K3 new V3.25 NR not so good for CW week signal
Locked
K3 new V3.25 NR not so good for CW week signal
 
|
Hello,
After testing new beta 3.25 I have fond that new NR software has lost the ability to make weak signals to stand out on low bands. This was one of the best features the K3 had in small and bad QTH like mine, 3 BC and a Big Power Station, all of them at 1 to 2KM away, you can not imaging the QRM I have. I have read here many K3 users in this list are very glad with new NR, I suppose are SSB operators and most using it on normal conversation and not very weak signal. The new NR is quite good for chatting just in the line of my old IC-PRO2, there is no much difference changing the adjustments like the old NR but for CW the old firmware with narrow roofing filter, looks to me a bit but better as an old FT-1000 Peak Filter, very good for 160M. Maybe it could be add in a future firmware for CW operators as a digital Peak Filter similar to old NR. So for me or I go down to V3.19 and missing all new improvements or use my old FT-1000 for Low bands, which is not very good after all money I have spent in my full K3. Thanks, 73. Jaime, EA6NB. ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: K3 new V3.25 NR not so good for CW week signal
|
|
Jaime . . .
Many FT-1000D owners (and non-owners who have used them) have urged implementation of an Audio Peak Filter in the K3 for weak-signal CW work. Only those who have used a 1000D can appreciate why this request keeps recurring. It has nothing to do with fondness for a venerable old rig, and everything to do with the performance of the APF. I continue to marvel at the way white noise and miscellaneous garbage are eliminated at the 50 cycle setting of the K3's DSP. But as good as it is, the signal remains what it is -- there is no peaking as there is with the 1000D. Several of us have discussed this with Wayne from the first days of production, and while it may someday be addressed further, for now the issue is moot. 73, Kent K9ZTV K3 #21 Jaime P.Ullivarri wrote (with word insertions by K9ZTV to improve the English): > . . . but for CW the old firmware with narrow roofing filters looks to me but a bit better > than the old FT-1000 Peak Filter which was very good for 160M. > Maybe it could be added in a future firmware revision for CW operators -- a digital > Peak Filter with results similar to the previous NR. So for me either I go down to V3.19 and miss all new improvements, or use my > old FT-1000 for Low bands. Having to make this choice is not very good after all the money I have > spent in creating a fully-loaded K3. > Thanks, 73. Jaime, EA6NB. > ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
Jaime,
There is another group of people who appreciate a "peaking function" for CW. That group is those of use who remember using a Q-multiplier. It had both a peak and null position and worked at the IF frequency. The peak function was super for CW. 73 de Brian/K3KO K9ZTV wrote: > Jaime . . . > > Many FT-1000D owners (and non-owners who have used them) have urged > implementation of an Audio Peak Filter in the K3 for weak-signal CW > work. > > Kent K9ZTV > K3 #21 > > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2304 - Release Date: 08/15/09 06:10:00 ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
Add a vote from me for that please !
Terry G4AMT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Alsop" <[hidden email]> Cc: <[hidden email]> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:29 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 new V3.25 NR not so good for CW week signal > Jaime, > There is another group of people who appreciate a "peaking function" for > CW. That group is those of use who remember using a Q-multiplier. It > had both a peak and null position and worked at the IF frequency. The > peak function was super for CW. > > 73 de Brian/K3KO > > K9ZTV wrote: >> Jaime . . . >> >> Many FT-1000D owners (and non-owners who have used them) have urged >> implementation of an Audio Peak Filter in the K3 for weak-signal CW >> work. >> >> Kent K9ZTV >> K3 #21 >> >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2304 - Release Date: 08/15/09 06:10:00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: K3 new V3.25 NR not so good for CW week signal
|
|
In reply to this post by KENT TRIMBLE
> Many FT-1000D owners (and non-owners who have used them) have urged
> implementation of an Audio Peak Filter in the K3 for weak-signal CW > work. The APF on the FT-1000D is exceptional and it's a true gain-producing peaking filter at the center frequency. By contrast, the APF in the Icom 7700/7800 is probably better characterized as an audio bandpass (ABP) filter with no peaking gain at the center frequency. I suppose the ideal APF would incorporate all the attributes of a single-channel parametric EQ with variable "Q," frequency, and amplitude. Paul, W9AC ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: K3 new V3.25 NR not so good for CW week signal
|
|
In reply to this post by alsopb
Brian,
Thanks for that reminder. I built a Q-Multiplier at the 85 kHz IF in one receiver I built long ago and it really worked great. When you really cranked it up, it would ring, but then a bit of ringing was preferable to no copy. I never measured the minimum width because I did not have the equipment at the time, but it certainly did work. 73, Don W3FPR Brian Alsop wrote: > Jaime, > There is another group of people who appreciate a "peaking function" > for CW. That group is those of use who remember using a > Q-multiplier. It had both a peak and null position and worked at the > IF frequency. The peak function was super for CW. > > 73 de Brian/K3KO > ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: K3 new V3.25 NR not so good for CW week signal
|
|
In reply to this post by KENT TRIMBLE
Kent, very well put and very true. So far this one very simple feature
has kept the K3 from being at the top of the line so to speak. (tin hat on, keep your flames to yourself) It all boils down to having the two radios side by side, and operating weak signal 160 meters for instance. Both receivers hear the signal exactly the same, but a touch of the APF on the old 1000D brings the signal out of the surrounding noise just enough to make copy possible. If you cant hear them you cant work them, and this is the case time after time using the K3, I have to resort to turning on the 1000D to make the contact on extreme weak signals on 160. I am sure others will disagree, and a large part of the K3 ownership may never work with signals that weak, or work 160 even. But for those of us who do the APF is a major tool. To continue to try and duplicate such a simple feature in DSP is just work for naught, the reason its APF is it is Audio Peak Filter, a one chip solution in the real world, and with the rxEQ already in the K3 seems to me a former programmer a simple audio implementation. If some dont like, dont use it. I can only imagine how long the "want" list must be, and how many times its reshuffled, and unless someone has hollered about it recently it drops down the list even further. For a temporary fix I use an external Datong peak filter, not near as good as the 1000D internal, I will limp along for a while longer, but not forever. 1000D may be ancient technology but if it copies signals the K3 cannot, then all the great numbers on paper in the world do not help you out. The K3 blows the 1000D out of the water on selectivity and close in signal handling, but 90 percent of the time there is no QRM near the weak signal. To me its like the beer commercial that states Drinkability.. On 160 weak signal reception, you need Receivability.. Just want the K3 to be all it can be. 73 Merv KH7C ex K9FD > Jaime . . . > > Many FT-1000D owners (and non-owners who have used them) have urged > implementation of an Audio Peak Filter in the K3 for weak-signal CW > work. Only those who have used a 1000D can appreciate why this request > keeps recurring. It has nothing to do with fondness for a venerable old > rig, and everything to do with the performance of the APF. > > I continue to marvel at the way white noise and miscellaneous garbage > are eliminated at the 50 cycle setting of the K3's DSP. But as good as > it is, the signal remains what it is -- there is no peaking as there is > with the 1000D. > > Several of us have discussed this with Wayne from the first days of > production, and while it may someday be addressed further, for now the > issue is moot. > > 73, > > Kent K9ZTV > K3 #21 > > > > Jaime P.Ullivarri wrote (with word insertions by K9ZTV to improve the > English): > >> . . . but for CW the old firmware with narrow roofing filters looks to me but a bit better >> than the old FT-1000 Peak Filter which was very good for 160M. >> Maybe it could be added in a future firmware revision for CW operators -- a digital >> Peak Filter with results similar to the previous NR. So for me either I go down to V3.19 and miss all new improvements, or use my >> old FT-1000 for Low bands. Having to make this choice is not very good after all the money I have >> spent in creating a fully-loaded K3. >> Thanks, 73. Jaime, EA6NB. >> >> > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by alsopb
At 12:29 PM 15/08/09, you wrote:
>Jaime, >There is another group of people who appreciate a "peaking function" >for CW. That group is those of use who remember using a >Q-multiplier. It had both a peak and null position and worked at >the IF frequency. The peak function was super for CW. > >73 de Brian/K3KO I had one of those, a Heathkit QF-1, my first kit. My RX was an S-85, RX was Heath AT-1. I didn't get to build the AT-1, but I did build some neat 6L6 rigs. I loved that QF-1, $9.99, and that was expensive! Back in the KN8ILI days. Neighbor ham friend was KN8IQY, now K8IQY. He was way ahead of me with a DX-35 or DX-40. Good stuff! John k7up K3, K2's, K1 ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
«
Return to [K3]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |