Re: [Flexradio] A plea to SDR software developers - GPL tangent
At 09:27 PM 8/30/2005, Robert McGwier wrote: ... deleted ... In fact we use several proprietary plugins. We use a dll plugin for the USB widget (remember that one?) and we all use sound card device driver plugins every time we power the radio up. So I am unfamiliar with this decision. I do not think the GPL applies to the sound card device driver, as the device driver is not a part of the program - it runs in a different process and address space, and the GPL only applies to a program, which most would define as that entity that sits within a single processes address space. The dll plugin for the USB widget is a different matter. If the author of the USB widget DLL were to distribute the plugin and the PowerSDR code I believe one who received such code would have rights under the GPL to ask for the source for all of it, including the USB plugin. The GPL does not prevent you from making a non-GPL contribution. It prevents you from using GPL code in your contribution and distributing with out your code being GPL OR without a separate license with the copyright holders. So long as your code does not copy GPL code in to it, you are free to do what you want. I am absolutely certain that after the I/Q taps and audio taps come out that lots of plugins will be made available from all over the place. I encourage it. Again, if the DLL plugin is distributed by someone with PowerSDR then I'd say the GPL applies to the DLL plugin. This is clearly an area reasonable people can disagree on - they wording of the GPL is ambiguous in that it does not define what a program is in any meaningful technical way. I will admit my interpretation of it is somewhat conservative. Regards, Bill (kd5tfd)
Re: [Flexradio] A plea to SDR software developers
At 06:16 PM 8/30/2005, Gerald Youngblood wrote: To my knowledge we have NEVER promised source code documentation. We might do it some day but no promises. By the way we sincerely appreciate ALL of you who have in the past contributed and will in the future contribute to the open source development. 73, Gerald K5SDR I'd like to make it clear that I don't and didn't expect software documentation from Flex-Radio. I bought the radios for the hardware. I used the software mostly to make sure the radios weren't broken. If I could have used the software beyond that (which would have depended on documentation) it would have been a bonus. I think the general ham community would have a somewhat different take on it, based on a history of relatively well documented hardware, in the form of readily available service manuals and the like. However, my comment was more addressed to developers of the software. Basic documentation will make it a realistic goal to get multiple contributions to the free codebase. Otherwise it will remain an interesting toy for the technically persistent and skilled software artists with plenty of paid or unpaid time to spend on it. Open software development is just that: OPEN. Put your stuff out there and people get to shoot at it, and from the shooting (and the response thereto) comes better products. If the complaint is that modifications are difficult because there's no documentation, that's a valid complaint. As a developer, you get to decide whether you agree. You can say, nope, it's good enough for me, and I'd rather spend my time on a new feature, or, equally valid, you can say, you're right, it should be better, because my goal is providing a platform for development for others to build on. De gustibus non disputandum. (or, as RMS puts it, free as in speech, not as in beer.) My plea was not intended to convince Flex-Radio to change their ways, but more to the software development community that has sprung up around the hardware platform. I didn't think that what I asked for was particularly expensive or tedious (normal software development processes produce this sort of documentation in the process of doing the job anyway), and the whole GPL thing is more of a cautionary comment for the future direction, and a desire to avoid locking yourself into a path that might have an undesirable endpoint. As far as I know, nobody is advocating trying to privatize GPLed code. On the other hand, you shouldn't be excluding non-GPL participants from the party. While I think that open rants on open software are fair game, I reserve the right to rant privately to Flex-Radio about how they should run their company grin. Clearly, they should build radios that suit me, particularly, with the interfaces that I want, and bollocks to the rest of you lot.grin Jim, W6RMK
Re: [Flexradio] GPL - (was A plea to SDR software developers)
At 06:19 PM 8/30/2005, Bill Tracey wrote: (One of these days I will learn not to wade into GPL bruhaha's) At 04:47 PM 8/30/2005, Eric wrote: [Sami Aintila] Using GPL is an ideological choice. Nothing wrong with that. But there are lots of people who really don't understand the ideology they are subscribing to. Until it's too late. It's like a cult: once you're in, you can never get out. OK, I'm not a big fan of GPL, but that's not the point. The point is (as Jim was trying to explain in his first post) that GPL may be the single most important reason why some people cannot contribute to this project. I think this is a serious problem. But this problem could be circumvented by following the guidelines Jim suggested. And there are lots of people out there that don't know what they are not getting they go with a non GPL license. For amateur radio things, I prefer GPL to non GPL solutions as the GPL preserves my rights to access the code, to experiment with it and extend it. The ability to experiment and extend I find essential for things to be used in the amateur radio realm. How does the GPL prevent people from contributing to this project? GPL doesn't prevent people from contributing by itself. It's the combination of GPL and a software architecture that makes it impossible to contribute without doing a modification. I will grant that because there isn't much documentation of interfaces in the current release, it might well be possible to do independent non-GPL development. Non-GPL does not necessarily mean that the source isn't published nor that you can't fool with it. But, with GPL, a modification could not be released into the public domain. PD would have to be the ultimate in experiment friendly. No rights whatsoever to worry about. If it is a matter of agreements with employers, than it is the employer that is partly to blame for someone not being able to contribute to a GPL project. What other open source license would you suggest for a project such as this? I'd be uncomfortable and perhaps unwilling to contribute to this project if it were under a BSD style license where one gives all the code away and there is no obligation for folks that take the code to make their modifications available if they distribute their code. What you're basically talking about is that you're willing to contribute code in exchange for an obligation for successors to distribute theirs. What if some philanthropist donates 10 million dollars to develop the code, and doesn't care if anyone else redistributes it, and in fact, wants NO restrictions on subsequent reuse, believing that it is a benefit to mankind and should be free (as in beer). If you're willing to contribute code, then by all means, you should be able to control what's done with it (that's what copyright is all about). The concern is if the software architecture evolves in a direction which makes it difficult for subsequent contributors to make that choice. In theory, this shouldn't be a problem. Good software design has well partitioned functions with well defined interfaces that make it easy to separate out new function from modification of existing function (There's some software engineering terms for this that I can't recall off the top of my head.. anti-consilience perhaps?) ... deleted ... [Sami Aintila] But I know this is not the first time we're having this discussion. The concept of plugins has been mentioned (and rejected) many times snip [Eric W] I am still not completely clear on all of the legal implications of using plugins with a GPL project. Plugins under the GPL are somewhat complicated. It depends on how one defines the word Program: as used in the GPL. The reading I've gotten in professional dealings with the GPL is a program is that which sits within the address space of a process. Hmm. and address space is kind of a fuzzy concept in virtual memory systems. Under that reading, a plugin would have to go through a process boundary to be isolated from the GPL's terms. For example, a plugin architecture that simply made calls to an external DLL would not be alleviate the external DLL from being licensed under the GPL or LGPL as it is part of the program. I have heard (again, no hard core legal opinion here) that if you had a compiled library, that worked with some sort of GPL code, you could distribute it independently of GPL. Example, various Linux hardware drivers for motherboard peculiar implementations are distributed as object only modules, built against a particular version of the kernel libraries, and no source is provided or offered. A specific example might be the AC97 sound drivers for the VIA EPIA motherboards. There has to be some mechanism within the GNU/Linux/GPL world that allows hardware manufacturers to distribute drivers for their proprietary hardware without giving away the store. Whether those run as a separate process, or as a
Re: [Flexradio] A plea to SDR software developers
There has been a lot of typing going on while I was asleep. Of course, I should have known better, but it wasn't my intention to start (or incite) this GPL discussion. Please let me repeat myself: OK, I'm not a big fan of GPL, but that's not the point. It really isn't. The GPL problem doesn't have to be a problem at all. We just need a truly open, modular design instead of the monolithic PowerSDR that we're now using: SDR hardware control, audio I/O, DSP core, a wide selection of GUI modules, advanced DSP functions, support for various digital modes, remote operation, etc. All of these as separate, interchangeable modules with well-documented software interfaces to make sure it all works together. Some of those modules will indeed be open source, GPL, BSD, whatever. But the old-fashioned, closed, commercial software kind of modules would also be allowed. And everything in between. Again, I know something like this has been proposed before. While it's easy to come up with this great concept, defining the modules and interfaces between them is going to be a lot of work. This is a big challenge. Any takers? 73, Sami OH2BFO
Re: [Flexradio] A plea to SDR software developers - GPL tangent
Bil and others: This is well tested ground. It has been repeatedly to ad nauseum dealt with all over the place. YOU CAN distribute non gpl modules solely for the purpose of enhancing gpl based code SO LONG AS the distribution is not on the same hypertext link. I do not know that this has occured, but it would be a problem if Flex distributed the USB widget dll on the same disk the PowerSDR as a hand out at (say) Dayton. When I do a SUSE Linux upgrade using YAST,I have check the link that says upgrade the non-GPL modules. You can bet with all of the SCO lawsuits, copyright, copyleft, patent, etc. stuff floating around, Novell lawyers know what is legal. It is legal to distribute non-GPL modules for the enhancement of a GPL thing. Do not distribute them together. I know this is what you said, I just want to make absolutely certain that everyone understands that we agree. THERE WILL NOT BE A CHANGE TO THE GPL LICENSING OF THE DTTSP CODE. It is now, and will be, GPL. This is an end to this discussion. There is nothing left to discuss. It will no longer be discussed by me since there is not a single sliver of chance for that snow ball to last in hell. If anyone does not like it, write your own code. Bob Bill Tracey wrote: At 09:27 PM 8/30/2005, Robert McGwier wrote: The GPL does not prevent you from making a non-GPL contribution. It prevents you from using GPL code in your contribution and distributing with out your code being GPL OR without a separate license with the copyright holders. So long as your code does not copy GPL code in to it, you are free to do what you want. I am absolutely certain that after the I/Q taps and audio taps come out that lots of plugins will be made available from all over the place. I encourage it. Again, if the DLL plugin is distributed by someone with PowerSDR then I'd say the GPL applies to the DLL plugin. This is clearly an area reasonable people can disagree on - they wording of the GPL is ambiguous in that it does not define what a program is in any meaningful technical way. I will admit my interpretation of it is somewhat conservative. Regards, Bill (kd5tfd)
Re: [Flexradio] A plea to SDR software developers
This is like a page out of choir book. This is exactly what we have proposed and while we have paused to catch our breath, it is what we all want (people who have been developers). No one likes the monolithic approach. It is completely ill-suited to this type of distributed development. It has completely prevented many others from participating. If the only way to get your piece in is to get it past Bob, Frank, or Eric, that is a bad thing. No one agrees more than we do. A modular, layered approach, with well specified API's. In the small architectural email interchanges we have made with those who have contributed to the existing code, this is a universally held opinion. Brickle has been insisting on this for months and that is how the new architecture will look. This is simply required for the model we want to build to, which is driven by the desire to allow distributed computing. Nothing else will do for this. But of course, your earlier statement chimed in with support for the Lux's bemoaning the GPL approach. My apologies for the misinterpretation. Bob Sami Aintila wrote: There has been a lot of typing going on while I was asleep. Of course, I should have known better, but it wasn't my intention to start (or incite) this GPL discussion. Please let me repeat myself: OK, I'm not a big fan of GPL, but that's not the point. It really isn't. The GPL problem doesn't have to be a problem at all. We just need a truly open, modular design instead of the monolithic PowerSDR that we're now using: SDR hardware control, audio I/O, DSP core, a wide selection of GUI modules, advanced DSP functions, support for various digital modes, remote operation, etc. All of these as separate, interchangeable modules with well-documented software interfaces to make sure it all works together. Some of those modules will indeed be open source, GPL, BSD, whatever. But the old-fashioned, closed, commercial software kind of modules would also be allowed. And everything in between. Again, I know something like this has been proposed before. While it's easy to come up with this great concept, defining the modules and interfaces between them is going to be a lot of work. This is a big challenge. Any takers? 73, Sami OH2BFO ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz
Re: [Flexradio] A plea to SDR software developers
At 10:16 PM 8/30/2005, Frank Brickle wrote: Jim Lux wrote: However, my comment was more addressed to developers of the software. Basic documentation will make it a realistic goal to get multiple contributions to the free codebase. Otherwise it will remain an interesting toy for the technically persistent and skilled software artists with plenty of paid or unpaid time to spend on it. Well, there is a definite philosophical difference here. I should point out that, FWIW, my view is based on -- well, I was going to say almost forty, but, eep, it *is* forty -- years of working with these idiotic machines, and countless thousands of lines written fast, slow, and anywhere in between. Documentation ain't worth the paper it's writ on. I would say that is is situationally dependent. I'd hate to have to try and write software (of any kind) without some reference that defines the language syntax and semantics, at least at the start. Documentation also becomes more valuable when multiple people are involved, particularly over large spans of time or space. snip At the same time, I happen to be a convinced exponent of bottom-up programming style. What that means is, in short, building up a small vocabulary of low-level application-specific operations, composing them then into a larger vocabulary of utterances, and then telling the final story in the language that's grown up with the application. Sure.. and one can tell a moving and elegant story with your own private language, and it may sound just fine. However, if you want a dozen people to work on that software, and they aren't all there at the start, the problem is one that the first step in working on the program is that you have to learn the language, unfortunately without the help of a dictionary or any other thing. Immersion may work, but it's painful, and requires a big commitment. It also only works if there's a body of speech to be immersed in. If all the speakers have died, and all that remains is their writings, translating might be a bit tricky. The Rosetta Stone is prized for a good reason. Bottom up is a fine programming style, but it's not a particularly effective architectural approach for large systems (where large is defined more in terms of the number of contributors than the number of lines of code). This is a hard problem, which is why software development methodologies have evolved a lot from the modular programming of my youth. Creating architectures that can support concurrency is only one challenge. Another is creating software that can be maintained and modified into the future, generally by people not the original creator. To use the construction metaphor: the outside may be stunning and elegant and one of a kind, but making it took a lot of unexciting hammering standard sized nails into standard sized pieces of wood. At some point Frank Gehry has to do drawings, because he can't single handedly build the building. James Lux, P.E. Spacecraft Radio Frequency Subsystems Group Flight Communications Systems Section Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Mail Stop 161-213 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena CA 91109 tel: (818)354-2075 fax: (818)393-6875
[Flexradio] Two new RX test modules from Elecraft
Yesterday, Elecraft announced two new products, useful for receiver testing: XG2 Three-band Receiver Test Oscillator 2T-gen 2-Tone Test Oscillator Reference: http://www.elecraft.com/mini_module_kits/mini_modules.htm 73, Dale WA8SRA
[Flexradio] X2 sequency: bug ?
Hi from several beta release are available the controls for X2 1-5 (and 6 later) pins out, that I'm using to control the LPF in my adapted 100PA. If in the general setup I select the X2 check box, enabling the pin 7 to control a linear amplifier relay, the 1 to 6 pins do not work ! Why ? This is a bug or is a software choice ? TNX - 73 Beppe IK3VIG
Re: [Flexradio] In a sentimental mood
Mon Ami! Merci Beaucoup. Mai chaque jour semblent comme un bol de cerises! (May every day seem like a bowl of cherries). Bob N4HY José Dumoulin wrote: Hi Friends This is one of my favoured songs. I have been reading the last posts from some of you, guys (Ahti, Bob, Eric1, Eric2, Frank, Gerald, Jim, Sami - /alphabetical order/) :'( I was afraid of seeing this epistolary correspondence degenerate into a brawl. The positive side is that I learned a few new words. Remember this sentence that you could read in the saloons : *Don't shoot the pianist down*. :-) Then, as a sort of calmness after the storm, Phil, N8VB, came and informed us of his progress with SharDSP and other stuff. Many thanks to Phil, Sami, Jim, Gerald, Frank, Eric2, Eric1, Bob, Ahti. 73 - José ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz
Re: [Flexradio] In a sentimental mood
Ahti Aintila wrote: Thanks to Frank for hollering, but why didn't you holler louder? Honest answer? Because (1) you should choose your battles with care, and (2) in the end, the Windows version is of no importance to me personally. Everybody likes to cherry-pick ideas from Fred Brooks. My two favorites are, in paraphrase: you throw the first version away; and adding bodies to a project doesn't help. That's why the idea of architectural documentation is amusing. It isn't until right about now that we actually know how a system like this should be written. Bob N4HY and I have done similar things in the past, but with nowhere near the tight integration of hardware and software that's necessary with the SDR1K. Our architectural sketch was the half-dozen or so systems we've done together before. Now we have a much better idea, and a lot of things about the future versions are going to reflect what's been learned in this effort. It's also why the emphasis on modularity strikes me as a bit fetishistic. To some degree, modularizing a system is meant to facilitate contributions from a larger group of programmers. But by the second of my cherished Brooks principles, piling on contributions isn't really going to yield improvements. So it's more of a democratizing gesture than a blueprint for development. The history of successful open source projects indicates something quite different. The way these projects evolve is not by incremental contributions, but rather by forking. Most forks don't survive. Often the major contribution a fork will make is to highlight features that need to be incorporated back in the main branch. One of the major features that the 1.5 design will exhibit is this: it will be very easy to fork. And that's a good thing. 73 Frank AB2KT
[Flexradio] serial com port keyer - Common pin 4, dit pin 6 and dash pin 8 in a DB9
I am trying to operate CW -- 25 to 35 wpm -- If one plugs into the key input of the radio and uses an external computer to key rig, Software set for Parallel the result is the output drops dits; just as it sounds on the monitor. Not able to key with serial port of computer. It is the SDR addressing com1? Not sure. Is the DB9 connector of computer being defined as com1- not sure. I am using version 1.4.4 with Dell computer that came with SRD radio. Suggestions? Followed instruction from reflector subject New Advice on CW dated -- Aug 1st -- did not see 6 or 8 going low. Mark K5GQ Robert W McGwier n4hy at idaccr.org Mon Aug 1 12:09:10 CDT 2005 John: It is very very good news indeed that you're able to run the SDR-1000 on that machine. Please select low resolution clock and try it again with 1.4.4 and also please try the serial com port keyer coming with 1.4.4. Common pin 4, dit pin 6 and dash pin 8 in a DB9. Bob N4HY
Re: [Flexradio] In a sentimental mood
Hey Jose! Dont worry, after we get over all this chapter and verse stuff, Ill get it all stirred up again by suggesting we modify the Console front panel and add a CW decoder or something of that nature. GPL is Religion the Console is Politics. In the old saying Never discuss Religion and Politics. I have refined that abit to add At least not at the same time. Eric2 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of José Dumoulin Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 2:51 PM To: FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz Subject: [Flexradio] In a sentimental mood Hi Friends This is one of my favoured songs. I have been reading the last posts from some of you, guys (Ahti, Bob, Eric1, Eric2, Frank, Gerald, Jim, Sami - alphabetical order) :'( I was afraid of seeing this epistolary correspondence degenerate into a brawl. The positive side is that I learned a few new words. Remember this sentence that you could read in the saloons : Don't shoot the pianist down. :-) Then, as a sort of calmness after the storm, Phil, N8VB, came and informed us of his progress with SharDSP and other stuff. Many thanks to Phil, Sami, Jim, Gerald, Frank, Eric2, Eric1, Bob, Ahti. 73 - José
Re: [Flexradio] A plea to SDR software developers
Frank Well, I have been reading it all no matter what. See my response to Jose. In the middle of it all. Dale posts with the first ever Health and Welfare message carried via SDR and Phil chimed in with a summary of what he is doing. The operational world continues. I am really looking forward to the dxpedition, and we have all boffed a lot of bits in planning. Still coming together, but we will be a presense for sure. Just need a 'round tuit' and a few other things! My Grandaughter probably will come as the 'ham in training' interest (not a ham yet but. ) Would love to see the 'voice keyer' stuffed into one version or another before Halloween. Will lash it up one way or tother. Have a nice day. I'll repeat again. Thanks to you and all the other high and lower level contributors, without whom we would NOT have this radio, to do Health and Welfare, dxpeditions, or just plain having fun reporting bugs in Beta versions. So why does the console crash when you go into the memory area and click on the topmost entry in 1.4.4. (Hard crash too!, smile) In the best of spirits. I r A Use R. Eric2 -Original Message- From: Frank Brickle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 10:34 PM To: ecellison Cc: 'Sami Aintila'; FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz Subject: Re: [Flexradio] A plea to SDR software developers ecellison wrote: NAW! Don't take it private! An occasional 'flame war' sobers or makes us drunk one way or tother. (That is almost a quote Frank) You've got my number, Eric. The old Irish question Is this a private fight, or can anybody join? always seemed like a good way to start a conversation. However out of deference to our host (Gerald), who is a civilized and tranquil man, we have agreed to keep the brawling out in the street. Jim/Frank/Sami how about a CW/SSB/AM qso? Are you actually USING the radio? If the Linux guys would get off their rear ends and produce something usable, yes. Unfortunately I'm one of those types who likes best packing the radio to a hilltop and fooling around under a shady tree (see previous discussion). N4HY has been trying for years, with his own hands even, to get a decent permanent antenna at my QTH, and it's one of his few failures. The DXpedition is a worthy goal, though: SDR1K to SDR1K. One way or another. 73 Frank AB2KT
Re: [Flexradio] serial com port keyer - Common pin 4, dit pin 6 and dash pin 8 in a DB9
Mitch I concur. The serial is the fastest of the responders to keying times. Got my K1EL winkey Friday and have not had the chanct to even get the simple kit together. Hopefully we can figure a way to run a modified winkey with its rich serial instruction set BACK into some of the control lines on the same serial port. For Good QSK I do believe we will need a hardware/firmware assist of a keyer into one of the faster SDR-1000s orifices. Thanks Eric2 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mitch Easton Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 6:28 PM To: FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz Subject: [Flexradio] serial com port keyer - Common pin 4,dit pin 6 and dash pin 8 in a DB9 Mark, As it so happens, I just made the change to hardware serial port keying today. Your DB9 pinout is correct [4=Comm, 6=Dit, 8=Dash]. Be sure however that you select COM1 as the Paddle Src, which is found on the Keyer tab of the DSP tab under Setup. Prior to my change today, I was using the parallel port for keying. While certainly workable, I find the latency to be less of an issue (either real or imagined) when keying via the serial port. It works like a champ ... at least for me at the ~20wpm level. Much beyond 20wpm and I have my own latency problems.Hi. 73 Mitch - W2MDE
Re: [Flexradio] 100W PA Bias Adjustment ECO
Eric and Gerald: I haven't done this ECO mod yet, but expect that I need it from audio reports I've received. When measuring total current (DC) drain before actually doing anything, I found it to be 1.98 amps. Since this is significantly higher than the 1.5 amps mentioned in the ECO, I thought I better check with you on whether or not this is a problem. What do you suggest? (You may not recall, but I was the guy who had an oscillating 100PA until I went in and resoldered several things. After that, it seems to work fine - minus some distortion on SSB. PSK is very clean.) Any idea what qiescent current draw should be? Gary AI4IN -- Original message -- From: Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] FYI: The ECO document has been updated to clarify several things in the documentation. The newer document is available on the private download site. Eric Wachsmann FlexRadio Systems -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gerald Youngblood Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 2:21 PM To: MailFlexRadio Subject: [Flexradio] 100W PA Bias Adjustment ECO Dear FlexRadio customers, The SDR-100WPA, 100 Watt amplifier module is included in all SDR-ASM/TRA 100 Watt model radios and is offered as an upgrade option for existing SDR-ASM/TR 1 Watt models. The amplifier uses a push-pull pair of IRF510 FETs in the driver stage followed by a push-pull pair of 2SC2879 bipolar transistors in the final stage. 100W radios and amplifier modules shipped before July 15, 2005, had the FET bias set to either 30mA or 50mA per transistor. Recent experiments have shown that IMD distortion at the lower bias levels may result in a low level of distortion on SSB transmissions which may or may not be audible on the air. Before and after recordings demonstrate that this distortion is no longer audible when the FET bias is set to 100mA per transistor. IMD products as displayed on a spectrum analyzer are reduced as well. We have posted a completely optional bias adjustment procedure (ECO-027) on the private customer download site that can be used to modify these settings. Radios shipped on or after July 15, 2005 include the 100mA bias settings. 73, Gerald K5SDR FlexRadio Systems ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz
[Flexradio] PC Recommendations for SDR-1000
Title: PC Specifications for SDR-1000 Hi all, I think my inquiry may have been lost in the noise and fury of the e-mail barrage of the past two days, so I am re-posting my request in the hopes that I can get some additional feedback on my questions other than use LINUX. At this time LINUX isnt an option. Maybe it will be in the future. I really want to get my PC taken care of so I can order my SDR1K and really join the fun! -Tim --- Tim Ellison ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Integrated Technical Services ( http://www.itsco.com ) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Ellison Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 12:32 AM To: FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz Subject: [Flexradio] PC Specifications for SDR-1000 To all, I am starting to put together a PC system for use with a SDR-1000 and PowerSDR I am planning to get in the near future and had a couple of questions. What performance metric is most desirable in a CPU / motherboard combination? I want to make sure I get a system that will meet current and future performance needs. I have not done a lot of research on the DLLs or libraries used, so I was hoping to get some insight from those that know a lot more about the internal operation of PowerSDR than I. Specifically, what is most to least important of the following items (a ranking of sort): Floating point performance Integer operation Memory performance Multi-tasking performance CPU cache Graphics performance In addition to processor / motherboard metrics, has anyone used Windows XP Professional x64 with PowerSDR? If so how did the WOW64 emulation handle PowerSDR and is there any advantage to using a 64-bit OS. Will PowerSDR be compiled to be a 64-bit app in the future? Also, are there any known compatibility issues with AMD processors? In advance, thanks for the information. 73 de W4TME -Tim --- Tim Ellison Integrated Technical Services Apex, NC USA 919.674.0044 Ext. 25 / 919.674.0045 (FAX) 919.215.6375 - cell PGP public key available at all public KeyServers
Re: [Flexradio] PC Recommendations for SDR-1000
Title: PC Specifications for SDR-1000 Tim Ill take a stab here. However, you realize that this is also somewhat of a political question and there are MANY motherboards out there. I have an ASUS micro ATX MB with a 3.6 mb Pentium 512 of ram with the (not exactly sure what it is called) but bank selected dual access to the ram. You dont say if you are going to build or buy a system the choice is VERY important! A package system from Walmart, is a lot different from the myriad of put it together yourself Modding systems!. My system above works fine with the SDR and I can get you the specs if you want. It was about 610 with the MB and 512 mb. With 2 mb cache. I run a max of 20% CPU load with SDR running and this will improve as they go to direct-x and make the code more efficient. The SDR runs fine on the hardware, and the only limitations are really in the code produced to date. I really dont think that with XP you have control over some of the parameters you have listed. I also dont know whether dual cores are available yet (I go through about a 3 year cycle now before I start comparing MBs and they come out daily and I am only at about 1.5 years now). Obviously a dual core system it pretty slick rather than 2 processors on board. Much more efficient on the die. My priorities on your list are: Cache as much as you can afford and is offered. Although quite frankly I have never checked how much of that ultra speed scratch is in use at any time! Memory? Sure go for it Dual Access. Dont wait to order the SDR. Your questions sort of indicate you are a modder and probably have more than enough to run the SDR. My MB is most certainly 1.5 years old and there are better out there now. It loafs even with NAV and many other co-processes running at the same time. You can always up the priority of Powersdr.exe. Eric From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tim Ellison Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 7:07 PM To: FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz Subject: [Flexradio] PC Recommendations for SDR-1000 Hi all, I think my inquiry may have been lost in the noise and fury of the e-mail barrage of the past two days, so I am re-posting my request in the hopes that I can get some additional feedback on my questions other than use LINUX. At this time LINUX isnt an option. Maybe it will be in the future. I really want to get my PC taken care of so I can order my SDR1K and really join the fun! -Tim --- Tim Ellison ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Integrated Technical Services ( http://www.itsco.com ) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tim Ellison Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 12:32 AM To: FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz Subject: [Flexradio] PC Specifications for SDR-1000 To all, I am starting to put together a PC system for use with a SDR-1000 and PowerSDR I am planning to get in the near future and had a couple of questions. What performance metric is most desirable in a CPU / motherboard combination? I want to make sure I get a system that will meet current and future performance needs. I have not done a lot of research on the DLLs or libraries used, so I was hoping to get some insight from those that know a lot more about the internal operation of PowerSDR than I. Specifically, what is most to least important of the following items (a ranking of sort): Floating point performance Integer operation Memory performance Multi-tasking performance CPU cache Graphics performance In addition to processor / motherboard metrics, has anyone used Windows XP Professional x64 with PowerSDR? If so how did the WOW64 emulation handle PowerSDR and is there any advantage to using a 64-bit OS. Will PowerSDR be compiled to be a 64-bit app in the future? Also, are there any known compatibility issues with AMD processors? In advance, thanks for the information. 73 de W4TME -Tim --- Tim Ellison Integrated Technical Services Apex, NC USA 919.674.0044 Ext. 25 / 919.674.0045 (FAX) 919.215.6375 - cell PGP public key available at all public KeyServers
Re: [Flexradio] PC Specifications for SDR-1000
Title: PC Specifications for SDR-1000 Eric et all ... Dave W9AD has been running his SDR1K on a Dell 933/512M and started experiencing some dropouts and computer effects on transmission. Just today he replaced the 933 with a 2.8G and so far the indications are that this WAS his problem. He told me that he had seen the CPU utilization rise to 80-100% with the Dell 933. His computer was dedicated to the SDR1K only. You might want to rethink the 800 megahertz minimum. --Larry W8ER - Original Message - From: Eric To: 'Tim Ellison' ; FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: Re: [Flexradio] PC Specifications for SDR-1000 My apologies for missing your earlier message. Obviously the faster the CPU, the better for real time audio applications. I am currently developing on a Celeron 2.4GHz with 512MB of ram and integrated video. My home machine is built more for PC gaming, and therefore has a bit more graphics horsepower (ATI 9800, 1GB ram). Clearly both of these are way above the minimum 800MHz machine as specified on our specs webpage. I would recommend a P4 w/800MHz FSB if you plan to do high speed CW. The faster real-time timer on the motherboard can improve the timing on speeds surpassing 35 WPM. There has been no testing that I am aware of on 64 bit operating systems to date. For this reason, I cant do much more than make a general statement that I believe a 64-bit version of the PowerSDR is possible and will come to fruition with or without FlexRadios help thanks to the GPL nature of our software. Eric Wachsmann FlexRadio Systems -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim EllisonSent: Monday, August 29, 2005 11:32 PMTo: FlexRadio@flex-radio.bizSubject: [Flexradio] PC Specifications for SDR-1000 To all, I am starting to put together a PC system for use with a SDR-1000 and PowerSDR I am planning to get in the near future and had a couple of questions. What performance metric is most desirable in a CPU / motherboard combination? I want to make sure I get a system that will meet current and future performance needs. I have not done a lot of research on the DLLs or libraries used, so I was hoping to get some insight from those that know a lot more about the internal operation of PowerSDR than I. Specifically, what is most to least important of the following items (a ranking of sort): Floating point performance Integer operation Memory performance Multi-tasking performance CPU cache Graphics performance In addition to processor / motherboard metrics, has anyone used Windows XP Professional x64 with PowerSDR. If so how did the WOW64 emulation handle PowerSDR and is there any advantage to using a 64-bit OS. Will PowerSDR be compiled to be a 64-bit app in the future? Also, are there any known compatibility issues with AMD processors? In advance, thanks for the information. 73 de W4TME -Tim --- Tim Ellison Integrated Technical Services Apex, NC USA 919.674.0044 Ext. 25 / 919.674.0045 (FAX) 919.215.6375 - cell PGP public key available at all public KeyServers ___FlexRadio mailing listFlexRadio@flex-radio.bizhttp://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz
[Flexradio] M-Audio Delta 1010
All, Has anyone used the M-Audio Delta 1010 with the SDR-1000? I like the rackmount form factor for building a nice box to keep the SDR, sound interfaces, computer, etc all racked together. I don't see a need for 10ins/10outs, but more then 4 could be useful in some applications. 73/N5VFF - Brian
