Wide Bandwidth CW Signals

[Jim Bolit]

As some have pointed out, getting an email from someone you don't know,
stating your signal is wide and not clean, would draw a reaction of "who is
this guy"?  

 

Terms such as Cop, Dudley do Right, where is his badge, President of HOA do
come up.  These types of comments are not surprising, but none the less,
disappointing.

 

It took decades for busy bodies to get it across to mfg.'s that the ham
community wanted better receive performance on "close in" signals, but they
finally got it.

 

The weak link in the "system" is now the transmitter.  Some may " go outside
and find something actually productive to do".  Others may bring it to the
attention of the ham community in an effort to get the mfg's to fix the poor
design of synthesizers and amplifiers

 

If you have ever tried to work Sweepstakes CW, or the 160 meter CW contest,
one would change their tune about "imaginary authority".  It is even worse
in Europe due to the density of operators, and then when you add in contest
conditions, it is VERY difficult to find some elbow room (that should be
there) be it for poor designs.  It may not be intentional, but I have seen
cases where it was CLEARLY intentional

 

Screenshots, data and math does not lie.  The facts are as presented.  I see
NO reason that a mfg'er shud allow the end user to adjust the CW wave
shaping, as Icom, and Yaesu have.  People have mentioned that a controlled
test, using lab type setups would be more effective than an email.  I agree.
The ARRL has been publishing information on the performance of signal
purity.  If you do not subscribe to QST (a majority of hams are not
members), you would have to do a significant amount of research and/or
testing that is beyond the scope or capabilities of most ham operators.  I
challenge people to listen to the CWops Mini-CWT Test on May 14, 2015 at
03:00z to 04:00z (note the date and time is in UTC) and listen on 40m to a
relatively packed band.  Use a receiver that is better than an SX-28 and you
will quickly be able to pick up signals that are full of key clicks, and
those that are wide.  Having a P3 makes it all the easier to also see these
poor xmitters.

 

Elecraft was asked to have the ability to have access to the code that
performs wave shaping function in their rigs.  Elecraft declined to offer
this, and for a reason.

 

Can you guess what that reason was?

 

Jim

W6AIM

 

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Don Wilhelm-4]

Jim,

At the risk of answering a rhetorical question, I would say that the
reason Elecraft declined to give access to the code for the CW
wave-shaping is two-fold.
First is that the DSP code is Elecraft proprietary.
Second is that they do not want anyone "messing" with the code that now
provides a clean response to the CW waveshape.  The K3 reputation for a
clean signal is at stake.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 5/10/2015 6:49 PM, jim wrote:
> Elecraft was asked to have the ability to have access to the code that
> performs wave shaping function in their rigs.  Elecraft declined to offer
> this, and for a reason.
>
> Can you guess what that reason was?
>

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Jim Bolit]

Don,

I agree with one of your statements in ref to the code being proprietary.
In ref to the second statement, Elecraft could have developed a menu option
(just like Yaesu and Icom) so the end used could change the shaping to suit
their "needs".  Elecraft chose not to as it can only get worse as it relates
of spectrum purity.  The out of box menu defaults by Yaesu and Icom provide
for a poor transmit spectrum, and can be made worse if the end user desires
to.

My efforts to alert other operators of their poor CW spectrum are met
responses to "Why does it matter" to some that are unaware the adjustment is
available.  When I do alert others about their wide signal, I include a
reference to K6XX and K9YC articles, in addition to signals that utilize the
spectrum more efficiently.

Most respones to my emails are to "take a leap",  to all the way to the
other end of the curve  that one user sent his radio (FT-100MP) to get it
fixed.

The market will dictate how the mfg'ers will respond to cleaning up the
spectral purity.  It took decades for them to improve the receive side of
the equation.  Short of the FCC mandating an improved spectral purity (It is
already implemented on the marine side of their business segment), it will
take the end market voting with their wallets and buying equipment that have
better spectral purity.

Take a listen to the CWops Mini-CWT Test on May 14, 2015 at 03:00z to 04:00z
(note the date and time is in UTC) and listen on 40m to a relatively packed
band.  Use a receiver that is better than an SX-28 and you will quickly be
able to pick up signals that are full of key clicks, and those that are
wide.  Having a P3 makes it all the easier to see these poor xmitters.  The
available spectrum IS limited, and inferior equipment makes band utilization
poor.  We are very quick to complain about someone on SSB being too wide,
with splatter, inter-mod, etc. but we are somewhat muffled when the issue
relates to CW.

Maybe if the market was more informed on the performance (or lack of) of the
equipment they are using, a change for the better can be effected.

Jim
W6AIM




-----Original Message-----
From: Elecraft [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Don
Wilhelm
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 4:02 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Wide Bandwidth CW Signals

Jim,

At the risk of answering a rhetorical question, I would say that the reason
Elecraft declined to give access to the code for the CW wave-shaping is
two-fold.
First is that the DSP code is Elecraft proprietary.
Second is that they do not want anyone "messing" with the code that now
provides a clean response to the CW waveshape.  The K3 reputation for a
clean signal is at stake.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 5/10/2015 6:49 PM, jim wrote:
> Elecraft was asked to have the ability to have access to the code that
> performs wave shaping function in their rigs.  Elecraft declined to offer
> this, and for a reason.
>
> Can you guess what that reason was?
>

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]