Sept 27 2004 Hello, all, Here are my SSB parameters: First FFT bandwidth (Hz) [83] First FFT window (power of sin) [2] First forward FFT version [0] [SM5BSZ: Change to 5 ( much faster )] First FFT storage time (s) [1] [SM5BSZ: Change to 10 ( unless you have small memory, Allows First FFT amplitude [1000] longer averaging times )] Enable second FFT [1] First backward FFT version [0] [SM5BSZ: Change to 1 is much faster but with Linrad-01.26 there will be Sellim maxlevel [6000] advantages of using floating point Linrad-01-25 and earlier, best use 1 here] First backward FFT att. N [6] Second FFT bandwidth factor in powers of 2 [2] [SM5BSZ: Change to 0 or 1. Typicaly no need for narrow filtering in waterfalls for SSB] Second FFT window (power of sin) [0] [SM5BSZ: Change to 2. Provides better filters] Second forward FFT version [0] [SM5BSZ: 2 is much faster, but with Linrad-01-26 there will be advantages of using Second forward FFT att. N [7] floating point] Second FFT storage time (s) [5] Enable AFC/SPUR/DECODE [1] [SM5BSZ: Use 1 here only if you actually want to use spur removal. AFC should not be AFC lock range Hz [150] used for SSB so make the window small and make it inactive on screen] AFC max drift Hz/minute [100] Enable Morse decoding [0] Max no of spurs to cancel [100] Spur timeconstant (0.1sek) [5] First mixer bandwidth reduction in powers of 2 [4] First mixer no of channels [1] Baseband storage time (s) [200] [SM5BSZ: !!! Use much smaller time here. At high bandwidth this would require very much memory. Many arrays are allocated in the baseband for CW decoding. The are useless in SSB mode but I have not removed memory allocation in ssb mode yet. In cw with a bandwidth of 50Hz or less, the sampling speed is very low and this is no problem. ] Output delay margin (0.1sek) [5] [SM5BSZ: Maybe you can make this smaller. Check the margin with 'T' ] Output sampling speed (Hz) [10000] Default output mode [1] Audio expander exponent [3] A/D speed [96000] Check [1110107] -----end of SSB parameters Here are my wcw parameters: First FFT bandwidth (Hz) [100] First FFT window (power of sin) [3] First forward FFT version [2] First FFT storage time (s) [20] First FFT amplitude [1000] Enable second FFT [1] First backward FFT version [1] Sellim maxlevel [6000] First backward FFT att. N [6] Second FFT bandwidth factor in powers of 2 [4] Second FFT window (power of sin) [4] Second forward FFT version [2] Second forward FFT att. N [10] Second FFT storage time (s) [15] Enable AFC/SPUR/DECODE [1] AFC lock range Hz [150] AFC max drift Hz/minute [100] Enable Morse decoding [0] Max no of spurs to cancel [100] Spur timeconstant (0.1sek) [5] First mixer bandwidth reduction in powers of 2 [4] First mixer no of channels [1] Baseband storage time (s) [150] Output delay margin (0.1sek) [5] Output sampling speed (Hz) [6000] Default output mode [1] Audio expander exponent [3] A/D speed [96000] Check [1110107] Change only between brackets. If file has errors, Linrad will ignore file and prompt for a complete set of new parameters linrad-01.25 With the SSB parameters I get a delay on the order of 0.5-0.7 seconds or less. I am not sure of the delay with the CW parameters listed above, as I didn't check it today, but generally I have had delays of 2-5 seconds [which are not a problem for my purposes]. I post them with no representation as to their optimization. Rather, they are being posted to provide an object for criticism, and to provide a framework for the discussion of the tradeoffs and consequences of specific parameter choices. These are running on this system: CPU:: Pentium 3 CPU Speed:: 1 GHz RAM in MB:: 770 MB SOUND CARD:: M-Audio Delta44 SOUND DRIVER:: OSS/Linux OSS 3.99.1g ADDITIONAL CARD1:: SoundBlaster PCI VIDEO CARD:: ATI Radeon 7000 VIDEO DRIVER:: Rage 128 LINUX DISTRIBUTION:: Red Hat LINUX VERSION:: 8.0 KERNEL VERSION:: 2.4.20-28.8 GCC VERSION:: 3.2 20020903 SVGALIB VERSION:: 1.9.19 LINRAD VERSION:: 01.25 Hope that is of some interest, and 73, Roger Rehr, W3SZ http://www.qsl.net/w3sz -------------*********----------------- Oct 14 2004 Hello, All! This is just a brief report on my experience with Linrad in the EME contest this past weekend. I have used Linrad each year beginning in 2000 for the annual ARRL EME contest. For the last several years it was my primary receiver. But this weekend, the first leg of the 2004 ARRL EME Contest, was the first time that I used it for EME with the Antennspecialisten Linrad hardware. Like last year, I did not even have a conventional receiver online. Linrad was it and nothing else was needed. I was very pleased and impressed. I worked only CW for the contest, but I did take some time out to go up above 144.100 and listen to some EME JT65b using Linrad and the Antennspecialisten hardware as the front end for WSJT. What were the advantages of using Linrad in this manner? [1] I could immediately see any JT65b station that came on the air over a 96 KHz frequency span. [2] I could take advantage of Linrad's noise reduction. [3] The Linrad waterfall was superior to Spectran's in my hands for seeing the stations. [4] Using Linrad's click and point frequency control, I was able to set, immediately and with no trouble, the receive frequency so that there was zero frequency offset for WSJT to deal with. [5] The receiver seemed very sensitive and I had no dynamic range problems. On cw, I found [as before] that quite a number of stations that I heard very clearly with Linrad replied with 'QRZ' for a long time [sometimes forever] to my calls. That tells me that Linrad with the Antennspecialisten hardware hears very well. I also found that when I called CQ, I was able to work the station calling me every time. So I believe I heard everyone who called me, but not everyone whom I heard clearly was able to copy me. I was running 1500 watts, and my 2 x 2 2mxp32 array has a theorerical gain of 21.8 dBd, so I had a reasonable ERP. I could see and hear my own echoes with no problem. Using Linrad, I was clearly 'transmitter limited' in terms of making contacts. This is where I want to be. I kept the 'smart' and 'dumb' noise blankers on [manual] nearly the whole time, and I was not bothered by noise. When I turned them off I was reminded that when my rotors are rotating they generate a lot of noise, totally obliterating the EME signals. Their noise had been totally eliminated by the noise blankersa and as I was never looking at the wideband spectrum while operating the rotors, I had been oblivious to the noise. My cw parameters gave me a 5.3 second receive delay, which was not a problem for me. I learned to watch the wideband spectrum as 'the end of the minute' approached, and to start transmitting when the spectral peak of the station I was working disappeared. These parameters were: First FFT bandwidth (Hz) [100] First FFT window (power of sin) [3] First forward FFT version [5] First FFT storage time (s) [20] First FFT amplitude [1000] Enable second FFT [1] First backward FFT version [1] Sellim maxlevel [6000] First backward FFT att. N [6] Second FFT bandwidth factor in powers of 2 [5] Second FFT window (power of sin) [2] Second forward FFT version [2] Second forward FFT att. N [10] Second FFT storage time (s) [20] Enable AFC/SPUR/DECODE [1] AFC lock range Hz [150] AFC max drift Hz/minute [100] Enable Morse decoding [0] Max no of spurs to cancel [0] Spur timeconstant (0.1sek) [5] First mixer bandwidth reduction in powers of 2 [4] First mixer no of channels [1] Baseband storage time (s) [100] Output delay margin (0.1sek) [5] Output sampling speed (Hz) [6000] Default output mode [1] Audio expander exponent [3] A/D speed [96000] Check [1110107] My parameters for JT65b [ssb mode] were: First FFT bandwidth (Hz) [83] First FFT window (power of sin) [2] First forward FFT version [5] First FFT storage time (s) [10] First FFT amplitude [1000] Enable second FFT [1] First backward FFT version [1] Sellim maxlevel [6000] First backward FFT att. N [6] Second FFT bandwidth factor in powers of 2 [2] Second FFT window (power of sin) [2] Second forward FFT version [2] Second forward FFT att. N [7] Second FFT storage time (s) [10] Enable AFC/SPUR/DECODE [1] AFC lock range Hz [150] AFC max drift Hz/minute [100] Enable Morse decoding [0] Max no of spurs to cancel [100] Spur timeconstant (0.1sek) [5] First mixer bandwidth reduction in powers of 2 [4] First mixer no of channels [1] Baseband storage time (s) [10] Output delay margin (0.1sek) [5] Output sampling speed (Hz) [10000] Default output mode [1] Audio expander exponent [3] A/D speed [96000] Check [1110107] The delay using these parameters was less than one second. I played around with the CW parameters to get good performance with reasonable delay times, but I did not play around with the SSB parameters as I didn't need to do so. For the second leg of the contest I am going to actually hook up a conventional receiver, so that I can again directly compare the Linrad software and hardware to the conventional receiver, much as I did in 2000 and 2001 when using my own front end. I am doing this out of curiosity, not because I need anything besides Linrad. I will be using an SSB Electronics LT2S-Mk V along with either my Elecraft K2 or my FT1000MP. If I get the narrow roofing filter for the MP in time, it will be the one I use. I can't wait for the second leg of the contest. The combination of the Linrad hardware and software made this EME contest the most enjoyable one I've had since my first getting on EME in 1998, and I can't wait to spend another EME contest weekend with the combination. The Lin-2-1000MP add-on to make a Linrad transceiver out of my FT1000MP and Linrad worked fine except for those occasions when I forgot to type 'q' to bring the MP on-frequency before transmitting. 73, Roger Rehr, W3SZ

**
**