wrote in message
...

You are moving now from a superlative SDR-1000 to a much more modest
Perseus, the reason being that it can copy a huge 400 Khz of spectrum
at TOH for later playback, and however modest the specs of the Perseus
might be, this facility is going to get you lots more catches and
positive ID's.

Hi again John,

I would have to disagree that the Perseus is a "much more modest" receiver.
The SDR-IQ would fit that description, but Perseus has +31 dBm IP3 and 125
dBm blocking dynamic range (@ 14 MHz), assisted by a total of 9, 6-pole
bandpass filters and one 3-pole lowpass filter to help achieve this
performance. I know specs don't tell the whole story, but these are very
good to excellent numbers, not modest at all. In fact, the Perseus appears
to be roughly in the same league as the SDR-1000.

In my urban RF location I can use all the receive front end protection I can
get. Other than the SDR-1000, the best receiver here by far for this purpose
have been the two AR7030s I've owned. After some practice I didn't find the
ergonomics of the AORs to be an issue, and much of the time I operated them
via PC through ERGO control, which was even better.

More measurements and details of the Perseus are available he
http://www.microtelecom.it/perseus/ Granted, these are numbers from the
manufacturer himself. I'll be interested to read some independent tests in
the future, such as Sherwood Engineering.

Joe has concerns about outdated PC operating systems in the future, in
regard to SDR radios. I think this is a non-issue. All it means is that it
will be even less expensive to have a computer dedicated solely to operating
the radio down the road. I too am loathe to adopt Vista; fortunately Windows
XP is very usable. A few years down the road you'll be able to buy XP for
around $25-50 or so, just like you can get a Windows98 original disc for
that price now. The 1.0 GHz Pentium III machines selling at my local
computer surplus store for $50 now will be replaced with the likes of
Pentium 4 3.2 GHz PCs or maybe even 1.6 - 1.8 Ghz Core 2 Duos for $75.
Either of these setups will run SDRs OK. Today's "Cadillac" computers are
the old Chevys of tomorrow!

If you're concerned about parts availability, traditional radios from major
manufacturers have their share of orphaned and unavailable ICs and
transistors, too.

It took me a few years to embrace the SDR radio concept, as I've certainly
owned and enjoyed my share of traditional communications receivers.
Personally, I believe that receivers are way down the list of criteria
necessary for DXing success, but I like equipment and technology as much as
catching a new and distant station.

Here's my list of factors needed for hearing the DX, in descending order:

1. Antenna(s) - ya won't hear much without one! Perferably directional
and/or low noise designs.
2. A DXer with skill and experience
3. An RF-quiet environment
4. Luck!
5. The receiver

For me, the biggest advantage of SDRs are two main things: 1) fully
adjustable filters in any width desired, with performance better the
top-notch Collins filters I spent big bucks on over the years, and 2) a
detailed view of the DX being tuned, through spectrum displays or
panadapters. Once you "see" your DX at variable "zoom" levels, it's hard to
go back to a traditional radio! This is an especially neat feature for
split-frequency MW DXing, as you can keep an eye on very weak signals long
before they strengthen and break into audio.

73,

Guy