http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/K3-Noise-Reduction-tp2727716p2728589.html
Hi Stephen. I'm surprised with your NB comment regarding electric fences. I have one
for my horses and on 40M and up it does a great job with the pulses. below that they
are still there though much reduced. Are you trying a combination of the DSP and the
>I agree, I have used my K3 for almost a year now and I don't recall one
>situation where the NR was more effective than the filtering between my
>ears, whether on ssb or cw. As much as I have and continue to enjoy the
>radio, I must say much the same about the NB performance. It was very
>enlightening to hook up my FT-817 to the main station antenna the other
>night and find that the 817's noise blanker did a far better job than the
>K3's in getting rid of the interference from the electric fence which keeps
>the foxes away from our chickens! I don't have any DSP on my K2 so I can
>draw no comparison there.
>
>On a really positive note, the one thing which makes the K3 so special to
>listen to (on headphones at least) is the AFX. I would not want to be
>without it. And in all other respects the K3 is a very fine radio indeed.
>
>73 Stephen G4SJP
>
>K3 #980
>
>
>
>On 27/04/2009 21:43, "WA6L"
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi, Roy,
>>
>> As I approach a year's ownership of the K3, I have to say that there are
>> very few times that I find the NR capability to be useful. On a very noisy
>> band and with reasonably wide bandwidths (> 800 Hz) the NR can work well,
>> but never without pressing the Level button and optimizing the setting each
>> time.
>>
>> When I compare the K3's NR with my K2's, the K2 seems far superior to me.
>> It may be because the K2 does its DSP at the audio instead of the IF, or it
>> may be that the K2 implements longer FIR filters. Whatever the reason, the
>> K2's noise reduction works much better and in my shack is left on almost all
>> the time.
>>
>> Both the K3 manual and the Wikipedia explanation of the K3 noise reduction
>> recommend using NR only with a wide bandwidth, and imply that it is not as
>> effective on SSB as it is on CW. I concur with these recommendations, but I
>> have to say that I agree with you. The NR implementation could have been
>> done much better.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> Roy Morris-6 wrote:
>>>
>>> When I turn on NR the audio noise level goes down. When a SSB signal is
>>> received the audio peaks. I have my RX EQ set flat. In these peaks there
>>> are resonances in my internal speaker (if I use it) as well as my two
>>> external speakers that plainly makes noise reduction unpleasant. It can
>>> be minimally tolerated at F-1-1 level with speakers. It is somewhat more
>>> tolerable with a good headset. Part of the problem may be in speaker
>>> response, but I also think a big part of the problem is in the noise
>>> reduction algorythms. If noise reduction is not recommended with reduced
>>> bandwidth in CW, and unpleasant artifacts occur in SSB; then I find NR to
>>> be useless. I hope the discussion of white noise and pink noise will lead
>>> to something that will improve the noise reduction function in the K3.
>>> Roy Morris W4WFB
>>>
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________________
>Elecraft mailing list
>Home:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft>Help:
http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>Post:
[hidden email]','','','')">
[hidden email]
>
>This list hosted by:
http://www.qsl.net>Please help support this email list:
http://www.qsl.net/donate.html