Posted by
Johnny Siu on
Nov 27, 2010; 6:52pm
URL: http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/K3-noise-reduction-performance-tp5779574p5780243.html
Yes, there have been improvements in the DSP of K3. One of the reasons of
selling my K3#46 was the artifacts of the DSP. I have recently acquired another
K3 in the second hand market with later production. I do notice there have been
improvements.
I am mainly a phone operator with ocassional digital mode at PACTOR 3.
Among the 4 x 8 =32 selections in the NR, I find it difficult to get one
effective among the 32 choices. From my past and present experience of my Icom
families, I know what are the limitations of NR.
I am looking for a simple but effective NR which can cut 'some of the noise'
with least artifacts, and also easy to work with. At this moment, I still
prefer the NR in my Icoms. Having said that, I know the smart guys
in Elecraft will keep on improving the K3 so that hopefully we will have better
performance in later version of firmware.
cheers,
Johnny VR2XMC
----- 郵件原件 ----
寄件人﹕ Ron D'Eau Claire <
[hidden email]>
收件人﹕ Elecraft <
[hidden email]>
傳送日期﹕ 2010/11/28 (日) 12:14:47 AM
主題： Re: [Elecraft] K3: noise reduction performance
This is a good example of just how subjective "improvement" can be.
Sure, the "hash" is gone, but it's replaced by the "underwater" warbling
sound so common with highly processed audio.
Personally, I find that warbling variation in the audio far less pleasant
than the noise.
Ron AC7AC
-----Original Message-----
>
> 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.
> --
> 73 de James K2QI
> President UNARC/4U1UN
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraftHelp:
http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htmPost: mailto:
[hidden email]
This list hosted by:
http://www.qsl.netPlease help support this email list:
http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraftHelp:
http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htmPost: mailto:
[hidden email]
This list hosted by:
http://www.qsl.netPlease help support this email list:
http://www.qsl.net/donate.html