Elecraft

K3 noise blanker

Classic

List

Threaded

16 messages Options

Arie Kleingeld PA3A

K3 noise blanker

All,

I''ve been playing with my K3 (#1255) for a week now and I'm getting the
feel of the controls. Everything is OK but I'm still working on the
settings of the NB and the NR.
Firmware 2.23 / 1.88

Now about NR.
I receive a S9 pulse from an electric fence. Getting rid of this was
easy with the NB of a FT1000MP, is impossible to get rid of with the K2
(still unmodified) NB and....
the pulse is very much suppressed (not totally) in the K3 ! Wow.
Thinking about earlier threads about static noise and beating the "Rob
Sherwood test on dsp radio's" on that subject, I found the reason: AGC
PLS is on. Boy, lucky me!
Switching off the AGC PLS brings back the electric fence pulse on S9.

So let's try the NB of the K3 on this.
IF NAR 1-7: no good result
IF MED 5: pulse pretty much gone, but...
IF WID 4: pulse pretty much gone, but...
DSP 1-1 to 3-4: very little result

So I'm able to suppress the pulse with the NB or with the AGP PLS
setting.
The thing that worries me (and here is the but...) is that when I'm
using the NB, setting in IF NAR/WID/WID x, and x>4, introduces noise and
signals that are not there without the NB on.
So settings 5, 6 and 7 seem useless here.
Anybody experiencing the same? Or did I miss something?

73
Arie PA3A
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Arie Kleingeld PA3A

RE: K3 noise blanker

One more addition:

NB off, AGC PLS set to nor.
Bandwidth set to 400 Hz (with 400Hz roofing filter).

The pulse is back (about S5)working the agc.
Pulse is suppressed again at bandwidth 550 Hz (yes 550Hz, not 450Hz) or
greater (roofing filter = 2.1k at BW 450 Hz - 2100Hz)

Arie

-----------------------------------------------------
Onderwerp: [Elecraft] K3 noise blanker

All,

I''ve been playing with my K3 (#1255) for a week now and I'm getting the
feel of the controls. Everything is OK but I'm still working on the
settings of the NB and the NR. Firmware 2.23 / 1.88

Now about NR.
I receive a S9 pulse from an electric fence. Getting rid of this was
easy with the NB of a FT1000MP, is impossible to get rid of with the K2
(still unmodified) NB and.... the pulse is very much suppressed (not
totally) in the K3 ! Wow. Thinking about earlier threads about static
noise and beating the "Rob Sherwood test on dsp radio's" on that
subject, I found the reason: AGC PLS is on. Boy, lucky me! Switching off
the AGC PLS brings back the electric fence pulse on S9.

So let's try the NB of the K3 on this.
IF NAR 1-7: no good result
IF MED 5: pulse pretty much gone, but...
IF WID 4: pulse pretty much gone, but...
DSP 1-1 to 3-4: very little result

So I'm able to suppress the pulse with the NB or with the AGP PLS
setting. The thing that worries me (and here is the but...) is that
when I'm using the NB, setting in IF NAR/WID/WID x, and x>4, introduces
noise and signals that are not there without the NB on. So settings 5, 6
and 7 seem useless here. Anybody experiencing the same? Or did I miss
something?

73
Arie PA3A
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Arie Kleingeld PA3A

RE: K3 noise blanker

In reply to this post by Arie Kleingeld PA3A

Jim Brown-10

Re: K3 noise blanker

In reply to this post by Arie Kleingeld PA3A

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:10:06 +0200, Arie Kleingeld PA3A wrote:

> pulse is very much suppressed (not totally) in the K3 ! Wow.

Yes, but what is NR and NB doing to signals you're trying to copy?
It's easy to fool yourself about how well it works when listening
ONLY to band noise. To be useful, the NB/NR must suppress the noise
while not doing too much damage to the signal you're trying to copy.
So far, I haven't been thrilled by what I hear of that.

73,

Jim K9YC

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Bill VanAlstyne W5WVO

Re: K3 noise blanker

Jim Brown wrote:

> Yes, but what is NR and NB doing to signals you're trying to
copy?
> It's easy to fool yourself about how well it works when
listening
> ONLY to band noise. To be useful, the NB/NR must suppress the
noise
> while not doing too much damage to the signal you're trying to
copy.
> So far, I haven't been thrilled by what I hear of that.

Have to agree with you on that, Jim. It's definitely a trade-off
between noise suppression and signal intelligibility. As with many
things, it works better on CW than it does on SSB.

Once the major promised features of the K3 are in place (still
waiting for a fix for the SSB>CW VFO offset issue when changing
modes), I'm hoping the NB and NR code will be thoroughly
revisited.

Bill W5WVO

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Stephen Prior

Re: K3 noise blanker

This is a 'me too'.

Having, in waiting for my K3, read all sorts of accolades for the NB and NR,
I feel, now that I have the radio in front of me, somewhat deflated. The NB
is, it seems to me, no better than many others I have used (eg TS-850) and
the NR does not seem, to me at least, to be any better than that on the
TS-480 this K3 replaced. And, I have experimented with all the various
settings available and am running the latest firmware.

Having said that, I remain 95% delighted with the K3. The strong signal
handling is fantastic, I like the ergonomics and the tx audio is simply
excellent. I would not swap it for any other radio. But, the NB and NR
have not lived up to my (maybe unrealistic) expectations.

73 Stephen G4SJP

On 17/08/2008 20:45, "Bill W5WVO" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jim Brown wrote:
>
>> Yes, but what is NR and NB doing to signals you're trying to
> copy?
>> It's easy to fool yourself about how well it works when
> listening
>> ONLY to band noise. To be useful, the NB/NR must suppress the
> noise
>> while not doing too much damage to the signal you're trying to
> copy.
>> So far, I haven't been thrilled by what I hear of that.
>
> Have to agree with you on that, Jim. It's definitely a trade-off
> between noise suppression and signal intelligibility. As with many
> things, it works better on CW than it does on SSB.
>
> Once the major promised features of the K3 are in place (still
> waiting for a fix for the SSB>CW VFO offset issue when changing
> modes), I'm hoping the NB and NR code will be thoroughly
> revisited.
>
> Bill W5WVO
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

ab2tc

Re: K3 noise blanker

Hi,

One of the main reasons for me buying the K3 was the demonstrated ability to eliminate pulse noise emanating from power lines and ignition noise (I listened to before/after audio clips demonstrating this on the web). The NB is very effective and does not distort signals at all unless they are really, really strong (S9+20dB++). I have never even tried the NR function - frankly I don't understand what it's supposed to do. Removing white noise from a signal is theoretically impossible and yet that's seems to be what the expectation of the NR is. Surprisingly most of the effectiveness of the NB on my pulse noise is coming from the DSP portion of the NB, although I use a combination of the two (setting t2-4,MED3), as suggested by many.

Knut - AB2TC

Stephen Prior wrote

This is a 'me too'.

Having, in waiting for my K3, read all sorts of accolades for the NB and NR,
I feel, now that I have the radio in front of me, somewhat deflated. The NB
is, it seems to me, no better than many others I have used (eg TS-850) and
the NR does not seem, to me at least, to be any better than that on the
TS-480 this K3 replaced. And, I have experimented with all the various
settings available and am running the latest firmware.

Having said that, I remain 95% delighted with the K3. The strong signal
handling is fantastic, I like the ergonomics and the tx audio is simply
excellent. I would not swap it for any other radio. But, the NB and NR
have not lived up to my (maybe unrealistic) expectations.

73 Stephen G4SJP

Dave Martin-3

Re: K3 noise blanker

In reply to this post by Stephen Prior

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Stephen Prior <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is a 'me too'.
>
> Having, in waiting for my K3, read all sorts of accolades for the NB and NR,
> I feel, now that I have the radio in front of me, somewhat deflated. The NB
> is, it seems to me, no better than many others I have used (eg TS-850) and
> the NR does not seem, to me at least, to be any better than that on the
> TS-480 this K3 replaced. And, I have experimented with all the various
> settings available and am running the latest firmware.
>
> Having said that, I remain 95% delighted with the K3. The strong signal
> handling is fantastic, I like the ergonomics and the tx audio is simply
> excellent. I would not swap it for any other radio. But, the NB and NR
> have not lived up to my (maybe unrealistic) expectations.
>
> 73 Stephen G4SJP
>
>

I recall hearing quite effective noise reduction on the demo files
offered by one or two manufacturers of NR speakers or NR boards, even
on SSB. It didn't seem very similar to what we have with the K3 noise
reduction. Does anyone have one of the speakers to compare with the
K3 NR? My noise is terrible here and I've thought several times of
ordering one of the speakers or boards, but hate to without some way
to compare them first to what I have with the K3.

Dave W5DHM
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

W8JI

Re: K3 noise blanker

In reply to this post by Stephen Prior

> Having, in waiting for my K3, read all sorts of accolades
> for the NB and NR,
> I feel, now that I have the radio in front of me, somewhat
> deflated. The NB
> is, it seems to me, no better than many others I have used
> (eg TS-850) and
> the NR does not seem, to me at least, to be any better
> than that on the
> TS-480 this K3 replaced.

>> Have to agree with you on that, Jim. It's definitely a
>> trade-off
>> between noise suppression and signal intelligibility. As
>> with many
>> things, it works better on CW than it does on SSB.

I think perhaps the people that are ecstatic about noise
reduction have noise that is greatly different than the type
of signal they are trying to copy. The unhappy campers are
trying remove noise that is similar in characteristics to
what they are trying to hear. If the blanker or reduction
system can't tell the noise from the signal it can't work no
matter how much time and effort is put in the design.

An RF noise nulling device would be a solution if the noise
is from a defined direction and source.

This reminds me a little of that "For Eyes" commercial.

73 Tom

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Stephen Prior

Re: K3 noise blanker

In reply to this post by ab2tc

Hi Knut,

Well interference is a very personal thing of course, and I suffer here from
power line noise too, especially when it is damp which is pretty much all of
the time. Global warming does not seem to have reached the south western
tip of the UK yet- we've had the wettest, coldest summer wx for a long time
here!

The thing with the NB function is that it seems to take an awful lot of
effort in playing with settings to result in any tangible improvement and it
has only marginally helped with the power line noise problems despite lots
of such playing.

73 Stephen G4SJP

On 17/08/2008 22:03, "ab2tc" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> One of the main reasons for me buying the K3 was the demonstrated ability to
> eliminate pulse noise emanating from power lines and ignition noise (I
> listened to before/after audio clips demonstrating this on the web). The NB
> is very effective and does not distort signals at all unless they are
> really, really strong (S9+20dB++). I have never even tried the NR function -
> frankly I don't understand what it's supposed to do. Removing white noise
> from a signal is theoretically impossible and yet that's seems to be what
> the expectation of the NR is. Surprisingly most of the effectiveness of the
> NB on my pulse noise is coming from the DSP portion of the NB, although I
> use a combination of the two (setting t2-4,MED3), as suggested by many.
>
> Knut - AB2TC
>
>
> Stephen Prior wrote:
>>
>> This is a 'me too'.
>>
>> Having, in waiting for my K3, read all sorts of accolades for the NB and
>> NR,
>> I feel, now that I have the radio in front of me, somewhat deflated. The
>> NB
>> is, it seems to me, no better than many others I have used (eg TS-850) and
>> the NR does not seem, to me at least, to be any better than that on the
>> TS-480 this K3 replaced. And, I have experimented with all the various
>> settings available and am running the latest firmware.
>>
>> Having said that, I remain 95% delighted with the K3. The strong signal
>> handling is fantastic, I like the ergonomics and the tx audio is simply
>> excellent. I would not swap it for any other radio. But, the NB and NR
>> have not lived up to my (maybe unrealistic) expectations.
>>
>> 73 Stephen G4SJP
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> AB2TC - Knut

Rob May-2

RE: K3 noise blanker

In reply to this post by Stephen Prior

I received my K3 (#1417) Monday, had it on the air Tuesday. I'm using a computer headset plugged into the the back of the radio with a foot switch to leave both hands free. I hunt and pounced about 3 or 4 hours last night in the NAQP. I was amazed at the NR and NB. I have intermittent S9 power line noise here and I can eliminate that. In addition, by playing with the NR setting and the AFX (a great feature that really does help on some signals) I was able to have clear copy on signals that I could barely tell were even there before. I was so impressed that I went and got my wife to show her what it could do. My other radio is a IC-718, so I'm comparing PC to a calculator, but still, very impressive. I've using the latest beta firmware.

I have to say that the steep skirts of the 2.8 8 pole filter were worth the upgrade, it was great to be able to work stations that were less than 1 kHz apart.
Rob
NV5E

> Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:30:26 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 noise blanker
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> CC:
>
> This is a 'me too'.
>
> Having, in waiting for my K3, read all sorts of accolades for the NB and NR,
> I feel, now that I have the radio in front of me, somewhat deflated. The NB
> is, it seems to me, no better than many others I have used (eg TS-850) and
> the NR does not seem, to me at least, to be any better than that on the
> TS-480 this K3 replaced. And, I have experimented with all the various
> settings available and am running the latest firmware.
>
> Having said that, I remain 95% delighted with the K3. The strong signal
> handling is fantastic, I like the ergonomics and the tx audio is simply
> excellent. I would not swap it for any other radio. But, the NB and NR
> have not lived up to my (maybe unrealistic) expectations.
>
> 73 Stephen G4SJP
>
>
> On 17/08/2008 20:45, "Bill W5WVO" wrote:
>
>> Jim Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, but what is NR and NB doing to signals you're trying to
>> copy?
>>> It's easy to fool yourself about how well it works when
>> listening
>>> ONLY to band noise. To be useful, the NB/NR must suppress the
>> noise
>>> while not doing too much damage to the signal you're trying to
>> copy.
>>> So far, I haven't been thrilled by what I hear of that.
>>
>> Have to agree with you on that, Jim. It's definitely a trade-off
>> between noise suppression and signal intelligibility. As with many
>> things, it works better on CW than it does on SSB.
>>
>> Once the major promised features of the K3 are in place (still
>> waiting for a fix for the SSB>CW VFO offset issue when changing
>> modes), I'm hoping the NB and NR code will be thoroughly
>> revisited.
>>
>> Bill W5WVO
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Post to: [hidden email]
>> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
>> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
>> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_________________________________________________________________
Get thousands of games on your PC, your mobile phone, and the web with Windows®.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588800/direct/01/_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

S Sacco

Re: K3 noise blanker

In reply to this post by ab2tc

Knut -

Regarding NR and DSP, check out the excellent (and WAY UNDERUTILIZED)
K3 forums and wiki at:
http://www.zerobeat.net/mediawiki/index.php/K3_DSP

73,
Steve NN4X

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 5:03 PM, ab2tc <[hidden email]> wrote:

Craig-89

Re: K3 noise blanker

In reply to this post by Stephen Prior

Hi Stephen

I am feeling much the same about my K3's noise blanker. I live in a semi rural area with many poorly maintained power poles and many electric fences. The noise types and frequency varies on a day to day basis. I find the K3's DSP blanker to be much more effective than its IF blanker. The DSP blanker runs rings around the K3's IF blanker and i mostly leave the K3's IF blanker off because of lack of performance.

My old crapped out TS830S at my QTH has the best performing noise blanker for dealing with these varying noise sources. It is surprising that the K3's IF blanker seems to distort signals even on its lowest setting yet on the TS830S it seems to cope rather well in comparison, having both the ability to blank most power line noise and not distort signals very much.

The TS830S has my vote for the best overall noise blanking performance on power line noise sources. Both the K3 and K2's noise blanker, when they find the kind of noise they "like" seem darn impressive. Unfortunately random noise sources dont behave in such a predictable and consistent manner.

The TS830S because if its pre-selection also copes much better when using the noise blanker in crowded conditions. For these reasons i will always keep this great old semi boat anchor radio whose receiver is no slouch either in IMD dynamic range performance. Its hard to believe that almost 30 years later that it holds its own against the technology marvels and tall poppies of the transceiver world.

73
Craig
VK3HE

--- On Sun, 8/17/08, Stephen Prior <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Stephen Prior <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 noise blanker
> To: "Bill W5WVO" <[hidden email]>, "Jim Brown" <[hidden email]>, "elecraft" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Sunday, August 17, 2008, 4:30 PM
> This is a 'me too'.
>
> Having, in waiting for my K3, read all sorts of accolades
> for the NB and NR,
> I feel, now that I have the radio in front of me, somewhat
> deflated. The NB
> is, it seems to me, no better than many others I have used
> (eg TS-850) and
> the NR does not seem, to me at least, to be any better than
> that on the
> TS-480 this K3 replaced. And, I have experimented with all
> the various
> settings available and am running the latest firmware.
>
> Having said that, I remain 95% delighted with the K3. The
> strong signal
> handling is fantastic, I like the ergonomics and the tx
> audio is simply
> excellent. I would not swap it for any other radio. But,
> the NB and NR
> have not lived up to my (maybe unrealistic) expectations.
>
> 73 Stephen G4SJP
>
>
> On 17/08/2008 20:45, "Bill W5WVO"
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Jim Brown wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, but what is NR and NB doing to signals
> you're trying to
> > copy?
> >> It's easy to fool yourself about how well it
> works when
> > listening
> >> ONLY to band noise. To be useful, the NB/NR must
> suppress the
> > noise
> >> while not doing too much damage to the signal
> you're trying to
> > copy.
> >> So far, I haven't been thrilled by what I hear
> of that.
> >
> > Have to agree with you on that, Jim. It's
> definitely a trade-off
> > between noise suppression and signal intelligibility.
> As with many
> > things, it works better on CW than it does on SSB.
> >
> > Once the major promised features of the K3 are in
> place (still
> > waiting for a fix for the SSB>CW VFO offset issue
> when changing
> > modes), I'm hoping the NB and NR code will be
> thoroughly
> > revisited.
> >
> > Bill W5WVO
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Elecraft mailing list
> > Post to: [hidden email]
> > You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Julian, G4ILO

Re: K3 noise blanker

In reply to this post by Stephen Prior

Stephen Prior wrote

This is a 'me too'.

[snip]

But, the NB and NR
have not lived up to my (maybe unrealistic) expectations.

I have never made much use of the noise blanker of any radio. It never made a difference to the kind of noise I experience, which is a bit like a close-up recording of frying, like a chorus of 100 switched mode power supplies. I hoped the much-vaunted DSP NR would have an impact on this, but it just makes the voice sound distorted and narrow. Perhaps I'm expecting too much as well.

Julian, G4ILO. K2 #392 K3 #222 KX3 #110
* G4ILO's Shack - http://www.g4ilo.com
* KComm - http://www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html
* KTune - http://www.g4ilo.com/ktune.html

Jim Brown-10

Re: K3 noise blanker

In reply to this post by Stephen Prior

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:30:26 +0100, Stephen Prior wrote:

>The NB is, it seems to me, no better than many others I have used
>(eg TS-850) and the NR does not seem, to me at least, to be any better
>than that on the TS-480 this K3 replaced.

That's not surprising, and I'm not complaining -- I'm just not declaring it
equivalent to the second coming. At some point, you bump up against the
limits of what can be achieved without destroying the signal. On the other
hand, I also think that there is an experience factor here -- we, the
operators, learning to get the most out of the tools that are included.

73,

Jim K9YC

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Charly

evolution of goals , now low noise

I remember that in the 1950-60s, hams sought more

sensitivity in their rcvrs. That "solved," then later

the chase changed into a

search for greater selectivity. Thus INRAD and

roofing filters, passband tuning and notches. Now in our rf poluted

world, we seek noise limitations and control.

The IC-775DSP for example, has a noise function

designed just for the Russian Woodpecker. That

thankfully gone, now we want a limiter on all that

other noise. 73

Charles Harpole

[hidden email]

> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:40:40 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 noise blanker
>
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:30:26 +0100, Stephen Prior wrote:
>
>>The NB is, it seems to me, no better than many others I have used
>>(eg TS-850) and the NR does not seem, to me at least, to be any better
>>than that on the TS-480 this K3 replaced.
>
> That's not surprising, and I'm not complaining -- I'm just not declaring it
> equivalent to the second coming. At some point, you bump up against the
> limits of what can be achieved without destroying the signal. On the other
> hand, I also think that there is an experience factor here -- we, the
> operators, learning to get the most out of the tools that are included.
>
> 73,
>
> Jim K9YC
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com