When you have to start adding physical knobs and switches it seems obvious
to me that you're admitting that you're trying to use the wrong tool for the
job.
For example, I'm a pilot and when I do my recurrent training we don't use
Microsoft Flight Simulator even though it does an excellent job of
simulating real flying characteristics. We get inside a big box that has a
mock-up of a real instrument panel and real flight controls. The designers
of these devices know that clicking a button with your mouse on a picture of
a panel isn't the same as pressing the real button on a real panel.
I'm just not impressed with a product that does a half-baked job of UI
design.
Craig
NZ0R
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [email protected]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
