My thoughts: what Chuck describes is basically what I do for reviewing SDR recordings, with whatever software I might be using. Clicking carefully on the playback bar can also advance the recording in increments of your choice.
Skipping ahead in one-minute increments makes the top-of-the-hour range we're generally most interested in go by rather quickly during review. As Chuck described it only takes your brain a second or two to recognize if there's any content worth pursuing. If not, then a quick click fast-forwards you to the next minute for a second or two auditory check. It's kind of the "30,000 ft. view" of the DX, and if anything seems interesting you can get more granular in your review & playback...that's the beauty of SDR because nothing is lost. What I'm listening for is audio rising up to intelligibility (in the case of threshold signals that may be worthwhile to follow), or in the case of signals with decent intelligibility already I'm listening for content clues that there may be an ID, advertisement, or other helpful content in the "vicinity" of that moment I'm reviewing. If so, then I dive in for a careful listen. This minute-by-minute quick checking method is a great way to get past music so you can get to an announcer's voice. The same approach works for bottom-of-the-hour and other in-between times when an ID *might* be heard. However I save these less productive time frames for after I've exhausted top-of-the-hour possibilities. As Chuck said, bad or normal nights are obvious and you don't need to waste your time. Were conditions shown to be great on your recording? Then you may have a gold mine waiting for you to dig through...that's the fun of capturing the entire band with an SDR. DXing "live" with a traditional receiver or an Ultralight is another kind of fun, too. It's all radio, and all good :^) Guy On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Chuck Hutton <[email protected]> wrote: > Nick: > > > If you listen to a second or two every minute or two, wouldn't you agree > the needed time is a percenrt or two of what it was? > > And many channels won't need attention at all. > > And bad or normal nights quickly become obvious and the files don't need > to be studied. > > > Nothing earth shattering here. > > > Chuck > > > _______________________________________________ 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]
