baddandy23
Member
So I downloaded counter.exe, but i have no clue how to use it. Any Ideas? thanks
How to use counter.exe
- Thread starter baddandy23
- Start date
- Status
What is it?
WileECoyote
Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2005
- Messages
- 126
And where did you get it?
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,976
I checked the accuracy of counter.exe and found that it reads a bit low. A 1000 Hz wav file was made from an audio test CD and checked with a frequency counter. The frequency counter read 1000.0 Hz. Counter.exe bounced between 994.6 and 997 Hz which implies that it has a resolution of 2.4 Hz around 1000 Hz. The wav file is at http://home.hvc.rr.com/bpetrow/1khz.wav for the next few days or so. Then I will erase it to free up space on the web page. Anyone wishing to save the wav file can do so in Media Player by selecting FILE then Save As. I'd be interested to see what results others get with the wav file and counter.exe.
N
nmfire10
Guest
I must have missed the boat. What the hell is this program?
Well since no one answered when I ask what it was then I am going to take a guess and say its a freq couter.nmfire10 said:
Llwellyn
Member
I downloaded your test file... I also saw results of near-constant 997Hz. Sometimes it said 999.5Hz for a tick, but it was really sure it was 997Hz. Did you put the frequency counter to the soundcard output and check that the soundcard was faithfully reproducing 1000Hz? I don't have a way to check mine unfortunately.
TXFirefighter112
Member
What purpose does such a program serve?
Llwellyn
Member
Well, assuming the tolerance problem can be addressed, it can be used to identify any particular tone out of a recorded signal... for instance, the tones from fire paging systems, which are now going to be in demand for the release of the BC396T which supports fire paging tone-out. The information regarding tones is not usually sensitive per se, but still isn't always released to everyone inside the station and even more seldom to the public.
Ok now a couple of people have asked about the program. So how about a download link so those of us interested could check it out.
And who knows. Maybe someone (maybe a DJ like myself?) would be able to run a true test on it to make sure that the program is working and that it does count correctly.
So how about that link?
And who knows. Maybe someone (maybe a DJ like myself?) would be able to run a true test on it to make sure that the program is working and that it does count correctly.
So how about that link?
TXFirefighter112
Member
When does the BC396T come out? And I am assuming that this would work on subaudible tones as well?? Carrollton fire just switched over to them and now uses beeps to get the attention of members. Either that, or they now dont use any tones at all and the speakers are open 24/7, which I doubt.
Llwellyn
Member
There's no solid release date for the 396T yet; there is a running thread in the Uniden forum. As of now, 4th quarter 2005 seems like their target.
Using it to decode subaudibles is going to be shaky; I noticed that my soundcard has background noise in the 20-40Hz range that would interfere with trying to ID those types of tones... and it's a supposedly "semi-pro" soundcard. Maybe one of the really good soundcards would work, but you'd be better off using shielded leads and a hardware frequency counter for that.
I got my copy from http://www.tetrascanner.com/downloadfreqcounter.zip but there are some other sites on the 396T thread too.
Using it to decode subaudibles is going to be shaky; I noticed that my soundcard has background noise in the 20-40Hz range that would interfere with trying to ID those types of tones... and it's a supposedly "semi-pro" soundcard. Maybe one of the really good soundcards would work, but you'd be better off using shielded leads and a hardware frequency counter for that.
I got my copy from http://www.tetrascanner.com/downloadfreqcounter.zip but there are some other sites on the 396T thread too.
Damn that thing uses a crapload of system resources. Figure with 2.6 CPU and 512 of ram it wouldnt slow me down. Uses 74 percent CPU. Think I will wait till it runs a little better.
As for the test.
Ran a 1000hz tone and it came back at 999.5 and peaked at 1000 but only for a sec.
Looks like it is off by a bit. May need to be tuned. Not a programmer so I cant touch that part. But I can run the tests on the quality of the counter if anyone wants me too.
As for the test.
Ran a 1000hz tone and it came back at 999.5 and peaked at 1000 but only for a sec.
Looks like it is off by a bit. May need to be tuned. Not a programmer so I cant touch that part. But I can run the tests on the quality of the counter if anyone wants me too.
Llwellyn
Member
If you have easy access to a tone generator and can run a test at 20, 60, 100, 200, 440, 880, 1360, 1720, and 2600Hz I'd be interested to see the results... maybe a 30-second test of each to see how often it doesn't keep a solid lock and how much variance? I'd test it myself but I don't have access to that kind of equipment anymore.
I have a Sound Blaster Live! card... what's in your wallet, so to speak?
I have a Sound Blaster Live! card... what's in your wallet, so to speak?
I have a few freinds at the Cincinatti School of Broadcasting. I can take the file to them and see what kind of results we come up with. They have the necessary equipment to put out a clean tone without the quality of the audio card interfering.
I will see what we come up with and post back. Its aneat program. Many usefull ideas I could use it for. Shame it takes so much resources when running.
I will see what we come up with and post back. Its aneat program. Many usefull ideas I could use it for. Shame it takes so much resources when running.
nmfire10 said:
It's a PC audio frequency counter. You can DL it here, too.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ScannerTech/files/Utilities/
You know, your tests are great, but if you know it is 0.3% low, just increase the displayed tone by 0.3% and you have the error back. It will still get you close enough to use the standard tone tables to see which tone it is using. For example, if you read 1182.0, you know it is going to be either P15 (1180.0) or most likely Motorola 192 (1185.4). (P15 = Plectron code 15, BTW)
The settings can also affect the accuracy - sometimes faster times can improve accuracy. Play with the settings and see if you can get a better reading.
Joe M.
Llwellyn
Member
Voyager said:
Yes, but it requires some accurate testing first to make sure that the amount of error stays constant. The nature of hardware test equipment dictates that the extreme high and extreme low frequencies will have a different margin of error than the frequencies central to the range of the test equipment. If the counter.exe program is the same way, then for example, at 40-200Hz, it may be .3%, at 1000-1500Hz it could be .6%, and then at 4000-6000Hz it could be off a whole percent or more. If so, then you can't just apply a standard correction factor.
- Status
