Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
N2GZ identifies fatigue is an important issue. A sort of acoustical psychosis sets in if you listen to a static crashy band with the same narrow filter for hours at a time. One advantage of having multiple filters available (either analog or DSP) is that you can switch between filters to help relieve this psychosis. What's very nice about modern DSP, is you can dial the bandwidth up and down very nicely. Not that this was completely unavailable with passband tuning in older analog rigs, but the best DSP filters default to a very nice shape that can reduce the ringing that also leads to acoustical psychosis. Crystal filters with Gaussian shapes to reduce ringing have been available for decades, but not generally used in ham equipment. The reason? They were not brick wall filters with sharp shape factors - and crystal filter shape factors have been used in ham radio marketing for a long time. The best of the DSP equipment available today has CW filters that are inspired by Gaussian filter shapes. The shape factors are not as impressive but the resulting filter is far more useful for CW guys in crashy low bands. Tim N3QE On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Greg Zenger n...@gregzenger.com wrote: I suspect a well trained and practiced brain may be able to out perform a DSP assisted average brain... However over the course of a contest (24-48 hours of [near] continuous operating) a DSP assisted average brain may have an advantage due reduced listening fatigue... Of course some DSP can positively contribute to listening fatigue and others negatively... Quality of DSP and operators ability to adjust are key factors here. This is a topic I follow closely, but can't think of any articles or studies off hand that would answer your question... A sold PhD thesis topic this would be. Greg N2GZ On Aug 4, 2015 9:02 PM, Roger D Johnson n...@roadrunner.com wrote: Although I don't consider myself among the highly-skilled and talented, I can't think of an instance where DSP made the difference between making a contact or not. I do have an Autek QF-1A wired into the audio of the main receiver of the K3 as the AudioPeakingFilter on the K3 is too sharp. 73, Roger N1RJ On 8/4/2015 8:25 PM, Art Snapper wrote: Mike, Are you referring to a specific modulation mode? How about adjacent channel interference issues? I like your question. Art ᐧ On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Mike Watersmikew...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very talented hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? I always thought Linrad was the best DSP software, though I never got it working right here (older sound card issues in Xubuntu). I asked the following question at http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=104388.msg861047#msg861047 : Are there any people who can hear weak signals with a good analog receiver, who --if they could instantly switch their antenna and headphones from the analog RX over to the best SDR made today-- simply couldn't hear any better with today's best SDRs and/or DSP software? There's been a few opinions, but how about multiple valid tests? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
And - do not underestimate the ability of your brain to act as a CW filter. When I was doing EME on six meters (using CW) - I found using SSB bandwidths made it easier to copy the weak signal. You can hear a few recordings of EME signals with SSB bandwidths here: http://www.kkn.net/n6tr/sixeme.html 73 Tree N6TR On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Tom W8JI w...@w8ji.com wrote: I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very talented hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? Excluding time-synchronized signal processing methods, I've never found any DSP system do better or do more than an analog system in signal readabilitly. They are really just different methods of doing the same thing analog systems can do. I actually find DSP detector systems inhibit my ability to hear or copy noise floor signals in rough noise. I'm not sure why that is, but it is more difficult for me to piece together a signal that is in the noise when it has been detected in a DSP system. I normally set my K3's so DSP filtering is wider than the analog filter at filter switch in, so I can change the DSP bandwidth from wider than any analog filter down to the DSP being narrower, but I still think analog detection is much better for signals below the level of rough noise. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very talented hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? Excluding time-synchronized signal processing methods, I've never found any DSP system do better or do more than an analog system in signal readabilitly. They are really just different methods of doing the same thing analog systems can do. I actually find DSP detector systems inhibit my ability to hear or copy noise floor signals in rough noise. I'm not sure why that is, but it is more difficult for me to piece together a signal that is in the noise when it has been detected in a DSP system. I normally set my K3's so DSP filtering is wider than the analog filter at filter switch in, so I can change the DSP bandwidth from wider than any analog filter down to the DSP being narrower, but I still think analog detection is much better for signals below the level of rough noise. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
So, this isn't a scientific test, but a number of years ago (pre-K3) I built an Elecraft K2 (great fun to build) and then built the DSP board for it as well. As a relatively experienced ear, and always (due to other hobbies) listening in the noise, I found the K2+DSP to be unmatched in terms of being able to pull a signal out of the noise. Thing is, I didn't have a chance to do any A/B testing except against an old TS830S, and the difference was certainly there, but never tested this against any modern or good radios. The combination of the very quiet receiver, and the DSP with the right configuration was quite amazing - there could be a very very weak signal there that only at times you could even tell there was *anything* in the noise, and switch in the DSP and the signal came up out of the noise and was copyable. This happened time and again, and of course some times were much better than others, but it struck me at the time that this was a game changer in terms of weak signal DXing, and maybe contesting if conditions were favorable. I since sold the K2/DSP and replaced it with the K3 but since that's an all-SDR/DSP radio the on/off difference isn't apparent. This was on CW, BTW. I never built the SSB side of the K2 :) I still miss that little K2, it was a joy to operate and especially listen to. When things got tough, the DSP made it possible to pull out and work stuff I would have never been able to hear or work otherwise. 73 de N6GQ On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Mike Waters mikew...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very talented hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? I always thought Linrad was the best DSP software, though I never got it working right here (older sound card issues in Xubuntu). I asked the following question at http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=104388.msg861047#msg861047 : Are there any people who can hear weak signals with a good analog receiver, who --if they could instantly switch their antenna and headphones from the analog RX over to the best SDR made today-- simply couldn't hear any better with today's best SDRs and/or DSP software? There's been a few opinions, but how about multiple valid tests? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
Some years ago, a few of us would occasionally have QSOs that we called Martin Luthers -as in I had a DREAM last night! and we'd send off the QSLs and would often get one back! This was especially true on 160. I still, occasionally , have a Martin Luther! Straining right down into the noise level and QSB for ESP-level signals! 73 Charlie, K4OTV Greg Zenger n...@gregzenger.com wrote: I suspect a well trained and practiced brain may be able to out perform a DSP assisted average brain... However over the course of a contest (24-48 hours of [near] continuous operating) a DSP assisted average brain may have an advantage due reduced listening fatigue... Of course some DSP can positively contribute to listening fatigue and others negatively... Quality of DSP and operators ability to adjust are key factors here. This is a topic I follow closely, but can't think of any articles or studies off hand that would answer your question... A sold PhD thesis topic this would be. Greg N2GZ On Aug 4, 2015 9:02 PM, Roger D Johnson n...@roadrunner.com wrote: Although I don't consider myself among the highly-skilled and talented, I can't think of an instance where DSP made the difference between making a contact or not. I do have an Autek QF-1A wired into the audio of the main receiver of the K3 as the AudioPeakingFilter on the K3 is too sharp. 73, Roger N1RJ On 8/4/2015 8:25 PM, Art Snapper wrote: Mike, Are you referring to a specific modulation mode? How about adjacent channel interference issues? I like your question. Art ᐧ On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Mike Watersmikew...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very talented hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? I always thought Linrad was the best DSP software, though I never got it working right here (older sound card issues in Xubuntu). I asked the following question at http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=104388.msg861047#msg861047 : Are there any people who can hear weak signals with a good analog receiver, who --if they could instantly switch their antenna and headphones from the analog RX over to the best SDR made today-- simply couldn't hear any better with today's best SDRs and/or DSP software? There's been a few opinions, but how about multiple valid tests? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
CW skimmer is very impressive to see in action. But nowhere as good as an average CW contester at picking callsigns from the noise. Tim N3QE On Tuesday, August 4, 2015, Mike Waters mikew...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very talented hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? I always thought Linrad was the best DSP software, though I never got it working right here (older sound card issues in Xubuntu). I asked the following question at http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=104388.msg861047#msg861047 : Are there any people who can hear weak signals with a good analog receiver, who --if they could instantly switch their antenna and headphones from the analog RX over to the best SDR made today-- simply couldn't hear any better with today's best SDRs and/or DSP software? There's been a few opinions, but how about multiple valid tests? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
I suspect a well trained and practiced brain may be able to out perform a DSP assisted average brain... However over the course of a contest (24-48 hours of [near] continuous operating) a DSP assisted average brain may have an advantage due reduced listening fatigue... Of course some DSP can positively contribute to listening fatigue and others negatively... Quality of DSP and operators ability to adjust are key factors here. This is a topic I follow closely, but can't think of any articles or studies off hand that would answer your question... A sold PhD thesis topic this would be. Greg N2GZ On Aug 4, 2015 9:02 PM, Roger D Johnson n...@roadrunner.com wrote: Although I don't consider myself among the highly-skilled and talented, I can't think of an instance where DSP made the difference between making a contact or not. I do have an Autek QF-1A wired into the audio of the main receiver of the K3 as the AudioPeakingFilter on the K3 is too sharp. 73, Roger N1RJ On 8/4/2015 8:25 PM, Art Snapper wrote: Mike, Are you referring to a specific modulation mode? How about adjacent channel interference issues? I like your question. Art ᐧ On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Mike Watersmikew...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very talented hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? I always thought Linrad was the best DSP software, though I never got it working right here (older sound card issues in Xubuntu). I asked the following question at http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=104388.msg861047#msg861047 : Are there any people who can hear weak signals with a good analog receiver, who --if they could instantly switch their antenna and headphones from the analog RX over to the best SDR made today-- simply couldn't hear any better with today's best SDRs and/or DSP software? There's been a few opinions, but how about multiple valid tests? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
Although I don't consider myself among the highly-skilled and talented, I can't think of an instance where DSP made the difference between making a contact or not. I do have an Autek QF-1A wired into the audio of the main receiver of the K3 as the AudioPeakingFilter on the K3 is too sharp. 73, Roger N1RJ On 8/4/2015 8:25 PM, Art Snapper wrote: Mike, Are you referring to a specific modulation mode? How about adjacent channel interference issues? I like your question. Art ᐧ On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Mike Watersmikew...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very talented hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? I always thought Linrad was the best DSP software, though I never got it working right here (older sound card issues in Xubuntu). I asked the following question at http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=104388.msg861047#msg861047 : Are there any people who can hear weak signals with a good analog receiver, who --if they could instantly switch their antenna and headphones from the analog RX over to the best SDR made today-- simply couldn't hear any better with today's best SDRs and/or DSP software? There's been a few opinions, but how about multiple valid tests? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
Mike, Are you referring to a specific modulation mode? How about adjacent channel interference issues? I like your question. Art ᐧ On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Mike Waters mikew...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very talented hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? I always thought Linrad was the best DSP software, though I never got it working right here (older sound card issues in Xubuntu). I asked the following question at http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=104388.msg861047#msg861047 : Are there any people who can hear weak signals with a good analog receiver, who --if they could instantly switch their antenna and headphones from the analog RX over to the best SDR made today-- simply couldn't hear any better with today's best SDRs and/or DSP software? There's been a few opinions, but how about multiple valid tests? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
I'd like to know whether it's ever been established that some very talented hams can out-hear the best SDRs and/or DSP available. Can a skilled ear-brain combo (such as some highly-skilled and talented 160 meter contesters) beat state-of-the art digital signal processing when it comes to copying the very weakest of signals buried in the noise? I always thought Linrad was the best DSP software, though I never got it working right here (older sound card issues in Xubuntu). I asked the following question at http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=104388.msg861047#msg861047 : Are there any people who can hear weak signals with a good analog receiver, who --if they could instantly switch their antenna and headphones from the analog RX over to the best SDR made today-- simply couldn't hear any better with today's best SDRs and/or DSP software? There's been a few opinions, but how about multiple valid tests? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Which is best for copying the weakest DX - DSP or the ear-brain combo?
Are you referring to a specific modulation mode? No, I'm not; but I was thinking of CW first and SSB second. How about adjacent channel interference issues? Let's assume for now that there is none. I like your question. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
