I'm still getting my sea legs on the K3 but NR seems to work really great 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 them adjusted properly, but I find the sound very disconcerting.
Rob K6RB > 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:[email protected] > > 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:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
