Averaging method and settings per Panadapter

  • 4
  • Idea
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • Under Consideration
  • (Edited)
Averaging method and settings per Panadapter
I think it would be really nice to control the averaging parameters on a "per panadapter" basis.  That way we could do a side by side comparison of the averaging method/settings to decide which we like best.  You might decide to use both methods (old and new) or have different settings for a given method  for different modes, bands, or conditions. 

The new method (V1.1) seems better in some cases with weak signals and the old method (V1.0.24) seems better in general use.   But I'm not even sure of that since it's not possible to do a real time comparison.  

Providing options is more work but probably the only way to make everyone happy.  The questions are:
- how much time will it take
- is it worth the effort (i.e. how many PLUSes did the idea get?)
- where does it fall on the priorities list. 

Greg, Michael and others -- What do you think? Is it worth the effort?

Regards, Al / NN4ZZ  
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com







  


Photo of Al / NN4ZZ

Al / NN4ZZ

  • 1853 Posts
  • 672 Reply Likes

Posted 6 years ago

  • 4
Photo of Michael - N5TGL

Michael - N5TGL

  • 308 Posts
  • 103 Reply Likes
Well, it sounds to me like the change was very simple...just an adjustment of the attack/decay settings for the averaging function.  Ideally, I'd like to see those settings exposed to the end user so they can tailor the response to what they would like to see.

However, I'd be happy with a switch selection to go back to the 1.0.24 and the 1.1 method if I had no other choice.


Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P

  • 4239 Posts
  • 1351 Reply Likes
(Copied by author from response on initial post...)

I guess it depends upon which parameter you want to average.  Are you
wanting to average the total signal?  The attack times?  The decay
times?  Just smooth out the total display?  I see about four different
parameters that can be adjusted.  Attack time, hold, decay time, and
time frame to average, perhaps more.... Frankly, I like the new display,
once I got adjusted to it.  But I would support porting these
parameters to some sort of "properties" tab, along with adjustments for
many other functions, such as NB, NR, ANF, APF, etc.

Eventually, I
am sure that they will do this.  The first task is to get these
functions functional.  Then add the bells and whistles and
tweak-ability....
Photo of Michael - N5TGL

Michael - N5TGL

  • 308 Posts
  • 103 Reply Likes
My "gold standard" is how PSDR (not SSDR) looks with 30 FPS and the average switch on.  That's the display that looks good to me, and what I've gotten used to over the years.  I did like the 1.0.24 improvement of an averaging slider that allows tailoring to personal taste.  I do not like the fast attack/slow decay of 1.1, as it is visually tiring to look at, although not as bad as the "raw electric arc" display of the previous un-averaged releases of SSDR.  Yeesh, that was hard on the ol' eyeballs.  I really don't want to watch a jumpy display.

You comments remind me of the old ADSR (Attack, Decay, Sustain, Release) synthesizers, although I'm not sure if the entire ADSR envelope would be useful.  I think just being able to change the attack and decay would offer plenty of customization for any user.

The "cherry on top" would be having a set of maybe 4 user-programmable presets that could be selected as conditions warrant.


Photo of Ned K1NJ

Ned K1NJ

  • 319 Posts
  • 83 Reply Likes
     Yes, I agree with Michael.  In addition, on 160 and 80 here with some impulsive noise, I find
myself using the 5000.  The SSDR display jumps a lot, and the NB in SSDR doesn't reduce the
audible pop or the very nervous display.  The 5000 just completely eliminates both with the
combination of averaging and the NB.

Ned,  K1NJ

Photo of Steve - N5AC

Steve - N5AC, VP Engineering / CTO

  • 1057 Posts
  • 1097 Reply Likes
Official Response
Couple of things: The change to the averaging is very simple and we can provide an option if that's desired.  Today NB is done in slice receivers and not in the panadapter data so the display will show you actual noise while the slice receiver will filter it with the NB.  We're considering adding NB to the display as well -- we have a couple of customers that need it badly because of their local noise issues that are non-stop.
Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P

  • 4239 Posts
  • 1351 Reply Likes
Thanks, Steve, I would love to see all of the above as user-configurable options.
Photo of Michael - N5TGL

Michael - N5TGL

  • 308 Posts
  • 103 Reply Likes
I would definitely like to see the option for averaging method -- or a couple of sliders to adjust attack/decay, which should keep just about everyone happy I think.

As for the NB in the slice vs. in the panadapter, I was wondering if you could clear something up for me.  Since the NB is "in the slice" does that mean that nearby strong stations outside of the slice do not cause "NB pumping" with those strong signals?  If so, that's a very valuable feature I would not like to lose.  I would then also assume that NB in the panadapter would be affected by all strong signals in the pan, which would make the NB behave much like every other radio on the market, but I can also see the advantage of having a whole-pan NB to see signals.  At my previous QTH, (with my 5000) I would get tons of noise on 20m at night, but with the NB, it would clean it up so I could actually see on the panafall what was out there.  However, strong signals would make the NB less effective, as we all know.

So, here we go again with the options!  :)  Please keep the slice NB for the (I presume) insensitivity to nearby strong signals.  Add the option of a whole-pan NB so folks can see signals hidden in the noise.


This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.