RE: [soft_radio] E-Mu 0202
Alberto- Any chance you could post the contents of the message to this group? The Winrad group is locked down unless you are a member. -Ray WB6TPU From: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:soft_ra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto I2PHD Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 10:44 AM To: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [soft_radio] E-Mu 0202 On 5/4/2010 2:06 PM, Peter wrote: Hi, everyone. I bought a new E-Mu 0202 one week ago. I'm a little disappointed so far. I've written up my experience with it to date on my blog, garage-shoppe.com, but it boils down to image rejection (that is, phase and amplitude matching between the I and Q channels) which is inferior to my results with an SB-1090. I may be doing something wrong, and I'm not quite ready to give up on it. If you've used an E-Mu 0202, please read my blog post and tell me if I should be doing something differently. Thanks. 73, Pete, NI9N Pete, the E-MU 0202 is a very good card, but a bit sensitive on how you set it up. You may want to read the message I wrote on this subject on the Winrad Yahoo group. Go to this link : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/winrad/message/767 73 Alberto I2PHD This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.
RE: [soft_radio] Availability of original LD-1 (Plastic Enclosure)
Hank- Look at the bottom of his message for the web address: www.lazydogengineering.com www.garage-shoppe.com Go to the website to see the specs. -Ray WB6TPU From: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:soft_ra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hank smith Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 2:34 PM To: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [soft_radio] Availability of original LD-1 (Plastic Enclosure) what frequency ranges does this radio tune? also what is your website? - Original Message - From: Peter p...@lazydogengineering.com mailto:pete%40lazydogengineering.com To: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com mailto:soft_radio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:07 PM Subject: [soft_radio] Availability of original LD-1 (Plastic Enclosure) It's come to my attention that there may be a little confusion about availability of the original LD-1, with the plastic enclosure. It is no longer available, and I have removed it from the website. The LD-1 was initially offered at a reduced initial price of $150, and was to have gone to $200 in early February. However, I received negative comments regarding the plastic enclosure, and decided to a much nicer one made of extruded aluminum. I made the switch at the time the introductory price was to have expired, but continued to offer the remaining LD-1's (original, plastic enclosure) at $150 until all were sold. All of them are sold now, and I have no plans to offer that model in the future. At that same time, I began offering the LD-1A for $218, $18 more than the original LD-1 would have cost after the introductory price expired. The aluminum enclosure costs me more, and requires more of my time to customize, that is the reason for the higher price. I do currently have one LD-1A listed on Ebay, at a current bid of $150. The auction ends in about 41 hours, so somebody might just pick up a bargain. The item number is 170449003769. 73, Pete, NI9N www.lazydogengineering.com www.garage-shoppe.com Yahoo! Groups Links This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.
RE: [soft_radio] Re: Winrad source, where do we stand.
I2PHD wrote: I suppose you meant SDRadio, not Winrad. I haven't distributed the Winrad source code to anybody, before. Correct. Meant to say SDRadio -Ray WB6TPU From: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of i2phd Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:56 AM To: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [soft_radio] Re: Winrad source, where do we stand. --- In soft_radio@yahoogroups.com mailto:soft_radio%40yahoogroups.com , Ray Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John- A couple years ago I compiled the Winrad code (version 0.95 I think) using Borland C++ Builder V6. I suppose you meant SDRadio, not Winrad. I haven't distributed the Winrad source code to anybody, before. No surprise SDRadio compiled correctly. It was developed with the Borland C++Builder V6, the same that you used, and never ported to a more recent environment. Between C++Builder V6 and the CodeGear Rad Studio 2007 there are some differences, but not many. One of them being that the function Synchronize now wants an explicit address-of. Synchronize(myfunc); // valid with the C++Builder V6 Synchronize(myfunc); // valid with the CodeGear compiler But that is just a minor point. I had to rebuild the package too, as letting the compiler do the upgrading did result in some errors. About the Turbo C++ Express, I don't know if it will fit. I do not have installed, so cannot check myself. 73 Alberto I2PHD This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.
RE: [soft_radio] Winrad source, where do we stand.
John- A couple years ago I compiled the Winrad code (version 0.95 I think) using Borland C++ Builder V6. If I can find my old install files I'll reload the old Borland tools on my system and give it a try when Alberto gets the rest of the code on the download site. If I remember correctly, when I compiled it a few years ago it took me less than 10 minutes after compiler installation until I had working Winrad executable. -Ray WB6TPU From: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John H. Long Jr. Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:12 PM To: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [soft_radio] Winrad source, where do we stand. I've been out for a bit. Has all the code for Winrad been released? Do we have the instructions on how to compile the source code? Which (free) version of C++ is compatible with the current source code? I think the first task is to insure I (we) can compile the current code to produce an identical executable as we have now. Then, and only then would be the time for trying out modifications. Have we started setting up a team of programmers that would like to help (so we don't fall over each others feet). John H. Long Jr. KW7A PO Box 567 East Carbon, Utah 84520 USA Original Message Subject: [soft_radio] Re: Wishes for Winrad From: cesco12342000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:cesco1%40tiscali.ch Date: Tue, November 18, 2008 2:54 pm To: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com mailto:soft_radio%40yahoogroups.com Any idea if TX is planned for Winrad since it's now open source? Alberto sure has done a GREAT job with the program. Only installing the c-builder and compiling the source looks like a big job, too much for me. Enabling TX functionality is a huge job. This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.
RE: [soft_radio] Re: Usage of inductors on collectors of a GIlbert cell
Dan- Not exactly sure what you are saying in the 1st paragraph. What are you getting at with: coil would not oscillate in a drift free manner? I _think_ Frank was suggesting using inductive loads on the output, not the input. If you use a choke as a collector load, the differential amplifier gain will be frequency dependent (dependent on the impedance of the choke at any particular frequency). -Ray WB6TPU From: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Jackson Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:55 AM To: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [soft_radio] Re: Usage of inductors on collectors of a GIlbert cell I think I know what you are saying, I use a coil on pin 8 of the MC1496 as a choke with a 10 MHz mixer input to the choke. If you are talking about using the idea of coil self resonance then in that case the coil would not oscillate in a drift free manner. The coil makes a good input choke though. I got a model of that in my Spice files for upload later. Dan
RE: [soft_radio] Diodes as mixers?
1N270 are RF optimized Germanium diodes, not hot carrier diodes. 1N5711 are passivated Schottky barrier diodes an,d as Frank points out, offer superior RF performance. -Ray WB6TPU From: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of FRANCIS CARCIA Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:48 AM To: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [soft_radio] Diodes as mixers? 1N270s are not that good and fairly high leakage try 1N5711 Daniel Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am using 1N270 hot carrier diodes which are more sensitive than the past, small signal diodes, in QSD mixer designs. I borrowed the idea from the SPL-1 and TUF-1 mixers.
RE: [soft_radio] Diodes as mixers?
I stand corrected. 'Schottky' and 'hot-carrier' are alternate names for the same type of device. See http://www.answers.com/topic/schottky-diode?cat=technology for a discussion. ( see http://www.datasheetcatalog.com/datasheets_pdf/1/N/5/7/1N5711.shtml for links to 1N5711 http://www.datasheetcatalog.com/datasheets_pdf/1/N/5/7/1N5711.shtml%20f or%20links%20to%201N5711 datasheets from multiple manufacturers) 1N270 parts are old and fairly obsolete. Microsemi may be the only people making them these days. -Ray WB6TPU From: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 11:05 AM To: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com Cc: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com; Ray Anderson Subject: RE: [soft_radio] Diodes as mixers? Microsemi has them classified as Schottky types, but I imagine these are similar. I can't find any data sheets on them other than Microsemi. I will try the 1N5711 as Francis recommends and I like the files of Edwardo, ,,
RE: [soft_radio] A/D Idea
Cecil, I agree with you 100%. The concept of a Software Defined Radio means just that. The function of the radio is defined by software. SDR does not restrict what sort of hardware the operative software operates on. A CPU (optimized for DSP or not) may execute instructions that define how the radio signal is processed (demodulated, filtered, decimated or whatever). By the same token, a FPGA may be configured (utilizing Verilog or other language) in such a manner that the FPGA also processes a digitized radio signal. The processing may include those sorts of processes that a dedicated CPU may perform albeit usually much more efficiently and at higher speeds. Then there is the concept of a soft CPU that is defined within a FPGA. That CPU could be of a CISC or RISC architecture and could execute essentially the same programs an equivalent stand-alone processor could while the remainder of the FPGA is configured to perform some other dedicated tasks. If a radio's functionality is defined by software it is a SDR with no distinction being made whether the hardware that performs the signal processing is a general purpose CPU, a CPU optimized for DSP functions or a FPGA configured to perform certain signal tasks. I get the impression the original poster is confusing a software controlled radio with a software defined radio. There is indeed a world of difference between those two. A software controlled radio may be a conventional receiver constructed with analog parts that is controlled in the sense that some CPU commands the selection of filter bandwidths, the selection of oscillator frequencies, the selection of gain settings or whatever. They key concept is that the RF signal processing in this case is by means of conventional analog approaches and the CPU only controls certain settings of the hardware. This is in contrast to a SDR where the software is the radio. (change the software and change the signal processing). 73 Ray WB6TPU Disclaimer: yes I work for Xilinx, a major FPGA provider, but that doesn't have any effect on my previous statements. KD5NWA wrote: My answer is very short. Words have meaning. Software Defined Radio Software defines how the radio functions. It's not a CPU Defined Radio or a Program Running Defined Radio. There are people that argue that a DSP is not a computer, but they are plain wrong. Verilog and VHDL are programming languages that can run on your PC or define how a FPGA functions. If the FPGA controls the radio, your Verilog software is defining how your radio behaves hence SDR. But so be it, don't put FPGA's in your SDR radio, I will. At 07:45 AM 6/14/2006, you wrote: I have listed where I have got it and where anybody can get it from, read it and understand what SDR is. Why do you think it is restrictive? SDR is an evolution of the traditional concept of a radio. Therefore we have to make some distinctions to come to a more detailed understanding of what it is. For a long time we had analogic radio circuitry only. Then some parts have been digitalised as e.g. the VFO with the advent of PLL and its programmable divider stages, the electrooptical tuning knob etc.. Note, having something digital in a electronic circuit doesn't mean to have software running! Next it has been introduced the microcontroller to control display circuitry, to electronically switch of various functions (already made of analogic circuits) as mode, PTT, tune and some sort of telecontrol through an interface port (often a RS-232). At this stage of the radio evolution, SDR is not involved, yet, due to the fact there is still no software signal processing but (tele)control of the radio's hardware parts only. The successive step relates to the first DSP applications on processing to filter the audio signals coming from the BF stages of a RTX. This can be considered the first phase of Software Defined Radio because *software processes*, and not simply digital circuits technology!, substitutes a part of the radio circuit. The further step, and second SDR implementation phase, has been made by the introduction of DSP into the IF stages due to availability of more powerful DSP cores. I'll underline that remote as local control of circuits has nothing to do with SDR either if it is performed by a PC or by local processors in the RXT box! SDR is the technology of elaborating the to be received signals through software running on one or more microprocessing units (it is unimportant if it resides on the PC or on a DSP in the radio box). As I've stated in my precedent e-mails FPGAs are reconfigurable hardware circuits, not software processing units! For this reason FPGA cannot be considered part of an SDR. They are *hardware substituting some other hardware* and convenient in a context of a reconfigurable hardware radio. The fact they are reconfigured (reprogrammed) using some software on
RE: [soft_radio] link to file that explains transformer used in receiver for SDR
Also see this link: http://www.seboldt.net/k0jd/phase_notes.html for info on a twisted-wire quadrature hybrid arrangement used in one variant of the R2/T2 receiver/transmitter. -Ray WB6TPU -Original Message- From: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:09 AM To: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [soft_radio] link to file that explains transformer used in receiver for SDR Leon: http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/quad_mixers.zip Here is a link to a file I did on the receiver that contains the transformer and you can see how it was originally used. The circuit is featured in the 2005 ARRL HB. From that you can see why I have the question of how it might be used in the example I put forth to Alberto. So far the idea of the transformer seems new here and even out of left field. The transformer splits and shifts the Local Oscillator that goes to two IC's that contain mini mixing transformers with a diode each for the I and Q outputs. However I was able to see quickly that you could also replace the ICs with two dual gate Mosfets as high gain mixers for the I Q outputs. This might explain some of the unusual views I have had and maybe some have not understood exactly my views on the receiver designs because I have this circuit in my mind. You can buy the receiver by search engine-ing for Rick Campbell or the Biaural Receiver. The originally application was for an experimental receiver that has a stereo like feel to it as you tune around with ear phones. However it is based upon splitting and phase shifting the carrier into I and Q outputs and so creates another way to achieve the I Q needed for use with SDR. I think this file will explain why I have had such unusual questions about ideas for receiver designs. The transformer then is an application that reduces down allot of complexity and allows you to use a sine wave from a simple crystal oscillator or a vfo as the LO input. One can choose to use balanced mixer ICs or a Mosfet or even see why I have thought of using the transformer alone where there is already a low frequency: but it seems to me that I might need the mixing products of a mixer even in this case? Dan Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soft_radio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[soft_radio] Re: To Alberto I2PHD
Dan- See the block diagrams for SDRadio at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soft_radio/files/WB6TPU/ for an understanding of what the software expects and how it processes the signals. 73's, Ray WB6TPU --- In soft_radio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alberto: We had a curious question to occur regarding the use of a Local Oscillator mixer signal where the i.f. is already low. I have a Hallicrafters receiver and the last i.f. frequency is 50 kHz. In this case if I used a transformer such as Rick Campbell used to split and phase shift his vfo in his little receiver would I have to still use a mixer signal with the 50 kHz signal in this scheme? I will explain it this way, I want to place the transformer on the 50 kHz output to split and 90 degree phase shift the i.f. and then send that to a sound card. Do I still need a 50 kHz mixer signal to mix with the 50 kHz so I can have sum and difference mixer products? Even though this transformer is suppose to split and phase shift the signal? I do not know but the sum and difference frequencies that the local oscillator add to the mixing seem to be important here. I can do an experiment here soon to check. But as a designer of the software you know more about this and the ideas for quadrature detection. What would you be looking for in an ideal signal to your sound card? Dan _ Call Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere in the World - FREE! Free Internet calling from NetZero Voice Visit http://www.netzerovoice.com today! Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soft_radio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [soft_radio] Notch Filters?
I'm wondering what the insertion of notch filters into the IQ channels will do to the quadrature relationship of those channels. While I'm sure the insertion of the notch filters will suppress certain narrowband frequencies effectively I think it would be most difficult to maintain a quadrature relationship between the notches at a single frequency much less at a band of frequencies. Even if the notches are in quadrature it is even more unclear how they would interact off resonance. Some serious modeling is in order to determine what the overall effect would be, but I have a feeling the sideband suppression may be seriously compromised. Am I missing something? 73 de Ray WB6TPU -Original Message- From: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:16 PM To: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [soft_radio] Notch Filters? Man, this is an active email group, but thats good, I got lots to read and very interesting, Ken brought up the question of whether you can notch the I and Q signals in the audio chain of a receiver? I have had receivers with i.f. notch before and as far as I understand the two phase shifted signals you should be able to do this. The two signals although phased 90 degrees from each other still are sine wave components of frequency and amplitude. Being generated by a transmitter somewheres on the airwaves. I see no reason why a notch filter would not work in the audio chain of the two port signals I and Q. The reasoning behind this is that the I and Q signals are in the audio pass band and are sinewave components having various frequencies. A CW tone will appear somewheres in the pass band when a CW signal is present and it will be located at a certain frequency and so a notch filter in the audio pass band should be able to notch it out if it is undesired in the pass band. At least thats how I see it? Of course such a notch would have to be very narrow in order to work in the desired audio pass band. If too wide it would take out too much band width. So Op Amps would accomplish this. I am not a software desinger, just a radio tech thats all. I am looking at the circuits. I can't even imagine the software, I look at learning Java and Python and well its scary. I have tried my hand at artificial intellegence mark up language though (aiml), I have a few of those robots like Alice Bot. Now this is my theory of the the analog circuits and well it will take some experimenting to see if the audio notch filter idea will work. As far as I understand it, it should work. Dan Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soft_radio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[soft_radio] Re: Notch Filters?
--- In soft_radio@yahoogroups.com, KD5NWA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I and Q signals depend on their phase relationship in order for it to work correctly, something like a notch filter will mess up that relationship and render them useless. Besides the main point of a QSD receiver is for the CPU to do the filtering, which it can do 10X better than any discrete filter can. Keep the hardware simple, do the complex in the CPU. Totally concur. With simple but solid front-end hardware all the bells and whistles can be realized in software at zero additional hardware cost. As Cecil and Alberto have recently re-iterated, all the filtering (and demodulation) normally done by traditional hardware circuits in traditional radios are now done in a relatively small amount of DSP code is SDR systems. The DSP functions can have performances that hardware solutions could only dream of attaining. When dealing with SDR you need to think about the functions you want to implement in your receiver or transmitter in a whole new way. Once you are downstream from the front-end put your L's and C's and opamps back into storage and dust off the compiler! -Ray WB6TPU Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soft_radio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [soft_radio] What is this ?
Alberto-
The 'behavior:url (#default#vml)' and associated jibberish is VML
(Vector Varkup Language) code which enables IE to dynamically manipulate
graphics on a web page. In itself it isn't something to be afraid of.
The link to another web page is exactly that, and writer's motives may
have been exactly as you suspect.
-Ray WB6TPU
-Original Message-
From: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of i2phd
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:41 AM
To: soft_radio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [soft_radio] What is this ?
I blocked a posting from [EMAIL PROTECTED] which contained the
following rows, which I do not understand :
--
FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DATE: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 16:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
SUBJECT: Designing Filters for Software-Defined Radio
v\:* {behavior:url (#default#vml);}v\:* { BEHAVIOR: url
(#default#vml)} http://{URL deleted}
--
On the second row there was an URL pointing to a forum which is not
related in any way with SDR. May be this is a trick to attract
subscribers to that forum ? What is the meaning of those strange
commands ? Anybody knows ?
73 Alberto I2PHD
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soft_radio/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
