[PCR-1000] CWGet

[George, W5YR]

Matthew, you demonstrate an uncommon ability to misunderstand a posting and
to forge a sarcastic, talk-down response that is uncalled-for and which
contributes little or nothing to the discussion other than trying to
ridicule my posting. Bah, indeed . . .

If you will read my sig file, you will note that I have been working with
radios as a professional since - probably - before you were born. I have
multiple EE degrees and several decades of professional experience in the
communications field.

I am fully aware of the shortcomings of the PCR-1000 now and was when I
purchased it. Having a shack filled with those big expensive "real" radios,
I know from experience what to expect from something like the PCR-1000.

I have installed more IF filters in radios over the years than you have
seen - it was not surprising that the PCR-1000 and the R-10 did not contain
any. Why would you expect me to be surprised? Because you were? But others
without our experience may have no idea as to why the PCR-1000 is so broad
in its tuning and why so many stations come through together. I merely
stated the obvious - to you and me - but not to most non-professional 1000
owners.

Finally, I do not use the PCR-1000 for VHF and UHF monitoring. In fact, I
seldom use it at all. But, trust me, I really do know about and even
understand how front-end filters work and how to use them. I even know
about intermodulation distortion and all that fancy stuff.

Matthew, my posting was intended solely to point out that attempting to use
a CW copy program with the PCR-1000 was likely to be ineffective and to
give a few reasons why.
I don't need, nor do I see that your response was all that filled with
information, your instruction as to what and how I post my opinions.

Now, we have each had a turn at one another, so let's be gentlemen and lay
this to rest. If you feel that your soul will profit from it, then make
your rebuttal in private, but let's keep junk like this off the reflector.
Trust me, no one out there really cares very much about your opinion of my
posting. Especially me . . .

73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas         
Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe   
Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 56th year and it just keeps getting better!
QRP-L 1373 NETXQRP 6 SOC 262 COG 8 FPQRP 404 TEN-X 11771 I-LINK 11735
Icom IC-756PRO #02121  Kachina 505 DSP  #91900556  Icom IC-765 #02437




Matthew Francey wrote:
> 
> "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>:
> 
> >[paraphrasing:  the PCR1000 isn't a super-fantastic radio]
> 
> Yeah, well, sure.  What do you expect from a O($400) radio?  There
> aren't many people who have the money, much less the tenacious
> dedication and the concomittant ability to devote huge swaths of their
> lives to justify an Icom R9000, Watkins-Johnson, Rhode-Shwarz
> or similar high-end, gold-plated, silver lined, nuclear bomb proof
> front end, to-the-last-RF-photon of sensitivity, and a bank of
> filters with skirts as tight as a ... as a ... should I say it? ... no
> ... as tight as a bankers grip on a kuggerrand.
> 
> >[DSP may help with selectivity]
> 
> No, it won't.  The DSP in the PCR1000 (like other "amateur" level
> units) works at AF, where you've already lost the battle of the
> front-end and selectivity -- at least where it counts.
> 
> >[the radio is too small for effective filters]
> 
> You mean you were unaware of this?  Just look at the size of an IF
> CW filter that goes into a typical amateur radio.
> 
> >[low noise for effective CW decoding]
> 
> Any CW decoder that isn't using a filter is a waste of time.
> Yet from the description of this "CWGet", it appears it _is_ using a
> filter of some kind.  It may well be FFT'ing the entire audio spectrum
> and decoding each frequency bin simultaneously.  A task that would
> hardly break a sweat on a typical 1GHz computer.
> 
> >[general FUD]
> 
> Bah.  If your PCR1000 is getting crunched, put a filter in front of it.
> [I regularly use mine with a 2m 4-cavity filter in front of it.  Works
> great.  You can get hi and lo pass coaxial filters from various places
> for other bands of interest.  A UHF hi-pass filter, for example, can
> be useful for 800MHz scanning in RF "thick" areas.]  If you need better
> IF selectivity (eg, narrow CW filters), you'll have to get another
> radio.  But before that, things like "CWGet" are appropriate experiments.