I'm sure that's true, Steve.

Phil.
K0NX



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Dresser" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Another DSP Experience


> Phil,
>
> It just shows how effective DSP in the IF circuits can be.  I'll bet it
> doesn't work nearly as well in the audio chain.
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Phil Scovell" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 13:05
> Subject: Another DSP Experience
>
>
>> So the other night on 40 meters, the thunder storms over the planes were 
>> =
>> killing the band.  I often listen to a couple of high speed guys for =
>> practice because when they are in contact, they normally run 45 to 60 =
>> words per minute.  They often hang out on 7032 if you are interested =
>> using W4NPX and W6WXZ for call signs.  This particular evening, both the 
>> =
>> Florida station and the Californian were running strong 10 over S9 =
>> signals but so was the peaks from the static crashes.  At high speed CW, 
>> =
>> fade, QSB, or sudden static, QRN, can take out two or three words so the 
>> =
>> louder, the better.  I was copying them both fine but the static crashes 
>> =
>> were wiping out several letters and words at a time.  Just for fun, I =
>> snapped on the DSP.  The static crashes were all but gone and I no =
>> longer was missing anything as before.  Years ago, when running a 2 =
>> element 40 meter beam at 70 feet, summers, beaming east, were killers.  =
>> I soon learned, if I didn't want to listen to all those static crashes, =
>> I could beam to the west, reducing the static crashing by about 20 DB, =
>> and work western stations just fine.  The DSP works, for CW signals at =
>> any rate, way better that I thought it would.
>>
>> Phil.
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>