APF in 4.16/2.63 works well!

[Grant Youngman]

Thank you very much for that small favor :-)

Grant/NQ5T


On Oct 29, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft wrote:

> Folks - It is inappropriate to reply pro or con on this thread. That is
> outside of the list guidelines and only serves to inflame the issue and
> clog the list with comments. Please send all concerns of this type
> directly to the moderator.
>
> This thread is now closed.
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Bob K6UJ]

Please lets not dumb it down for contesting.  Let's optimize it. !
You can choose to use the extra peaking it provides with a little more knob turning
or choose to not use it.  Ask how many 160 meter contesters will use it !!!
If you are a CW contester I guarantee you will choose to use  !!

Bob
K6UJ



 
On Oct 29, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:

> APF has a very significant improvement on weak signals in the noise.
> I completely agree with prior posters.   HOWEVER...
>
> I would like to be able to ***VARY THE Q*** with the width control and
> LEAVE IT ON with a mild Q, and sharpen it as required.  If I can back
> it out to 2 dB with a width function I would probably leave that on
> all the time and grind in as needed.  I already do that with Width in
> weak cases that are on frequency.  ONLY when APF is on could we have
> the WIDTH tap toggle between APF Q displaying APF Q=3 in lower display
> and between Roofing/DSP bandwidth displaying BW  0.40???  You could do
> the same thing with SHIFT to go back and forth between adjusting
> Roofing/DSP SHIFT displaying FC *0.45 and APF *0.45.    Using WIDTH to
> control Q is intuitive.
>
> When APF is in there is no moderate setting, it takes over the
> passband and makes copy of a signal up band difficult.  It will
> require repeated use of DUAL PB to go in and out for weak signals and
> back out for normal use.  Use of a HOLD function as a frequent change
> is a problem.  In trying to get used to the HOLD on DUAL PB to go in
> and out of APF to hear in the rest of the channel,  I repeatedly hit
> NTCH instead.  HOLD's are only good for settings that persist for a
> while during operation.
>
> E.g. I don't need APF ONLY as a better substitute for 50 Hz.  I need
> it to work ALSO as a milder center emphasis inside the 400 Hz roofer,
> and be able to twist a knob somewhere to move between mild and sharp.
> Even with what appears to be only a 2 dB peaking around 450, the MP
> was improved inside its excellent dual INRAD 400 selectivity.
>
> If this is not done, it will be very difficult to use it well in a
> contest.  No easy-to-use variable Q is a deal-breaker for me.  In the
> end for contests it will cost Q's and will have to tell people to
> leave it off, just like NR. Only turn it on for a really weak one if
> you can remember how, and then turn it right back off.  Then when I
> get home chasing weak DX I'll turn it all back on again, and work some
> stuff I couldn't hear before.
>
> 73, Guy.
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:01 AM, drewko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Yes, I realize that. I would like to compare what is heard using the
>> APF filter to what is displayed by BeaconSee with its sub-noise signal
>> recovery algorithms.
>>
>> 73,
>> Drew
>> AF2Z
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:55:38 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think you may be confused about what APF is.  It is NOT a waterfall or any
>>> kind of visual indicator.  It IS an Audio Peaking Filter (APF) meant to
>>> enhance weak signal audio using the processor between your ears.  It will
>>> not automatically show you where weak signals are in a spectrum, but if you
>>> know approximately where to look (either from a Packet spot or waterfall
>>> trace) it can help your ear/brain decode the CW audio buried in noise.
>>>
>>> 73,  Bill
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Bob K6UJ]

I agree 100%.


Bob
K6UJ




On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

>
>>> I'm sorry but I'm not going to sit idly by while some other ham
>>> who'sin love with his 1980's FT-1000 dictates why I can't have a
>>> Q setting on my rig. The Q is a necessary part of this feature in
>>> my mind.
>
> If you want a low Q peaking filter, it's already present in the Dual PB
> filter.  Select it and use the Width control to set the Q you want.
>
> A low Q peaking filter is not what those who originally proposed the
> feature and have advocated regularly for it are after.  As has already
> been said, de-Qing the filter currently in Field Test will render it
> useless just like Yaesu did when they tried to eliminate the ringing
> in the FT-1000D (and like the poor imitation "contour" filter in the
> FT-2000/FT-5000/FT-9000).
>
> The K3 Dual PB filter performs better than the "contour" filter in
> the FT-2000 that is gathering dust in my closet.  The new APF is
> light years ahead of that when used *for the intended purpose.*
>
> Thanks to Lyle and Wayne, K3 users will soon have two tools - each
> designed for a different set of operating conditions.  Please do not
> dull the scalpel by trying to make it cut lumber.
>
> 73,
>
>    ... Joe, W4TV
>
> On 10/29/2010 2:39 PM, The Smiths wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry but I'm not going to sit idly by while some other ham who's in love with his 1980's FT-1000 dictates why I can't have a Q setting on my rig.  The Q is a necessary part of this feature in my mind.  This is NOT an FT-1000 this is a K3.  Just because your old rig used to work well for you without a Q has nothing to do with my new rig.
>>
>> And if you must make comparisons, than you can use the FT-2000 and it's contour filter (APF) which does have it's variable Q and boost level... Both living in the menus... Sorry but times move on, and you should too.  Only the IDEA of the APF was conceived from the FT-1000, not the entire design and implementation... Please don't limit the rest of us.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:29:12 -0400
>>> From: [hidden email]
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] APF in 4.16/2.63 works well!
>>>
>>>
>>>> I would like to be able to ***VARY THE Q*** with the width control and
>>>> LEAVE IT ON with a mild Q, and sharpen it as required.
>>>
>>> The design goal was to duplicate the FT-1000D APF. The FT-1000D has
>>> no variable Q function. What you are proposing is completely different
>>> than the design parameters ... you want an Autek QF1 not the FT-1000D APF.
>>>
>>>>> When APF is in there is no moderate setting, it takes over the
>>>>> passband and makes copy of a signal up band difficult.
>>>
>>> That's the goal of the FT-1000D APF ... single signal reception in
>>> noise and QRM. If you want a context filter, the original Dual PB
>>> filter with it's variable with and shift fill that role.
>>>
>>>>> ONLY when APF is on could we have the WIDTH tap toggle between APF
>>>>> Q displaying APF Q=3 in lower display and between Roofing/DSP
>>>>> bandwidth displaying BW 0.40??? You could do the same thing with
>>>>> SHIFT to go back and forth between adjusting Roofing/DSP SHIFT
>>>>> displaying FC *0.45 and APF *0.45.
>>>
>>> Width/shift taps are already "taken" if the user has not chosen PB
>>> Shift=.01. There is no current requirement to select PB Shift=.01
>>> in order to use APF and I hope that *someday* Wayne will give us the
>>> ability to use LO-CUT-HI with PB Shift=.01.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>>
>>> On 10/29/2010 12:58 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
>>>> APF has a very significant improvement on weak signals in the noise.
>>>> I completely agree with prior posters. HOWEVER...
>>>>
>>>> I would like to be able to ***VARY THE Q*** with the width control and
>>>> LEAVE IT ON with a mild Q, and sharpen it as required. If I can back
>>>> it out to 2 dB with a width function I would probably leave that on
>>>> all the time and grind in as needed. I already do that with Width in
>>>> weak cases that are on frequency. ONLY when APF is on could we have
>>>> the WIDTH tap toggle between APF Q displaying APF Q=3 in lower display
>>>> and between Roofing/DSP bandwidth displaying BW 0.40??? You could do
>>>> the same thing with SHIFT to go back and forth between adjusting
>>>> Roofing/DSP SHIFT displaying FC *0.45 and APF *0.45. Using WIDTH to
>>>> control Q is intuitive.
>>>>
>>>> When APF is in there is no moderate setting, it takes over the
>>>> passband and makes copy of a signal up band difficult. It will
>>>> require repeated use of DUAL PB to go in and out for weak signals and
>>>> back out for normal use. Use of a HOLD function as a frequent change
>>>> is a problem. In trying to get used to the HOLD on DUAL PB to go in
>>>> and out of APF to hear in the rest of the channel, I repeatedly hit
>>>> NTCH instead. HOLD's are only good for settings that persist for a
>>>> while during operation.
>>>>
>>>> E.g. I don't need APF ONLY as a better substitute for 50 Hz. I need
>>>> it to work ALSO as a milder center emphasis inside the 400 Hz roofer,
>>>> and be able to twist a knob somewhere to move between mild and sharp.
>>>> Even with what appears to be only a 2 dB peaking around 450, the MP
>>>> was improved inside its excellent dual INRAD 400 selectivity.
>>>>
>>>> If this is not done, it will be very difficult to use it well in a
>>>> contest. No easy-to-use variable Q is a deal-breaker for me. In the
>>>> end for contests it will cost Q's and will have to tell people to
>>>> leave it off, just like NR. Only turn it on for a really weak one if
>>>> you can remember how, and then turn it right back off. Then when I
>>>> get home chasing weak DX I'll turn it all back on again, and work some
>>>> stuff I couldn't hear before.
>>>>
>>>> 73, Guy.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:01 AM, drewko<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>> Yes, I realize that. I would like to compare what is heard using the
>>>>> APF filter to what is displayed by BeaconSee with its sub-noise signal
>>>>> recovery algorithms.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73,
>>>>> Drew
>>>>> AF2Z
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:55:38 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you may be confused about what APF is. It is NOT a waterfall or any
>>>>>> kind of visual indicator. It IS an Audio Peaking Filter (APF) meant to
>>>>>> enhance weak signal audio using the processor between your ears. It will
>>>>>> not automatically show you where weak signals are in a spectrum, but if you
>>>>>> know approximately where to look (either from a Packet spot or waterfall
>>>>>> trace) it can help your ear/brain decode the CW audio buried in noise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73, Bill
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>    
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Richard Squire - HB9ANM]

After extensive tests with the new APF feature, I can say the results in digging out weak CW signals are impressive. I was so enthusiastic that I forgot about the SSB contest this weekend and concentrated on CW! The fact that it is independent for the main and sub receivers is a very useful feature -  when working split, I like to search the pileup in a rather broad-banded way… whilst the DX is being enhanced.
I agree that a variable Q would be "nice to have" but the APF is already very good "as is".
Just as impressive is the way Elecraft responded so quickly and efficiently to this "suggested feature"!
Thank you again, Wayne and all Elecrafters.
73
Richard – HB9ANM

[Ken Chandler]

Thanks for you ob's Richard.
Well perhaps the powers to be can secretly have a look-see at the variable Q and IF they collectively think it's well worth the mod then, 'make it so'!!!

Ken..G0ORH K2, K3, P3.

CW4EVER

Sent from my iPhone

     


On 30 Oct 2010, at 18:18, Richard Squire - HB9ANM <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> After extensive tests with the new APF feature, I can say the results in
> digging out weak CW signals are impressive. I was so enthusiastic that I
> forgot about the SSB contest this weekend and concentrated on CW! The fact
> that it is independent for the main and sub receivers is a very useful
> feature -  when working split, I like to search the pileup in a rather
> broad-banded way… whilst the DX is being enhanced.
> I agree that a variable Q would be "nice to have" but the APF is already
> very good "as is".
> Just as impressive is the way Elecraft responded so quickly and efficiently
> to this "suggested feature"!
> Thank you again, Wayne and all Elecrafters.
> 73
> Richard – HB9ANM
>
>
> -----
> Richard - HB9ANM
> --
> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/APF-in-4-16-2-63-works-well-tp5686011p5689837.html
> Sent from the [K3] mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html