The APF algorithm is unchanged. Lyle is going to verify.
> Joe wrote:
>
>> I did not make similar measurements with the original alpha
>> test version but this version seems subjectively less tight
>> than the original ... there is certainly less ringing with
>> this one but signals did not seem to "pop" like they did on
>> the earlier version when I tried it last night on 160/80/40.
>
> Joe, I agree with your subjective observation. No, the signals don't "pop"
> as much -- but there is less ringing. This is a trade-off, of course, and
> the precise balance of peak gain versus ringing is always going to be a
> matter of personal preference.
>
> I like this less-ringy version better, I think. Haven't had time to play
> with it a lot yet, but I will. I'm sure we will see many other opinions. So
> far, I think the current version is very smooth and adequately "peaky".
>
> (Opinion subject to revision upon more extensive usage.)
>
> Bill W5WVO
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 20:35
> To:
[hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 APF
>
>
> I made a similar set of measurements ... using the XG-2 and
> the AFV/dBV capability ...
>
> I measure the peak at 1 Hz wide (e.g. -.1dB +/- 1 Hz)
> the 1 dB points are 8 Hz wide
> the 6 dB points are 31 Hz wide
> the 20 dB points are 165 Hz wide
> the 30 dB points are 345 Hz wide
> gain is right at 9 dB.
>
> The measurements were made on 40 Meters with the XG-2 set to
> 1 uV and the K3 attenuator activated yielding a -108 dBm test
> signal.
>
> I did not make similar measurements with the original alpha
> test version but this version seems subjectively less tight
> than the original ... there is certainly less ringing with
> this one but signals did not seem to "pop" like they did on
> the earlier version when I tried it last night on 160/80/40.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 11/13/2010 1:24 PM, Bill W4ZV wrote:
>>
>> For my own curiosity I did some measurements of the latest APF. They agree
>> with
>> measurements of the first release with the exception that the filter peak
>> is
>> now
>> zero beat instead of +10 Hz:
>>
>> Zero beat = 7040.021
>> Flat passband = 021-020 (both 0.0 to -0.1 dB)
>> -1 dB passband = 026-018 (-1.2 dB and -0.8 dB)
>> -6 dB passband = 037-009 (-5.8 and -6.0 dB)
>>
>> Flat = 2 Hz BW (at zero beat)
>> -1 dB = 8 Hz BW
>> -6 dB = 28 Hz BW
>>
>> I didn't measure the -6 dB BW carefully on the first pass since I was more
>> interested in the -1 dB BW, but this looks similar and agrees with Lyle's
>> 30
>> Hz
>> design goal. As mentioned previously, the -1 dB BW is important when
>> trying
>> to
>> detect signals below the noise floor since the human ear can detect this
>> difference in marginal conditions.
>>
>> I also checked the gain (APF vs not) which I didn't do before...+9.1 dB
>> which is
>> very close to Lyle's design goal of +9 dB.
>>
>> Nice job Elecraft!
>>
>> 73, Bill
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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