On Sep 6, 2014, at 2:34 17PM, Dauer, Edward <[email protected]> wrote:
> I received a couple of off-list comments that might be of interest to > those who are following this thread. One was that narrowing the BW also > improves the S/N. Maybe. Maybe not. Or, maybe up to a point. I believe that whether one observes monotonic improvement in ability to decipher the intelligence carried in a very weak signal as one reduces receiver BW will be a function of _how_ the BW is narrowed in the various electronic circuits and/or digital algorithms, as well as a function of our own individual hearing characteristics. Perhaps I am not on the main part of the normalcy distribution curve (my close friends will assure me I’m _not_!) but I know for a fact that many, many times I have been best able to pull intelligible information out of a very weak CW signal on the low bands by using a receiver BW somewhat _wider_ than that provided by my narrowest filtering options. I have used primarily Kenwoods and (more recently) the K3 for most of my serious low-band DXing efforts, but I can’t tell you if this effect is more or less apparent in one model vs. any other. I am also a strong believer in what I have been told is “stochastic resonance” as an aid to hearing and copying the intelligence carried in weak signals. I have found repeatedly, for instance, that I am more apt to hear certain “unusual” vehicle sounds from the engine compartment or underbody when I have the car radio playing music within a certain range of amplitudes. Of course, that might also depend on my choice of music genre … :-) Bud, W2RU ______________________________________________________________ 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 Message delivered to [email protected]
