<html><body>
<DIV>Folks</DIV>
<DIV>Add my vote to excellent. That IS what this group is all about.</DIV>
<DIV>Eric</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: Bob McGwier <n4hy@idaccr.org> <BR><BR>> ***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List ***** <BR>> <BR>> I absolutely agree completely with Alberto. The cost difference <BR>> between what has been proposed for Excellent performance and good <BR>> performance is not sufficient (the same?) to justify doing anything <BR>> other than excellent. Others are taking the risk of doing the tests on <BR>> these potential mixer circuits so there is no risk to the overall <BR>> projects ultimate outcome. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Two more cents, <BR>> Bob <BR>> N4HY <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Alberto I2PHD wrote: <BR>> > ***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List ***** <BR>> > <BR>> > Ray Anderson wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> >> ................. <B
R>> >> Phoenix was intended to have “Good” performance (much better than <BR>> >> adequate, but less than world-class). The goal was to design a <BR>> >> relatively low-cost entry level integrated HF TX/RX board that will plug <BR>> >> into the ATLAS backplane and work with the Janus and OZY boards to <BR>> >> achieve a vehicle that allows one to get ‘on-the-air’ with a minimum of <BR>> >> fuss. <BR>> >> ................. <BR>> >> At this point in the genesis of the Phoenix design we need to make some <BR>> >> early decisions on which fork to take: a design utilizing Janus/OZY with <BR>> >> ‘Good’ performance, or a design using an integrated ‘Janus/OZY’ hybrid <BR>> >> interface that has the potential for ‘Excellent’ performance. <BR>> >> <BR>> > > ................. <BR>> > <BR>> > If the "Good" performance route will be chosen, a route that will require
both <BR>> the Janus and the OZY cards, which will <BR>> > be the plus side of that choice ? We know already what the minus side is, a <BR>> reduced performance compared to the Horton <BR>> > card, but what about the advantages ? IMHO, the only advantage will be a small <BR>> reduction in cost/price. Can this <BR>> > reduction be put down in numbers ? I don't think it will be significant, so <BR>> the "Good" way, as opposed to the <BR>> > "Excellent" one, doesn't look as being much justifiable. Just my two cents. <BR>> > <BR>> > 73 Alberto I2PHD <BR>> > <BR>> > _______________________________________________ <BR>> > HPSDR Discussion List <BR>> > To post msg: hpsdr@hpsdr.org <BR>> > Subscription help: http://lists.hpsdr.org/listinfo.cgi/hpsdr-hpsdr.org <BR>> > HPSDR web page: http://hpsdr.org <BR>> > Archives: http://lists.hpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-hpsdr.org/ <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>>
; <BR>> <BR>> -- <BR>> Robert W. McGwier, Ph.D. <BR>> Center for Communications Research <BR>> 805 Bunn Drive <BR>> Princeton, NJ 08540 <BR>> (609)-924-4600 <BR>> (sig required by employer) <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________ <BR>> HPSDR Discussion List <BR>> To post msg: hpsdr@hpsdr.org <BR>> Subscription help: http://lists.hpsdr.org/listinfo.cgi/hpsdr-hpsdr.org <BR>> HPSDR web page: http://hpsdr.org <BR>> Archives: http://lists.hpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-hpsdr.org/ </BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>