NB and NR algorhythm

[w0sz]

No nit I have with the K3 is the Noise Blanker and Noise Reduction algorithm .  Is there any possibility of making these features more linear so that by holding down the NB or NR buttons one could adjust them in a linear, ie . 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 etc. manner, like is done in the FT5000.  If the NB and NR features could be improved I might use them.  As it is now I hardly ever do.  How about it Wayne and Lyle, is this something you could do in firmware change to the DSP in the K3?
______________________________________________________________
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

[Tim Tucker]

A while back, I suggested a feature that could be toggled that would
allow the NR and NB dial to adjust like this:  1-2, 2-1, 3-1, 4-1,
1-2, 2-2, 3-2, 4-2, etc.

After constant use of the NR & NB features, I still think I would
prefer this proposed arrangement.  Perhaps it will make it on the list
of enhancements at some point.

Tim

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:16 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> No nit I have with the K3 is the Noise Blanker and Noise Reduction algorithm .  Is there any possibility of making these features more linear so that by holding down the NB or NR buttons one could adjust them in a linear, ie . 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 etc. manner, like is done in the FT5000.  If the NB and NR features could be improved I might use them.  As it is now I hardly ever do.  How about it Wayne and Lyle, is this something you could do in firmware change to the DSP in the K3?
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

[ANTHONY JAPHA]

I'd like to add a similar suggestion, this one about the APF in the K3.  I accept that it works as intended, but it is not useful.  I've used APFs for many years and they can be very useful.  The need to severely narrow the bandwith to avoid ringing and the poor peak in the audio when the APF is peaked limit the current filter.

What I'd like to see is an APF that does not depend on a narrow bandwidth and that has a pronounced (tunable) peak at the desired frequency.  It does not need to be extremely sharp, but it could be if that is dictated by design considerations.  And, to keep it simple, there also does not need to be a choice of bandwidth through the menu,  

I'd like to hear others' ideas.

73,
Tony, N2UN
______________________________________________________________
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

[wayne burdick]

Hi Tony,

I use APF constantly and find that it makes weak signals buried in  
noise far more readable. That is its purpose. The center frequency is  
tunable in 5-Hz steps, but we feel that the narrow bandwidth at peak  
is critical to its success, so we haven't tried making the bandwidth  
variable. I can see how it might help with faster CW speeds, however.

Lyle's algorithm is an emulation of the most successful hardware APF  
circuits and was based on extensive research. We also routinely get  
compliments on how well it works. So I'm surprised that it isn't  
working as well for you.

I'm sure you'll get other opinions, too.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

On Nov 14, 2011, at 6:36 PM, ANTHONY JAPHA wrote:

> I'd like to add a similar suggestion, this one about the APF in the  
> K3.  I accept that it works as intended, but it is not useful.  I've  
> used APFs for many years and they can be very useful.  The need to  
> severely narrow the bandwith to avoid ringing and the poor peak in  
> the audio when the APF is peaked limit the current filter.
>
> What I'd like to see is an APF that does not depend on a narrow  
> bandwidth and that has a pronounced (tunable) peak at the desired  
> frequency.  It does not need to be extremely sharp, but it could be  
> if that is dictated by design considerations.  And, to keep it  
> simple, there also does not need to be a choice of bandwidth through  
> the menu,
>
> I'd like to hear others' ideas.
>
> 73,
> Tony, N2UN
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

[Bill W4ZV]

ANTHONY JAPHA wrote

I'd like to add a similar suggestion, this one about the APF in the K3.  I accept that it works as intended, but it is not useful.  I've used APFs for many years and they can be very useful.  The need to severely narrow the bandwith to avoid ringing and the poor peak in the audio when the APF is peaked limit the current filter.

What I'd like to see is an APF that does not depend on a narrow bandwidth and that has a pronounced (tunable) peak at the desired frequency.  It does not need to be extremely sharp, but it could be if that is dictated by design considerations.  And, to keep it simple, there also does not need to be a choice of bandwidth through the menu,  

I'd like to hear others' ideas.

I'm confused about what you wrote.  Are you in *APF* or *nor* in CONFIG: DUAL PB?  If you don't like APF then try the normal DUAL PB function.

I'm not sure which APF you've used for many years but the K3's APF emulates what is generally accepted to be the best APF ever implemented (FT-1000D's original design, not the later "update"):

http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Topband/2000-03/msg00025.html

I very rarely use APF unless the situation demands it.  It makes no sense to use when signals are Q5.  What is does very well is to extract weak signals from the noise floor.  However it requires *extremely* careful tuning (either using the 5 Hz SHIFT steps or VFO FINE 1 Hz steps).  

When H40KJ was recently on 160m, he was very weak here in the South (propagation seemed to be favoring stations in W2 and W3).  I used APF every time he was on and was able to copy him most days but he had no RX antenna so he couldn't hear me in the poor propagation.  Finally he was able to hear me with difficulty on the last day of his operation.  I believe there were only 2 stations South of Virginia to work him and I was one of them thanks to APF.

"Difficulty of receiving shows case of Bill W4ZV, his signal was relatively
strong  with no QSB, but to make me sure about his call sign took me seven minutes!!!
Only thing I was sure from begening was W4, rest of the call, just two
letters was ureadable, ZM, ZF, MF could copy this in many ways. So W4ZV
is an easy call so what you say about WB6RSE??"

http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Topband/2011-11/msg00020.html

73,  Bill  W4ZV