[hpsdr] multiple receivers - is it really necessary

[alex]

i thought we were running out of room in the fpga (which is why i 
suggested it so that we could possibly get 90% of the performance of 10 
rx's with a fraction of the fpga power used up)

yes if there is enough fpga space and enough computer power then 
multiple rx's would be better
> ***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List *****
>
> 2009/8/2 Bob McGwier <rwmcgwier at gmail.com>:
>   
>> It is tough to understand why anyone is this group would harbor neoluddite
>> tendencies when even non-geek contesters see the benefits:
>>     
>
> I like the term "neoluddite", is it TM Bob McGwier?
>
> My reaction is that I want the system to support as many
> receivers/transmitters/bandscopes as are reasonably possible for it to
> support. To me, it doesn't make sense to use 10% of the FPGA capacity
> to reproduce the functions of a typical 1970's radio, particularly
> after some of the designers have gone out of their way to ensure that
> the system has considerably more capacity than this. While I am
> writing this, in the background I have a copy of Alex, VE3NEA's
> Skimmer Server running. It allows you to "watch" the CW portion of up
> to seven bands at once, and see all of the active callsigns in
> realtime. While it uses the QS1R, I believe the ADC and FPGA hardware
> are identical if not similar to those in the Mercury.  This is the
> kind of application that was never possible prior to the arrival of
> HPSDR technology, and I think we should encourage the development of
> more new uses like this one, in addition to the "classical"
> applications.
>
> I was thinking about the topic of "marketing" HPSDR that was discussed
> a few weeks ago during the TeamSpeak session: I wondered if anyone had
> considered the topic of meta-design? By meta-design, I mean that given
> the diverse and divergent interests of everyone in the HPSDR group, we
> should understand that there is no one single design that will satisfy
> everyone's purposes (use cases), and we owe it to ourselves to make
> sure that the system design can accommodate the widest possible range
> of uses, even ones that nobody has yet conceived, and that means that
> the hardware/FPGA designs need to be as modular and flexible as
> possible.
>
>   


 1249310960.0