K3 Beta Firmware Rev. 3.41: Improved RX bass response; Flat DATA-mode EQ; "Live" memory recall; etc.
Locked
12
12
Re: [elecraft] K3 Beta Firmware Rev. 3.41: Improved RX bass response; Flat DATA-mode EQ; "Live" memory recall; etc.
 
|
You could be wrong. ;-)
You're making a pretty definitive statement based on 24+ year-old experiences. A lot has changed since then for both Mac and Windows platforms. Are you still developing for DOS 3.0? Windows 1.0? Not trying to fan a Mac/Win flame war, but if you can't find quality, inexpensive (or free) development tools for OS X, you're not looking very hard. 73! Paul WW2PT
|
Re: Mac/PC thread - ENDed
|
Administrator
|
Lets end the MAC,PC pro/con discussion thread before it explodes. :-)
73, Eric Elecraft List Moderator ==== Paul - WW2PT wrote: > You could be wrong. ;-) > > You're making a pretty definitive statement based on 24+ year-old > experiences. A lot has changed since then for both Mac and Windows > platforms. Are you still developing for DOS 3.0? Windows 1.0? > > Not trying to fan a Mac/Win flame war, but if you can't find quality, > inexpensive (or free) development tools for OS X, you're not looking very > hard. > > 73! > Paul WW2PT > > > > Radio Amateur N5GE wrote: > >> You're experiencing why I stopped using Apple Computers and developing >> software for them in 1985. >> >> They are good computers but Apple does not make it easy for developers >> to create software for their computers (very expensive development >> tools). That caused x86 and x64 based computer sales overwhelmed >> Apple sales as time went by. >> >> My opinion. I could be wrong. >> >> Tom, N5GE >> >> >> > > Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by N5GE
On Oct 7, 2009, at 10/7 6:50 AM, Radio Amateur N5GE wrote:
> You're experiencing why I stopped using Apple Computers and developing > software for them in 1985. > > They are good computers but Apple does not make it easy for developers > to create software for their computers (very expensive development > tools). That caused x86 and x64 based computer sales overwhelmed > Apple sales as time went by. For the record, the Macintosh was not even introduced until 1984 (that was in the MS-DOS time frame; Windows 1.0 was not introduced until the end of 1985). To relate the (1985) development environments for the MOS Technology 6502 or the Motorola 68000 to a discussion thread why others are experiencing a delay in the (2009) K3 Utilities for Mac OS X is IMHO a complete red herring. David W4SMT has other reasons than the lack of tools. There are two popular routes today to develop for Mac OS X. One is to use the Xcode IDE that comes (read: for free -- so I have no idea where the "very expensive development tools" above come from) in the installer disk of every copy of Mac OS X that is sold since Mac OS X 10.1 (2002). The other is to use the third party cross platform REALbasic environment. Many people, David among them, but it includes Tom DL2RUM with his RUMped and RUMlog series of programs, uses REALbasic, but other developers go through the Cocoa framework that is supported by the Xcode IDE; they include Don VE3VRW (MacLoggerDX), Bill K1GQ (cocoaVNA and SkookumLogger) and myself. In addition to Objective C, the Xcode IDE has compilers for C, C++, Java, Python, Ruby, FORTRAN and AppleScript Studio. For many languages, there are "bridges" between them so you can link modules that are written in multiple languages in the same program. You are not restricted to the above languages either. It is also easy to include other Unix tool chains into Xcode, as shown here for the compiler for Atmel AVR micro-controllers: http://homepage.mac.com/chen/w7ay/AVR%20Tools/Contents/resources.html Since Mac OS X is really just Unix under the GUI veneer, as long as you are proficient with Unix, you can use Unix tools directly without using Xcode, as described here for building NEC-4 under gfortran: http://homepage.mac.com/chen/w7ay/cocoaNEC/Contents/NEC4.html This should put to rest the other statement above, i.e., "Apple does not make it easy for developers to create software for their computers." Bill K1GQ (another K3 owner; SkookumLogger's radio interface is primarily targeted at the K3) had only switched to developing in Cocoa within the last 4 or 5 years. You can ask him how difficult Apple had made the transition for him, and if he is willing to switch to something else today. You will find that there are fewer ham related programs for Mac OS X, but the reason is not for the lack of tools but rather, IMO, the case that there are fewer Mac OS using hams to start with. 73 Chen, W7AY Full disclosure: Before retirement, I had worked for Apple. But I have also programmed under IBSYS, TOPS-20, various Unixes (VAX, SUN, Apollo) before ever encountering Mac OS. ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken Wagner K3IU
G'day,
My results are: Source - XG1, RX gain calibration per the utility routine: Subsequently: Main RX only, pre amp OFF - 50uV (S9), 1uV (S2) Sub-RX ON therefore splitter loss: Main RX S8 & S1 Sub-RX S7 & S0 No big deal but not identical. As a matter of interest, the S-meter on the main RX had been set up a year ago or more as above. When I checked it before doing the RX gain calibration I discovered that the 1uV and 50uV figures were S5 & S9. Little wonder I thought the local noise level had been creeping up! Maybe after playing with the AGC parameters a re-cal of the S-meter is required, maybe not, but something altered it. I assume that given the 50uV S9 setting was correct then it isn't associated with the XG1. Regards, Mike VP8NO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken K3IU" <[hidden email]> To: "N1JM" <[hidden email]> Cc: <[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] Sub RX S-meter cal > The S-meter Cal procedure in the manual worked up until about > v.3.15 or > so. Now I am pretty sure that it was NOT separately adjusting the > SubRx > S-meter, but I never checked, so I'm not sure. It doesn't really > matter now. > > I have determined that, at least on my K3 (#202) running v3.41 et > al, > after running the RF Gain Calibration procedure and setting the > MAIN Rx > S-meter, the Sub Rx S-meter is spot on. It actually follows the > adjustment for the Main Rx S-meter, i.e., set Main Rx at an > extreme and > the Sub Rx shows the exact same extreme. > > So... it looks to me like there is no reason to have a separate > adjustment for the SubRx S-meter. I'm sure the manual will catch > up. > > 73, > Ken K3IU ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
In reply to this post by David Fleming-2
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:03:51 -0700 (PDT), David Fleming
<[hidden email]> wrote: >> You're experiencing why I stopped using Apple Computers and >> developing software for them in 1985. >> They are good computers but Apple does not make it easy for >> developers to create software for their computers (very expensive >> development tools). That caused x86 and x64 based computer sales >> overwhelmed Apple sales as time went by. > >The delay in releasing the Mac/Linux versions of the K3 Utility has nothing whatsoever to do with the lack of development tools. It has to do with the lack of a radio. My K3 developed a problem and is in Aptos now being repaired. The Mac/Linux versions will be forthcoming once I get the radio back and once I determine the software is stable and ready for release. I would suggest using/borrowing a Windows PC if you can't wait to run the RF Gain calibration. > >BTW, Apple development tools are included for free with the operating system. [snip] They were not in the early 80's. I had to buy a Pascal Compiler and it was expensive. Sorry your K3 is having trouble. 73, Tom, N5GE [hidden email] K3 #806, K3 #1055, PR6, XV144, XV432, KRC2, W1 and other small kits. 2 W2's on order 1 K144XV on order http://www.n5ge.com http://www.swotrc.net ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Amateur Radio Operator N5GE
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul - WW2PT
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 10:06:22 -0700 (PDT), Paul - WW2PT <[hidden email]>
wrote: > >You could be wrong. ;-) That's what I said.... > >You're making a pretty definitive statement based on 24+ year-old >experiences. A lot has changed since then for both Mac and Windows >platforms. Are you still developing for DOS 3.0? Windows 1.0? No, actually I program with .NET C# 3.5, MS SQL Server and IIS 6.0 and many other MS products. However you might be interested to know that the hourly rate for Quick Basic programmers was $125 per hour last time I had an offer for a contract updating one of those applications. We are getting scarce and many like me just don't want to go through the hassle of it. > >Not trying to fan a Mac/Win flame war, but if you can't find quality, >inexpensive (or free) development tools for OS X, you're not looking very >hard. I have no reason to look for it, so I wouldn't know that, and I'm not going to participate in this discussion any further on the reflector. It's way off topic... > >73! >Paul WW2PT [snip] Tom, N5GE [hidden email] K3 #806, K3 #1055, PR6, XV144, XV432, KRC2, W1 and other small kits. 2 W2's on order 1 K144XV on order http://www.n5ge.com http://www.swotrc.net ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Amateur Radio Operator N5GE
|
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Mike Harris
Mike,
Now that you've done rf gain cal, you'll still need to adjust SMTR OF & SC so that you get S9 with 50 uV and S2-3 with 1 uV. RF gain cal linearizes the dsp's internal representation, while SMTR OF & SC set the actual meter indication. Try the factory defaults first. 73, Wayne ---- http://www.elecraft.com On Oct 7, 2009, at 10:59 AM, "Mike Harris" <[hidden email]> wrote: > G'day, > > My results are: > > Source - XG1, RX gain calibration per the utility routine: > > Subsequently: > > Main RX only, pre amp OFF - 50uV (S9), 1uV (S2) > > Sub-RX ON therefore splitter loss: > > Main RX S8 & S1 > Sub-RX S7 & S0 > > No big deal but not identical. > > As a matter of interest, the S-meter on the main RX had been set up > a year ago or more as above. When I checked it before doing the RX > gain calibration I discovered that the 1uV and 50uV figures were S5 > & S9. Little wonder I thought the local noise level had been > creeping up! Maybe after playing with the AGC parameters a re-cal > of the S-meter is required, maybe not, but something altered it. I > assume that given the 50uV S9 setting was correct then it isn't > associated with the XG1. > > Regards, > > Mike VP8NO > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken K3IU" <[hidden email]> > To: "N1JM" <[hidden email]> > Cc: <[hidden email]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 12:22 PM > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] Sub RX S-meter cal > > >> The S-meter Cal procedure in the manual worked up until about >> v.3.15 or >> so. Now I am pretty sure that it was NOT separately adjusting the >> SubRx >> S-meter, but I never checked, so I'm not sure. It doesn't really >> matter now. >> >> I have determined that, at least on my K3 (#202) running v3.41 et >> al, >> after running the RF Gain Calibration procedure and setting the >> MAIN Rx >> S-meter, the Sub Rx S-meter is spot on. It actually follows the >> adjustment for the Main Rx S-meter, i.e., set Main Rx at an >> extreme and >> the Sub Rx shows the exact same extreme. >> >> So... it looks to me like there is no reason to have a separate >> adjustment for the SubRx S-meter. I'm sure the manual will catch >> up. >> >> 73, >> Ken K3IU > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
«
Return to [K3]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |