Elecraft › [K3]

Noisy K3 receiver

Classic

List

Threaded

67 messages Options

1234

Ed Gray W0SD

Re: My K3's Very Quiet

I believe the test results but the reality to me is in the real world it
does not make any difference on HF below 10 meters.

I don't use the ATU, all resonate antenna's here. If using the
amplifier no ATU into the amplifier so that is not an issue here.

The 4 db mentioned with the pre-amp I am sure is accurate but I can not
hear the difference and I have a nice quiet location. IMHO you can't get
a quiet rx with a pre-amp as the background is going to increase when
you turn it on. It would be fine to get more back ground if the signal
was better copy. However for me I can never remember a case where
turning on the pre-amp made it possible to copy something better than
without it other than 10 meters and up and I have a quiet location out
in the country.
My opinion is based on working all DXCC countries, 5Band WAZ, lots of
contests, operating 160-1296 and higher with about 300,000 qso's in the
log and being on several Dx-peditions. I just say this to validate I
have been blessed to be able to do a good deal of operating in the real
world.

To me there is a limit to the improvement you can get in the real world
on an antenna when you have atmospheric and man made noise. Again I have
chased weak signal DX for a long time and I have never found a time the
pre-amp helps below 10 meters on recent vintage radios. It may help
others but it does not help me. For me it is just tiring to the ears to
listen to the extra background noise with the pre-amp on.

For me the key point is that you can make legitimate tests that show a
difference in a test set up with test equipment but in the real world
listening on an antenna even at a very quiet location it just isn't
going to show up.

The fact is that probably only 1% or less of hams have very quiet
locations so they just amplify man made noise when they turn on the
pre-amp. To get a benefit you need a very low noise floor and there is
a limit on HF even at the most quiet location.

I will stick to my "GUNS" and say the pre-amp does not help me any below
10 meters and only makes it more fatiguing
to listen to ( roughly 3-S units more background on my K3 meter) and I
am blessed with having a quieter location than I suspect 99% of the hams
have. So the bottom line I think for most if you want less noise is to
turn the pre-amp off. If it does make a difference for you(I does not
for me) it will be a very small percentage of the time so why not leave
it off 99.9% of the time if background noise is an issue for you.

I think most of the persons having problems with listening to the K3 are
because of what I will call "pitch" or put another way what they trouble
setting it so it is what they like to listen to. Here is a real world
example. Operating at TZ6EI this past summer on six meters W7XU was
having trouble with the K3 "noise" with the six meter pre-amp. He likes
to copy a low pitch 300 hz, no more than 400 hz on cw. The background
noise was driving him "NUTS". I had him adjust the shift to lower the
"pitch" of the noise and he was perfectly satisfied and we are talking
about hours and days of weak signal copying with headphones.

Ed W0SD

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.114/2575 - Release Date: 12/19/09 08:33:00

______________________________________________________________
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

Jan Erik Holm

Re: My K3's Very Quiet

Ed,

No offence but what you say below puts everything on the tilt
since you say you have been using a FT-1000D, ifn´t you had
it in IPO all the time you have been using the preamp. There
is no two ways about it.

I do agree that the reel world performance compared to "lab"
performance is two totally different things.
I´m beginning to think we have something here in conjunction
with the K3.

As I did say before, my gut feeling is that there is something
going on but I can´t put my finger on it neither I have the
time available to investigate.

/ Jim SM2EKM
---------------------------
W0SD Ed Gray wrote:

> I believe the test results but the reality to me is in the real world it
> does not make any difference on HF below 10 meters.
>
> I don't use the ATU, all resonate antenna's here. If using the
> amplifier no ATU into the amplifier so that is not an issue here.
>
> The 4 db mentioned with the pre-amp I am sure is accurate but I can not
> hear the difference and I have a nice quiet location. IMHO you can't get
> a quiet rx with a pre-amp as the background is going to increase when
> you turn it on. It would be fine to get more back ground if the signal
> was better copy. However for me I can never remember a case where
> turning on the pre-amp made it possible to copy something better than
> without it other than 10 meters and up and I have a quiet location out
> in the country.
> My opinion is based on working all DXCC countries, 5Band WAZ, lots of
> contests, operating 160-1296 and higher with about 300,000 qso's in the
> log and being on several Dx-peditions. I just say this to validate I
> have been blessed to be able to do a good deal of operating in the real
> world.
>
> To me there is a limit to the improvement you can get in the real world
> on an antenna when you have atmospheric and man made noise. Again I have
> chased weak signal DX for a long time and I have never found a time the
> pre-amp helps below 10 meters on recent vintage radios. It may help
> others but it does not help me. For me it is just tiring to the ears to
> listen to the extra background noise with the pre-amp on.
>
> For me the key point is that you can make legitimate tests that show a
> difference in a test set up with test equipment but in the real world
> listening on an antenna even at a very quiet location it just isn't
> going to show up.
>
> The fact is that probably only 1% or less of hams have very quiet
> locations so they just amplify man made noise when they turn on the
> pre-amp. To get a benefit you need a very low noise floor and there is
> a limit on HF even at the most quiet location.
>
> I will stick to my "GUNS" and say the pre-amp does not help me any below
> 10 meters and only makes it more fatiguing
> to listen to ( roughly 3-S units more background on my K3 meter) and I
> am blessed with having a quieter location than I suspect 99% of the hams
> have. So the bottom line I think for most if you want less noise is to
> turn the pre-amp off. If it does make a difference for you(I does not
> for me) it will be a very small percentage of the time so why not leave
> it off 99.9% of the time if background noise is an issue for you.
>
> I think most of the persons having problems with listening to the K3 are
> because of what I will call "pitch" or put another way what they trouble
> setting it so it is what they like to listen to. Here is a real world
> example. Operating at TZ6EI this past summer on six meters W7XU was
> having trouble with the K3 "noise" with the six meter pre-amp. He likes
> to copy a low pitch 300 hz, no more than 400 hz on cw. The background
> noise was driving him "NUTS". I had him adjust the shift to lower the
> "pitch" of the noise and he was perfectly satisfied and we are talking
> about hours and days of weak signal copying with headphones.
>
> Ed W0SD
>

Ed Gray W0SD

Re: My K3's Very Quiet

In reply to this post by Jan Erik Holm

Thanks for the correction. I was happy with the FT-1000D other than on
10M I often had the AF cranked wide open. It was worse with head phones
than with the speaker. I could of used more gain there. Other than
that I was satisfied with the gain.

For me the K3 has been a huge step forward for lots of reasons such as:
1. So much lighter
2. Two CW keying ports
3. Better IMD
4. Lines in and Line out
5. Better set up for RX antenna
6. RX diversity is easier for me to use
7. The radio keeps getting better with better firmware.
8. etc. etc,

I am a ham radio operator and not a radio technician but I do have a lot
of operating experience and I know what works for me and what does not
and I get no benefit with the K3 using the pre-amp below 10 meters. On
the other hand it does not mess me up that much as in reality most of
the time I am listening to a signal so the pre-amp gain does not hurt as
I am hearing it and not background noise. For me it only comes into
play on very weak signals where I prefer the pre-amp off or when
seriously tuning around.

Ed W0SD

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.114/2575 - Release Date: 12/19/09 08:33:00

______________________________________________________________
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

Jan Erik Holm

Re: My K3's Very Quiet

Ed,

Now I do agree on ALL counts, well almost. Sounds fishy you had
to have AF gain wide open to be able to RX on 10m. Well since this
is the K3 list we better concentrate on the K3, after all K3 is
more state of the art then the "stone age" FT-1000D.

/ Jim SM2EKM
--------------------------
W0SD Ed Gray wrote:

> Thanks for the correction. I was happy with the FT-1000D other than on
> 10M I often had the AF cranked wide open. It was worse with head phones
> than with the speaker. I could of used more gain there. Other than
> that I was satisfied with the gain.
>
> For me the K3 has been a huge step forward for lots of reasons such as:
> 1. So much lighter
> 2. Two CW keying ports
> 3. Better IMD
> 4. Lines in and Line out
> 5. Better set up for RX antenna
> 6. RX diversity is easier for me to use
> 7. The radio keeps getting better with better firmware.
> 8. etc. etc,
>
> I am a ham radio operator and not a radio technician but I do have a lot
> of operating experience and I know what works for me and what does not
> and I get no benefit with the K3 using the pre-amp below 10 meters. On
> the other hand it does not mess me up that much as in reality most of
> the time I am listening to a signal so the pre-amp gain does not hurt as
> I am hearing it and not background noise. For me it only comes into
> play on very weak signals where I prefer the pre-amp off or when
> seriously tuning around.
>
> Ed W0SD
>

Martin-2

Re: Noisy K3 receiver

In reply to this post by Ralph Parker

Gentlemen,
i played with AGC THR on 2 different K3's this afternoon.
To me both sound more pleasant with AGC THR 2 on strong signals.
But digging out the weak ones becomes difficult, the signal sounds mushy.
Try it, change AGC THR while listening to a very weak ssb-signal.
It becomes more and more readable the closer you get to 5, the default.
The signal stands out, even though the noise is higher.
YMMV

Martin

--

73, DM4iM
______________________________________________________________
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

Philippe Trottet

Re: Noisy K3 receiver

In reply to this post by akiwi ham

Dear Bryan,
As you say, you're not playing with the settings of the K3, you really
must try !
K3 is a "Piston Cup" winner car compared to a standard limousine.
You have the full choice to adapt all parameters to your own perception
and frankly speaking as I have been owner or tester for most of the
modern Ham and professional rigs, Elecraft waked up my Ham spirit after
years of Ham radio routine with general purpose trcvr's. This is Ham
product, by Hams and for Hams...what else !
They improved the rx side to the limit we can obtain today and I'm
quite sure they will go further, following the improvement of
technology.
Hpe to c u sn as propag with ZL is increasing yet.
Note: I'm refusing to play with rotating antennas, too easy, no fun,
only wires are used on my side for years, same thing with cw, no
interest at all to play with a computer where you've just to press
Functions keys.
Vibroplex for normal use and hand key for contest that's real Ham sport
!
Best 73's
Philippe A65BI

Philippe TROTTET
Head of Field Telecom Unit - DUBAI

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
International Humanitarian City
Office Building Nº3 - Room 2, 1st Floor
Doha Street
PO BOX: 506013
DUBAI - U.A.E.

Dubai time: GMT +4
W: Sunday to Thursday
HQ Ext: 7120
Vsat: xx 41 22 7120
External:
+971 4 3601753
+41 22 739 7120
Mobile: +971 504531756
Website: www.unhcr.org ( http://www.unhcr.org/ )

>>> "Bryan, ZL1NI" <[hidden email]> 18-12-2009 23:28 >>>
I would be interested to know how you arrive at that conclusion.

My perception is a LOT of people have posted genuine concerns about
noisy K3 receiver.

I will add my voice to those that find the K3 noisy receiver very
disturbing.
I am a casual user I rarely diddle with settings beyond the factory
defaults. This is true for the several other late model rigs of
different makes I own and operate.
I find the K3 very noisy and fatiguing in comparison to any of the
other rigs I have when tuning around a relatively quite band. I Rarely
use the preamp mostly have the attenuator in.

Bryan, Zl1NI

> -----Original Message-----
>
> Stan,
>
> Those who are complaining are the exceptions to the rule.
>
> There are thousands of K3 users that are not complaining. There are
> a few,
> very vocal complainers here.
>
> 73

______________________________________________________________
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

Julian, G4ILO

Re: Noisy K3 receiver

In reply to this post by Martin-2

DM4iM wrote

Gentlemen,
i played with AGC THR on 2 different K3's this afternoon.
To me both sound more pleasant with AGC THR 2 on strong signals.
But digging out the weak ones becomes difficult, the signal sounds mushy.
Try it, change AGC THR while listening to a very weak ssb-signal.
It becomes more and more readable the closer you get to 5, the default.
The signal stands out, even though the noise is higher.

That fooled me the first time I tried it.

The noise isn't higher, everything is louder. If you increase THR while at the same time reducing the AF gain to keep the signal level the same, the difference should be more noticeable.

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

1234