IQmonitor tool

It's not a problem for me to spend more time on a nice spectrum

Zitat

"Für mich ist es kein Problem, mehr Zeit mit einem schönen Spektrum zu verbringen"

"It's not a problem for me to spend more time on a nice spectrum"

"Для меня не проблема провести больше времени на приятном спектре"

Das sehe ich auch so!

Zu 95% verwende ich IQMonitorPro im dF-Modus wenn ich selbst etwas suche.

Der "df - maximal grafical resolution" Modus ist leider den vielen Stromausfällen zum Opfer gefallen, hätte aber Potential zum Spitzenplatz der schönsten Spektren gehabt.

Blos bei der Signal-Optimierung fand ich EBSpro (BS-Mode) angenehmer als "Dynamical" beim IQM.

Allerdings wird bei dessen neueren Versionen sehr häufig das Signal nicht gesperrt, sodass die Nutzung hier geringer wurde als einst.

Möglicher weise hat es auch hier mit dem streamreader zu tun, aber die Mühe lohnt sich nicht der Sache auf den Grund zu gehen.

Die echte Frequenz eines Transponders zu finden ist äußerst schwierig (fehlende, falsche oder schlecht ausgewertete NIT oder sonstiger Quellen).

Wenn sie bekannt ist, hat man beim IQM und EBSpro die Möglichkeit die Frequenz anzupassen.

Je nach Qualität des LNBs weicht der obere und untere Bereich eines Frequenzbandes unterschiedlich von der Wahrheit ab.

Bei CS geht diese Anpassung aber nur in MHz-Schritten, das führt mit steigender Frequenz (K-Band) zu mehr produzierten "Frequenz-Hausnummern".

Die Tatsache, das sich 80...90 % der Anwender darüber keine Gedanken macht, lasse ich mal ausser acht.

Fazit: Für mich wäre eine fehlerbereinigte 1.0.3.0 Pro eine feine Sache.

I agree!

95% of the time I use IQMonitorPro in dF mode when I'm looking for something myself.

Unfortunately, the "df - maximum graphic resolution" mode fell victim to the many power cuts, but it would have had the potential to take the top spot for the most beautiful spectra.

When it came to signal optimization, I found EBSpro (BS mode) more pleasant than "Dynamic" on the IQM.

However, the signal is very often not blocked with its newer versions, so that the usage here is lower than it used to be.

It may also have something to do with the stream reader here, but it's not worth the effort to get to the bottom of the matter.

Finding the real frequency of a transponder is extremely difficult (missing, incorrect or poorly evaluated NIT or other sources).

If it is known, the IQM and EBSpro give you the option of adjusting the frequency.

Depending on the quality of the LNB, the upper and lower range of a frequency band differs from the truth.

With CS, however, this adjustment is only in MHz steps, which leads to more "frequency house numbers" being produced with increasing frequency (K-band).

I'll ignore the fact that 80...90% of users don't think about it.

Conclusion: For me, a bug-fixed 1.0.3.0 Pro would be great.

Я согласен!

95% времени я использую IQMonitorPro в режиме dF, когда сам что-то ищу.

К сожалению, режим «df — максимальное графическое разрешение» стал жертвой многочисленных отключений электроэнергии, но у него был потенциал занять первое место по самым красивым спектрам.

Когда дело дошло до оптимизации сигнала, я нашел EBSpro (режим BS) более приятным, чем «Динамический» на IQM.

Тем не менее, сигнал очень часто не блокируется его более новыми версиями, поэтому использование здесь ниже, чем раньше.

Это также может иметь какое-то отношение к потоковому считывателю здесь, но не стоит усилий, чтобы добраться до сути вопроса.

Найти реальную частоту транспондера крайне сложно (отсутствует, неверная или плохо оцененная NIT или другие источники).

Если она известна, IQM и EBSpro предоставляют возможность регулировки частоты.

В зависимости от качества LNB верхний и нижний диапазон полосы частот отличается от истинного.

Однако с CS эта регулировка производится только с шагом в МГц, что приводит к увеличению количества «частотных номеров домов» с увеличением частоты (K-диапазон).

Я проигнорирую тот факт, что 80...90% пользователей не задумываются об этом.

Вывод: для меня исправленная ошибка 1.0.3.0 Pro была бы отличной.

After a few days of testing, I don't see any problem in version 1.0.2.8., everything works flawlessly. For me there is no reason to go back to the old version 2.4.0.7.

Lambda

You get amazingly good spectra, and this is greatly helped by good calibration of the receiver and the ability to set a low discrimination threshold, almost at the noise level. Range scan time is greatly reduced.

I would be very grateful to you if you would publish on this (and other forums) the spectra and tables of transponders that are received in IQmonitor, not only in this topic, but in the topics of the frequency ranges of various satellites.

I think that other forum users would also like your excellent results.

Health and success to you and all of us!

Zitat von Lambda

After a few days of testing, I don't see any problem in version 1.0.2.8. everything works flawlessly. There is no reason to go back to the old version 2.4.0.7.

...

I agree that 1.0.2.8 works best. The best results I got with this version, in accuracy and speed, almost with all cards.

The 6903x card has a problem, especially with the search and lock speed. The Stranger explained the reason.

Indeed, you have excellent spectra you got, which is a model to follow, as our developer rightly says

I greet everyone and especially Yuri.

I will also add some experience with IQM. For my needs, the IQM version Pro 1030 works best for me. It may have some bugs, but I don't have a problem with it. TBS5925 is used because it has stable parameters and reads the transponder frequency correctly. (I already wrote about it, that the 6983 has a problem with frequency shift) Also. spectrum curves are perfect. Maybe Yurij won't like them, but in my setup you can see the differences in the levels of individual transponders very well - after spectrum calibration. I am attaching a few pictures. I chose the RF range, dB so that the level difference between the most powerful satellite and the weakest was visible.
Please Yuri, keep developing IQM Pro, it's a very good program.

Well thank you.

My first spectrum with IQ 1.0.2.8. and two monitors. The first image with the maximum graphic resolution and the second with a super detailed HR spectrum. I personally prefer the last one.

Peon

Thank you for your kind words about me and the program

I want to return the courtesy for the courtesy - I admire your gift of foresight regarding my reaction to the spectra you received

You call them perfect, but they made me very sad...

Especially the fact that you, with your vast experience, consider them "ideal"

First, the derivation range is poorly chosen for all spectra. Most of the tablet is unused, and the lower part of it is overloaded with transponder bodies that overlap the signatures of their parameters. Try checking the Auto checkbox

Secondly, the peaks in the spectra are small compared to the height of the transponder bodies, which makes your spectra unimpressive. It begs the use of scale 2 for their output.

Thirdly, I have doubts about the correctness of the calibration you performed (which may also be due to the underestimated scale of the spectrum output).

Please do me a favor and register the same four spectra, but with the TBS-6983 card.

For at least one of the spectra, for comparison, provide a screenshot of the spectra window and the spectrum, which is saved in graphical form with the Save button

In conclusion, I want to express my admiration for your receiving installation, which allows you to separate signals

from very densely located satellites in the GSO

Health and success!

Zitat von Lambda

My first spectrum with IQ 1.0.2.8. and two monitors. The first image with the maximum graphic resolution and the second with a super detailed HR spectrum. I personally prefer the last one.

I agree with you - the second spectrum is great !      

This is a worthy example to follow

All the best!

42E super detailed HR spectrum (dF 671kHz)

Zitat von strannik

Peon

First, the derivation range is poorly chosen for all spectra. Most of the tablet is unused, and the lower part of it is overloaded with transponder bodies that overlap the signatures of their parameters. Try checking the Auto checkbox

Hello Yuri,
I counted on your reservations. Yes, when using "Auto" the spectrum is according to your wishes, but the graphic difference between the levels of transponders on different satellites is lost. I will also list the spectra with TBS6983 here on the forum as you wish. Just a little later, I'm quite busy.

Zitat von Peon

I greet everyone and especially Yuri.

I will also add some experience with IQM. For my needs, the IQM version Pro 1030 works best for me. It may have some bugs, but I don't have a problem with it. TBS5925 is used because it has stable parameters and reads the transponder frequency correctly. (I already wrote about it, that the 6983 has a problem with frequency shift) Also. spectrum curves are perfect. Maybe Yurij won't like them, but in my setup you can see the differences in the levels of individual transponders very well - after spectrum calibration. I am attaching a few pictures. I chose the RF range, dB so that the level difference between the most powerful satellite and the weakest was visible.
Please Yuri, keep developing IQM Pro, it's a very good program.

Well thank you.

Alles anzeigen

I understand what you are talking about, but why should one tree destroy the whole forest?

Zitat von Lambda

I understand what you are talking about, but why should one tree destroy the whole forest?

Hi Lambda,

I don't understand what you mean. Can you write it more clearly?

Well thank you.

It was supposed to be a joke, but it got lost in translation

Zitat von Lambda

It was supposed to be a joke, but it got lost in translation

I understand now.

At least you can see the differences in signal levels from individual satellites.

(Sorry, Google Translate)

Hello Yuri.
I rescanned these satellites and saved the images using IQmonitor. For comparison, I also add a scan of 19.2e, which is the strongest in my geolocation. Here you can see the fully rendered window with the transponders. Therefore, I used such a spectrum setting as the basic one. The difference in levels can be clearly seen on weaker satellites, compared to the strongest one. Of course, everything can be set according to your requirements, but I like this one. IQmonitor gives different setting options, so I use them.

Scan with TBS5925 and same setup with TBS6983.

TBS5925:

TBS6983:

I am still attaching the RF in Auto mode. (52.0e) TBS5925:

Zitat von Peon

Hello Yuri.
I rescanned these satellites and saved the images using IQmonitor. For comparison, I also add a scan of 19.2e, which is the strongest in my geolocation. Here you can see the fully rendered window with the transponders. Therefore, I used such a spectrum setting as the basic one. The difference in levels can be clearly seen on weaker satellites, compared to the strongest one. Of course, everything can be set according to your requirements, but I like this one. IQmonitor gives different setting options, so I use them.

Thanks Peon

I respect your choice and welcome your desire to experiment with different IQmonitor settings, as well as choosing as the base those with which the horizontal polarization of the satellite 19°2 E was scanned in 974 seconds (48 transponders are locked):

I was very surprised by the speed of the program when scanning with the parameters you selected, so I directed my 1 meter antenna to ASTRA and performed my satellite scan

As you can see, the same 48 transponders were found in 33 seconds (almost 30 times faster!)

Then I switched the program to HR mode (in which BlindScan does not require prior acquisition of the RF spectrum), and the scan took only 28 seconds for 48 horizontal polarization transponders

and 27 seconds for 49 vertical polarization transponders:

This is how the summary table of transponders looks like :

Agree that 97 transpods blocked in 55 seconds is a good result for a regular BlindScan that supports most cards

Hi Yuri,

I like your scan speed result.

I used a step of 1MHz and you used 15MHz and that is a significant difference. That's why you have a shorter scanning time. I prefer thoroughness, especially on satellites that do not have permanently switched on transponders, and then I also use a step of 100kHz. Or HR Spectrum. But that is always an individual case.

Only for lovers of high-resolution spectra, dF 435kHz (resolution 6000x1440)