http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/Re-K3-receiver-noise-questionable-test-results-tp4192141p4194685.html
Thanks for all the measurements. It is clear that "noisy" is a
integrated perception-- kind of like what "good audio" is. It all
had a convex face to one with a flat screen. All of a sudden the
"straight" lines displayed as curved. The mind had been correcting for
"Noisy" is more than likely just different from what one is used to.
points because I was not using squelch on the radio. All of the years of
listening to radios with noise present was what I found "normal".
Extracting the signal from the noise was no burden. Besides, in
critical stages of flight, I wanted to know if my radio had died. To
him, the noise was an terrible distraction. Once this was explained to
other controls, is the most universal solution. It is not as if these
irrelevant. What sounds noisy here is SSB.
> Joe,
>
> Fine business on those measurements, and thank you for providing the
> data. I note that all except the K3 show the taper from 1600 Hz to the
> upper passband edge that follows something similar to a "pink noise"
> spectrum. The K3 is flat without EQ. It is interesting that the K3
> Norm does show some falloff, but not nearly as much as either the
> FT-2000 or the MK V or IC-706.
>
> I am ready to conclude that the K3's ultra-flat in-passband response is
> the cause of several of the "noisy" responses. That can be easily
> handled by shaping with the RX EQ if one desires. I do data modes
> frequently, and prefer the flat response of the K3.
>
> The audio response above the filter passband apparently has less
> influence than I had originally expected.
>
> 73,
> Don W3FPR
>
> Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>> It would be interesting (at least to me) for someone to make similar
>>> measurements on an FT-1000 - perhaps with the INRAD filter. I am
>>> especially interested to know if the in-passband response shows a
>>> similar taper at 2 kHz and above, and what is the response for the
>>> FT-1000 above the filter passband.
>>>
>> Here are some measurements using Spectrogram and broadband noise:
>>
>> FT-2000 --- MK V --- IC-706 ------ K3 ------
>>
>> Analog DSP MKIIG Norm BW=4 EQ
>>
>> 50 -34 -44 -49 -46 -35 -7 -35
>> 100 -31 -24 -27 -40 -18 -6 -18
>> 200 -17 -10 -9 -21 -5 -2 -5
>> 300 -6 -4 -4 -11 -1 0 -1
>> 400 -3 -2 -1 -5 0 0 0
>> 600 -2 -1 0 -1 0 0 2
>> 800 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 1
>> 1000 -1 -1 0 -1 0 0 0
>> 1200 0 -1 0 -2 0 0 0
>> 1400 0 0 0 -1 0 0 -2
>> 1600 -1 -2 -1 -2 0 0 -3
>> 1800 -2 -3 -2 -3 0 0 -4
>> 2000 -5 -5 -2 -4 -1 0 -5
>> 2200 -7 -6 -3 -6 -2 0 -7
>> 2400 -8 -8 -4 -8 -2 0 -8
>> 2600 -10 -10 -6 -15 -3 0 -9
>> 2700 -23 -13 -7 -27 -4 0 -10
>> 2800 -34 -19 -11 -31 -8 0 -14
>> 2900 -41 -32 -24 -33 -18 0 -24
>> 3000 -50 -43 -36 -35 -58 0 -60
>> 3100 -42 -67 0
>> 3200 -58 0
>> 3300 0
>> 3400 0
>> 3500 0
>> 3600 -1
>> 3700 -2
>> 3800 -4
>> 3900 -5
>> 4000 -13
>> 4100 -34
>> 4150 -66
>>
>> All measurements were made at the speaker output for consistency.
>> All measurements were made in USB mode with the default filter
>> settings. FT-1000MP Mark V was measured with both the analog
>> and DSP (100-3100 Hz setting) detectors.
>>
>> The two additional K3 measurements are 1) FM filter, BW=4.00
>> and FC=2.00 and 2) "NORM" using the "pink EQ" settings (1.60=-3,
>> 2.40=-5, 3.20=-6).
>>
>> Note the K3 audio amplifier is the cleanest hands down. The other
>> transceivers had noise floors at about -120 dBV (IC-706 mkIIg was
>> -100 dBV). Except for what appear to be artifacts of the ADC
>> clock at 4, 8, 12, 16, 18 and 20 KHz the K3 out of band audio
>> noise is <140 dBV.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Don Wilhelm [mailto:
[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 5:14 PM
>>> To:
[hidden email]
>>> Cc:
[hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] : K3 receiver noise - my test results (long)
>>>
>>>
>>> Joe,
>>>
>>> I think you may have hit on some major part of the "problem" here. I
>>> measured the passband (and out of passband) response of my K3
>>> and my K2,
>>> Yaesu FT-900 and Yaesu FT-817. All measurements were with the SSB
>>> filter in all transceivers, and the K3 DSP width was set to
>>> maximum. My
>>> K2 has the 2.4 kHz filter and the Yaesu transceivers have the
>>> stock SSB
>>> filter.
>>>
>>> The test setup consisted of an Elecraft broadband noise generator
>>> feeding that receiver and the output was observed with
>>> Spectrogram. The
>>> receiver gain controls were adjusted to place the peak in-passband
>>> response at -30 dB.
>>> I also connected an antenna and listened to several signals
>>> participating in a 40 meter roundtable, and made my own 'quality of
>>> sound' assessment.
>>>
>>> Several things became apparent as a result of these tests.
>>> 1) the K3 in-passband response is almost flat - from 500 Hz
>>> to 2500 Hz
>>> it showed less than 1 dB variation.
>>> 2) All the other passband responses were down about 5 dB at
>>> 500 Hz and
>>> essentially flat from 1 kHz to 1600 Hz, then began a gradual falloff,
>>> being down 3 dB at 2 kHz, down 8 dB at 2.5 kHz, the Yaesus
>>> were down 17
>>> dB while the K2 was down 36 dB (this is the effective high end of the
>>> passband). So within the passband, there is a rolloff
>>> similar to that
>>> which you suggested for the receive EQ settings on all but the K3.
>>> 3) The response outside the passband on the low end was also
>>> interesting. The K3 at 200 Hz was only down 3 dB, but
>>> dropped steeply
>>> at lower frequencies (I do not have the low frequency mod on my K3).
>>> The K2 was down 26 dB at 200 Hz while the Yaesus were down 20 dB.
>>> 4) On he high frequency side out of the passband, the K2 and K3 had
>>> almost no audio response that showed on Spectrogram - in other words
>>> greater than 60 dB down from the passband peak. The Yaesu FT-900 had
>>> audio artifacts that were only 44 dB down at 4 kHz and for the FT-817
>>> were only 35 dB down. At 5 kHz the FT-900 had audio content
>>> at -50 dB
>>> and the FT-817 had content only 40 dB down.
>>>
>>> Summary of my observations - the in-passband response of both Yaesu
>>> filters and the K2 filter tapered off above 1800 Hz, similar
>>> to a "pink
>>> noise" response, while the K3 response was remarkably flat with very
>>> steep filter skirts. The skirt slope of the other filter
>>> passbands were
>>> more gentle.
>>>
>>> On the high frequency end, both Yaesu transceivers had considerable
>>> audio content while the K2 and K3 content was much lower.
>>>
>>> My conclusions: I am not certain what K3 owners are
>>> perceiving as noise
>>> any more than I had been before these tests. The flatter
>>> passband of
>>> the K3 may be sub-consciously perceived as being more 'harsh', but I
>>> could not equate that to 'noise'. The other filters with a high end
>>> in-passband response that drops off similar to a "pink noise"
>>> response
>>> *could* be causing a perception of additional noise *if* their local
>>> noise has significant content in the 2 kHz to 3 kHz range -
>>> yes, the K3
>>> will make this section of the audio spectrum louder than the other
>>> receiver I measured. The "audio hiss" is not coming from the high
>>> frequency spectrum outside the passband because in that area,
>>> the K3 and
>>> the K2 are much more quiet than the others measured.
>>>
>>> It would be interesting (at least to me) for someone to make similar
>>> measurements on an FT-1000 - perhaps with the INRAD filter. I am
>>> especially interested to know if the in-passband response shows a
>>> similar taper at 2 kHz and above, and what is the response for the
>>> FT-1000 above the filter passband.
>>>
>>> For those trying the "pink noise rolloff", my measurements
>>> suggest that
>>> you should set the RX EQ bands from 100 Hz through 1600 Hz at
>>> 0 dB, 2400
>>> at -3 dB, and 3200 at -5 dB. The 50 Hz band can be set at -16 dB for
>>> the reasons Joe has stated.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Don W3FPR
>>>
>>> Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>>
>>>> If one is going to attempt to mimic the "pink noise" behavior,
>>>> there is no need to bother with the low frequency boost. It
>>>> simply puts more strain on the audio amplifier, increasing the
>>>> amount of IMD products, with little or no aural benefit. A
>>>> better RX EQ configuration with essentially the same perceived
>>>> sound:
>>>>
>>>> 50: -16 dB (reduce sub-vocal noise and hum)
>>>> 100: 0 dB
>>>> 200: 0 dB
>>>> 400: 0 dB
>>>> 800: 0 dB
>>>> 1600: -3 dB
>>>> 2400: -5 dB
>>>> 3200: -6 dB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.717 / Virus Database: 270.14.114/2575 - Release Date: 12/19/09 03:33:00
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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>