Equalizer needs level control

  • 3
  • Idea
  • Updated 6 years ago
PSDR had a level control that you could use to reduce the signal level once you got your EQ set. This way you didn't have to adjust mic gain with the EQ in vs EQ out. SSDR does not have this control in the audio chain, which leads to significant changes when the EQ gets kicked in.

I generally don't use EQ on my mic, as it sounds pretty nice flat. The only time I use EQ is when I need some more punch when working DX. I have to readjust mic gain to prevent distortion now when using the EQ. This would be solved if there was an EQ gain control in the audio chain.
Photo of Michael - N5TGL

Michael - N5TGL

  • 308 Posts
  • 103 Reply Likes
  • missing standard features

Posted 6 years ago

  • 3
Photo of Tim - W4TME

Tim - W4TME, Customer Experience Manager

  • 9197 Posts
  • 3557 Reply Likes
I have changed this post to an Idea topic as it is not a problem, per se.

As a point of reference, one of the goals we have specifically tried to achieve with SmartSDR for Windows is to reduce the number of places in the software where gain can be adjusted in the TX audio chain to simplify the phone setup. Case in point is the multi-step document that Rob, W1AEX put together for PowerSDR. Setting up your audio really shouldn't require such a complex procedure.
Photo of Michael - N5TGL

Michael - N5TGL

  • 308 Posts
  • 103 Reply Likes

Well, in all honesty, I can't agree less. :)

Rob's procedure was awesome, and I made significant improvements to my audio because of it. In my humble opinion, that procedure should have been written into the quick start guide, as it would have made a huge difference with first time (or experienced!) users.

Removing gain controls does not make it easier, it makes it harder. When you use an equalizer to adjust frequency response, depending on what you do, you will either add or subtract to the level in the chain. Used to be I could adjust the level coming out of the EQ so I didn't have to re-adjust my mic gain. The idea that we can't do that anymore because it would be "too complex" is, well, kinda surprising to me. This is a technical hobby. It is naturally complex, and "Dumbing down" the radio is not a good solution. Now when I turn the EQ on, I have to pull my mic gain back. When I turn it off, I have to bump it up again. To me that it more complex and time-consuming than having a level control that would work transparently.

While we are on this track, there are a number of things that have been done with SSDR to make it "simpler", when in fact it has made it more cumbersome and difficult to use. Having separate menus for audio, DSP, mode have added clicks to complete a task, rather than remove them. If you want to adjust DSP properly, you have to click back and forth between the audio menu and the DSP menu, when on PSDR, you just did it, with no menu shuffling. Even when picking modes, I used to just click on the mode I wanted. Now I have to click on the mode menu, maybe pick the mode I want from the bar, but more than likely I have to hit the drop down and then pick the mode there. What used to be a simple 1-click operation has turned into 3 clicks with hunting for the right button in between. From my time in user interface design, that's a step backwards, not forwards. I would LOVE to have every one of those menus displayed constantly at the side, ready for use, without having to click senselessly through menus. In other words, make the layout look closer to PSDR, with everything that you need basically one click away. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think the "clean" UI of SSDR is a step backwards from PSDR.

Even stranger is what has been chosen to appear on the UI all the time. I really don't need to see my EQ all the time. Neither do I need to see my VOX settings and AM carrier. That's a lot of screen real estate being taken up with things that rarely need to be referenced. I'd say replace that with the contents of the menus for the audio/DSP/Mode/X/RIT/DAX...something that you really need frequent rapid access to.

I know the multiple panadapters and slices complicate this, but I'd be perfectly happy with the displayed menus being active for only the active slice you are on.

Anyway, that's my $0.02.
Photo of Edward Armstrong-WB2K

Edward Armstrong-WB2K

  • 26 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Hi Michael I agree with you 100% the EQ takes up much too much room on the main screen.
Most audio files would not use that type of EQ I personally I use a DEQ 2496 parametric.
First thing when I sore that EQ on the screen I said why so once more good work Michael I do agree what you.

Ed Armstrong WB2K
Photo of Charles - K5UA

Charles - K5UA

  • 319 Posts
  • 89 Reply Likes
I'm going to have to agree with Michael about the use of screen "real estate". After the EQ is set as desired, there's no reason to keep it visible when that amount of screen area could be used for easier band/mode/DSP selections. DXing and contesting requires human/machine interface responses measured in milliseconds. Having to navigate through three mouse clicks to change something is terribly inefficient. I have the sense that Flex is reserving screen real estate on the right side of the display for future use. The fonts and size of the controls currently there eat up way more screen area than necessary, so I think Flex has future plans for a more efficient human/machine interface in that area. Hope so, anyway.