Yes, adjusting the AGC Threshold made a significant difference in NR for me
on CW. I was using 3 or 4 and now use 5 or 6. NR is not appropriate or
helpful in all occasions but I use it more than before.
thanks! Gary W7TEA
I started this thread and I have been watching the replies with inter
Lee, I experienced the same thing on 160 M duing the CQ WW CW test. I was
single op there all weekend and we had storms that stayed in the area all
weekend and without the K3 NR I would have headed home early. I use a full
size transmit 4 square and have to attentuate all I can and the NR made
I think a previous firmware version had a better NR on Phone than the version
now. I don't remember which one but some made a comment concerning this. I
agree also it used to seem better.
Randy
K8RDD
WA6L wrote:
>
>
> You may be on to something there, Lee. I didn't even try SSB after making
>
You may be on to something there, Lee. I didn't even try SSB after making
those adjustments.
Still and all, there is work to be done on the K3 NR system, or perhaps it
is the AGC algorithms. I still find the K2 noise reduction much more
effective and certainly easier to use than the K3's.
Tha
John: Thanks for the suggestions. I tweaked some of the AGC settings and
found it did somewhat improve the N/R for CW, but to my ear, made the
distortion on SSB worse.
Perhaps the "one size fits all" is the problem? In other words, if we had
PER MODE noise reduction (tailored to the mode) coupl
I have the default settings for AGC.
Roger, W1EM
_
From: Bill W5WVO [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 9:06 PM
To: Roger Marrotte; 'Lee Trout'
Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Musings on Noise Reduction
It might be instructive
I started this thread and I have been watching the replies with interest.
Dick's question about AGC settings piqued my interest and I did some
additional research.
First, Lyle Johnson's message here:
http://n2.nabble.com/K3-AGC-Settings-Tutorial-td681120.html#a681120 does
much to explain the AG
subjective experiences reported?
Bill W5WVO
- Original Message -
From: Roger Marrotte
To: 'Lee Trout'
Cc:
elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 4:07 PM
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Musings on Noise Reduction
Lee,
Sorry to say that I've had the
: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 4:07 PM
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Musings on Noise Reduction
Lee,
Sorry to say that I've had the exact opposite experience. I haven't had a
K2 for a few years. I've had a K3 since July. I worked some in the 160m
contest th
s. Perhaps if you were using a vertical,
the noise was more severe or just different.
Roger, W1EM
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee Trout
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 5:51 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] Musings on Noise Reductio
John: I agree: The noise reduction on the K3 is poor. To my ear, all 16
settings introduce distortion while providing minimal noise reduction. And
yes, I have played around with rx eq settings. My little Kenwood 480 has
much better N/R than the K3.
The N/R is my only major complaint about the
I ran a single-op QRP effort in the ARRL 160M contest this weekend. I ran
about half the time with my K2, and the other half with my K3 @ 5 watts. It
was interesting to compare the two rigs.
I did not run any laboratory tests, so this clearly falls into the category
of opinion. But the K2 DSP n
12 matches
Mail list logo
