Elecraft › [K3]

K3 feature request query?

Classic

List

Threaded

8 messages Options

k5oai

K3 feature request query?

I'm not certain of this, but it seems to me that there is a difference,
in the settings for AGC THR and SLP that I need to be running,
for best weak signal reception on 160m compared to when I'm on 17m.

Is there something I'm missing as the operator,
or would it be possible to include those 2 settings,
as something the K3 would remember as a band to band setting?

I guess I run into this because I shutdown after beeing on 17m,
and then when I start my day on the air on 160m, I can't hear well and end up
having to play with THR and SLP settings, with the result seems to be better for
hearing through the noise on 160m.

Maybe I am missing how I should be setting those 2 variables?
--
GB & 73
K5OAI
Sam Morgan
______________________________________________________________
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

pd0psb

Re: K3 feature request query?

Hi Sam,

I often thought about this as well.

Since the noisefloor is generally much higher on the lower bands, it would be nice if AGC threshold or RX IF gain could be scaled in relation to bandnoise levels.

To do this you would need to use a table with a few setting points across HF and have gain or threshold interpolate between these points. This would compensate AGC threshold or IF gain across the full range of the receiver in relation to bandnoise levels.
(It would be nice if this were another industry-first from Elecraft :-)

BTW, an old trick I often used for receive-only is a rather small capacitor in series with the RX antenna input, this gives a general decrease of gain towards the lower bands, compensating the higher bandnoise levels.

73'
Paul
PD0PSB

Guy, K2AV

Re: K3 feature request query?

Then one starts getting into trouble with using RX antennas with low
gain, where the RX gain and pre usage IS appropriate. The FT1000MP
*DID* have the de-emphasis you speak about. Over about a decade of
usage, I wound up turning the de-emphasis off more than not, for use
on RX antennas.

The Orion had an idea about that, having the RF gain numerical and
remembered per band. Seems very logical. But it was a near universal
confusion factor for new users.

QWERTY may be an inferior keyboard arrangement to some, but try to
change that, or get rid of the Microsoft "\".

I had a proposal once which engaged most of your concept. The
reaction to it was ten-to-one negative. Some things better left
alone.

73, Guy.

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:33 AM, pd0psb <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi Sam,
>
> I often thought about this as well.
>
> Since the noisefloor is generally much higher on the lower bands, it would
> be nice if AGC threshold or RX IF gain could be scaled in relation to
> bandnoise levels.
>
> To do this you would need to use a table with a few setting points across HF
> and have gain or threshold interpolate between these points. This would
> compensate AGC threshold or IF gain across the full range of the receiver in
> relation to bandnoise levels.
> (It would be nice if this were another industry-first from Elecraft :-)
>
> BTW, an old trick I often used for receive-only is a rather small capacitor
> in series with the RX antenna input, this gives a general decrease of gain
> towards the lower bands, compensating the higher bandnoise levels.
>
> 73'
> Paul
> PD0PSB
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-feature-request-query-tp5186033p5186201.html
> Sent from the Elecraft 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

pd0psb

Re: K3 feature request query?

Guy,

I can't follow the comparison with the Querty keyboard, sorry.

>>Some things better left
alone.

Or given the option "enable/disable" .....

73'
Paul
PD0PSB

pd0psb

Re: K3 feature request query?

Ah, okay Mike, I missed that this was already "universally rejected" by everybody...

I assumed TenTec and Yeasu tried to implement this for a good reason, but weren't succesfull, and I had the illusion Elecraft could be the first to come up with a good solution.

But ofcourse I won't stand up to a universally rejected idea.

73'
Paul
PD0PSB

>Paul,

>The QWERTY arrangement of keys on a keyboard was implemented in early
>typewriter days to slow typists down, so they wouldn't jam the type bars
>together. There have been schemes proposed since those days to
>re-arrange the keys for greater efficiency/speed, and those proposals
>have met with universal rejection.

>The point is, that no matter what the advantage, you're just not going
>to change some things.

>73, Mike NF4L

N5GE

Re: K3 feature request query?

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:27:39 -0700 (PDT), pd0psb <[hidden email]> wrote:

In line...

>
>Ah, okay Mike, I missed that this was already "universally rejected" by
>everybody...
>
>I assumed TenTec and Yeasu tried to implement this for a good reason, but
>weren't succesfull, and I had the illusion Elecraft could be the first to
>come up with a good solution.
>
>But ofcourse I won't stand up to a universally rejected idea.
>
>73'
>Paul
>PD0PSB

Actually the keys are arranged according to the percentage of occurrence of each
key in text communications, books etc. so that the most used letters were the
easiest to reach.

If you wish to continue this discussion with me please, let's do it through
private emails, not on the reflector.

>>Paul,
>
>>The QWERTY arrangement of keys on a keyboard was implemented in early
>>typewriter days to slow typists down, so they wouldn't jam the type bars
>>together. There have been schemes proposed since those days to
>>re-arrange the keys for greater efficiency/speed, and those proposals
>>have met with universal rejection.
>
>>The point is, that no matter what the advantage, you're just not going
>>to change some things.
>
>>73, Mike NF4L

Tom, N5GE
Licensed since 1976
QCWA Life Member 35102

[hidden email]
http://www.n5ge.com
http://www.swotrc.net

______________________________________________________________
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

Amateur Radio Operator N5GE

pd0psb

Re: K3 feature request query? > scalable IF gain/AGC threshold

>If you wish to continue this discussion with me please, let's do it through
>private emails, not on the reflector.

Tom, I'v sent you the qwerty link privately.
But this topic was about a query, not qwerty :-)

The query was about a scalable IF gain/AGC threshold, compensating the higher bandnoiselevels on the lower bands (see first two posts)

73'
Paul
PD0PSB

N5GE

Re: K3 feature request query? > scalable IF gain/AGC threshold

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:12:53 -0700 (PDT), pd0psb <[hidden email]> wrote:

Paul,

Thank you for the correction. After reading the wiki link I realized that my
graphic artist and typesetter father was wrong when he told me that!

BT 73 ES GUD LUK
DE N5GE,
QCWA LIFE MEMBER 35102 AR SK

[hidden email]
http://www.n5ge.com

>
>>If you wish to continue this discussion with me please, let's do it through
>>private emails, not on the reflector.
>
>Tom, I'v sent you the qwerty link privately.
>But this topic was about a query, not qwerty :-)
>
>The query was about a scalable IF gain/AGC threshold, compensating the
>higher bandnoiselevels on the lower bands (see first two posts)
>
>73'
>Paul
>PD0PSB

Amateur Radio Operator N5GE