Hi Kaz,

A very detailed performance comparison between the SDR-IQ and Perseus was
made by Marco Bruno IK1ODO last year. His article "Digital Down Conversion
Receivers Compared" was published in the March 2008 edition of RadCom
magazine. It focuses on the hardware side of the receiver and strong signal
handling performance. You can download the PDF here:
http://www.ssb.de/amateur/pdf/radcom_mar08.pdf

Here are some key figures from Bruno's measurements:

Blocking dynamic range, 2.4kHz BW: Perseus = 120db; SDR-IQ = 108db

Calculated IP3 intermodulation distortion: Perseus = 33dBm (dither on,
preamp off); SDR-IQ = 14dBm (max gain)

IMD3 dynamic range: Perseus = 102dB (dither on, preamp off); SDR-IQ = 90dB
(max gain)

73,

Guy Atkins
Puyallup, WA
www.perseus-sdr.blogspot.com




> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 09:35:03 -0500
> From: "Neil Kazaross" <[email protected]>
> To: "Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America"
>        <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [IRCA] SDR
> Message-ID: <002601c9d633$805881d0$3200a...@bigyam>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>        reply-type=original
>
> Craig, I believe it was Bruce Conti who said his SDR was also significantly
> better than the R8B for audio recovery from splits. That alone (since I
> need
> real good selectivity here for TA and the continuing TP quest) should
> convince me to get one.
>
> Anyhow, the question here is whether anyone has done a side by side
> comparison of the RFSpace SDR's vs the Perseus for very difficult signal
> recovery situations... ie pulling that weak split out of the mess.
>
> 73 KAZ
_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
[email protected]
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original 
contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its 
editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: [email protected]

Reply via email to