http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/K3-noise-reduction-performance-tp5779574p5779972.html
on CW but on SSB, I can't use it. With it on, regardless of setting, it
makes the channel sound "watery" (for lack of a better term). I have two
K3s, and both sound alike on phone with NR invoked. Maybe I don't have
> Hello Elecrafters,
>
> Regarding the issue of NR, I know this can be a touchy subject and most
> will
> say its very subjective. This post isn't intended as a complaint or
> criticism. Instead, I hope through constructive discussions, more
> improvements to the K3's NR performance will be realized. I'd like to
> begin
> by saying that Lyle and crew have a done a fantastic job to date with the
> K3's NR. I've had the privilege of watching the K3's NR function improve
> over time. The boys at Aptos should really be commended for listening to
> their customers.
>
> With that said, the recent CQSS has made me realize that there is still
> room
> for improvement. During the SS, I used NR extensively in combination with
> RF gain and filter hi-cut/lo-cut/shift settings. NR when used in
> combination with the aforementioned K3 adjustments can and does work well.
> The problem that I believe remains however is the algorithm used still
> seems too broad in its rejection calculations; what I mean is that SSB
> settings (i.e. F5-1 and higher) don't seem to be selective enough to
> reduce
> noise while allowing speech patterns to remain unaffected. In other
> words,
> the DSP sounds like its reducing everything within its passband. To my
> ears, the NR doesn't seem to make speech "pop out" quite as effectively
> has
> other NR implementations. This can be seen by a not-so-subtle reduction
> in
> speech volume whenever the NR is turned on. The NR behavior is
> consistent
> regardless of AGC slope or threshold settings.
>
> Below are several links to audio recordings of a product I used to own.
> It
> is called the BHI ANEM (Mk. II). Sadly, I sold it after getting the K3. I
> should have hung on to it as it has become my benchmark for NR
> performance.
>
> These are some sample recordings of the ANEM being turned on and off.
> These
> recordings are found on W4RT's website
>
> 20 m SSB <
http://www.w4rt.com/BHI/20Mband-ssb.wav>
> 80 m SSB <
http://www.w4rt.com/BHI/80conv-ssb.wav>
> 80 m SSB <
http://www.w4rt.com/BHI/80Mconv2-ssb.wav>
>
> I've also compared the K3's NR performance to that of the Icom 756 Pro 3
> which has similar NR reduction properties - albeit not as effective - as
> the
> ANEM.
>
> Perhaps I am being subjective or overly critical, but one thing you can
> easily notice with the ANEM recordings is that speech volume doesn't get
> as
> affected as the K3s. This is really surprising to me as the NR for the
> ANEM
> is AF rather than IF like what's used in our radios. This leads me to
> believe that the ANEM's NR algorithms are more effective in reducing
> background noise while leaving speech unaffected.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Sorry for the long email. Many thanks in advance for your
> ideas/suggestions.
> <
http://www.w4rt.com/BHI/20Mband-ssb.wav>
> --
> 73 de James K2QI
> President UNARC/4U1UN
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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>
>