At 09:30 PM 1/13/2009, Brooke Clarke wrote:
>Hi Scott:
>
>Press F5 at:
>http://www.prc68.com/I/Loop.shtml#CMMR6P60
>and scroll down to see a scope image. Not sure if the dots are caused by the
>sampling scope or by noise?
Here's my current signal:
http://www.digital-pickle.dyndns.org/images/wwvb/
At 09:30 PM 1/13/2009, Brooke Clarke wrote:
>Hi Scott:
>
>Press F5 at:
>http://www.prc68.com/I/Loop.shtml#CMMR6P60
>and scroll down to see a scope image. Not sure if the dots are caused by the
>sampling scope or by noise?
Bad reception. My old rat shack 'atomic clock' signal looks like
that som
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Brooke Clarke wrote:
> Hi Scott:
>
> Press F5 at:
> http://www.prc68.com/I/Loop.shtml#CMMR6P60
> and scroll down to see a scope image. Not sure if the dots are caused by the
> sampling scope or by noise?
I'm going to guess your reception sucks. I hooked up an LED
Hi Scott:
Press F5 at:
http://www.prc68.com/I/Loop.shtml#CMMR6P60
and scroll down to see a scope image. Not sure if the dots are caused by the
sampling scope or by noise?
Have Fun,
Brooke Clarke
http://www.prc68.com
Scott Newell wrote:
> At 06:57 PM 1/11/2009, Brooke Clarke wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>
Steve
Do you mean?:
http://www.firecom.com/
Bruce
steve heidmann wrote:
> Firecomm.com has some nice parts to look at
>
> --- On Tue, 1/13/09, Demian Martin wrote:
>
> From: Demian Martin
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Sound Cards
> To: time-nuts@febo.com
> Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 4:05 PM
At 06:57 PM 1/11/2009, Brooke Clarke wrote:
>Hi:
>
>I've received the 60 kHz version of the C-max CMMR-6P LF time code receiver
>module. Digi-Key ( 561-1014-ND) has these improperly listed in their catalog
>and the CMMR-6P data sheet has a typo that may have mislead Digi-Key.
Ah-hah! There were
Firecomm.com has some nice parts to look at
--- On Tue, 1/13/09, Demian Martin wrote:
From: Demian Martin
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Sound Cards
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 4:05 PM
Magnus Danielson wrote:
> > The digital link in question is S/PDIF; with the current
> From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com
> [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Hal Murray
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:24 PM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Sound cards
>
>
>
> I haven't worked with plastic fibers. I'd expect the
Magnus Danielson wrote:
> > The digital link in question is S/PDIF; with the current popularity
> > of Home Theater systems cheap cards with digital I/O have become
> > quite prevalent. As an added bonus, S/PDIF can be run over both
> > coaxial and optical media, the latter being attractive in f
Lux, James P skrev:
> Message-
>> From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com
>> [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Magnus Danielson
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:01 PM
>> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Sound cards
>>
>> L
>>> Cons
Spoil sport!
Daun
-Original Message-
From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On
Behalf Of John Ackermann N8UR
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:51 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Sound cards
Lux, James P w
> The optical link commonly being used for S/P-DIF is TosLink and it
> seems like it can be the cause of many problems. It seems like some
> care in doing the optical link setup is needed. I have never digged
> into why the optical links have that problem. I can only guess, but
> bad optical c
Message-
> From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com
> [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Magnus Danielson
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:01 PM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Sound cards
>
> L
> >
> > Consumer audio optical links
Lux, James P skrev:
>>> optical media, the latter being attractive in further isolating PC
>>> noise from any measurement setup. And of course, a manufacturer's
>>> evaluation board is much better documented and more suited to
>>> measurement-specific mods than a random sound card.
>> The optical l
John Ackermann N8UR wrote:
> Lux, James P wrote:
>
>
>> I was amused when the guy at the stereo store tried to sell me on RF
>> shielded TOSlink cables, claiming it would provide more clarity and
>> definition in the sound. Uh-huh.. Sort of like the green marking pen for
>> the edges of yo
At 10:30 +1300 14-01-2009, Bruce Griffiths wrote:
>Magnus Danielson wrote:
> > J.D. Bakker skrev:
> >>> [F]or best noise/jitter-performance an external ADC should be used,
> >>> connected through a digital link to a PC sound card.[...]
> >>>
>>> The digital link in question is S/PDIF; wi
> > The optical link commonly being used for S/P-DIF is TosLink and it
> > seems like it can be the cause of many problems. It seems like some
> > care in doing the optical link setup is needed. I have never digged
> > into why the optical links have that problem. I can only guess, but
> > bad opt
Lux, James P wrote:
> I was amused when the guy at the stereo store tried to sell me on RF shielded
> TOSlink cables, claiming it would provide more clarity and definition in the
> sound. Uh-huh.. Sort of like the green marking pen for the edges of your
> CDs to reduce internal reflections,
> > optical media, the latter being attractive in further isolating PC
> > noise from any measurement setup. And of course, a manufacturer's
> > evaluation board is much better documented and more suited to
> > measurement-specific mods than a random sound card.
>
> The optical link commonly being
Magnus Danielson wrote:
> J.D. Bakker skrev:
>
>>> Maybe I lost track and missed something, but I don't think I ever saw
>>> more on the subject of specific high-end sound cards that might be
>>> useful for nutty measurements.
>>>
>> From an earlier list message:
>>
>>
>>> [F]or bes
J.D. Bakker skrev:
>> Maybe I lost track and missed something, but I don't think I ever saw
>> more on the subject of specific high-end sound cards that might be
>> useful for nutty measurements.
>
> From an earlier list message:
>
>> [F]or best noise/jitter-performance an external ADC should be
>Maybe I lost track and missed something, but I don't think I ever saw
>more on the subject of specific high-end sound cards that might be
>useful for nutty measurements.
From an earlier list message:
>[F]or best noise/jitter-performance an external ADC should be used,
>connected through a digi
22 matches
Mail list logo
