On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 12:08:02PM +0100, Andrew de Quincey wrote: > On Tuesday 27 Sep 2005 11:11, Marian Durkovic wrote: > > > > Anyway, recovery seems to be faster without fine-tuning, at least with > > > > my Nexus, higher symbol rates and a good signal... > > > > > > Hmm, weird, I added the enhanced code because thats what hauppauge > > > appeared to be doing, and I thought it seemed to work better at the > > > time.... however looks like that isn't the case. I've no problem if you > > > want to rip it out. > > > > Actually I did some further testing and the use of derotator has a very bad > > side effect - it reduces the available SNR. The higher is derotator_freq, > > the lower is SNR. In my setup, when derotator is set for > 9 MHz, I can't > > get the lock anymore (of course I have properly shifted the tuning > > frequency). It's far better to perform normal tuning, which does not reduce > > the SNR. > > > > Thus I'd suggest to remove the enhanced tuning section and use standard > > tuning for zigzags. > > Yup, I agree. > > Want me to do it? Hm, since no one else screamed "no, wait, I'll do it": Yeah, it would be nice if you could take care of it. Thanks, Johannes
