How to Use YouTube Music Extension on Google Gemini

How to Use YouTube Music Extension on Google Gemini

techviral.net

Amarnath Chakraborty

---

Early this year, Google launched its own AI tool, Bard, to compete with ChatGPT. Later, Google renamed Bard to Gemini, and it’s available for both desktop & mobile users.

After a few months, Google also introduced extensions that add more features to the AI Chatbot. At first, Google Gemini only had five extensions, but now it has a new one named YouTube Music.

If you use the YouTube music app on your Android phone to satisfy your music needs, this new extension will be very helpful.

The YouTube Music extension gives Gemini AI permission to access the streaming service and your library for music commands.

How to Enable the YouTube Music Extension on Google Gemini?

To find music via the Gemini chatbot, you first need to enable the YouTube Music extension. If you’re reading this guide from the desktop, follow these simple steps.

1. Open your favorite web browser and visit this webpage.

2. Sign in to your Google account.

3. Once signed in, click the Settings gear icon at the bottom left corner.

4. On the options that appear, select Extensions.

5. Next, find and enable the YouTube Music extension.

6. On the prompt that appears, click Connect.

Once enabled, you can use this extension to find & play your favorite songs from YouTube Music through text prompts.

How to Enable the YouTube Music Extension on Google Gemini (Mobile)?

If you use the YouTube music mobile app to satisfy your needs, you must follow these steps to play music via Gemini.

Since the Gemini mobile app is still not available in every country, we have used the Gemini web version to demonstrate the steps. Here’s what you need to do.

1. Launch your favorite web browser on your Android.

2. When the browser opens, head to this webpage.

3. Sign in with your account. Next, enter a text prompt to find a song. You can enter prompts like ‘Find the Song Faded from Alan Walker’ or ‘Find songs of Titanic’.

4. The Gemini web version will ask you to connect with the YouTube Music extension. Tap on Connect.

5. The YouTube Music app will open, and the song will be played on it.’

Some Text Prompts You Can Try

We have shared a few examples of the text prompts to help you better understand how this new extension works. You can modify these text prompts or create your own.

• Find (Song Name) From (Movie Name)
• Find the album (Album Title)
• Find Playlist.
• Find the Song that goes (Song Lyrics)
• Find evergreen songs of (Artist name)
• Suggest some rock music.
• Turn on White Noise @YouTube Music
• Find songs like (Your favorite song)

You can enter any text prompts you want to use with the YouTube Music extension. For example, you can search for music albums, playlists, specific music, music videos, and so on. Make sure your text prompt is to the point. Let us know if you need more help on this topic in the comments.

 

MatrixSpace Gets $1.25M AFWERX Open Topic SBIR Contract to Develop Low SWAP-C Multi-Function Payload

MatrixSpace Radar, heralded as the smallest, lightest, and most cost-effective radar solution, is now available for commercial and public organizations in the United States and approved international markets. Following its recent authorization by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), this award-winning product is ready for commercial deployment. After receiving several SBIR awards in th past, has been selected by AFWERX for a direct to Phase II Award

Summary

Here's a summary of key points about MatrixSpace:

1. MatrixSpace Radar, described as the smallest, lightest, and most cost-effective radar solution, is now available for commercial and public organizations in the US and approved international markets after receiving FCC authorization.

2. AFWERX has awarded MatrixSpace a $1.25 million Direct-to-Phase II Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contract to develop a low SWaP-C (Size, Weight, Power, and Cost) multi-function, multi-band antenna payload based on their radar hardware platform.

3. The project is part of the Replicator initiative and aims to address challenges for the Department of the Air Force (DAF) by developing low SWaP payloads for uncrewed aerial systems (UAS). The initial project duration is 21 months.

4. MatrixSpace Radar offers situational awareness of airborne and ground-based objects in all weather and lighting conditions, supporting drone detection, Counter Unmanned Aircraft System (CUAS) capabilities, and Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) flight.

5. The technology is designed to support large-scale, all-domain attritable autonomous (ADA2) systems and provide multi-function, multi-band capabilities for autonomous vehicles.

6. MatrixSpace has previously received several SBIR awards for various projects, including AI-enabled sensing, mesh-network enabled UGVs, and dual-mode radar systems.

7. The company is a small 40 person business in Bedford, Mass. that aims to create the smallest radar system for integrated outdoor surveillance in 4D (size, location, and movement of objects in time) without requiring cloud access.

This summary highlights MatrixSpace's recent achievements, their radar technology's capabilities, and the potential applications in both commercial and military sectors.

 

MatrixSpace Gets $1.25M AFWERX Open Topic SBIR Contract to Develop Low SWAP-C Multi-Function Payload – UAS VISION

uasvision.com

by The Editor

---

MatrixSpace has been selected by AFWERX for a $1.25M Direct-to-Phase II SBIR to develop a prototype low SWaP-C multi-function, multi-band antenna payload, based on the MatrixSpace Radar hardware platform.

Created to satisfy requirements for the Replicator initiative and address the most pressing challenges in the Department of the Air Force (DAF), the project is part of a new initiative to develop and test low SWAP payloads based on existing MatrixSpace technology for uncrewed aerial systems (UAS). The project initially runs for 21 months, starting immediately.

Designed and developed in the USA, MatrixSpace Radar offers robust situational awareness of both airborne and ground-based objects, regardless of lighting and weather conditions. This facilitates highly accurate drone detection and Counter Unmanned Aircraft System (CUAS) capabilities, Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) flight for uncrewed, autonomous and tethered aircraft, and overall general airspace awareness and security.

The Air Force Research Laboratory and AFWERX have partnered to streamline the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) process by accelerating the small business experience through faster proposal to award timelines, changing the pool of potential applicants by expanding opportunities to small business and eliminating bureaucratic overhead by continually implementing process improvement changes in contract execution.

The DAF began offering the Open Topic SBIR/STTR program in 2018 which expanded the range of innovations the DAF funded.

Matthew Kling, VP of Intelligent Systems, MatrixSpace said:

“We’re honoured to provide innovative military capabilities using our core MatrixSpace technology to strengthen the national defense of the United States. Through this award, we have been given a significant opportunity to progress large-scale, all-domain attritable autonomous (ADA2) systems envisioned under the Replicator initiative. MatrixSpace will help address critical requirements for future military systems by providing multi-function, multi-band, agnostic capabilities on-board autonomous vehicles, enabling our warfighters to rapidly adapt to any mission.”

Source: Press Release

MatrixSpace Awarded $1.25M AFWERX Open Topic SBIR Contract to Develop Low SWAP-C Multi-function Payload

MatrixSpace

prnewswire.com

---

Small, low cost, multi-band, high-performance UAS sensor package for sensing, communications and electronic warfare to enable Replicator initiative

, /PRNewswire/ -- MatrixSpace has been selected by AFWERX for a $1.25M Direct-to-Phase II SBIR to develop a prototype low SWaP-C multi-function, multi-band antenna payload, based on the MatrixSpace Radar hardware platform.

MatrixSpace Radar

Created to satisfy requirements for the Replicator initiative and address the most pressing challenges in the Department of the Air Force (DAF), the project is part of a new initiative to develop and test low SWAP payloads based on existing MatrixSpace technology for uncrewed aerial systems (UAS). The project initially runs for 21 months, starting immediately.

Designed and developed in the USA, MatrixSpace Radar offers robust situational awareness of both airborne and ground-based objects, regardless of lighting and weather conditions. This facilitates highly accurate drone detection and Counter Unmanned Aircraft System (CUAS) capabilities, Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) flight for uncrewed, autonomous and tethered aircraft, and overall general airspace awareness and security. 

The Air Force Research Laboratory and AFWERX have partnered to streamline the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) process by accelerating the small business experience through faster proposal to award timelines, changing the pool of potential applicants by expanding opportunities to small business and eliminating bureaucratic overhead by continually implementing process improvement changes in contract execution.

The DAF began offering the Open Topic SBIR/STTR program in 2018 which expanded the range of innovations the DAF funded.

Quote from Matthew Kling, VP of Intelligent Systems, MatrixSpace*
"We're honored to provide innovative military capabilities using our core MatrixSpace technology to strengthen the national defense of the United States. Through this award, we have been given a significant opportunity to progress large-scale, all-domain attritable autonomous (ADA2) systems envisioned under the Replicator initiative. MatrixSpace will help address critical requirements for future military systems by providing multi-function, multi-band, agnostic capabilities on-board autonomous vehicles, enabling our warfighters to rapidly adapt to any mission."

*Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.

About the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)
AFRL is the primary scientific research and development center for the Department of the Air Force. AFRL plays an integral role in leading the discovery, development, and integration of affordable warfighting technologies for our air, space and cyberspace force. With a workforce of more than 12,500 across nine technology areas and 40 other operations across the globe, AFRL provides a diverse portfolio of science and technology ranging from fundamental to advanced research and technology development. Visit www.afresearchlab.com.

About AFWERX
As the innovation arm of the DAF and a directorate within the Air Force Research Laboratory, AFWERX brings cutting-edge American ingenuity from small businesses and start-ups to address the most pressing challenges of the DAF. AFWERX employs approximately 370 military, civilian and contractor personnel at five hubs and sites executing an annual $1.4 billion budget. Since 2019, AFWERX has executed over 6,100 new contracts worth more than $4 billion to strengthen the U.S. defense industrial base and drive faster technology transition to operational capability. Visit www.afwerx.com.  

About MatrixSpace
MatrixSpace is re-imagining radar. We are addressing the next generation of AI-enabled sensing so that objects can be identified, and data collected in real-time - no cloud access required. We're building the smallest radar system to provide new levels of integrated outdoor surveillance in 4D (the size, location, and movement of objects in time) that makes it accessible to a broad range of public and private enterprises. www.matrixspace.com.

Contact:
379362@email4pr.com
P: +1 650 996 0778

Follow us:
LinkedIn @MatrixSpaceAI
Twitter @MatrixSpaceAI

SOURCE MatrixSpace

 

MATRIXSPACE INC | SBIR.gov

sbir.gov

---

UEI: WKMUECAWVMZ3

Address

145 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET

BURLINGTON, MA 01803-5199

United States

 

1. MatrixSense Collaborative Networked Radar

   Amount: $179,659.33

   ACE Doctrine necessitates advancements in portable/mobile edge systems, AI, heterogenous collaborative systems, resilient network architectures, distributed architectures, and multi-domain sensing. Th ...

2. AI-Sensing and Mesh-network Enabled UGVs

   Amount: $1,699,890.80

   Redacted

3. Dual Mode Radar & High-Speed RF Mesh Network for UAV Systems

   Amount: $749,940.00

   MatrixSpace has created a unique multimodal RF subsystem called DopplerSpace. DopplerSpace is a low-cost, small form factor, software defined communication and radar subsystem designed for integration ...

4. Low Cost Phased Array Radar leveraging 5G mmWave integrated circuits and Software Defined Radio

   Amount: $49,973.00

   MatrixSpace will leverage commercial developments in phased array controllers, largely tied to 5G cellular, to create a low-cost, small form factor radar.  This radar can be used for a variety of mil ...

 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research and Innovation Challenges

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research and Innovation Challenges (PDF)

• DOI:  10.13140/RG.2.2.31560.12800

• Delivered Online, 18 June 2024

• Lab:  Intelligent and Autonomous Aerospace Systems Laboratory

Abstract

Roberto Sabatini's IEEE AESS Distinguished Lecture provides a timely update on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) research and innovation initiatives, with a focus on avionics and Air Traffic Management (ATM) evolutions.

 Fundamental topics covered encompass onboard Communication, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS) systems, and their interactions within current and future ATM frameworks. The lecture also delves into the relevant cybersecurity principles within the UAS Traffic Management (UTM) and Urban Air Mobility (UAM) domains, aiming to identify the possible threats and applicable mitigation strategies. 

Beginning with an introductory segment outlining the IEEE AESS Avionics Systems Panel (ASP) activities in this domain, the lecture provides a high-level classification of Cyber-Physical Aerospace Systems (CPAS) and discusses the UAS as a system-of-systems, with associated key definitions. 

Subsequent sections delve into ongoing research and innovation efforts, including: 

• autonomous navigation and guidance, 
• sense-and-avoid, 
• human-machine interactions, 
• AI integration in UAS avionics design, 
• cybersecurity, and 
• ongoing UTM/UAM airspace integration initiatives. 

This lecture is intended for researchers, students and professionals seeking to gain insights into the rapidly evolving domain of UAS and associated airspace integration efforts. 

Summary

Here is a summary of the key points from the presentation on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Research and Innovation Challenges:

• - UAS are examples of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) that integrate digital and physical components. Key research areas include developing robust and fault-tolerant architectures for trusted autonomous operations.
• - Major UAS avionics research focuses on:
•   - Low SWaP-C navigation systems integrating GNSS, inertial, vision-based sensors
•   - GNSS augmentation techniques like ABAS to improve accuracy, integrity, availability and continuity  
•   - Separation assurance and collision avoidance systems
•   - Human-machine interfaces for UAS control
• - Key cybersecurity challenges for UAS include:

•   - Increasing attack surface as systems become more interconnected
•   - Need for AI-based cyber defenses to counter AI-based offensive technologies
•   - Developing new security management systems and attack detection techniques

• - UAS Traffic Management (UTM) research aims to enable safe integration of UAS into airspace, focusing on:
•   - Highly automated systems to manage increased traffic density
•   - New airspace structures and traffic flow management concepts
•   - Defining roles and responsibilities between humans and AI
• - Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) is an emerging concept for urban/regional air transportation, requiring research on:
•   - New vehicle designs (e.g. eVTOLs)
•   - Infrastructure like vertiports
•   - Integration with existing airspace and ground transportation

The presentation highlights the multidisciplinary nature of UAS/AAM research, spanning areas like avionics, autonomy, human factors, cybersecurity, and traffic management to enable safe and efficient operations.

Avionics Research Foci

Certainly. The presentation highlights several key areas of avionics research for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS):

1. Low SWaP-C Navigation Systems:
   - Focus on integrating multiple sensor types including GNSS, inertial measurement units (IMU), vision-based sensors, and aircraft dynamics models.
   - Aim to develop navigation solutions that are low in Size, Weight, Power, and Cost (SWaP-C) while maintaining high performance.
   - Research includes sensor fusion techniques using extended and unscented Kalman filters.

2. GNSS Augmentation:
   - Development of Aircraft-Based Augmentation Systems (ABAS) to improve GNSS performance.
   - Research on integrity monitoring and prediction, including the Avionics-Based Integrity Augmentation (ABIA) system.
   - Efforts to enhance accuracy, integrity, availability, and continuity of navigation data.

3. Separation Assurance and Collision Avoidance:
   - Development of systems for both cooperative and non-cooperative scenarios.
   - Research on creating dynamic "avoidance volumes" considering navigation and tracking errors.
   - Work on real-time generation of optimal avoidance trajectories.

4. Human-Machine Interfaces and Interactions:
   - Development of Cognitive Human Machine Interfaces and Interactions (CHMI2) for UAS control.
   - Research on adaptive interfaces that respond to the operator's cognitive state.
   - Focus on enhancing human-machine teaming for more effective UAS operations.

5. 4D Trajectory Optimization:
   - Development of algorithms for real-time trajectory planning and optimization.
   - Integration with UTM systems for efficient and safe UAS operations.

6. Cybersecurity:
   - Research on protecting UAS avionics systems from cyber threats.
   - Development of secure communication protocols and intrusion detection systems.

7. Health and Mission Management Systems:
   - Development of integrated systems for monitoring UAS health and optimizing mission performance.

These research areas aim to enhance the capabilities, safety, and efficiency of UAS operations while addressing the unique challenges posed by unmanned systems in various operational environments.

Autonomous Vehicles Are Great at Driving Straight - IEEE Spectrum

By 2025, most cars will have partly assisted driving and steering,
Statista predicts. Image: REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann

Autonomous Vehicles Are Great at Driving Straight - IEEE Spectrum

Overall Summary

Based on the analysis of over 37,000 #accidents involving #autonomous vehicles (#AVs) and human-driven vehicles (#HDVs), the study published in Nature found that AVs were generally less prone to accidents compared to HDVs. However, AVs significantly underperformed in certain situations.

Key findings:

1. SAE Level 4 AVs (capable of full self-driving without a human at the wheel) were roughly 36% less likely to be involved in moderate injury accidents and 90% less likely to be involved in fatal accidents compared to HDVs.

2. The risk of rear-end collisions for Level 4 AVs was about half that of HDVs, and the risk of broadside collisions was approximately one-fifth.

3. Level 4 AVs were nearly 50 times less likely to run off the road compared to HDVs.

4. AVs performed better than HDVs in #rain and #fog, likely due to their #radar and #lidar systems.

However, the study also highlighted two significant negative outcomes for Level 4 AVs:

1. AVs were over five times more likely to be involved in accidents at dawn and dusk, possibly due to issues with the data captured by visual sensor systems in challenging lighting conditions.

2. The odds of an accident during a turn were almost doubled for AVs compared to HDVs, suggesting that navigating turns is among the most demanding situations for an AV's artificial intelligence.

While the study's findings are generally favorable for AVs, the authors emphasize that more data is necessary to determine the precise cause of accidents and encourage others to assist in this effort. Additionally, some experts caution against making sweeping statements about AV safety based on the current available information.

Summary of original Ding & Abdel-Aty Article

This study compares accidents involving autonomous vehicles (AVs) and human-driven vehicles (HDVs) using a matched case-control logistic regression approach. The key findings are:

1. AVs tend to be safer than HDVs in many accident situations due to their faster reaction times, consistent sensing technologies, and ability to rapidly adjust speed and trajectory.

2. However, the likelihood of an AV accident during dawn/dusk conditions is 5.15 times greater than HDVs. AVs also have a 1.37 times higher probability of accidents while making turns compared to HDVs. This may be due to sensors having difficulty adapting to changing light and complex scenarios.

3. AVs have lower risks of rear-end accidents (0.41 times) and broadside accidents (0.19 times) relative to HDVs.

4. AV accidents are less likely when the vehicle is proceeding straight, running off the road, entering a traffic lane, or backing up compared to HDV accidents in the same situations.

5. AV accidents result in fewer moderate and fatal injuries compared to HDV accidents.

6. In rear-end accidents, 79% involve an HDV hitting an AV from behind, while only 21% involve an AV rear-ending an HDV. When an HDV hits an AV, the AV is usually in autonomous mode.

In summary, the study finds AVs are generally safer than HDVs, but lighting conditions and turning maneuvers remain challenging scenarios where AV accident risk can be higher. The matched case-control approach allows direct comparison between AV and HDV accident characteristics. 

Where AVs fail

According to the matched case-control logistic regression analysis, there are two main scenarios where human-driven vehicles (HDVs) outperform autonomous vehicles (AVs) in terms of accident likelihood:

1. Dawn/Dusk conditions: The study found that the probability of an AV being involved in an accident during dawn or dusk is 5.15 times higher than that of an HDV under the same lighting conditions. This could be attributed to the limitations of AV sensors and cameras in adapting to rapidly changing light conditions. During dawn and dusk, the sun's shadows and reflections may confuse the sensors, making it difficult for them to distinguish between objects and identify potential hazards. Additionally, the fluctuating light conditions can impact the accuracy of object detection and recognition algorithms used by AVs, which can result in false positives or negatives. In contrast, human drivers can often better adapt to changing light conditions based on their experience and intuition.

2. Turning maneuvers: The analysis revealed that AVs have a 1.373 times higher probability of being involved in an accident while making turns compared to HDVs. This could be due to the lack of situational awareness in AVs when navigating complex driving scenarios like turning at intersections. AVs rely on sensors and algorithms to perceive their surroundings and make driving decisions, but these systems may not detect all obstacles and hazards, particularly in dynamic environments. Moreover, AVs are programmed to follow predefined rules and scenarios, which may not encompass every possible driving situation. The modifications of scenarios can present difficulty for AVs in perceiving and responding to them, thereby raising the risk of an accident. On the other hand, most human drivers have years of experience and can adapt to unexpected circumstances on the road, enabling them to make better decisions while turning, such as adjusting their speed and trajectory based on the actions of other vehicles and pedestrians.

These findings highlight the need for further advancements in AV technology to improve their performance in challenging lighting conditions and complex driving maneuvers. Improving the safety of AVs in these scenarios may require a holistic approach involving advanced sensors, robust algorithms, redundancy measures, and effective integration of sensor data. By focusing on these aspects, the safety of AVs can be significantly enhanced, bringing them closer to surpassing human drivers in all driving situations.

Where AVs Outperform

The matched case-control logistic regression analysis reveals several situations where autonomous vehicles (AVs) outperform human-driven vehicles (HDVs) in terms of accident likelihood:

1. Rainy weather conditions: The study found that the odds of an AV being involved in an accident during rainy weather are 0.334 times lower than those of an HDV. This can be attributed to the faster reaction times of AVs in responding to changing road conditions caused by rain. AVs can rapidly process sensor data and adjust the vehicle's speed and trajectory within milliseconds, whereas human drivers may take several seconds to react. Additionally, while rain can increase the likelihood of skidding or loss of vehicle control, AVs employ consistent and precise sensing technologies such as cameras, LiDAR, radar, and GPS to accurately detect and perceive road conditions, regardless of the weather.

2. Rear-end collisions: The analysis shows that AVs have a relatively lower risk of being involved in rear-end accidents compared to HDVs (0.410 times). This finding indicates that AVs can detect and react to potential rear-end collision situations much faster than human drivers can, thanks to their advanced sensors and software that can quickly analyze the surrounding environment and make decisions based on the data received. This allows AVs to respond to potential accidents before they occur, preventing or mitigating the severity of a rear-end collision.

3. Broadside (side-impact) collisions: The study reveals that AVs have a significantly lower probability (0.189 times) of being involved in broadside accidents compared to HDVs. Similar to rear-end collisions, AVs' superior sensing capabilities and faster reaction times enable them to better detect and avoid potential side-impact collisions.

4. Pre-accident vehicle movements: The analysis shows that most pre-accident movements made by AVs reduce the probability of accidents compared to HDVs. For example, when an AV is proceeding straight, the risk of an accident is 0.436 times lower than that of an HDV. Similarly, when an AV is running off the road, the accident risk is 0.325 times lower than that of an HDV. AVs can detect these situations and apply corrective actions, such as adjusting speed or steering angle, more quickly and accurately than human drivers.

5. Accident severity: The model indicates that AV accidents are less likely to result in moderate and fatal injuries compared to HDV accidents. This can be attributed to the advanced safety features and collision avoidance systems incorporated into AVs, which can help mitigate the severity of accidents when they do occur.

These findings highlight the potential safety benefits of AVs in various driving situations, particularly in terms of their ability to detect and respond to hazards more quickly and consistently than human drivers. However, it is essential to acknowledge that AVs still face challenges in certain scenarios, such as navigating complex urban environments and handling edge cases not covered in their programming. As AV technology continues to advance, it is expected that their performance will further improve, leading to even greater safety benefits compared to HDVs.

---

---

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have made headlines in recent months, though often for all the wrong reasons. Cruise, Waymo, and Tesla are all under U.S. federal investigation for a variety of accidents, some of which caused serious injury or death.

A new paper published in Nature puts numbers to the problem. Its authors analyzed over 37,000 accidents involving autonomous and human-driven vehicles to gauge risk across several accident scenarios. The paper reports AVs were generally less prone to accidents than those driven by humans, but significantly underperformed humans in some situations.

“The conclusion may not be surprising given the technological context,” said Shengxuan Ding, an author on the paper. “However, challenges remain under specific conditions, necessitating advanced algorithms and sensors and updates to infrastructure to effectively support AV technology.”

The paper, authored by two researchers at the University of Central Florida, analyzed data from 2,100 accidents involving advanced driving systems (SAE Level 4) and advanced driver-assistance systems (SAE Level 2) alongside 35,113 accidents involving human-driven vehicles. The study pulled from publicly available data on human-driven vehicle accidents in the state of California and the AVOID autonomous vehicle operation incident dataset, which the authors made public last year.

While the breadth of the paper’s data is significant, the paper’s “matched case-control analysis” is what sets it apart. Autonomous and human-driven vehicles tend to encounter different roads in different conditions, which can skew accident data. The paper categorizes risks by the variables surrounding the accident, such as whether the vehicle was moving straight or turning, and the conditions of the road and weather.

Level 4 self-driving vehicles were roughly 36 percent less likely to be involved in moderate injury accidents and 90 percent less likely to be involved in a fatal accident.

SAE Level 4 self-driving vehicles (those capable of full self-driving without a human at the wheel) performed especially well by several metrics. They were roughly 36 percent less likely to be involved in moderate injury accidents and 90 percent less likely to be involved in a fatal accident. Compared to human-driven vehicles, the risk of rear-end collision was roughly halved, and the risk of a broadside collision was roughly one-fifth. Level 4 AVs were close to 50 times less likely to run off the road.

The paper’s findings are generally favorable for level 4 AVs, but they perform worse in turns, and at dawn and dusk.Nature

These figures look good for AVs. However, Missy Cummings, director of George Mason University’s Autonomy and Robotics Center and former safety advisor for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, was skeptical of the findings.

“The ground rules should be that when you analyze AV accidents, you cannot combine accidents with self-driving cars [SAE Level 4] with the accidents of Teslas [SAE Level 2],” said Cummings. She took issue with discussing them in tandem and points out these categories of vehicles operate differently—so much so that Level 4 AVs aren’t legal in every state, while Level 2 AVs are.

Mohamed Abdel-Aty, an author on the paper and director of the Smart & Safe Transportation Lab at the University of Central Florida, said that while the paper touches on both levels of autonomy, the focus was on Level 4 autonomy. “The model which is the main contribution to this research compared only level 4 to human-driven vehicles,” he said.

And while many findings were generally positive, the authors highlighted two significant negative outcomes for level 4 AVs. It found they were over five times more likely to be involved in an accident at dawn and dusk. They were relatively bad at navigating turns as well, with the odds of an accident during a turn almost doubled compared to those for human-driven vehicles.

More data required for AVs to be “reassuring”

The study’s finding of higher accident rates during turns and in unusual lighting conditions highlight two major categories of challenges facing self-driving vehicles: intelligence and data.

J. Christian Gerdes, codirector of the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford University, said turning through traffic is among the most demanding situations for an AV’s artificial intelligence. “That decision is based a lot on the actions of other road users around you, and you’re going to make the choice based on what you predict.”

Cummings agreed with Gerdes. “Any time uncertainty increases [for an AV], you’re going to see an increased risk of accident. Just by the fact you’re turning, that increases uncertainty, and increases risk.”

AVs’ dramatically higher risk of accidents at dawn and dusk, on the other hand, points towards issues with the data captured by a vehicle’s sensors. Most AVs use a combination of radar and visual sensor systems, and the latter is prone to error in difficult lighting.

It’s not all bad news for sensors, though. Level 4 AVs were drastically better in rain and fog, which suggests that the presence of radar and lidar systems gives AVs an advantage in weather conditions that reduce visibility. Gerdes also said AVs, unlike humans, don’t tire or become distracted when driving through weather that requires more vigilance.

While the paper found AVs have a lower risk of accident overall, that doesn’t mean they’ve passed the checkered flag. Gerdes said poor performance in specific scenarios is meaningful and should rightfully make human passengers uncomfortable.

“It’s hard to make the argument that [AVs] are so much safer driving straight, but if [they] get into other situations, they don’t do as well. People will not find that reassuring,” said Gerdes.

The relative lack of data for Level 4 systems is another barrier. Level 4 AVs make up a tiny fraction of all vehicles on the road and only operate in specific areas. AVs are also packed with sensors and driven by an AI system that may make decisions for a variety of reasons that remain opaque in accident data.

While the paper accounts for the low total number of accidents in its statistical analysis, the authors acknowledge more data is necessary to determine the precise cause of accidents, and hope their findings will encourage others to assist. “I believe one of the benefits of this study is to draw the attention of authorities to the need for better data,” said Ding.

On that, Cummings agreed. “We do not have enough information to make sweeping statements,” she said.

---

---

weforum.org

Charted: Autonomous driving is racing ahead

Automotive and New Mobility

• The transition to autonomous-ready cars has accelerated in recent years and will continue to do so, according to Statista's Mobility Market Insights.
• There are six different automation levels for passenger cars in the classification, as this chart shows.
• By 2025, 63.6% of registered passenger cars worldwide should be at level 1, partly assisted driving and steering, Statista predicts.

The share of newly registered passenger cars worldwide produced without provisions for assisted driving systems has become smaller and smaller in recent years. According to the Statista Mobility Market Insights, “regular” cars made up a minority of only 14.4 percent of newly registered cars around the globe in 2020. The transition to autonomous-ready cars has been a quick one: In 2015, cars without assistance systems were still in the majority at 51.4 percent of all newly registered ones.

There are six different automation levels for passenger cars in the classification SAE J3016 by standards developer SAE International, four of which are included in the chart. Autonomous driving ability is displayed as levels 0 to 5. In levels 1 and 2, the autonomous driving functions assist the drivers (so-called assisted mode). Automated driving provisions of of level 3 are now entering regular production, while level 4 is expected by 2025.

Level 3 is the lowest level of this automated mode. Vehicles whose systems meet level 3 requirements can drive independently to some degree, with the driver taking over the wheel again upon request and with advance notice. From level 4, vehicles can drive independently without the driver having to take over. In levels 1 and 2, the driver can be assisted by the autonomous driving systems, yet he or she can not turn attention away from the road. In level 1, either braking or steering can be assisted. In level 2, a combination of both is possible, equipping the car lane centering and adaptive cruise control capabilities.

Only 1.6% of cars will have no autonomous driving by 2025. Image: Statista.

Discover

How is the World Economic Forum promoting sustainable and inclusive mobility systems?

Have you read?

• Which trends are driving the autonomous vehicles industry?

• It's not just self-driving cars. Trains could soon be autonomous too

• Are autonomous cars really safer than human drivers?

Accept our marketing cookies to access this content.

These cookies are currently disabled in your browser.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

Sign up for free

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Share:

Global Agenda

The Agenda Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

 

Per Vices Calamine SDR covers 4 channels 300MHz bandwidth with DC to 40GHz tuning

Per Vices Calamine’s new standard provides widest tuning range SDR – SatNews

news.satnews.com

Summary

Per Vices has released a new high-performance software defined radio (SDR) called Calamine. Key features and specifications of Calamine include:

- Extremely wide tuning range from near DC to 40 GHz
- 4 independent receive radio chains, each with 300 MHz of instantaneous bandwidth
- 16-bit converters for high dynamic range
- Dual 10GBASE-R interfaces providing 20 Gbps total data throughput
- 19" 2U form factor
- Intel Arria V FPGA SoC for onboard digital signal processing
- Highly flexible and configurable to meet requirements for applications like radar, satellite communications, low latency links, and test & measurement

Calamine provides some of the widest frequency coverage and instantaneous bandwidth available in a commercial off-the-shelf SDR. The multiple independent channels, high sample rate, and large FPGA resources enable very high performance.

Per Vices offers Calamine by itself or as part of a kit that includes accessories like cables, attenuators, and network interface cards. Pricing starts around $155,000 with customization options available. Overall, it is one of the highest performing SDRs on the market, aimed at the most demanding applications such as Electronic Warfare, Communications, and Radar. 

---

Per Vices Corporation, a leading provider of software defined radios (SDRs), is pleased to announce the release of Calamine, the company’s latest and widest tuning range SDR. This release builds on the impressive product line already established and integrated into mission critical systems for the defense, GPS/GNSS, communications, and test and measurement markets. Calamine builds on the Per Vices existing IP to offer an impressive tuning range from near DC to 40 GHz with four (4) independent receive radio chains each offering 300 MSPS sampling bandwidth.

The latest release will offer capabilities extending other SDR systems for use by government, defense/intelligence communities and civil customers with direct applications for radar systems, signals intelligence, spectrum monitoring, and satellite communications systems. Per Vices products aims to provide hardware and software solutions to address the growing need for high channel count, wide tuning range, and high bandwidth SDRs. Calamine sets a new standard for tuning range demanded by the market.

“There has been a growing need in RF for operating at higher frequency ranges within sacrificing the ability to tune to lower frequencies as well. Our latest release of Calamine offers a perfect solution to address this need with multiple channels and high sampling bandwidths all within a compact 19” 2U form factor.” said Victor Wollesen, CEO of Per Vices. “We’re very excited to be offering this product to our customers as we know it is critical for many different applications.

Per Vices Corporation is a Canadian company based in Toronto, Ontario designing and producing high-performance commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS), modified-off-the-shelf (MOTS) and fully customized SDRs that can be tailored to fit the most challenging and mission critical customer applications. Per Vices has direct experience working with and supplying SDRs to supports a wide variety of applications within defense, civil, aerospace, medical, telecommunications, low latency networks, global positioning (GNSS/GPS), radar, test & measurement, spectrum monitoring, and broadcasting and wireless management industries. Offering mission critical products to leading-edge intelligence community groups, advanced research agencies and global defense prime contractors, Per Vices provides the market with commercially available software defined radios.

 

Per Vices Releases Calamine

By RFMW

microwavejournal.com

---

Per Vices Corporation, a leading provider of software defined radios (SDRs), announced the release of Calamine, the company's latest and widest tuning range SDR. This release builds on the impressive product line already established and integrated into mission critical systems for the defense, GPS/GNSS, communications and test and measurement markets. Calamine builds on the Per Vices existing IP to offer an impressive tuning range from near DC to 40 GHz with four independent receive radio chains each offering 300 MSPS sampling bandwidth.

The latest release will offer capabilities extending other SDR systems for use by government, defense/intelligence communities and civil customers with direct applications for radar systems, signals intelligence, spectrum monitoring and satellite communications systems. Per Vices products aims to provide hardware and software solutions to address the growing need for high channel count, wide tuning range and high bandwidth SDRs. Calamine sets a new standard for tuning range demanded by the market.

"There has been a growing need in RF for operating at higher frequency ranges within sacrificing the ability to tune to lower frequencies as well. Our latest release of Calamine offers a perfect solution to address this need with multiple channels and high sampling bandwidths all within a compact 19” 2U form factor." said Victor Wollesen, CEO of Per Vices. "We're very excited to be offering this product to our customers as we know it is critical for many different applications."

Per Vices Corporation is a Canadian company based in Toronto, Ontario, designing and producing high performance commercial-off-the-shelf, modified-off-the-shelf and fully customized SDRs that can be tailored to fit the most challenging and mission critical customer applications. Per Vices has direct experience working with and supplying SDRs to supports a wide variety of applications within defense, civil, aerospace, medical, telecommunications, low latency networks, global positioning, radar, test & measurement, spectrum monitoring, broadcasting and wireless management industries. Offering mission critical products to leading-edge intelligence community groups, advanced research agencies and global defense prime contractors, Per Vices leads the market for commercially available SDRs.

 

rtl-sdr.com

Roundup of Software Defined Radios

Written by admin

30–37 minutes

---

New software defined radio (SDRs) products are popping up every few months these days so we thought we'd compile a big list of available SDRs as there are a few people who were bitten by the RTL-SDR bug and are now looking to upgrade.

For each SDR we compare the cost, frequency range, ADC resolution, maximum instantaneous bandwidth, whether or not it can TX and if it has any pre selectors built in. Here is a quick guide to what some of these metrics mean.

Frequency Range: The range of frequencies the SDR can tune to.
ADC Resolution: Higher is better. More resolution means more dynamic range, less signal imaging, a lower noise floor, more sensitivity when strong signals are present and better ability to discern weak signals. Some SDR's give their resolution in ENOB which stands for effective number of bits.
Instantaneous Bandwidth: The size of the real time RF chunk available.
RX/TX: Can the radio receive and/or transmit.
Preselectors: Analogue filters on the front end to help reduce out of band interference and imaging.

* - Denotes top choice for high value

General Use Software Defined Radios

We define general use SDRs as ones with a wide frequency range and with no focus on any specific frequency band.

R820T RTL2832U a.k.a RTL-SDR*

Cost: $10 - 22 USD
Frequency Range: approx. 24 MHz - 1766 MHz (below 24 MHz available on RTL-SDR.com V3 dongles)
ADC Resolution: 8 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 3.2 MHz / 2.4 or 2.8 MHz max stable.
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Uses tracking RF filters on the R820T2 chip.
Release Date: August 2016

The RTL-SDR is still the best 'bang for your buck' software defined radio out there. While it was never designed to be used as a general purpose SDR in the first place, its performance is still surprisingly good. If you're on a budget or are just starting out with SDR or radio this is the one to get. (Link)

SDRPlay RSP2*

Cost: $169 USD
Frequency Range: 10 kHz - 2 GHz
ADC Resolution: 12 Bits (~10.4 ENOB)
Max Bandwidth: 10 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: 10 switched filters
Release Date: November 2016

The RSP2 is similar to the RSP1 in that it uses the same core technology and chips. However the RSP2 is an iterative improvement over the RSP1 as it has more preselectors as well as broadcast AM and FM notch filters. It also adds multiple antenna input ports, a Hi-Z HF input for end fed wire antennas and external clock in/out ports. (Link)

SDRPlay RSP1A*

Cost: $99 USD
Frequency Range: 1kHz  – 2GHz (single antenna socket for all frequencies)
ADC Resolution: 14 Bits (at up to 6 MHz bandwidth)
Max Bandwidth: 10 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: 11 built-in filters, plus s/w selectable AM/FM/DAB Broadcast band notch filters
Release Date: November 2017

The SDRPlay RSP1A is the next iteration of the popular RSP1 and is a SDR that uses the Mirics MSI3101 SDR chip and a MSI001 tuner. It has 11 built in switched preselectors that cover selected ranges over the entire bandwidth as well as AM/FM and DAB notch filters. We consider the SDRPlay to be a competitor to the Airspy and perhaps Funcube Dongle Pro+ as well. Though, the difference between the SDRPlay and Airspy seems to be that SDRPlay uses a bank of preselection filters, whereas the Airspy focuses on using the R820T2's IF tracking filters and naturally higher dynamic range to overcome aliasing. The Funcube also uses similar filters to the SDRPlay but the Funcube also has some extra sharp SAW filters. The SDRPlay also has a much larger bandwidth compared to the FunCube which is a major advantage, but a similar bandwidth to the Airspy. Over time the RSP1 and now RSP1A has been reduced in price from $299 to $99 USD. (Link)

Airspy R2*

Cost: $169 USD
Frequency Range: 24 MHz - 1.750 GHz
ADC Resolution: 12 Bits (10.4 ENOB)
Max Bandwidth: 10 MHz (9 MHz alias free)
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Uses tracking RF filters on the R820T2 chip.
Release Date: Late 2014 (Airspy R1)

This SDR is designed by the Airspy team who are Benjamin Vernoux & Youssef Touil. Youssef is also known as the programmer of SDR#, one of the most popular SDR software programs. Many people see the Airspy as their upgrade to the RTL-SDR, with its wide 10 MHz bandwidth, 12 Bit ADC (10.4 ENOB) and higher precision clock. The Airspy code is open source. It uses the RF tracking filters on board the R820T2 chip which is used in its design and it has a very high claimed (80 dB) dynamic range. (Link) (Store)

Airspy Mini*

Cost: $99 USD
Frequency Range: 24 MHz - 1.750 GHz
ADC Resolution: 12 Bits (10.4 ENOB)
Max Bandwidth: 6 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Uses tracking RF filters on the R820T2 chip.
Release Date: April 2016

The Airspy Mini is the little brother to the Airspy R2. It is basically the same performance, but in a smaller dongle style package. The Mini has a smaller maximum bandwidth of 6 MHz compared to the 10 MHz on the Airspy R2, and doesn't have external clock input. or internal expansion headers for electronics experimenters. (Link) (Store)

FunCube Dongle Pro+

Cost: $~210 USD
Frequency Range: 150 kHz - 260 MHz and 410 MHz - 2.05 GHz
ADC Resolution: 16 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 192 kHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Yes 11 switched SAW filters
Release Date: Late 2010

The FunCube is one of the original 'dongle' based SDRs made for hobbyists. It has certain major advantages over a cheap RTL-SDR like its 16 Bit ADC resolution and 11 discrete hardware filters with two sharp SAW filters. These preselector filters really help to reduce noise and images which can in some cases plague the RTL-SDR and other SDRs without filtering. However, a major disadvantage to the FunCube is that its bandwidth is small at only 192 kHz. (Link)

ADALM PLUTO (PlutoSDR)*

Cost: $99 USD (Special), $149 USD
Frequency Range: 325 – 3800 MHz (default), 70 - 6000 MHz (with firmware hack)
ADC Resolution: 12 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 20 MHz (default), 56 MHz (with firmware hack)
TX/RX: TX and RX (Full Duplex)
Preselectors: None
Release Date: Mid 2017

The PlutoSDR is a low cost full duplex TX and RX receiver designed by the big silicon company Analog Devices. It is designed mostly for University students to use for learning about RF and SDR concepts, but it can also find use as a general purpose experimenters SDR.

Performance is not as great as the RX dedicated SDRs like the Airspy and SDRplay, so it is not designed for dedicated high performance listening, but it is still good enough for most experimental and general use purposes. (Link)

PatronX Titus II

Cost: Under $100 USD (Claimed)
Frequency Range: 100 kHz - 2 GHz
ADC Resolution: Unkown
Max Bandwidth: Unknown
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Unknown
Release Date: Unreleased

The Titus II is going to be a handheld boom-box style SDR with large LCD screen and built in speakers. It is intended to try and invigorate the DRM market by providing a low cost DRM receiver. But it also has a wideband frequency range, so presumably it could be used for many other purposes as well. It is guessed that it will be using Mirics chips, similar to what is inside the SDRplay RSP1/RSP2.

We first heard about the Titus II in late 2016. Apparently it's still under development, but no news of its progress is slow and rare. (Link)

HackRF One*

Cost: $299 USD
Frequency Range: 1 MHz to 6 GHz
ADC Resolution: 8 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 20 MHz
TX/RX: TX and RX (Half Duplex)
Preselectors: None
Release Date: April 2014

The HackRF is one of the first 'low cost' software defined radios that is capable of receiving and transmitting, although only in half duplex mode (cannot TX and RX simultaneously). It has received the most media attention out of any SDR and it seems to be marketed towards hackers and security researchers, but it should be just as capable for general ham or hobbyist users.

The main advantages of the HackRF are its transmit capabilities, its wide bandwidth and its massive frequency range. There are concerns about its small 8 bit resolution, and poor RF design so noise and SNR performance is likely to be similar to the RTL-SDR. It also has an on board Arm Cortex M4 microcontroller and a CPLD.

The HackRF has good community support, an example already being the HackRF Portapack, a portable spectrum analyser designed to fit onto the HackRF. (Link) (Store)

LimeSDR

Cost: $299 USD
Frequency Range: 100 kHz to 3.8 GHz
ADC Resolution: 12 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 61.44 MHz
TX/RX: TX and RX
Preselectors: None
Release Date: April 2016

The LimeSDR appears to be one of the 'next generation' of experimenter focused RX/TX capable SDR devices. It falls into a similar category as the HackRF and BladeRF. It was crowdfunded on Crowdsupply and at the time of writing this (January 2017) is in its initial production stages.

One of the biggest problems with the HackRF is the lack of community and ready to use software. LimeSDR hopes to overcome this problem with an 'App Store' type feature on their Ubuntu software. We also think this will be an excellent step up from the HackRF once it releases thanks to its 12-Bit ADC. (Link)

MyriadRF

Cost: $299
Frequency Range: 300 MHz - 3.8 GHz
ADC Resolution: 12 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 28 MHz
TX/RX: TX and RX (Full Duplex)
Preselectors: None

Myriad RF is an open source SDR that uses the same transceiver chip as the BladeRF shown below. A modified version is also compatible with the Novena open source laptop. Aimed towards embedded developers as the Myriad RF by itself does not have hardware to connect to a PC. (Link)

BladeRF

Cost: $420 USD (x40), $650 USD (x115)
Frequency Range: 300 MHz - 3.8 GHz
ADC Resolution: 12 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 28 MHz
TX/RX: TX and RX (Full Duplex)
Preselectors: None
Release Date: July 2013

Another TX and RX capable SDR is the BladeRF. The BladeRF has a smaller frequency range compared to the HackRF, but has a greater ADC resolution, larger maximum bandwidth and is capable of full duplex transmissions. It also uses USB 3.0 which is required to support the data rates needed for its wide bandwidth and 12 bit ADC. From the specs the BladeRF is a better receiver compared to the HackRF due to its larger ADC resolution, but it misses out on the frequencies below 300 MHz. Frequencies below 300 MHz can be received with a $200 transverter add on board however.

The BladeRF also comes with an on-board ARM9 general purpose processor and an FPGA for some serious digital signal processing work.

The main difference between the x40 and more expensive x115 versions are simply that the x115 version has a larger FPGA (more logic elements). (Link) (Ebay)

USRP B200/B210

Cost: $675 USD (B200), $1100 USD (B210)
Frequency Range: 70 MHz - 6 GHz
ADC Resolution: 12 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 56 MHz
TX/RX: TX and RX (Full Duplex) (B200), 2 x TX and 2 x RX (Full Duplex) (B210)
Preselectors: None

The USRP B200/B210 are advanced software defined radios that seem to be aimed more towards the professional and research market, but are still very usable for hobbyists. The USRP team recently used some of these devices to help contact the lost ISEE-3 spacecraft using the large Arecibo radio dish.

The difference between the B200 and B210 is simply that the B210 can transmit and receive in full duplex with two signals at a time, making the B210 a MIMO system. (Link)

Windy City SDR / HandHeldSDR

Cost: $350
Frequency Range: 33 MHz - 4400 MHz
ADC Resolution: 14 Bit
Max Bandwidth: 16 MHz @ 8-Bit, 8 MHz @ 16-Bit
TX/RX: RX and TX
Preselectors: ???

Seems to have been recently renamed from Windy City SDR to HandHeldSDR and now back to Windy City SDR again. Not much is known about this SDR other than the creator has advertised it on some blog comments and has been seen at some conferences a few times. Has been in the making for a number of years now, and a prototype seems to be ready, but there is no sales page. (Link)

WinRadio WR-G305e/i

Cost: $749.95 USD
Frequency Range: 9 kHz - 1.8 GHz
ADC Resolution: NA (sound card based)
Max Bandwidth: NA (Sound card based)
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Yes, tracking

A general purpose receiver by WinRadio. Has tracking filters on the front end. Comes in an external box with USB connection, or in a PCI 2.2 card. (Link)

Per Vices Noctar

Cost: $2499 USD
Frequency Range: DC – 4.4 GHz
ADC Resolution: 12 Bits (RX) / 16 Bits (TX)
Max Bandwidth: 250 MHz
TX/RX: RX and TX (Full Duplex)
Preselectors: None

A high performance SDR that fits in the PCIe slot in a PC. Because of its PCIe interface it can provide up to a massive 250 MHz worth of bandwidth. Has an on board Altera Cyclone IV FPGA. Can interface with GNU Radio. Marketed more for industrial and research purposes. (Link)

SignalHound BB60C

Cost: $2879
Frequency Range: 9 kHz to 6 GHz
ADC Resolution: 14 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 27 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Yes, switched

A USB 3.0 device with a very wide frequency range and large bandwidth. Marketed as a Real-Time Spectrum Analyzer and RF Recorder so seems to be targeted towards the industrial and research market. (Link)

AOR AR-2300

Cost: $3599.95
Frequency Range: 40 kHz - 3.15 GHz
ADC Resolution: 14 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 15 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Unknown. Assumed yes.

A very high performance wideband SDR receiver that has good performance over the entire frequency range. Can purchase add on boards such as a P25 decoder. Seems to be targeted at Government users. (Link) (Purchasing Link)

Matchstiq

Cost: $4500 USD
Frequency Range: 300 MHz - 3.8 GHz
ADC Resolution: 12 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 28 MHz
TX/RX: RX and TX
Preselectors: Yes

A very advanced SDR and high priced SDR. Seems to be mainly intended for industrial applications. Has a built in Linux microcomputer and also has a dedicated GPS receiver. Eqiq Solutions the company behind the Matchstiq also sell the Sidekiq - a 70MHz - 6GHz MiniPCIe SDR card and the Maveriq - another advanced 2x2 MIMO RF transceiver. (Link)

Bitshark Express RX

Cost: $4300 USD / $6300 USD
Frequency Range: 400 MHz - 4 GHz
ADC Resolution: 14 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 50 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: No

Another SDR by Epiq Solutions. This one is PCIe based and can have up to 50 MHz of bandwidth. Marketed more towards industrial usage. (Link)

Per Vices Crimson

Cost: $6750 USD
Frequency Range: DC - 6 GHz
ADC Resolution: 16 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 1200 MHz
TX/RX: 4 x RX and 4 x TX (Full Duplex)
Preselectors: None

A step up from the Per Vices Noctar is the more expensive Crimson SDR. It has a frequency range of up to 6 GHz and a huge 1200 MHz worth of bandwidth through four independent receive and transmit chains. The huge bandwidths available can be processed on the onboard Altera Arria V ST (SoC). Data is sent through a 20 Gbps SFP+ data link and the SDR comes with a very accurate +/- 5 ppb OXCO oscillator. Marketed more for industrial and research purposes. (Link)

Per Vices Cyan

Cost: Starts from $73,500 USD
Frequency Range: 100 kHz - 18 GHz
ADC Resolution: 12 - 16 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 1 - 3 GHz (customizable)
TX/RX: 0-16 receive and 0-16 transmit (total of 16 radio chains) (full duplex)
Preselectors: None

Per Vices’ latest SDR, Cyan, continues fulfilling the company’s vision to provide the market with the highest performance radio solution. Offering a tunable frequency range of 100kHz - 18GHz and a configurable number of phase coherent radio channels, up to 16 total, each with 1-3GHz of instantaneous bandwidth available, the highest currently available in market on a compact radio platform. This bandwidth is processed on the Intel Stratix 10 FPGA SoC with data send through four 10Gbps SFP+ data links. Primarily marketed for industrial/research purposes. (Link)

Red Pitya

Cost: $470
Frequency Range: 0 - 60 MHz
ADC Resolution: 14 Bit
Max Bandwidth: 50 MHz (Probably not instantaneous)
TX/RX: RX and TX
Preselectors: None

The Red Pitya is a little different to the above SDRs in that it is marketed and designed as a type of digital Oscilloscope. It connects to your mobile phone or PC and can be used as an oscilloscope, spectrum analyser or signal generator. Of course with the right apps it could also be used as a radio. (Link)

Modified RTL-SDRs

There are several individuals who are selling modified RTL-SDR dongles that utilize the direct sampling mod or a built in upconverter to receive HF frequencies.

RTL-SDR.com V3*

Cost: $19.95 USD
Frequency Range: 500 kHz - 1.75 GHz
Preselectors: Tracking filters on the R820T2 and HF LPF.

Our modded RTL-SDR V3 has the direct sampling mode diplexed out from the input SMA. Performance is good, but you may need additional HF filtering espeically if you have strong broadcast AM stations nearby. It comes with an onboard HF amp, as well as good low pass filtering to remove interference from the broadcast FM band. We also added many other improvements like a TCXO, metal case, thermal pad cooling, USB line filtering, better LDO, expansion ports, 4.5V bias tee and a redesigned PCB that removes most of the spurs. We think our V3 is the greatest value low cost SDR available. (Link)

BA5SBA Direct Sampling Receiver

Cost: $60 USD
Frequency Range: 100 kHz - 1.7 GHz
Preselectors: Low pass filter

A prebuilt direct sampling receiver by BA5SBA from China. Also available in much cheaper kit versions. Adds extra USB filtering, a 5V bias tee, and the direct sampling mod. Appears to be decent, and fairly popular, but you probably won't get any support for it if something goes wrong. (Link) (Ebay)

DX Patrol Receiver

Cost: $105 USD
Frequency Range: 100 kHz - 2 GHz
Preselectors: Yes

This modified dongle is designed by CT1FFU, designer and manufacturer of some HF upconverters popular with the RTL-SDR. (Link)

Janielectronics Receiver

Cost: $129.99 USD
Frequency Range: 100 kHz - 1.5 GHz
Preselectors: Unknown. Assumed to have a low pass filter.

This is an RTL-SDR R820T built on a custom made PCB that fits into an original dongle casing. This is different to most other modified dongles that simply retrofit an existing RTL-SDR dongle. (Link) (Ebay)

Soft66Q

Cost: $43 USD
Frequency Range: 3 kHz - 30 MHz and 50 MHz - 1.7 GHz
Preselectors: Unknown.

Japanese modified RTL-SDR that uses direct sampling and comes in an aluminium box. Includes an RF amp and several built in switched filters as well. (Link)

HF + SWLing Targeted Software Defined Radios

These SDRs are designed or optimized for the HF bands only, either for listening to the ham bands, or for listening to shortwave radio (SWLing).

3dB SDR

Cost: $100 USD
Frequency Range: 1.8 Mhz-30 MHz
ADC Resolution: N/A (sound card based)
Max Bandwidth: N/A (sound card based)
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Yes switched

A small fully assembled HF SDR. (Link)

Hunter SDR

Cost: ~$130USD
Frequency Range: 1 MHz - 30 MHz
ADC Resolution: N/A (sound card based)
Max Bandwidth: N/A (sound card based)
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Yes, 6 Swtiched

A kit based SDR made by a UK based manufacturer. (Link)

Airspy HF+*

Cost: Expected $149 USD 
Frequency Range: DC - 31 MHz, 60 - 260 MHz
ADC Resolution: 16 bits -> decimated 18 bits
Max Bandwidth: 768 kHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Yes, LPF + VHF filters
Release Date: Unreleased

The Airspy HF+ is touted as the next big thing in low cost high performance SDRs for HF reception. It uses some interesting new technology including polyphase harmonic mixers and sigma delta ADCs which should naturally improve the dynamic range and performance of the SDR, without the need for excessive filtering. We have a review here. (Link)

FiFi SDR

Cost: $169 USD (Kit with preselector)
Frequency Range: 200 kHz - 30 MHz
ADC Resolution: 24 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 192 kHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Yes low pass

Originally intended as a construction project for a youth camp, this SDR is now for sale as a low cost software defined radio. (Link) (Purchasing Link)

PMSDR V2.2

Cost: ~$240 USD (Kit Version)
Frequency Range: 100 kHz - 72 MHz
ADC Resolution: N/A (sound card based)
Max Bandwidth: N/A (sound card based)
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Yes, 3 switched

A SDR that looks to be German made. Some info on the older V2.1 model can be found here. (Link)

AFEDRI SDR-Net

Cost: $259 USD
Frequency Range: 10 kHz - 36 MHz
ADC Resolution: 12 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 1.85 MHz (Using network connection), 230 kHz (Using USB connection)
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Low pass filter

An SDR targeted at the budget ham market is this AFEDRI SDR-Net receiver. Has a LAN interface so it can be accessed remotely through a network - a feature rarely seen on cheaper ham radio SDRs. AFEDRI also sell the new AFE822x dual channel SDR which has two receive channels and costs $359. (Link)

Cross Country Wireless SDR Receiver 

Cost: $295 USD
Frequency Range: 850 kHz - 70.5 MHz
ADC Resolution: Sound card based
Max Bandwidth: 48 kHz (internal sound card), 192 kHz (external sound card)
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Yes band pass filters

Another low cost sound card based SDR. (Link)

KiwiSDR*

Cost: $299 USD
Frequency Range: 10 kHz - 30 MHz
ADC Resolution: ???
Max Bandwidth: 30 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: ???

The KiwiSDR is designed as a cape (addon) for the BeagleBone Black single board computing platform. It combines together with the OpenWebRX software to provide multiple online users anywhere in the world an interface to listen to any HF frequency between 10 kHz - 30 MHz. Some examples can be seen at sdr.hu.

It also comes with a GPS receiver, which can be used to collaborate with multiple KiwiSDRs placed around the world for projects like finding the source of a signal, or mapping reception quality of the ionosphere. (Link) (Amazon Store) (Seeed Store)

ColibiriNANO*

Cost: €299.95 EUR -> ~$360 USD
Frequency Range: 100 kHz - 55 MHz, 100 kHz - 500 MHz (undersampling)
ADC Resolution: 14
Max Bandwidth: 3 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: HF LPF
Release Date: 2017

The ColibiriNANO is a high performance dongle form factor radio that uses direct sampling technology. The HF performance is excellent, but performance in undersampling mode at 55 MHz+ is poor due to a lack of filtering. To use undersampling external filters are required. (Link)

Elad FDM-S1/S2

Cost: $379 USD / $580 USD
Frequency Range: 80 kHz - 30 MHz, 30MHz - 200 MHz (Under sampled) / 9 kHz - 52 MHz, 74 MHz - 108 MHz, 135 MHz - 160 MHz
ADC Resolution: 14 Bits / 16 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 6 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: 30 MHz Low Pass Filter

A high performance SDR. The FDM-S2 is a newer version of the S1 with improved ADC resolution. This is an SDR used very commonly by SWLers as it has very good dynamic range. (Link S1) (Link S2)

Elad FDM-S3*

Cost: ???
Frequency Range: ???
ADC Resolution: ???
Max Bandwidth: 24.576 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: ???

Unreleased as of yet, but probably one of the best reasonably priced SDRs for this frequency range out there. Can monitor almost the entire HF band, and will even reach up to broadcast FM.

Satrian MK1.5 Andrus

Cost: $480
Frequency Range: 5 kHz - 30 MHz
ADC Resolution: ???
Max Bandwidth: 400 kHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: ???

An openly designed SDR with full schematics and software code available.Can buy an add on downconverter daughtercard for operation up to 2.2 GHz. (Link)

SDR-IQ

Cost: $525 USD
Frequency Range: 100 Hz to 30 MHz
ADC Resolution: 14 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 190 kHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Yes

An SDR made in the USA by RFSpace. Appears to be high quality with good performance. The same company also sells the SDR-IP and NetSDR which are networked SDR products. (Link)

SRL QuickSilver QS1R

Cost: $899.99 USD
Frequency Range: 10 kHz - 300 MHz
ADC Resolution: 16 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 4 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Yes

Another high performance SDR competing in the same price range as the Perseus. (Link)

WinRadio WR-G31DDC Excalibur

Cost: $949.95
Frequency Range: 9 kHz - 49.995 MHz
ADC Resolution: 16 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 2 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: MW Filter

Another high performance SDR. WinRadio also sell more SDRs with higher performance and ones that can plug directly into a PCI-e card slot. (Link)

Perseus SDR

Cost: $1,100 USD
Frequency Range: 10 kHz - 40 MHz
ADC Resolution: 14 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 1.6 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Yes 10 switched

Many owners of this SDR claim that it is one of the lowest noise SDRs available and that it is great for DXing. (Link)

NETSDR

Cost: $1449 USD (Basic Package)
Frequency Range: 100 Hz to 32 MHz
ADC Resolution: 16 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 1.6 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Yes 10

Another SDR by RFSpace, this one connects to the computer via a network connection, making it easy to be placed in remote locations. RFSpace also sell the SDR-IP which is a similar SDR but with TCP/IP networking. (Link)

HF Ham Radio Software Defined Radios

Radio amateurs and shortwave listening (SWLing) hobbyists have had high performance SDRs for some time now. These receivers will usually significantly outperform the more general purpose receivers shown above in terms of sensitivity, but they usually concentrate only on the HF or amateur bands. Some of these SDRs are transceivers with transmit capabilities and these are for hams, whereas some only receive and may be more useful for shortwave listening.

Softrock Ensemble SDR

Cost: $69 (RX Only Kit), $89 USD (TX/RX Kit), $92 USD (RX Built), $124 USD (TX/RX Built)
Frequency Range: Choice of either 160m, 80m/40m, 40m/30m/20m, 30m/20m/17m, 15m/12m/10m
ADC Resolution: N/A (sound card based)
Max Bandwidth: N/A (sound card based)
TX/RX: TX and RX (if option chosen)
Preselectors: Yes for the chosen band

The Softrock SDR is one of the original sound card based SDRs, meaning that the ADC conversion is done by a computer sound card. The bandwidth will be dependant on the maximum sampling rate of your sound card. The Softrock is a HF only SDR and you must choose which band you are interested in listening to when buying the kit or preassembled board.

The Softrock has good HF performance due to its preselector circuits. The kit is a great project for someone wanting to learn the components of an SDR. (Link)

PeaBerry SDR V2

Cost: $149 USD (Kit) / $249 USD (Assembled)
Frequency Range:
ADC Resolution: 24 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 96 kHz
TX/RX: RX and TX
Preselectors: Yes

The PeaBerry SDR is similar to the SoftRock SDR, but this SDR has a built in soundcard ADC meaning that no external sound card is required. (Link)

mcHF QRP Transceiver

Cost: ~$40 USD just the PCBS, ~$422 USD for the full kit including all SMD parts soldered
Frequency Range: 3 - 30 MHz
ADC Resolution: ???
Max Bandwidth:  48 kHz
TX/RX: RX and TX
Preselectors: Yes

This SDR is a standalone DIY tranceiver kit, but it can also be purchased as partially assembled. A fully assembled Chinese made clone of the mcHF is now also available, although the circuit is supposedly downgraded from the original kit, and the mcHF circuit revision that you get could be anywhere from v0.4 to v0.6. (Clone Amzn Link) (Link)

Genesis G59

Cost: $399 USD (Kit)
Frequency Range: ~1.8 MHz - ~50 MHz
ADC Resolution: ???
Max Bandwidth: ???
TX/RX: RX and TX
Preselectors: ???

A transceiver kit which has 10mW of output power. Can be boosted by purchasing an optional 10W amplifier. (Link)

FlexRadio FLEX-1500 SDR

Cost: $699
Frequency Range: 490 kHz - 54 MHz 
ADC Resolution: 16 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 20 kHz
TX/RX: RX and TX
Preselectors: Yes

The Flex series are capable of RX and TX. FlexRadio also have higher end SDRs with 24 bit ADCs and ones with up to 14 MHz of bandwidth available on their website. (Link)

Alinco DX-SR9T

Cost: $749
Frequency Range: 135 kHz - 30 MHz 
ADC Resolution: N/A (sound card based)
Max Bandwidth: N/A (sound card based)
TX/RX: RX and TX
Preselectors: ???

This is a hybrid HF radio which acts as a normal HF transceiver, but also has a built in SDR that can connect to a PC sound card for SDR operation. (Link)

HPSDR Hermes Transceiver Card

Cost: $895
Frequency Range: 10 kHz - 55 MHz
ADC Resolution: 12 bits
Max Bandwidth: 192 kHz
TX/RX: RX and TX
Preselectors: Yes low pass

An open source SDR project. (Link)

Elecraft KX3

Cost: $899.95 USD (Kit) / 999.95 USD (Assembled)
Frequency Range: 1.8 KHz - 50 MHz 
ADC Resolution: N/A (sound card based)
Max Bandwidth: N/A (sound card based)
TX/RX: RX and TX
Preselectors: ???

This is an SDR radio which can act as a standalone receiver and transmitter just like a normal HF radio, but it can also connect to a PC soundcard via its IQ output port to act as a computer based SDR. (Link)

Apache Labs ANAN-10

Cost: $1679 USD
Frequency Range: 10kHz - 55 MHz
ADC Resolution: 16 Bits
Max Bandwidth:  ??? MHz
TX/RX: RX and TX (Full Duplex)
Preselectors: Yes

Apache Labs sell high performance TX capable SDRs. They also sell more expensive versions of the ANAN series with more transmit power and also ones with built in FPGAs. (Link)

Portable SDR

Cost: ??? USD
Frequency Range: 0 MHz - 30 MHz
ADC Resolution: ??? Bits
Max Bandwidth:  ??? MHz
TX/RX: RX and TX
Preselectors: ???

One of the Hackaday prize finalists. Still under development and unreleased. A stand-alone (no computer needed), compact, Portable SDR Uses a a 168 Mhz ARM processor, color display, and an innovative interface.
(Link)

Did we miss any popular SDR receivers or are there any mistakes? Let us know in the comments.

More Lists:

Here is a wiki listing several SDR radios. It may be more up to date than this list.

http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Software_Defined_Radios

Previously Listed Vaporware/Dead SDR's (History)

XiOne

Cost: Unreleased. Expected cost $199 USD.
Frequency Range: 100 kHz - 1.750 GHz
ADC Resolution: 8 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 3.2 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: None

The XiOne is a SDR that is claimed as 'The first software defined radio easy to use with smartphones and fully open to the maker community'. In August they fundraised on Indiegogo. Unfortunately the fundraiser was not successful and we have not heard any word on whether this SDR will ever be released now.

The main advantage of the XiOne is that it is battery powered and connects to smartphones via a WiFi connection. The developers are also creating a wide array of smartphone apps for the device. It also has a built in general purpose microprocessor.

The main concerns with this SDR are that it uses the RTL2832U chip - the same one used in the RTL-SDR. This means that there is only 8-bits of ADC resolution and 3.2 MHz of bandwidth, though this is probably acceptable due to its mobile application priority as any larger sample rates or resolutions could have trouble with WiFi data rates. (Link)

ASRP3/ASRP1

Cost: $300 USD, $600 USD
Frequency Range: 400 MHz - 4.4 GHz
ADC Resolution: 12 Bits
Max Bandwidth: 8 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only (ASRP3), 2 x RX and 2 x TX (Full Duplex) (ASRP1)
Preselectors: None

We don't know much about these SDRs but the ASRP3 seems to occupy a similar space as the Airspy and the ASRP1 seems to be similar to the HackRF/BladeRF/USRP B210. Is possible vaporware as the ordering website appears non functional. (Link)

Marty KN0CK Upconverting Receiver

Cost: $75 USD
Frequency Range: 500 kHz - 54 MHz
Preselectors: Low pass filter

This modded RTL-SDR receiver uses a miniature upconverter that is small enough to fit inside the dongle casing. Also has a MAR-8 preamp and 5-pole low pass filter. (Link)

Marty KN0CK Direct Sampling Receiver

Cost: $60 USD
Frequency Range: 500 kHz - 54 MHz
Preselectors: Low pass filter

This second version from Marty KN0CK uses the direct sampling mod for HF reception instead. Also has the built in MAR-8 preamp and 5-pole low pass filter. (Link)

Brazilian HF - UHF Receiver

Cost: $100 USD
Frequency Range: 0 kHz - 14.4 MHz and 24 MHz to 1.7 Ghz
Preselectors: ???

One of the first modified RTL-SDRs that went on sale. Is probably outdated now. (Link)

 Soft66LC4

Cost: $98 USD
Frequency Range: 500 kHz - 70 MHz
ADC Resolution: N/A (sound card based)
Max Bandwidth: N/A (sound card based)
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: Yes band pass filter

Low cost sound card based receiver. Similar to the SoftRock but no TX option. (Link)

SDRPlay RSP1

Cost: $99 USD
Frequency Range: 10 kHz - 2 GHz
ADC Resolution: 12 Bits (~10.4 ENOB)
Max Bandwidth: 10 MHz
TX/RX: RX Only
Preselectors: 8 switched filters
Release Date: Late 2014

The RSP1 has been succeeded by the RSP1A which is listed above. (Link)

 

Calamine – Per Vices

pervices.com

---

Calamine offers a remarkable tuning range up to 40 GHz.

Calamine is a specialized 4-channel SDR designed for seamless reception, boasting individualized control over each radio chain or the option for a unified LO to enhance phase coherency and stability. With each radio chain offering a remarkable 300 MHz bandwidth, equipped with 16-bit converters and a tuning span stretching from nearly DC to 40 GHz, Calamine delivers exceptional versatility. Its interface, managed via a conventional 1G Ethernet port, facilitates straightforward system control, while data transmission is expedited through dual 10GBASE-R interfaces, furnishing users with a blazing 20 Gbps data transfer rate.

We offer different kit options which include RF cables, SFP+ cables, attenuators, and a compatible NIC.

Our Calamine SDR can also be paired with one of our storage and processing systems to help customers get up and running in no time.

Specifications

Specification	Calamine
Tuning Range	Near DC to 40 GHz
Number of Radio Chains	4 Rx
Bandwidth per Radio Chain	300 MHz
Converter Resolution	16 bits
Digital Backhaul	2 x 10GBASE-R; 20 Gbps
Form Factor	19” 2U 482.60 mm x 500.00 mm x 87.41 mm 7.4 kg
FPGA	Intel Arria V ST SoC

Documentation

FEATURES

Instantaneous Bandwidth

Up to 325 MHz of bandwidth per radio chain is available for all 4 chains.

High Performance

The best COTS SDR in its class with different options, interfacing equipment, and full integration support.

independent channels

Each of the 4 receive and 4 transmit radio chains are independently controlled and tuneable.

Data backhaul

2 x 10 Gbps backhaul for an impressive 20 Gbps total throughput for sending data between the radio platform and other equipment.

FPGA SoC

Featuring the Intel Arria V SoC with the ARM processor providing extensive FPGA resources for advanced DSP on board.

Flexibility

Easily configured for meeting different operational requirements while providing the performance necessary for radar, satellites, ground stations, low latency links, and test & measurement applications.

FEATURES

Instantaneous Bandwidth

Up to 300 MHz of bandwidth per radio chain is available for all 4 chains.

Extended tuning range

Receive across all channels with a tuning range starting from near DC up to 40 GHz.

independent channels

Each of the 4 receive radio chains are independently controlled and tuneable.

Data backhaul

2 x 10 Gbps backhaul for an impressive 20 Gbps total throughput for sending data between the radio platform and other equipment.

FPGA SoC

Featuring the Intel Arria V SoC with the ARM processor providing extensive FPGA resources for advanced DSP on board.

Flexibility

Easily configured for meeting different operational requirements while providing the performance necessary for radar, satellites, ground stations, low latency links, and test & measurement applications.

PRICING

Calamine is available as a basic stand-alone SDR or with a kit that includes SMA cables, SFP+ cables, attenuators, and PCIe NICs. $155k

For more information on configurations and prices go to our Pricing page. 

Per Vices offers a custom number of channels and configurations. Try our BYOSDR tool to get an estimate for your parameters.

Connect with one of our specialists to develop the right product for you.