3 ms·

Because cheap radios do the processing analogically, without digitizing the signal :)

• scandox 6y ago
  So is analogic signal processing inherently more efficient then?
  • mhh__ 6y ago
    Efficient at the expense of flexibility and noise, yes, but it depends on the use case - e.g. a Xilinx RFSoC can sample at some ungodly rate and has a phat FPGA on board, but is very expensive , so if you only need narrowband and not many of them you may well be better with a less flexible product.
  • kurthr 6y ago
    Generally they are, but they don't scale well. For example, with an FFT you could decode every radio station simultaneously with the same receiver and only log more compute. So if you only want a single high SNR narrowband channel (even tunable) it's easier to do in analog, but if you want all 100 possible channels with stereo and/or some digital processing to add features or reduce noise... it's much better to do digitally. However, doing it with an FPGA/DSP would probably be significantly more efficient than a general purpose CPU.
  • kkylin 6y ago
    Cheap FM radios, at least, are also much, much more power efficient. And, well, really cheap to make. (Not an audiophile, but I imagine these statements would not apply to high end analog equipment.)