Kent, very well put and very true. So far this one very simple feature has kept the K3 from being at the top of the line so to speak. (tin hat on, keep your flames to yourself) It all boils down to having the two radios side by side, and operating weak signal 160 meters for instance. Both receivers hear the signal exactly the same, but a touch of the APF on the old 1000D brings the signal out of the surrounding noise just enough to make copy possible. If you cant hear them you cant work them, and this is the case time after time using the K3, I have to resort to turning on the 1000D to make the contact on extreme weak signals on 160. I am sure others will disagree, and a large part of the K3 ownership may never work with signals that weak, or work 160 even. But for those of us who do the APF is a major tool. To continue to try and duplicate such a simple feature in DSP is just work for naught, the reason its APF is it is Audio Peak Filter, a one chip solution in the real world, and with the rxEQ already in the K3 seems to me a former programmer a simple audio implementation. If some dont like, dont use it. I can only imagine how long the "want" list must be, and how many times its reshuffled, and unless someone has hollered about it recently it drops down the list even further. For a temporary fix I use an external Datong peak filter, not near as good as the 1000D internal, I will limp along for a while longer, but not forever. 1000D may be ancient technology but if it copies signals the K3 cannot, then all the great numbers on paper in the world do not help you out. The K3 blows the 1000D out of the water on selectivity and close in signal handling, but 90 percent of the time there is no QRM near the weak signal. To me its like the beer commercial that states Drinkability.. On 160 weak signal reception, you need Receivability.. Just want the K3 to be all it can be. 73 Merv KH7C ex K9FD
> Jaime . . . > > Many FT-1000D owners (and non-owners who have used them) have urged > implementation of an Audio Peak Filter in the K3 for weak-signal CW > work. Only those who have used a 1000D can appreciate why this request > keeps recurring. It has nothing to do with fondness for a venerable old > rig, and everything to do with the performance of the APF. > > I continue to marvel at the way white noise and miscellaneous garbage > are eliminated at the 50 cycle setting of the K3's DSP. But as good as > it is, the signal remains what it is -- there is no peaking as there is > with the 1000D. > > Several of us have discussed this with Wayne from the first days of > production, and while it may someday be addressed further, for now the > issue is moot. > > 73, > > Kent K9ZTV > K3 #21 > > > > Jaime P.Ullivarri wrote (with word insertions by K9ZTV to improve the > English): > >> . . . but for CW the old firmware with narrow roofing filters looks to me >> but a bit better >> than the old FT-1000 Peak Filter which was very good for 160M. >> Maybe it could be added in a future firmware revision for CW operators -- a >> digital >> Peak Filter with results similar to the previous NR. So for me either I go >> down to V3.19 and miss all new improvements, or use my >> old FT-1000 for Low bands. Having to make this choice is not very good >> after all the money I have >> spent in creating a fully-loaded K3. >> Thanks, 73. Jaime, EA6NB. >> >> > ______________________________________________________________ > 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
