{P3] Waterfall Resolution

[David Gilbert]

For those who now have a P3 and also use CW Skimmer in one form or
another, how do the waterfall displays compare on CW for resolution and
scroll rate?  I often use CW Skimmer in "blind" mode with just the audio
feed from my K3 to provide a running visual CW display (about 12 to 15
seconds on my monitor) in case I miss part of a contest exchange.  It's
clumsy and MUCH less effective in general than copying by ear, but it
sometimes helps me avoid asking for a repeat if I miss a character.  Of
all the various non-SDR applications I tried that are capable of
displaying a waterfall (Spectrogram, DigiPan, MixW, MultiPSK, etc) CW
Skimmer was heads above the rest, but the recent comments about the
sharpness of the P3 display make me wonder if the P3 is potentially
better in spite of the smaller screen.  With CW Skimmer, visual copy
above roughly 35 wpm gets pretty dicey.

73,
Dave   AB7E


______________________________________________________________
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

[Bill W4ZV]

David Gilbert wrote

Of all the various non-SDR applications I tried that are capable of
displaying a waterfall (Spectrogram, DigiPan, MixW, MultiPSK, etc) CW
Skimmer was heads above the rest, but the recent comments about the
sharpness of the P3 display make me wonder if the P3 is potentially
better in spite of the smaller screen.  With CW Skimmer, visual copy
above roughly 35 wpm gets pretty dicey.

With very careful adjustment of the P3's Ref Lvl and Scale, some dots and dashes can be made visible.  Skimmer is much better at this and the display works with no adjustments necessary.  I believe Alex VE3NEA is using some AGC to adjust for varying noise conditions and signal levels.

My decoder is much better than either, but it's not for sale.  ;-)

73,  Bill