Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [dxatlas] CW Skimmer 1.1 doesn't allow for transceivers with more than 3 KHz

Expand Messages
  • jeraldvolpe
    ... requested ... 14-kHz ... I m considering your suggestion to tap into the Orion s IF. Question: Have you considered an RTTY Skimmer? It would be equally
    Message 1 of 19 , Mar 30 9:22 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "Alex, VE3NEA" <alshovk@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Jerry,
      >
      > Thank you for your suggestions, I have added them to my list of
      requested
      > features. Meanwhile you may want to try and feed CW Skimmer with the
      14-kHz
      > IF signal from your Orion. The Skimmer may be able to process it in the
      > SoftRock-IF mode.
      >
      > 73 Alex VE3NEA

      I'm considering your suggestion to tap into the Orion's IF.

      Question: Have you considered an RTTY Skimmer? It would be equally
      useful and probably would utilize a large portion of the code you have
      already developed. It certainly has to be easier decoding RTTY which
      has to follow one of but a few shift, speed and possible inversion
      patterns. Food for thought (as if you are just sitting around looking
      for things to do. :)

      73,
      Jerry, KG6TT
    • bill_w4zv
      ... Same here. I m using a beta version of N8LP s LP-PAN which provides I-Q detection for the Elecraft K3 s wideband buffered output. It seems my Skimmer is
      Message 2 of 19 , Apr 22, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "jeraldvolpe" <techmail@...> wrote:

        > I just installed version 1.1 over my version 1.0. I appreciate the
        > changes but I am disappointed that you are still limiting standard
        > transceivers to a 3 kHz maximum skim! I wrote several times regarding
        > those of us with transceivers that can open up beyond 3kHz. I am one
        > of several thousand Ten-Tec Orion and Orion II owners (a transceiver
        > that is heavily used in contests and serous DXing) and we are able to
        > open up our receivers to 8 kHz in the CW mode... especially our second
        > receiver which doesn't share the roofing filters of the main receiver.

        Same here. I'm using a beta version of N8LP's LP-PAN which provides
        I-Q detection for the Elecraft K3's wideband buffered output. It
        seems my Skimmer is also limited to 3 kHz. Are you working on an
        interface to LP-PAN that will be friendlier than using Softrock mode?

        Maybe I don't have things adjusted correctly yet but so far I'm not
        seeing Skimmer decode signals in noise very well.

        73, Bill W4ZV
      • Pete Smith
        I think this is two different issues. Jerry is talking about the 3 KHz radio mode, which uses a soundcard to decode the audio from the receiver. Bill is
        Message 3 of 19 , Apr 22, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          I think this is two different issues. Jerry is talking about the 3 KHz
          radio mode, which uses a soundcard to decode the audio from the receiver.

          Bill is running into a different thing, I believe. Bill, if you use the
          SoftRock-IF radio choice, how much bandwidth do you see? What about if you
          use the basic SoftRock position, using the LO frequency to define the
          center of the display range.

          73, Pete N4ZR

          At 07:04 AM 4/22/2008, bill_w4zv wrote:
          >--- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "jeraldvolpe" <techmail@...> wrote:
          >
          > > I just installed version 1.1 over my version 1.0. I appreciate the
          > > changes but I am disappointed that you are still limiting standard
          > > transceivers to a 3 kHz maximum skim! I wrote several times regarding
          > > those of us with transceivers that can open up beyond 3kHz. I am one
          > > of several thousand Ten-Tec Orion and Orion II owners (a transceiver
          > > that is heavily used in contests and serous DXing) and we are able to
          > > open up our receivers to 8 kHz in the CW mode... especially our second
          > > receiver which doesn't share the roofing filters of the main receiver.
          >
          >Same here. I'm using a beta version of N8LP's LP-PAN which provides
          >I-Q detection for the Elecraft K3's wideband buffered output. It
          >seems my Skimmer is also limited to 3 kHz. Are you working on an
          >interface to LP-PAN that will be friendlier than using Softrock mode?
          >
          >Maybe I don't have things adjusted correctly yet but so far I'm not
          >seeing Skimmer decode signals in noise very well.
          >
          >73, Bill W4ZV
          >
          >
          >------------------------------------
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • bill_w4zv
          Hi Pete, ... the ... I m only seeing 3 kHz on the display but I think it may be capturing signals further away...the bands are so poor I m having trouble
          Message 4 of 19 , Apr 23, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Pete,

            > Bill is running into a different thing, I believe. Bill, if you use
            the
            > SoftRock-IF radio choice, how much bandwidth do you see?

            I'm only seeing 3 kHz on the display but I think it may be capturing
            signals further away...the bands are so poor I'm having trouble
            finding enough signals strong enough to test! I'm sampling at 48 kHz
            since I'm running an underpowered CPU (1.1GHz P3 + 1GB RAM > Delta 44
            > LP-PAN > K3). As I said before I'm a little disappointed with
            Skimmer's ability to decode weak signals so far but I may not have
            everything set up correctly. I can plainly hear some Q5 signals that
            Skimmer seems to have difficulty decoding.

            > What about if you
            > use the basic SoftRock position, using the LO frequency to define the
            > center of the display range.

            I haven't tried that yet...it may be beyond my beginner's skills at
            this stage. The K3's IF out is 8.215 kHz, so should I set something
            like 8239 (8215+24)? That seems to be what the "Softrock-IF"
            documentation says but I haven't read everything carefully enough to
            even ask an intelligent question! I don't think Alex has yet
            documented the Skimmer's setup for using the K3's wideband IF out.

            It does seem to work very nicely with OmniRig in Softrock-IF mode but
            I'm just not seeing the wideband display.

            73, Bill
          • bill_w4zv
            ... Since the bands are so poor I downloaded the pileup file (FJ/OH2AM) and my system seemed to handle it fairly well. 67 calls identified between 7006.4 and
            Message 5 of 19 , Apr 23, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "bill_w4zv" <w0zv@...> wrote:

              > I'm only seeing 3 kHz on the display but I think it may be capturing
              > signals further away...the bands are so poor I'm having trouble
              > finding enough signals strong enough to test! I'm sampling at 48 kHz
              > since I'm running an underpowered CPU (1.1GHz P3 + 1GB RAM > Delta 44
              > > LP-PAN > K3).

              Since the bands are so poor I downloaded the pileup file (FJ/OH2AM)
              and my system seemed to handle it fairly well. 67 calls identified
              between 7006.4 and 7018.9 with about 71% CPU utilization (i.e. not
              maxing out). But for some reason my Skimmer display still only shows
              about 3 kHz at a time...maybe I just haven't yet discovered how to
              enable the wide display.

              I then tried the CQWW file below and got the following results, with
              CPU utilization hitting 100% at times in all cases:

              http://cid-e39b59612b664f63.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Public/CQWWCW_2005_1_of_42.wav

              33 calls, 7009.0>7020.10, everything running on computer.
              33 calls, same QRG range, Internet connection and browser off.
              40 calls, 7007.0>7021.9, AVG anti-virus off.
              58 calls, 7002.0>7024.6, Skimmer display minimized.

              I could probably do a little better by shutting down more background
              processes but I'm curious what someone with a 2-3 GHz CPU gets when
              running the same CQWW file above?

              A couple of things strike me so far:

              1. Is it possible to suppress decoders for zero point station QRGs
              once they are identified? 23 of the 58 in the last run were USA.
              This would make for a less cluttered display and probably free up some
              resources. I suppose USA calls would be eliminated from a band map in
              a contest program anyway but am just curious.

              2. I'm not sure how well Skimmer will work with very weak signals.
              It seems to pick up signals with good S/N very well but I'm wondering
              how it might work for weak DX signals on a band like 160? Has anyone
              had much experience with weak signals? It could be I'm still not set
              up correctly but it seems like you need a real S5 signal or better for
              it to decode calls quickly. I can hear many Q5 signals on the K3 that
              don't even register solidly on Skimmer's waterfall.

              I definitely plan to upgrade my computer eventually but am just
              playing with what I have for now and am curious about others' experiences.

              73, Bill
            • Pete Smith
              ... Your wish is my command, sir ;^) With a 2.2 GHz Celeron, 768 MB DDR RAM (a VERY basic Dell 2400, four years old, With XP home SP2) I got the following
              Message 6 of 19 , Apr 24, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                At 05:19 PM 4/23/2008, bill_w4zv wrote:
                >I then tried the CQWW file below and got the following results, with
                >CPU utilization hitting 100% at times in all cases:
                >
                >http://cid-e39b59612b664f63.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Public/CQWWCW_2005_1_of_42.wav
                >
                >33 calls, 7009.0>7020.10, everything running on computer.
                >33 calls, same QRG range, Internet connection and browser off.
                >40 calls, 7007.0>7021.9, AVG anti-virus off.
                >58 calls, 7002.0>7024.6, Skimmer display minimized.
                >
                >I could probably do a little better by shutting down more background
                >processes but I'm curious what someone with a 2-3 GHz CPU gets when
                >running the same CQWW file above?


                Your wish is my command, sir ;^)

                With a 2.2 GHz Celeron, 768 MB DDR RAM (a VERY basic Dell 2400, four years
                old, With XP home SP2) I got the following results off the same file.

                Note that when playing back recordings the sound card is not involved;
                Skimmer is processing the I/Q file directly, so settings like playback
                sampling rate have no effect:

                Decoders Other variables Calls Decoded CPU peak
                utilization

                Adaptive Not minimized 156 96%
                250 "" 131 75%
                300 "" 152 81%
                350 "" 154 86%
                400 "" 153 100%
                Adaptive Telnet server off 154 100%
                Adaptive Skimmer minimized 154 ?

                Interesting, no? I would have to other programs minimized or in the
                background do not affect decoding performance; one of the critical
                questions I hope to answer in coming months is whether the reverse is true,
                since we're talking about using Skimmer to feed spots to a contest logging
                program, which has to be able to respond quickly, send CW, etc. My
                personal tests with N1MM logger, using a Winkey for CW, have been very
                encouraging; I suspect that MM simply takes precedence when it needs to,
                and that the Winkey avoids any issues with making good CW.

                73, Pete N4ZR
              • rt_tclay
                Is the reason you only see 3 KHz because you haven t resized the Skimmer window? Just drag the bottom edge to make it bigger. Tor N4OGW
                Message 7 of 19 , Apr 25, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Is the reason you only see 3 KHz because you haven't resized the
                  Skimmer window? Just drag the bottom edge to make it bigger.

                  Tor
                  N4OGW
                • rt_tclay
                  ... with Similar results here on the CQWW file. Running with graphics window shrunk down. XP Pro SP2. 1) old 1 GHz AMD Athlon. 1.25 GB RAM maxed out 100% CPU,
                  Message 8 of 19 , Apr 25, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > At 05:19 PM 4/23/2008, bill_w4zv wrote:
                    > >I then tried the CQWW file below and got the following results,
                    with


                    Similar results here on the CQWW file. Running with graphics window
                    shrunk down. XP Pro SP2.

                    1) old 1 GHz AMD Athlon. 1.25 GB RAM

                    maxed out 100% CPU, decoded only 69 calls

                    2) 1.8 GHz AMD Sempron ("3100+" model I think), 1 GB RAM

                    max CPU 70-80%, 155 calls


                    Given that CPU never hit 100% on the second system, I would say that
                    throwing more CPU at it won't give more calls decoded. Of course if
                    it ran for longer, the number of decoders might increase enough to
                    hit 100%. I think to test performance on faster CPU's you need a
                    longer sample.

                    Tor
                    N4OGW
                  • bill_w4zv
                    Thanks Pete and Tor! Yes Tor, I simply had not discovered how to increase the window size on the display. How do you feel about Skimmer s ability to decode
                    Message 9 of 19 , Apr 26, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks Pete and Tor! Yes Tor, I simply had not discovered how to
                      increase the window size on the display.

                      How do you feel about Skimmer's ability to decode weaker signals in
                      QSB and QRN? I'm somewhat unimpressed so far but it could be I'm not
                      doing something right. Does the DSP filter width affect all decoders
                      or just the one displayed with the green bar? Based on what I've seen
                      so far, Skimmer would be great for identifying strong stations CQ-ing
                      or in a pileup but it doesn't work very well for weaker signals, which
                      would likely be the very ones you want to know about. But this could
                      be due to my not setting Skimmer up correctly or due to my weak
                      computer. BTW, I noticed 3GHz P4's on eBay go for <$150 so I may pick
                      up one of these to solve the latter issue.

                      73, Bill W4ZV


                      --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > At 05:19 PM 4/23/2008, bill_w4zv wrote:
                      > >I then tried the CQWW file below and got the following results, with
                      > >CPU utilization hitting 100% at times in all cases:
                      > >
                      >
                      >http://cid-e39b59612b664f63.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Public/CQWWCW_2005_1_of_42.wav
                      > >
                      > >33 calls, 7009.0>7020.10, everything running on computer.
                      > >33 calls, same QRG range, Internet connection and browser off.
                      > >40 calls, 7007.0>7021.9, AVG anti-virus off.
                      > >58 calls, 7002.0>7024.6, Skimmer display minimized.
                      > >
                      > >I could probably do a little better by shutting down more background
                      > >processes but I'm curious what someone with a 2-3 GHz CPU gets when
                      > >running the same CQWW file above?
                      >
                      >
                      > Your wish is my command, sir ;^)
                      >
                      > With a 2.2 GHz Celeron, 768 MB DDR RAM (a VERY basic Dell 2400, four
                      years
                      > old, With XP home SP2) I got the following results off the same file.
                      >
                      > Note that when playing back recordings the sound card is not involved;
                      > Skimmer is processing the I/Q file directly, so settings like playback
                      > sampling rate have no effect:
                      >
                      > Decoders Other variables Calls Decoded CPU
                      peak
                      > utilization
                      >
                      > Adaptive Not minimized 156 96%
                      > 250 "" 131 75%
                      > 300 "" 152 81%
                      > 350 "" 154 86%
                      > 400 "" 153 100%
                      > Adaptive Telnet server off 154 100%
                      > Adaptive Skimmer minimized 154 ?
                      >
                      > Interesting, no? I would have to other programs minimized or in the
                      > background do not affect decoding performance; one of the critical
                      > questions I hope to answer in coming months is whether the reverse
                      is true,
                      > since we're talking about using Skimmer to feed spots to a contest
                      logging
                      > program, which has to be able to respond quickly, send CW, etc. My
                      > personal tests with N1MM logger, using a Winkey for CW, have been very
                      > encouraging; I suspect that MM simply takes precedence when it needs
                      to,
                      > and that the Winkey avoids any issues with making good CW.
                      >
                      > 73, Pete N4ZR
                      >
                    • rt_tclay
                      ... not ... decoders ... seen I don t know for sure, but I think the program just uses the green bar setting for the audio output filter width. I can copy
                      Message 10 of 19 , Apr 26, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "bill_w4zv" <w0zv@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Thanks Pete and Tor! Yes Tor, I simply had not discovered how to
                        > increase the window size on the display.
                        >
                        > How do you feel about Skimmer's ability to decode weaker signals in
                        > QSB and QRN? I'm somewhat unimpressed so far but it could be I'm
                        not
                        > doing something right. Does the DSP filter width affect all
                        decoders
                        > or just the one displayed with the green bar? Based on what I've
                        seen

                        I don't know for sure, but I think the program just uses the green
                        bar setting for the audio output filter width.

                        I can copy better than Skimmer on weak signals. If you watch it
                        trying to copy a weak signal, it usually gets a few letters correct
                        each time, but has a hard time putting together the full correct
                        callsign. That's where the brain obviously has an advantage, when you
                        are copying you can say definitely if you copied a particular letter
                        and mark that mentally as "good copy".

                        If on your computer Skimmer is reaching 100% cpu, then yes, it is
                        having to reduce the number of decoders. I don't know the algorithm
                        used to do that, but yes, it might do that based signal strength. Try
                        reducing the bandwidth. My old 1GHz Athlon can't keep up with 96 KHz,
                        but is ok at 48 KHz if the band isn't too busy.

                        Tor
                        N4OGW
                      • Pete Smith
                        ... Hi Bill - I think you may need to do some experimenting to maximize Skimmer s weak-signal performance. I may have mentioned this already, but a great deal
                        Message 11 of 19 , Apr 26, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 09:20 AM 4/26/2008, bill_w4zv wrote:
                          >How do you feel about Skimmer's ability to decode weaker signals in
                          >QSB and QRN? I'm somewhat unimpressed so far but it could be I'm not
                          >doing something right. Does the DSP filter width affect all decoders
                          >or just the one displayed with the green bar? Based on what I've seen
                          >so far, Skimmer would be great for identifying strong stations CQ-ing
                          >or in a pileup but it doesn't work very well for weaker signals, which
                          >would likely be the very ones you want to know about. But this could
                          >be due to my not setting Skimmer up correctly or due to my weak
                          >computer.

                          Hi Bill - I think you may need to do some experimenting to maximize
                          Skimmer's weak-signal performance. I may have mentioned this already, but
                          a great deal depends on the dynamic range of the line input of your
                          soundcard. Whichever card you use, you need to make sure that the input
                          gain is set just short of clipping, in order to get the closest possible
                          approximation of the sensitivity of the receiver alone. and of course, you
                          are comparing it with one of the best receivers ever made - no fair hi.

                          73, Pete N4ZR
                        • Pete Smith
                          ... One of the most effective tricks is to uncheck the Adaptive decoder box, and set a specified maximum number of decoders. Hitting 100% isn t so
                          Message 12 of 19 , Apr 26, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 02:01 PM 4/26/2008, rt_tclay wrote:
                            >If on your computer Skimmer is reaching 100% cpu, then yes, it is
                            >having to reduce the number of decoders. I don't know the algorithm
                            >used to do that, but yes, it might do that based signal strength. Try
                            >reducing the bandwidth. My old 1GHz Athlon can't keep up with 96 KHz,
                            >but is ok at 48 KHz if the band isn't too busy.


                            One of the most effective tricks is to uncheck the "Adaptive" decoder box,
                            and set a specified maximum number of decoders. Hitting 100% isn't so
                            important, in my view, as eliminating most of the junk you get from
                            Skimmer's trying to decode on RTTY signals. If you set a maximum number of
                            decoders, Alex says that Skimmer accommodates that by narrowing the band of
                            frequencies that it attempts to decode, centered around the center
                            frequency of the waterfall display. Experimentally, I discovered that 150
                            decoders seemed pretty much to eliminate anything above about 14060 on a
                            normally busy weekend band, when I set the waterfall on 14030. Today,
                            running 300 decoders, I'm getting a lot of "AA4EE" type "callsigns" in the
                            14070 and above range. During a major contest, you might have to set it to
                            a higher number to get the same approximate frequency coverage.

                            73, Pete N4ZR
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.