Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
I wondered when somebody would comment on that. It seems like it's at least a tie. Larry N8LP On 12/5/2010 5:15 PM, elecraft-requ...@mailman.qth.net wrote: > Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:23:28 -0500 > From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report > To:elecraft@mailman.qth.net > Message-ID:<4cf6aec0.2090...@subich.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > Interesting ... why does Rob put the FT-5000 above the K3? > > 2 KHz IMDDR are the same (101 dB) ... FT-5000 filter ultimate > rejection is*poorer* than the K3, LO noise is*poorer* than > the K3, 100 KHz blocking is*poorer* than the K3. Sensitivity > and noise floor are comparable depending on which preamp is > active on each radio ... with no preamp the K3 has a lower > noise floor and greater sensitivity. > > Maybe I'm biased but I would still rate the K3 numero uno .. > > 73, > > ... Joe, W4TV __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
> Given the recent discussion on the FT-5000's transmitted phase noise, > it would be nice to see if Bob could provide some independent testing > of transmitters as well. Sherwood's testing already contains the necessary information on phase noise ... see the LO noise column. From the list, no synthesized transceiver (Perseus is a receiver only) comes anywhere near close to the K3. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 12/1/2010 5:48 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote: > * On 2010 01 Dec 16:19 -0600, Ed Schuller wrote: >> >> >> >> http://www.sherweng.com/table.html > > I understand that Sherwood places a lot of emphasis on 2 kHz BDR. While > that is a worthwhile measurement, I am concerned more about the Filter > Ultimate (dB) column. Not only being 15 dB poorer than than the K3, note > also that the FT-5000 is phase limited in this regard. It will take > someone more educated than I to tell us what that means in practical > terms, but it is one glaring difference between two radios that appear > to be almost identical. Also, the FT-5000 being 13 dB poorer in the 100 > kHz BDR column is also glaring and perhaps telling. > > Given the recent discussion on the FT-5000's transmitted phase noise, it > would be nice to see if Bob could provide some independent testing of > transmitters as well. > > At the end of the day it would appear that the Yaesu engineers have done > their homework in some areas but left room for improvement. > > 73, de Nate>> > > P.S. My K3 is staying put. :-) > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
> However by increasing the envelope fall time we will > "help" a bad ALC system if you understand what I mean. Changing (increasing) the envelope fall time will not eliminate AGC generated clicks on break ... it will only delay their timing be a small fraction of a millisecond. ALC will continue to hold the steady state "on" level until it runs out of gain and then the sudden change from a constant level to a N dB/ms slope will still be a discontinuity in the envelope with the resulting click. The change in ALC generated clicks with changing envelope decay is minimal. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 12/3/2010 2:06 PM, Jan Erik Holm wrote: > Yes 99% of all CW stations clicks at the "break" side. > > I didn´t think about the ALC but that is right, thanks. > > However by increasing the envelope fall time we will > "help" a bad ALC system if you understand what I mean. > > Anyway I better can this before HHQ puts the lid on. > > /SM2EKM QRT > -- > On 2010-12-03 19:18, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: >> >> > Waveform? When you have a 1 ms raise/fall time no way you >> > can shape the waveform so it doesnt click. >> >> That's not the case. If the first and second derivatives of >> the power output are minimized, the waveform does not click. >> There are many studies about bandwidth vs. rate of change in >> digital modulation that will provide the information to show >> that principle. >> >> In the specific case of CW as long as the transitions from >> the "rise" to the steady "on" state and from the steady "on" >> state to the fall are properly shaped (first/second derivative >> minimized) the apparent clicks will be minimized. >> >> The traditional "feedback" ALC system almost guarantees clicks >> on the *trailing edge* of the CW element. Traditional ALC >> attempts to maintain the output as the key is opened and will >> increase system gain as the driving waveform starts to decay. >> The output level will only begin to fall when the ALC gain >> has reached maximum - at which point there will be a major discontinuity >> in the waveform. A properly designed feedback >> ALC system would be incorporate sample and hold to maintain >> steady system gain during the "ramp up" and "ramp down" parts >> of the CW waveform to prevent the "corner sharpening." >> >> Again, rise time controls the basic CW bandwidth but "clicks" >> are a feature of discontinuities in the CW envelope. Please >> do not confuse the two. >> >> 73, >> >> ... Joe, W4TV >> >> On 12/3/2010 9:46 AM, Jan Erik Holm wrote: >>> Waveform? When you have a 1 ms raise/fall time no way you >>> can shape the waveform so it doesnt click. >>> >>> /Jim SM2EKM >>> --- >>> On 2010-12-03 15:29, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: >>>> All the click complaints for years and still Yaesu doesn't take care >>>> of the waveform. It's not like there aren't tons of reads on the >>>> subject, no excuse at all since Google. It's more like they just >>>> don't care, or are simply convinced it doesn't matter. After all, >>>> isn't CW obsolete, and nobody uses it anymore, right? >>>> >>>> 73, Guy. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Paul Christensen wrote: >>>>> 4 ms. Given that the FTdx5K rise/fall is roughly double the time of the >>>>> K3 -- and that the K3 at 2 ms consumes significantly less bandwidth >>>>> than the >>>>> FTdx5K at 4 ms, the CW transmit quality of the K3 is far superior. I >>>>> would >>>>> like to hear QSK on the Yaesu, compare it with the K3's QRQ mode, >>>>> and note >>>>> any audible artifacts in the headphones -- especially for signs of >>>>> clicks >>>>> and DC thumps. >>>>> >>>>> Referring to the December, 2010 QST Product Review on p.45, take a >>>>> look at >>>>> the leading edge of the second pulse (lower trace) in Figure 1. The >>>>> sharp >>>>> rise and sharp edge at the top of the waveform is what is consuming the >>>>> bandwidth. Based on that waveform, it was absolutely generating >>>>> clicks at >>>>> some distance from the Fc. That pattern is characteristic of a >>>>> deficient >>>>> ALC system.
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
> Waveform? When you have a 1 ms raise/fall time no way you > can shape the waveform so it doesnt click. That's not the case. If the first and second derivatives of the power output are minimized, the waveform does not click. There are many studies about bandwidth vs. rate of change in digital modulation that will provide the information to show that principle. In the specific case of CW as long as the transitions from the "rise" to the steady "on" state and from the steady "on" state to the fall are properly shaped (first/second derivative minimized) the apparent clicks will be minimized. The traditional "feedback" ALC system almost guarantees clicks on the *trailing edge* of the CW element. Traditional ALC attempts to maintain the output as the key is opened and will increase system gain as the driving waveform starts to decay. The output level will only begin to fall when the ALC gain has reached maximum - at which point there will be a major discontinuity in the waveform. A properly designed feedback ALC system would be incorporate sample and hold to maintain steady system gain during the "ramp up" and "ramp down" parts of the CW waveform to prevent the "corner sharpening." Again, rise time controls the basic CW bandwidth but "clicks" are a feature of discontinuities in the CW envelope. Please do not confuse the two. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 12/3/2010 9:46 AM, Jan Erik Holm wrote: > Waveform? When you have a 1 ms raise/fall time no way you > can shape the waveform so it doesnt click. > > /Jim SM2EKM > --- > On 2010-12-03 15:29, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: >> All the click complaints for years and still Yaesu doesn't take care >> of the waveform. It's not like there aren't tons of reads on the >> subject, no excuse at all since Google. It's more like they just >> don't care, or are simply convinced it doesn't matter. After all, >> isn't CW obsolete, and nobody uses it anymore, right? >> >> 73, Guy. >> >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Paul Christensen wrote: >>> 4 ms. Given that the FTdx5K rise/fall is roughly double the time of the >>> K3 -- and that the K3 at 2 ms consumes significantly less bandwidth than the >>> FTdx5K at 4 ms, the CW transmit quality of the K3 is far superior. I would >>> like to hear QSK on the Yaesu, compare it with the K3's QRQ mode, and note >>> any audible artifacts in the headphones -- especially for signs of clicks >>> and DC thumps. >>> >>> Referring to the December, 2010 QST Product Review on p.45, take a look at >>> the leading edge of the second pulse (lower trace) in Figure 1. The sharp >>> rise and sharp edge at the top of the waveform is what is consuming the >>> bandwidth. Based on that waveform, it was absolutely generating clicks at >>> some distance from the Fc. That pattern is characteristic of a deficient >>> ALC system. >>> >>> A deficiency in the ALC system then takes us into SSB Tx IMD. The published >>> FTdx5K Tx IMD numbers look great with the ARRL's steady tone method but >>> arguably, that's probably more relevant to data modes. The question is >>> "what is the FTdx5K's ALC doing to undermine the rig's otherwise excellent >>> SSB Tx IMD numbers, especially in Class A?" Really, the published Tx IMD >>> figures are meaningless unless dynamic testing is conducted to simulate >>> rapid changes in power associated with voice modes. >>> >>> Paul, W9AC >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Jan Erik Holm" >>> To: >>> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:27 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report >>> >>> >>>> Yes but to what rise/fall time was the radio set? AFAIK in >>>> the FT5000 it can be changed. >>>> >>>> /Jim SM2EKM __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
> Another way of investigating is with a spectrum analyzer - and for > investigation of a transmitted signal on one band, it does not have to > be expensive (but must be homebrewed to be inexpensive). Another solution for simple spectrum analysis is SDR-IQ and the CP-1 directional coupler are very good for looking at transmitter outputs while the SDR-IQ and an active antenna like the one from Clifton Laboratories (K8OZA) are good for "off air" use. While this may not be as inexpensive as a homebrewed solution, it can be very cost effective if one already owns the SDR-IQ for other purposes. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 12/3/2010 11:41 AM, Don Wilhelm wrote: >Paul and all, > > Another way of investigating is with a spectrum analyzer - and for > investigation of a transmitted signal on one band, it does not have to > be expensive (but must be homebrewed to be inexpensive). See the > implementation by G4AON at http://www.astromag.co.uk/ssa/ > > It is quite a nice narrowband spectrum analyzer - you can see the > display using Spectrogram or Spectrum Lab or most any other audio > spectrum analyzer running on the shack's soundcard equipped PC. > > You are correct, a 'scope is the most useful tool for measuring timing > and amplitude. > > 73, > Don W3FPR > > On 12/3/2010 10:55 AM, Paul Christensen wrote: >>> Why, yes IMO the K3 clicks too much. >> Jim, >> >> If you're experiencing clicks with your K3, you really need to investigate >> with a scope. At the risk of pontificating, every station should have a >> scope to monitor the transmit waveform. It can also be used to effectively >> monitor T/R sequencing times when using an external amp. I suspect many >> stations are hot-switching their amps and don't even know it until a T/R >> relay's contacts fuse and the relay fails. Cost is no longer an excuse. >> Anyone who can afford a K3 or FTdx5K can own a scope. Good quality used >> scopes can be purchased on the surplus market between USD $100-200. >> >> If I may make a plug for N8LP, he's got a forthcoming product that addresses >> my pontification nicely: >> >> http://www.telepostinc.com/LP-500.html >> >> Cost will be more than a used oscilloscope, but it looks like his product is >> concentrated on what we need for monitoring rather than general bench work. >> Design and cosmetics appear to be commensurate with the Elecraft K3. >> >> Paul, W9AC >> > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
> The Ft5000 has better PA than the K3. Its IMD performance is way > superior to the K3 especially on the higher bands and 6 meters. It > smacks of double standards harping on about Yaesu Keyclicks and > ignoring SSB transmitter IMD especially on the K3 when it is so > marginal. The FT-5000 has better transmit IMD because it uses 48V FETs. Those Yaesu (and other manufacturers) transmitters that use 12V PA devices transistors are no better - perhaps marginally worse than the K3. > I wish Elecraft would release a better PA using fets for the K3. 12V FETs would not produce any better IMD than the 2SC2782 used in the K3 ... compare the MRF255 (12.5V VMOS FET) with its typical -30 dBc IMD3 at 100 W PEP for a pair (-32 dBc at transmitter output for TPO below 80 watts PEP). Would I like Elecraft to provide a high voltage PA option - yes! However, you must compare apples to apples - in this case 12V PA devices to 12 V PA devices - and although the K3 PA is not as clean as the 200 W 50V devices, it provides a level that is generally acceptable in amateur service for 12V devices. If you want to complain about "dirty" transmitters, start with a campaign to get all the unmodified FT-1000D, FT-1000 MP, MK V recalled by their manufacturer to fix the key clicks. Start a campaign to get all the IC-746/7400 recalled to fix their horribly noisy LO (transmitted phase noise). Start a campaign to get many of the other 12V PA rigs with TX IMD *worse* than the K3 recalled. Sure, even start a campaign to convince owners of 12V PA rigs to keep their power output below 75W PEP ... all of those would go a lot farther in cleaning up the bands than complaining about the K3 transmit IMD. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 12/1/2010 9:27 PM, juergen wrote: > Hi Ken > > The Ft5000 has better PA than the K3. Its IMD performance is way superior to > the K3 especially on the higher bands and 6 meters. It smacks of double > standards harping on about Yaesu Keyclicks and ignoring SSB transmitter IMD > especially on the K3 when it is so marginal. > > Unnecessary wide transmission on any mode is bad for all of us. > The key click issue and SSB IMD issue has same bad effect. > Its wise not to throw stones in glass houses. > > I wish Elecraft would release a better PA using fets for the K3. > > The Yaesu FT5000 certainly has a better PA than the K3. > > The Ft5000 has superb transmitter IMD, far superior to the K3's transmitter. > > I find it interesting that so many observers harp endlessly about the Yaesu > Keyclick problems and totally ignore the issue of the K3's poor SSB IMD. > > The Yaesu Ft5000 has the edge in this department. > > 73 > John > --- On Wed, 12/1/10, K9ZTV wrote: > >> From: K9ZTV >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report >> To: "elecraft@mailman.qth.net" >> Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 2:26 PM >> I agree. >> >> Where is the edging out? >> >> Sherwood sorts on Dynamic Range-Narrow Spaced, and both >> rigs are 101db >> at 2 Kcs. >> >> I'm confused by Bob's statement that it "edges out" the >> K3. >> >> If you take the other parameters into consideration, the K3 >> should be >> listed first and the 5000 listed second. >> >> 73, >> >> Kent K9ZTV >> >> >> On 12/1/2010 3:18 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote: >>> Pretty close to a dead heat between the K3 and the >> FT5000, except for blocking dynamic range (K3 is better by >> 13 dB) and filter ultimate attenuation (K3 is better by 15 >> dB). >>> >>> Not bad for a 9-pound rig that starts at $1400. >>> >>> That said, I will now disqualify myself from the rest >> of this thread :) >>> >>> 73, >>> Wayne >>> N6KR >>> >>> Ed wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.sherweng.com/table.html >>> >> __ >>> Elecraft mailing list >>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >>> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net >>> >>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3291 - >> Release Date: 12/01/10 >>> >>> >> _
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Interesting ... why does Rob put the FT-5000 above the K3? 2 KHz IMDDR are the same (101 dB) ... FT-5000 filter ultimate rejection is *poorer* than the K3, LO noise is *poorer* than the K3, 100 KHz blocking is *poorer* than the K3. Sensitivity and noise floor are comparable depending on which preamp is active on each radio ... with no preamp the K3 has a lower noise floor and greater sensitivity. Maybe I'm biased but I would still rate the K3 numero uno .. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 12/1/2010 2:59 PM, Ed Schuller wrote: > > > > http://www.sherweng.com/table.html > > > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
> By the way, if you have a P3 you can see the spikes on make, break, or > both on the > waterfall. You can spot the rigs that are using semi-QSK that have a big > spike on the > first dit and then quiet down, too. Same with relative SSB IMD monitoring. I've been looking at the area near the SSB carrier set point since IMD is not confused with Tx bandwidth. Wow, some huge differences between stations. And several ESSB ops with emphasized low end are not necessarily a problem. With a bit of practice you can clearly see the grunge below the set point and even call a rough value. I've seen rough values vary from -20 dBc to better than -50 dBc. On 20m last week, an ESSB op was using a TS-950SDX and Alpha 89. Using the SDR-IQ, he had one of the cleanest spectrums I've seen. By contrast, an op using an FT-1000D and ACOM amp showed about -30 dBc I want to emphasize that these are not actual IMD numbers -- only a relative IMD indication. Paul, W9AC __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
By the way, if you have a P3 you can see the spikes on make, break, or both on the waterfall. You can spot the rigs that are using semi-QSK that have a big spike on the first dit and then quiet down, too. On 12/3/2010 1:35 PM, Paul Christensen wrote: > I would tend to throw out problems that only exist with the initial keyed > element so long as the remaining series looks fine. These transceivers > consume a lot of bandwidth very briefly, then the bandwidth dissipates. My > TS-480 comes to mind as it has a sharp leading edge with a slight power > spike on the leading edge of the initial element then disappears with > continued sending until there's a long pause. So, based on what I am > seeing, the ALC problem is pretty well evenly distributed between the > leading and trailing edge issues. > > Paul, W9AC -- Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/ __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
> Yes 99% of all CW stations clicks at the "break" side. That's an unusually high percentage from what I recall seeing in the QST Product Reviews during the past twenty years. So, I looked at the CW waveforms of the more notorious transceivers. It seems to be an even mix between leading edge and trailing edge issues. In looking at the Ten Tec Omni Six Plus, it's the leading edge with the sharp slope and discontinuity that creates clicks. I drafted a fix for that back in 1998 and it appears on the N1EU website. The ALC problem with the FT-1000MP series is more problematic on the trailing edge, although from the 1996 QST review, the initial keyed element has a severe problem at the leading edge, then followed by a problem at the trailing edge with successive keying. That occurs as the ALC is trying to stabilize. On several other transceivers, I noticed significant dit shortening and discontinuities on the initial keyed element, then the rest in the series look fine, again as the ALC stabilizes. The FT-1000D shows a significant problem on the leading edge, with dit shortening occurring on the first dit. Dit shortening is not directly attributed to ALC. The root cause of that is unrelated. The K3 has a slight bit of dit shortening, and about 3 msec of compensation from an external keyer helps to restore the envelope to the key closure time, although deciding exactly how the contact closure and RF pulse time should match can result in a spirited debate, owing to the required rise/fall time. I would tend to throw out problems that only exist with the initial keyed element so long as the remaining series looks fine. These transceivers consume a lot of bandwidth very briefly, then the bandwidth dissipates. My TS-480 comes to mind as it has a sharp leading edge with a slight power spike on the leading edge of the initial element then disappears with continued sending until there's a long pause. So, based on what I am seeing, the ALC problem is pretty well evenly distributed between the leading and trailing edge issues. Paul, W9AC __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Yes logical at least to me. Well English is my second language but still makes it difficult. Yes but if the fall time is longer the discontinuity will be less abrupt and by so make it easier for a bad regulating device, if you understand what I mean. We want to shape the first part of the envelope on the fall side, not being to sharp of a knee, i e the first 1 ms from full power is the most important part. If you increase the over all fall time that transition period will also be longer, i e make it easier for a system with not enough dynamic range. Oh well once upon a moon I could do Fourier analysis on this but it was 35 years ago and I just have forgot it all. The teacher I had was a ham but he is an SK now. / Jim SM2EKM -- On 2010-12-03 20:36, Kok Chen wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Jan Erik Holm wrote: > >> Yes 99% of all CW stations clicks at the "break" side. > > That makes perfect sense, Jan. > > If they are using simple IIR filters, the slope discontinuity is worse at the > onset of switching than when it is at the end of the leading edge or trailing > edge (visualize the RC constant diagrams that we learn in school :-). > > Now, the onset of switching states happens to occur at low power (zero power) > on the rising edge of a CW pulse, so even if it is dirty, you are not putting > out energy. But it the worst part of an RC filter occurs at the highest > power location at the trailing edge of a CW pulse. > > If the click spectra is mostly coming from slope discontinuities, the energy > from the clicks are going to be much greater when the key is breaking than > when the key is making. > > This is why a couple of us has said that it is not the "rise time" (or fall > time) that is important, it is the n-th order discontinuities (slope > discontinuity contributes more than higher order ones obviously, when you > look at it as a Fourier series). > > Someone else can probably explain better than I can. I can't do it without > using equations. English is my third language :-). > > 73 > Chen, W7AY > > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
ially for signs of >>>>>> clicks >>>>>> and DC thumps. >>>>>> >>>>>> Referring to the December, 2010 QST Product Review on p.45, take a >>>>>> look at >>>>>> the leading edge of the second pulse (lower trace) in Figure 1. The >>>>>> sharp >>>>>> rise and sharp edge at the top of the waveform is what is >>>>>> consuming the >>>>>> bandwidth. Based on that waveform, it was absolutely generating >>>>>> clicks at >>>>>> some distance from the Fc. That pattern is characteristic of a >>>>>> deficient >>>>>> ALC system. >>>>>> >>>>>> A deficiency in the ALC system then takes us into SSB Tx IMD. The >>>>>> published >>>>>> FTdx5K Tx IMD numbers look great with the ARRL's steady tone >>>>>> method but >>>>>> arguably, that's probably more relevant to data modes. The >>>>>> question is >>>>>> "what is the FTdx5K's ALC doing to undermine the rig's otherwise >>>>>> excellent >>>>>> SSB Tx IMD numbers, especially in Class A?" Really, the published Tx >>>>>> IMD >>>>>> figures are meaningless unless dynamic testing is conducted to >>>>>> simulate >>>>>> rapid changes in power associated with voice modes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul, W9AC >>>>>> >>>>>> - Original Message - >>>>>> From: "Jan Erik Holm" >>>>>> To: >>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:27 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes but to what rise/fall time was the radio set? AFAIK in >>>>>>> the FT5000 it can be changed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Jim SM2EKM >>> __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
On Dec 3, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Jan Erik Holm wrote: > Yes 99% of all CW stations clicks at the "break" side. That makes perfect sense, Jan. If they are using simple IIR filters, the slope discontinuity is worse at the onset of switching than when it is at the end of the leading edge or trailing edge (visualize the RC constant diagrams that we learn in school :-). Now, the onset of switching states happens to occur at low power (zero power) on the rising edge of a CW pulse, so even if it is dirty, you are not putting out energy. But it the worst part of an RC filter occurs at the highest power location at the trailing edge of a CW pulse. If the click spectra is mostly coming from slope discontinuities, the energy from the clicks are going to be much greater when the key is breaking than when the key is making. This is why a couple of us has said that it is not the "rise time" (or fall time) that is important, it is the n-th order discontinuities (slope discontinuity contributes more than higher order ones obviously, when you look at it as a Fourier series). Someone else can probably explain better than I can. I can't do it without using equations. English is my third language :-). 73 Chen, W7AY __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Yes 99% of all CW stations clicks at the "break" side. I didn´t think about the ALC but that is right, thanks. However by increasing the envelope fall time we will "help" a bad ALC system if you understand what I mean. Anyway I better can this before HHQ puts the lid on. /SM2EKM QRT -- On 2010-12-03 19:18, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > > > Waveform? When you have a 1 ms raise/fall time no way you > > can shape the waveform so it doesnt click. > > That's not the case. If the first and second derivatives of > the power output are minimized, the waveform does not click. > There are many studies about bandwidth vs. rate of change in > digital modulation that will provide the information to show > that principle. > > In the specific case of CW as long as the transitions from > the "rise" to the steady "on" state and from the steady "on" > state to the fall are properly shaped (first/second derivative > minimized) the apparent clicks will be minimized. > > The traditional "feedback" ALC system almost guarantees clicks > on the *trailing edge* of the CW element. Traditional ALC > attempts to maintain the output as the key is opened and will > increase system gain as the driving waveform starts to decay. > The output level will only begin to fall when the ALC gain > has reached maximum - at which point there will be a major discontinuity > in the waveform. A properly designed feedback > ALC system would be incorporate sample and hold to maintain > steady system gain during the "ramp up" and "ramp down" parts > of the CW waveform to prevent the "corner sharpening." > > Again, rise time controls the basic CW bandwidth but "clicks" > are a feature of discontinuities in the CW envelope. Please > do not confuse the two. > > 73, > > ... Joe, W4TV > > On 12/3/2010 9:46 AM, Jan Erik Holm wrote: >> Waveform? When you have a 1 ms raise/fall time no way you >> can shape the waveform so it doesnt click. >> >> /Jim SM2EKM >> --- >> On 2010-12-03 15:29, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: >>> All the click complaints for years and still Yaesu doesn't take care >>> of the waveform. It's not like there aren't tons of reads on the >>> subject, no excuse at all since Google. It's more like they just >>> don't care, or are simply convinced it doesn't matter. After all, >>> isn't CW obsolete, and nobody uses it anymore, right? >>> >>> 73, Guy. >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Paul Christensen wrote: >>>> 4 ms. Given that the FTdx5K rise/fall is roughly double the time of the >>>> K3 -- and that the K3 at 2 ms consumes significantly less bandwidth >>>> than the >>>> FTdx5K at 4 ms, the CW transmit quality of the K3 is far superior. I >>>> would >>>> like to hear QSK on the Yaesu, compare it with the K3's QRQ mode, >>>> and note >>>> any audible artifacts in the headphones -- especially for signs of >>>> clicks >>>> and DC thumps. >>>> >>>> Referring to the December, 2010 QST Product Review on p.45, take a >>>> look at >>>> the leading edge of the second pulse (lower trace) in Figure 1. The >>>> sharp >>>> rise and sharp edge at the top of the waveform is what is consuming the >>>> bandwidth. Based on that waveform, it was absolutely generating >>>> clicks at >>>> some distance from the Fc. That pattern is characteristic of a >>>> deficient >>>> ALC system. >>>> >>>> A deficiency in the ALC system then takes us into SSB Tx IMD. The >>>> published >>>> FTdx5K Tx IMD numbers look great with the ARRL's steady tone method but >>>> arguably, that's probably more relevant to data modes. The question is >>>> "what is the FTdx5K's ALC doing to undermine the rig's otherwise >>>> excellent >>>> SSB Tx IMD numbers, especially in Class A?" Really, the published Tx >>>> IMD >>>> figures are meaningless unless dynamic testing is conducted to simulate >>>> rapid changes in power associated with voice modes. >>>> >>>> Paul, W9AC >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Jan Erik Holm" >>>> To: >>>> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:27 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report >>>> >>>> >>>>> Yes but to what rise/fall time was the radio set? AFAIK in >>>>> the FT5000 it can be changed. >>>>> >>>>> /Jim SM2EKM > > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
No but if you read what I wrote I didn´t say that either. BUT rise/fall time is the ONLY thing we these days can change on our radios (except the K3) Also most people does not know how to listen for key clicks. I know a lot of people that doesn´t even find key clicks on a FT-1000MP, yeah rightgo figure. / Jim SM2EKM -- On 2010-12-03 17:47, Tommy Alderman wrote: > I think you are incorrect! I used IC-781's, Corsair II, and Corsair 6+ for > many year at CW speeds over 70 wpm, constantly having my QSO partners look > for key clicks and they were not present! Rise time alone, does not cause > key clicks! > > And just for the record Elecraft, I do NOT want you to change this CW rise > time on the K3! > > Tom - W4BQF > > > -Original Message- > From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net > [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Jan Erik Holm > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 9:47 AM > To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report > > Waveform? When you have a 1 ms raise/fall time no way you > can shape the waveform so it doesnt click. > > /Jim SM2EKM > [||] > > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
No I do not experience key clicks with my own K3. I don´t know what it sounds like and it´s no idea to ask anyone either. It is all the other K3´s that are on the air that has "mild keyclicks" Yes there are hot switching amps and QSK amps that aren´t correct, I usually can detect those. No it´s plain and simple the K3 would need to "soften up" the keying slightly. The only modern radio I have ever herd on the air that was click free was a TenTec ORION that was set up right, I think he had it at 7 ms, keying was just beautiful and not to soft. So my friends it can be done!! / Jim SM2EKM -- On 2010-12-03 16:55, Paul Christensen wrote: >> Why, yes IMO the K3 clicks too much. > > Jim, > > If you're experiencing clicks with your K3, you really need to investigate > with a scope. At the risk of pontificating, every station should have a > scope to monitor the transmit waveform. It can also be used to effectively > monitor T/R sequencing times when using an external amp. I suspect many > stations are hot-switching their amps and don't even know it until a T/R > relay's contacts fuse and the relay fails. Cost is no longer an excuse. > Anyone who can afford a K3 or FTdx5K can own a scope. Good quality used > scopes can be purchased on the surplus market between USD $100-200. > > If I may make a plug for N8LP, he's got a forthcoming product that addresses > my pontification nicely: > > http://www.telepostinc.com/LP-500.html > > Cost will be more than a used oscilloscope, but it looks like his product is > concentrated on what we need for monitoring rather than general bench work. > Design and cosmetics appear to be commensurate with the Elecraft K3. > > Paul, W9AC > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
WOW! Philip LaMarche LaMarche Enterprises, Inc p...@lamarcheenterprises.com www.LaMarcheEnterprises.com 727-944-3226 727-937-8834 Fax 727-510-5038 Cell www.w9dvm.com K3 #1605 CCA 98-00827 CRA 1701 W9DVM -Original Message- From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Paul Christensen Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 10:56 AM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report > Why, yes IMO the K3 clicks too much. Jim, If you're experiencing clicks with your K3, you really need to investigate with a scope. At the risk of pontificating, every station should have a scope to monitor the transmit waveform. It can also be used to effectively monitor T/R sequencing times when using an external amp. I suspect many stations are hot-switching their amps and don't even know it until a T/R relay's contacts fuse and the relay fails. Cost is no longer an excuse. Anyone who can afford a K3 or FTdx5K can own a scope. Good quality used scopes can be purchased on the surplus market between USD $100-200. If I may make a plug for N8LP, he's got a forthcoming product that addresses my pontification nicely: http://www.telepostinc.com/LP-500.html Cost will be more than a used oscilloscope, but it looks like his product is concentrated on what we need for monitoring rather than general bench work. Design and cosmetics appear to be commensurate with the Elecraft K3. Paul, W9AC - Original Message - From: "Jan Erik Holm" To: Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report Yes I do know that it´s not the rise/fall time alone, that has never been my point. However one factor is the rise/fall and if it´s too fast it will not be possible to fix it with shaping. Why, yes IMO the K3 clicks too much. I know it can be done since there are radios around that doesn´t click at all and at the same time the keying is "hard enough" for normal CW use. Sure you can´t key it to 500-600 lpm but thats not normal CW. / Jim SM2EKM - On 2010-12-03 16:00, Paul Christensen wrote: >> OK. AFAIK at 4 ms a CW TX will have to much > bandwith. Even the K3 at 5 ms (if it hasen´t changed > since I measured it) do have "mild clicks". > > It' not strictly the rise/fall time, it's the shape of the RF envelope > within the rise/fall time. > > http://www.w8ji.com/cw_bandwidth_described.htm > > Using the internal calibrator on my Tektronix SC504, I just measured the > K3 > rise time at 2.5 ms. I measure from the time the envelope just begins to > take off from zero until the point that full amplitude is reached. > Actually, full power on my K3 is not achieved for several more msec, but > the > dominant transition to the full power is measured at 2.5 ms. > >> I wish the K3 could be set to something like 7 or 8 ms. > > Why? > > Paul, W9AC > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Barry N1EU wrote: > >It's only an advantage when you're trying to ward off a key clicking >neighbor. If your potential neighbors would have non-clicking rigs, there >is no advantage. In any case, you are just being a jerk (or worse) if >you're knowingly producing key clicks. > >Barry N1EU > > >Jan Erik Holm wrote: >> >> Yes absolutely >> >> /SM2EKM >> >> On 2010-12-02 02:58, Steve Ellington wrote: >>> Wouldn't having bad key clicks be an advantage in a contest? >>> >> > >-- >View this message in context: >http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Fwd-New-Sherwood-report-tp5793377p5799853.html >Sent from the [K3] mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >__ >Elecraft mailing list >Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > >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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Paul and all, Another way of investigating is with a spectrum analyzer - and for investigation of a transmitted signal on one band, it does not have to be expensive (but must be homebrewed to be inexpensive). See the implementation by G4AON at http://www.astromag.co.uk/ssa/ It is quite a nice narrowband spectrum analyzer - you can see the display using Spectrogram or Spectrum Lab or most any other audio spectrum analyzer running on the shack's soundcard equipped PC. You are correct, a 'scope is the most useful tool for measuring timing and amplitude. 73, Don W3FPR On 12/3/2010 10:55 AM, Paul Christensen wrote: >> Why, yes IMO the K3 clicks too much. > Jim, > > If you're experiencing clicks with your K3, you really need to investigate > with a scope. At the risk of pontificating, every station should have a > scope to monitor the transmit waveform. It can also be used to effectively > monitor T/R sequencing times when using an external amp. I suspect many > stations are hot-switching their amps and don't even know it until a T/R > relay's contacts fuse and the relay fails. Cost is no longer an excuse. > Anyone who can afford a K3 or FTdx5K can own a scope. Good quality used > scopes can be purchased on the surplus market between USD $100-200. > > If I may make a plug for N8LP, he's got a forthcoming product that addresses > my pontification nicely: > > http://www.telepostinc.com/LP-500.html > > Cost will be more than a used oscilloscope, but it looks like his product is > concentrated on what we need for monitoring rather than general bench work. > Design and cosmetics appear to be commensurate with the Elecraft K3. > > Paul, W9AC > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
> Why, yes IMO the K3 clicks too much. Jim, If you're experiencing clicks with your K3, you really need to investigate with a scope. At the risk of pontificating, every station should have a scope to monitor the transmit waveform. It can also be used to effectively monitor T/R sequencing times when using an external amp. I suspect many stations are hot-switching their amps and don't even know it until a T/R relay's contacts fuse and the relay fails. Cost is no longer an excuse. Anyone who can afford a K3 or FTdx5K can own a scope. Good quality used scopes can be purchased on the surplus market between USD $100-200. If I may make a plug for N8LP, he's got a forthcoming product that addresses my pontification nicely: http://www.telepostinc.com/LP-500.html Cost will be more than a used oscilloscope, but it looks like his product is concentrated on what we need for monitoring rather than general bench work. Design and cosmetics appear to be commensurate with the Elecraft K3. Paul, W9AC - Original Message - From: "Jan Erik Holm" To: Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report Yes I do know that it´s not the rise/fall time alone, that has never been my point. However one factor is the rise/fall and if it´s too fast it will not be possible to fix it with shaping. Why, yes IMO the K3 clicks too much. I know it can be done since there are radios around that doesn´t click at all and at the same time the keying is "hard enough" for normal CW use. Sure you can´t key it to 500-600 lpm but thats not normal CW. / Jim SM2EKM - On 2010-12-03 16:00, Paul Christensen wrote: >> OK. AFAIK at 4 ms a CW TX will have to much > bandwith. Even the K3 at 5 ms (if it hasen´t changed > since I measured it) do have "mild clicks". > > It' not strictly the rise/fall time, it's the shape of the RF envelope > within the rise/fall time. > > http://www.w8ji.com/cw_bandwidth_described.htm > > Using the internal calibrator on my Tektronix SC504, I just measured the > K3 > rise time at 2.5 ms. I measure from the time the envelope just begins to > take off from zero until the point that full amplitude is reached. > Actually, full power on my K3 is not achieved for several more msec, but > the > dominant transition to the full power is measured at 2.5 ms. > >> I wish the K3 could be set to something like 7 or 8 ms. > > Why? > > Paul, W9AC > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
On Dec 3, 2010, at 12/36:44 AM, Jan Erik Holm wrote: > So now we have a 2 ms claim for the K3. I know I measured it to 5 ms > but this was something like 2 years ago. > > What is it? Can Elecraft please tell. Quite possibly the waveshaping is done by an FIR window. So the design parameter may not be directly comparable to the risetime of a first order IIR. (I hope Elecraft didn't take a shortcut and used IIR waveshaping!) You can of course use the 10% to 90% points as the equivalent risetime even for an FIR waveshaping, but there are subtle difference from the "risetime" compared to a typical RC filter, especially when the "tail" of the impulse of the FIR is very different from a decaying exponential. What I'm trying to say is that "2 msec" for one waveshape can produce vastly different spectrum from "2 msec" of a different waveshape when the standard of measurement is 10% to 90%. The portions between 0% to 10% and between 90% to 100% of the leading and trailing edges of a pulse are probably more important that what it is doing between 10% and 90%, which is usually a smooth function. If hams apply a frequency domain criterion (like, say, -6 dB and -60 dB points in the spectrum envelope of a sequence of dits) instead of a single number such as "risetime," we probably can more easily decide which rigs are problematical in regards to keyclicks. 73 Chen, W7AY __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Yes I do know that it´s not the rise/fall time alone, that has never been my point. However one factor is the rise/fall and if it´s too fast it will not be possible to fix it with shaping. Why, yes IMO the K3 clicks too much. I know it can be done since there are radios around that doesn´t click at all and at the same time the keying is "hard enough" for normal CW use. Sure you can´t key it to 500-600 lpm but thats not normal CW. / Jim SM2EKM - On 2010-12-03 16:00, Paul Christensen wrote: >> OK. AFAIK at 4 ms a CW TX will have to much > bandwith. Even the K3 at 5 ms (if it hasen´t changed > since I measured it) do have "mild clicks". > > It' not strictly the rise/fall time, it's the shape of the RF envelope > within the rise/fall time. > > http://www.w8ji.com/cw_bandwidth_described.htm > > Using the internal calibrator on my Tektronix SC504, I just measured the K3 > rise time at 2.5 ms. I measure from the time the envelope just begins to > take off from zero until the point that full amplitude is reached. > Actually, full power on my K3 is not achieved for several more msec, but the > dominant transition to the full power is measured at 2.5 ms. > >> I wish the K3 could be set to something like 7 or 8 ms. > > Why? > > Paul, W9AC > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
> OK. AFAIK at 4 ms a CW TX will have to much bandwith. Even the K3 at 5 ms (if it hasen´t changed since I measured it) do have "mild clicks". It' not strictly the rise/fall time, it's the shape of the RF envelope within the rise/fall time. http://www.w8ji.com/cw_bandwidth_described.htm Using the internal calibrator on my Tektronix SC504, I just measured the K3 rise time at 2.5 ms. I measure from the time the envelope just begins to take off from zero until the point that full amplitude is reached. Actually, full power on my K3 is not achieved for several more msec, but the dominant transition to the full power is measured at 2.5 ms. > I wish the K3 could be set to something like 7 or 8 ms. Why? Paul, W9AC __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Waveform? When you have a 1 ms raise/fall time no way you can shape the waveform so it doesnt click. /Jim SM2EKM --- On 2010-12-03 15:29, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: > All the click complaints for years and still Yaesu doesn't take care > of the waveform. It's not like there aren't tons of reads on the > subject, no excuse at all since Google. It's more like they just > don't care, or are simply convinced it doesn't matter. After all, > isn't CW obsolete, and nobody uses it anymore, right? > > 73, Guy. > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Paul Christensen wrote: >> 4 ms. Given that the FTdx5K rise/fall is roughly double the time of the >> K3 -- and that the K3 at 2 ms consumes significantly less bandwidth than the >> FTdx5K at 4 ms, the CW transmit quality of the K3 is far superior. I would >> like to hear QSK on the Yaesu, compare it with the K3's QRQ mode, and note >> any audible artifacts in the headphones -- especially for signs of clicks >> and DC thumps. >> >> Referring to the December, 2010 QST Product Review on p.45, take a look at >> the leading edge of the second pulse (lower trace) in Figure 1. The sharp >> rise and sharp edge at the top of the waveform is what is consuming the >> bandwidth. Based on that waveform, it was absolutely generating clicks at >> some distance from the Fc. That pattern is characteristic of a deficient >> ALC system. >> >> A deficiency in the ALC system then takes us into SSB Tx IMD. The published >> FTdx5K Tx IMD numbers look great with the ARRL's steady tone method but >> arguably, that's probably more relevant to data modes. The question is >> "what is the FTdx5K's ALC doing to undermine the rig's otherwise excellent >> SSB Tx IMD numbers, especially in Class A?" Really, the published Tx IMD >> figures are meaningless unless dynamic testing is conducted to simulate >> rapid changes in power associated with voice modes. >> >> Paul, W9AC >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Jan Erik Holm" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:27 AM >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report >> >> >>> Yes but to what rise/fall time was the radio set? AFAIK in >>> the FT5000 it can be changed. >>> >>> /Jim SM2EKM >> >> __ >> Elecraft mailing list >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net >> >> 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
So now we have a 2 ms claim for the K3. I know I measured it to 5 ms but this was something like 2 years ago. What is it? Can Elecraft please tell. And yes dynamic testing of SSB IMD is the only way to go when dealing with a ALC/AGC controlled TX. Jim SM2EKM On 2010-12-03 15:08, Paul Christensen wrote: > 4 ms. Given that the FTdx5K rise/fall is roughly double the time of the > K3 -- and that the K3 at 2 ms consumes significantly less bandwidth than the > FTdx5K at 4 ms, the CW transmit quality of the K3 is far superior. I would > like to hear QSK on the Yaesu, compare it with the K3's QRQ mode, and note > any audible artifacts in the headphones -- especially for signs of clicks > and DC thumps. > > Referring to the December, 2010 QST Product Review on p.45, take a look at > the leading edge of the second pulse (lower trace) in Figure 1. The sharp > rise and sharp edge at the top of the waveform is what is consuming the > bandwidth. Based on that waveform, it was absolutely generating clicks at > some distance from the Fc. That pattern is characteristic of a deficient > ALC system. > > A deficiency in the ALC system then takes us into SSB Tx IMD. The published > FTdx5K Tx IMD numbers look great with the ARRL's steady tone method but > arguably, that's probably more relevant to data modes. The question is > "what is the FTdx5K's ALC doing to undermine the rig's otherwise excellent > SSB Tx IMD numbers, especially in Class A?" Really, the published Tx IMD > figures are meaningless unless dynamic testing is conducted to simulate > rapid changes in power associated with voice modes. > > Paul, W9AC > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Jan Erik Holm" > To: > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:27 AM > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report > > >> Yes but to what rise/fall time was the radio set? AFAIK in >> the FT5000 it can be changed. >> >> /Jim SM2EKM > > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
OK. AFAIK at 4 ms a CW TX will have to much bandwith. Even the K3 at 5 ms (if it hasen´t changed since I measured it) do have "mild clicks". I wish the K3 could be set to something like 7 or 8 ms. / Jim SM2EKM On 2010-12-03 14:43, Barry N1EU wrote: > > > Jan Erik Holm wrote: >> >> Yes but to what rise/fall time was the radio set? AFAIK in >> the FT5000 it can be changed. >> > It was most likely set to the default 4 msec. It can be set to 1, 2, 4, 6 > msec. > > Barry N1EU > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
All the click complaints for years and still Yaesu doesn't take care of the waveform. It's not like there aren't tons of reads on the subject, no excuse at all since Google. It's more like they just don't care, or are simply convinced it doesn't matter. After all, isn't CW obsolete, and nobody uses it anymore, right? 73, Guy. On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Paul Christensen wrote: > 4 ms. Given that the FTdx5K rise/fall is roughly double the time of the > K3 -- and that the K3 at 2 ms consumes significantly less bandwidth than the > FTdx5K at 4 ms, the CW transmit quality of the K3 is far superior. I would > like to hear QSK on the Yaesu, compare it with the K3's QRQ mode, and note > any audible artifacts in the headphones -- especially for signs of clicks > and DC thumps. > > Referring to the December, 2010 QST Product Review on p.45, take a look at > the leading edge of the second pulse (lower trace) in Figure 1. The sharp > rise and sharp edge at the top of the waveform is what is consuming the > bandwidth. Based on that waveform, it was absolutely generating clicks at > some distance from the Fc. That pattern is characteristic of a deficient > ALC system. > > A deficiency in the ALC system then takes us into SSB Tx IMD. The published > FTdx5K Tx IMD numbers look great with the ARRL's steady tone method but > arguably, that's probably more relevant to data modes. The question is > "what is the FTdx5K's ALC doing to undermine the rig's otherwise excellent > SSB Tx IMD numbers, especially in Class A?" Really, the published Tx IMD > figures are meaningless unless dynamic testing is conducted to simulate > rapid changes in power associated with voice modes. > > Paul, W9AC > > ----- Original Message - > From: "Jan Erik Holm" > To: > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:27 AM > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report > > >> Yes but to what rise/fall time was the radio set? AFAIK in >> the FT5000 it can be changed. >> >> /Jim SM2EKM > > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Of course I agree. However there are far far too many that doesn´t care, they will do anything they can to find ways. There are people modifying their radios to get more key clicks, there are people with a "class C" switch on their amplifiers, etc ect it goes on and on. It´s a rotten world and some of these "jerks" even gets defended by the contest sponsors. / Jim SM2EKM --- On 2010-12-03 14:48, Barry N1EU wrote: > > is no advantage. In any case, you are just being a jerk (or worse) if > you're knowingly producing key clicks. > > Barry N1EU > > > Jan Erik Holm wrote: >> >> Yes absolutely >> >> /SM2EKM >> >> On 2010-12-02 02:58, Steve Ellington wrote: >>> Wouldn't having bad key clicks be an advantage in a contest? >>> >> > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
4 ms. Given that the FTdx5K rise/fall is roughly double the time of the K3 -- and that the K3 at 2 ms consumes significantly less bandwidth than the FTdx5K at 4 ms, the CW transmit quality of the K3 is far superior. I would like to hear QSK on the Yaesu, compare it with the K3's QRQ mode, and note any audible artifacts in the headphones -- especially for signs of clicks and DC thumps. Referring to the December, 2010 QST Product Review on p.45, take a look at the leading edge of the second pulse (lower trace) in Figure 1. The sharp rise and sharp edge at the top of the waveform is what is consuming the bandwidth. Based on that waveform, it was absolutely generating clicks at some distance from the Fc. That pattern is characteristic of a deficient ALC system. A deficiency in the ALC system then takes us into SSB Tx IMD. The published FTdx5K Tx IMD numbers look great with the ARRL's steady tone method but arguably, that's probably more relevant to data modes. The question is "what is the FTdx5K's ALC doing to undermine the rig's otherwise excellent SSB Tx IMD numbers, especially in Class A?" Really, the published Tx IMD figures are meaningless unless dynamic testing is conducted to simulate rapid changes in power associated with voice modes. Paul, W9AC - Original Message - From: "Jan Erik Holm" To: Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:27 AM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report > Yes but to what rise/fall time was the radio set? AFAIK in > the FT5000 it can be changed. > > /Jim SM2EKM __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
It's only an advantage when you're trying to ward off a key clicking neighbor. If your potential neighbors would have non-clicking rigs, there is no advantage. In any case, you are just being a jerk (or worse) if you're knowingly producing key clicks. Barry N1EU Jan Erik Holm wrote: > > Yes absolutely > > /SM2EKM > > On 2010-12-02 02:58, Steve Ellington wrote: >> Wouldn't having bad key clicks be an advantage in a contest? >> > -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Fwd-New-Sherwood-report-tp5793377p5799853.html Sent from the [K3] mailing list archive at Nabble.com. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Only if it is not important to make contacts with folks that don't tolerate poor operating techniques. --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy > > > Wouldn't having bad key clicks be an advantage in a contest? __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Jan Erik Holm wrote: > > Yes but to what rise/fall time was the radio set? AFAIK in > the FT5000 it can be changed. > It was most likely set to the default 4 msec. It can be set to 1, 2, 4, 6 msec. Barry N1EU -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Fwd-New-Sherwood-report-tp5793377p5799835.html Sent from the [K3] mailing list archive at Nabble.com. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Yes absolutely /SM2EKM On 2010-12-02 02:58, Steve Ellington wrote: > Wouldn't having bad key clicks be an advantage in a contest? > > Steve N4LQ > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft" > To: "David Gilbert" > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 8:43 PM > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report > > >> They already have - See the keying bandwidth spectral plots in the ARRL >> reviews. The FT-5000 is considerably wider than the K3. >> >> 73, Eric WA6HHQ >> --- __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Yes but to what rise/fall time was the radio set? AFAIK in the FT5000 it can be changed. /Jim SM2EKM --- On 2010-12-02 02:43, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft wrote: > They already have - See the keying bandwidth spectral plots in the ARRL > reviews. The FT-5000 is considerably wider than the K3. > > 73, Eric WA6HHQ > --- > > On 12/1/2010 3:37 PM, David Gilbert wrote: >> >> A good start would be for someone ... hello ARRL? ... to document key >> clicks. A lot of good it does for me to have a rig with excellent 2 KHz >> BDR only to have everything ruined by key clicks from some Yaesu rig >> that neither the manufacturer nor the operator will fix. >> >> Dave AB7E __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
* On 2010 01 Dec 16:57 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote: > * On 2010 01 Dec 16:19 -0600, Ed Schuller wrote: > > > > > > > > http://www.sherweng.com/table.html > > I understand that Sherwood places a lot of emphasis on 2 kHz BDR. While > that is a worthwhile measurement, I am concerned more about the Filter > Ultimate (dB) column. Not only being 15 dB poorer than than the K3, note > also that the FT-5000 is phase limited in this regard. It will take > someone more educated than I to tell us what that means in practical > terms. No educated guesses on what impact the ultimate filter rejection being phase limited in the FT-5000 has on practical operation? I'd really like to know. 73, de Nate N0NB >> -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
On Dec 2, 2010, at 12/24:32 AM, Barry N1EU wrote: > Are you saying that wide sidebands measured with the rig at 4msec > rise-time are probably not going to be even wider with the rig at 1 > msec rise-time? Not that much, since the really far off keyclicks are mostly from higher order discontinuities. Remember that the RF spectrum for CW is approximated by a rectangular pulse that is convolved by the impulse response of the waveshaping filter if the filter is linear (i.e., none of the silly diodes and so on used to attempt to tame keyclicks). The short way of saying it is that the pulse is filtered in the time domain by the waveshaping filter. The "convolution theorem" thus states that the Fourier of the resultant filtered signal is just the *product* of the Fourier transform of the CW pulse train with the Fourier transform of the waveshaping filter. If you assume that the unfiltered pulse train is completely unfiltered (i.e., perfectly sharp edges and so on), a pulse train of dits will have a Fourier transform that is a sinc(f) (i.e., sine of f divided by f) function in the frequency domain. The spectrum of the waveshaping filter is simply the stuff you can see at the Wikipedia page. Multiply the two to get the RF spectrum of a waveshaped CW, and you will find that the sinc(f) is predominated by the waveshaping filter for far off frequencies. Since the power of the unfiltered CW keying signal (i.e., sinc(f)*sinc(f)) dies down very slowly, all the far off spectrum is determined by the "tail" of the spectrum of the waveshaping filter. Without waveshaping, the power of CW keying pulses die down asymptotically as 1/( f*f), since the spectral envelope of sinc(f) dies down as 1/f . The same scenario holds true for RTTY. You can think of an FSK signal as two pulse trains, when one is on, the other is off (i.e., really no different from a CW signal :-). With randomly generated FSK, you have the same sin(x)/x spectral envelope. If you now make sure that the mark-space phase transition of FSK is smooth -- what many people call "phase continuous FSK"," RTTY improves a lot (this is what the K3 and many other rigs and software do). "Phase continuity" is basically saying there is no first order discontinuity of the temporal waveform, but if the Mark and space frequencies are different (of course), there will be second order and higher order discontinuities unless all mark/space switching are done when their carriers are right at zero -- not very practical). Just like CW, you can also make your RTTY signal friendlier to your spectrum neighbors by waveshaping the FSK signal some more. You can see this process here (those are actual recorded AFSK signals): http://homepage.mac.com/chen/Technical/FSK/Sidebands/sidebands.html Instead of two peaks of the FSK signal, you can visualize in your mind a single peak for a CW signal that is represented by the one sided spectrum, and the spectrum for first oder discontinuitity, second order discontinuities, and waveshaped FSK (I had used a simple Blackman in the Web page above) pretty much holds for the CW case also. I don't know of a single FSK rig today that is as friendly to neighbors as the last two spectra shown in the web page. The Omni V and VI does a little of waveshaping of the keying signal that is applied to the varicaps to generate the FSK signal. I also don't know of any software that applies RTTY waveshaping, although it is easy to do for all AFSK software. You need to be careful, of course. Since any waveshaping will cause a slight overlap between the mark and space carriers, too much waveshaping and you again run into that pesky transmit IMD problem that John (juergen) mentioned. For that reason (and also not to degrade SNR at the end of the matched filter that is discussed in the above web page), cocoaModem doesn't go too far off the deep end when wave shaping. It actually survives pretty well through the K3's transmit IMD. You can see that in the last two spectra on this page: http://homepage.mac.com/chen/Technical/K3/Digital/digital.html The K3 native (i.e., using a paddle) FSK signal (measure by a separate receiver) is in the second last image, and cocoaModem's waveshaped RTTY (using K3 DATA-A) is the last image on that page. You can actually see IMD spikes dues to the intermodulation between the now overlapping mark and space signal. But overall, the QRM is still below the spectrum from the K3's FSK signal. But if the K3 transmit IMD can be improved, you can squeeze more RTTY stations in during a contest. The FSK ops will then get the same reputation as the FT-1000D CW ops :-) :-). The RTTY spectra in the second web page has random (well, LTRS Baudot characters) bit modulation and I had apply a pretty per-bin filtering of the spectra to remove the noise from the receiver and sound card, so it appears smoother and less se
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Compare to results shown here; http://www.remeeus.eu/hamradio/pa1hr/productreview.htm Adrian ... vk4tux __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Barry, What is being said is that the *shape* of the rise and fall times is important, not the absolute timing of the rise of fall time. In other words, the transitions of the waveshape are the important parameters - if the transitions are smooth rather than angular, they are less likely to generate sidebands. Of course there are practical limits, but the CW sidebands cannot be judged on risetime alone. Most likely, if the shaping with a 4 ms. rise time is such that excessive sidebands are produced, then at 1 ms, the sidebands will be at least as wide, if not wider unless the keying waveshape is changed. But -- while I suspect that, I could not claim it unless it were measured. 73, Don W3FPR On 12/2/2010 7:32 AM, Barry N1EU wrote: > Are you saying that wide sidebands measured with the rig at 4msec rise-time > are probably not going to be even wider with the rig at 1 msec rise-time? > > Barry N1EU > > > Kok Chen wrote: >> On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Barry N1EU wrote: >> >>> It's absolutely amazing, after years of Yaesu being called out and doing >>> nothing about key clicks in their rigs, that they would bring out a radio >>> (FT-5000) and provide the user the ability to reduce the cw rise-time to >>> 1 msec (menu mode, cw group, 063 A1A Shape). Just incredible. >> The rise time by itself is not the important factor -- what is much more >> important are first and second order discontinuities, and even higher >> order discontinuities. > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Are you saying that wide sidebands measured with the rig at 4msec rise-time are probably not going to be even wider with the rig at 1 msec rise-time? Barry N1EU Kok Chen wrote: > > > On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Barry N1EU wrote: > >> It's absolutely amazing, after years of Yaesu being called out and doing >> nothing about key clicks in their rigs, that they would bring out a radio >> (FT-5000) and provide the user the ability to reduce the cw rise-time to >> 1 msec (menu mode, cw group, 063 A1A Shape). Just incredible. > > The rise time by itself is not the important factor -- what is much more > important are first and second order discontinuities, and even higher > order discontinuities. > > -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Fwd-New-Sherwood-report-tp5793377p5795818.html Sent from the [K3] mailing list archive at Nabble.com. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
On Dec 1, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Leigh L. Klotz Jr WA5ZNU wrote: > Kok Chen provides some good references for CW transmit shaping, but > cocoaModem source isn't available for hams to look at. Sure it is. cocoaModem sources has been public from the time cocoaModem was written in the days Mac OS X 10.2 (Jaguar). Just go to my iDisk by following this link : http://homepage.mac.com/chen/w7ay/Projects/index.html The above URL can also be found in the Links page of the Yahoo cocoaModem group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cocoamodem/ Many windows are already built into cocoaModem (in the module CMDSPWindow.c) and it should be easy to add new windows by modifying an existing window routine. Pretty much all Xcode projects of my publicly released programs are on my public iDisk, including cocoaModem, cocoaNEC (GUI preprocessor and postprocessor for NEC-2 and NEC-4), cocoaPath (HF Channel Simulator that include built-in CW, RTTY and PSK31 generators), µH Router (allows multiple apps to share a microHAM keyer on Mac OS X), Serial Tools (terminal and serial port protocol analyzer a.k.a. port sniffer, and USB-serial port diagnostic tool), QST Browser (search and display QST/QEX/NCJ/CommQuarterly/ham radio Magazine CD ROMs), cocoaPTT (AppleScriptable serial port PTT control), cocoaFilter (software APF). cocoaFilter is specifically written to make it easy for a Mac user to go code their favorite Audio Peak Filter parameters and not have to learn Core Audio or Cocoa graphics in Mac OS X. It was written after I saw all the moaning and groaning on this reflector about what Elecraft had done wrong or right. cocoaFilter already has a built-in audio limiter (both soft and hard), adjustable Q is built into the GUI, etc etc. Changing the filters should not take more than a page of code. I have a thick skin, so the code for all of my public apps has always been free and the sources are available for scrutiny. None of it contains GPL material and can be used freely, no strings attached, no need to publish your sources in case you want to share your program. As I have told some people for a few years now, I no longer code for money -- writing code has become "Amateur Software" in my twilight years :-). 73 Chen, W7AY __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Kok Chen provides some good references for CW transmit shaping, but cocoaModem source isn't available for hams to look at. fldigi also offers a choice between raised cosine and Blackman window for CW TX, and the source is in the fldigi distribution at src/cw_rtty/cw.cxx available from http://w1hkj.com/Fldigi.html If you want to experiment with your own shaping code, you can compile fldigi for Windows, Mac, or Linux. I believe the shaping code is by Dave W1HKJ as it wasn't present in earlier programs. Leigh/WA5ZNU -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Fwd-New-Sherwood-report-tp5793377p5794970.html Sent from the [K3] mailing list archive at Nabble.com. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
I agree with Al -- the Sherwood Engineering tables are mostly lost to me. I understand that the K3 is a very good radio compared to others as pointed out by this information but I couldn't tell you if that information was useful to me. For example, way down on the list is the Icom 756 Pro III but I happen to like my Pro III and only a few times have I noticed differences with the K3 in that the K3 is definitely superior. The big thing that convinced me in the K3 is Wayne and Eric and this list. The fact that there are dozens, hundreds, of very technical and knowledgable hams on this list who all agree that the K3 is a good radio and are willing to help others, such as myself, learn just a little bit more of this stuff. But, I am learning...I too will someday know why I am setting particular controls one way or another on the K3. It is now my everyday radio and it works great -- my P3 works great too and in a few days my KX1 will work great when I finish it up. 73, phil, K7PEH On Dec 1, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Al Lorona wrote: > Tables like this one mean almost nothing to me. Dynamic range is so good > across > the board that it's now overrated. When you're talking about differences of a > few dB other details start to matter much more. For instance, the chief > factor > that pushed me off the fence toward a K3 was it's diversity reception scheme; > you don't see that listed anywhere in the table. > > What about how the radio *sounds*? Where in the table is that? How about it's > macro and programming capability? Is that in the table? Or its effect on your > psyche after 24 hours of a contest? These things are much harder to measure. > > (Another pet peeve is the dozens of videos on YouTube with two radios set up > side by side as the camera operator switches the antenna between them, while > the > built-in mic on the camera picks up all of the room noise. What in the world > are > these videos supposed to prove?) > > To paraphrase what Wynton Marsalis said about technique-- that all it does is > get you "in the door"-- about all these numbers prove is that a particular > rig > is worthy of closer scrutiny. By no means is it a stamp of approval. This > goes > for the K3 as well as any other rig. > > Al W6LX > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Tables like this one mean almost nothing to me. Dynamic range is so good across the board that it's now overrated. When you're talking about differences of a few dB other details start to matter much more. For instance, the chief factor that pushed me off the fence toward a K3 was it's diversity reception scheme; you don't see that listed anywhere in the table. What about how the radio *sounds*? Where in the table is that? How about it's macro and programming capability? Is that in the table? Or its effect on your psyche after 24 hours of a contest? These things are much harder to measure. (Another pet peeve is the dozens of videos on YouTube with two radios set up side by side as the camera operator switches the antenna between them, while the built-in mic on the camera picks up all of the room noise. What in the world are these videos supposed to prove?) To paraphrase what Wynton Marsalis said about technique-- that all it does is get you "in the door"-- about all these numbers prove is that a particular rig is worthy of closer scrutiny. By no means is it a stamp of approval. This goes for the K3 as well as any other rig. Al W6LX __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
> The rise time by itself is not the important factor -- what is much more > important are first and second order discontinuities, and even higher > order discontinuities. Evidence of this comes from our K3s. Some time back around F/W version 3.0, the CW rise/fall time was accelerated. My K3 reaches full envelope power in just 2 ms and yet it produces very little bandwidth due to: (1) the DSP shape function; and (2) very well controlled ALC. The best DSP based functions (e.g., raised cosine or Blackman-Harris), can be completely destroyed by aggressive ALC action. One of the best waveform controlled CW transmitters is the Ten Tec Omni VI. One of the worst controlled CW transmitters is the Omni VI+. What happened? In the upgrade process, the ALC time constants changed to the point where a sharp, discontinuous waveform edge was produced. All the DSP shaping one could try would not have helped. The ALC circuit took control of the waveform and generated, among other anomalies, severe key clicks from the abruptly fast leading edge of the CW waveform. Regarding the FTdx-5000, my first suspicion is the ALC system as the culprit and not the DSP generated waveform. When the ARRL tested the IC-7800, it showed an aggressively fast rise time. However, the '7800 has a user adjustable "Drive" control. With only slight ALC action, the '7800 produces an excellent waveform and little keying bandwidth. If the FTdx-5000 has a Drive control active in CW mode, it may be possible to reign-in bandwidth. Paul, W9AC __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Barry N1EU wrote: > It's absolutely amazing, after years of Yaesu being called out and doing > nothing about key clicks in their rigs, that they would bring out a radio > (FT-5000) and provide the user the ability to reduce the cw rise-time to 1 > msec (menu mode, cw group, 063 A1A Shape). Just incredible. The rise time by itself is not the important factor -- what is much more important are first and second order discontinuities, and even higher order discontinuities. If you were to generate a keyed signal that turns on with a constant slope (thus has a large second order discontinuity), you are going to generate very wide keying sidebands even if that "risetime" lasts for 10 msec. For a modern view at CW keying, take a look at Alex VE3NEA's article in the May/June 2006 issue of QEX that is titled "CW Shaping in DSP Software." Alex is of course the author of the CW Skimmer, among other things. This is not just theoretical stuff. cocoaModem on Mac OS X is one program that generates a CW signal using the J2A Emission mode by using a Blackman window whose keying sidebands you can see in Figure 5 here http://homepage.mac.com/chen/w7ay/cocoaModem/UsersManual/cwManual/index.html#filter A Blackman window is initially wider than say, a Hamming window (and certainly much wider than an unshaped pulse), but then it plunges down towards -100 dB with a very steep fall off. There is nothing like it in the analog world :-). In his article, Alex had compared the Blackman-Harris window with Gaussian, raised Cosine, and other windows. Wikipedia has a very nice page on filter windows (many people use the windowed method to design FIR filters) here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function and this plot from Wiki is especially useful if you want to homebrew your own "CW shaper": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Window_function_(comparsion).png Notice the asymptotic slopes of the curves towards the right of that plot. The steeper it is, the less you will QRM stations that are far away. The shape towards the left tells you how much close-in bandwidth you are using. For example, the unshaped pulse (black line) has the narrowest close-in bandwidth, but it is also the worst when it comes to far away bandwidth. At 100 times the normalized bandwidth of the filter, pulses that are waveshaped by the Blackman and Blackman-Harris windows are a whopping 80 dB quieter than un-waveshaped pulses. You can think of the normalized bandwidth as what is needed to pass the fundamental N-words-per-minute keying sequence without sounding too soft. For what its worth, cocoaModem lets you dial in an equivalent risetime of 2 msec all the way to 10 msec (for QRS slowpokes like myself who want to cause even less QRM). You need a reasonably good transmit IMD to take the most advantage of good waveshaping. All said and done, it is not the DSP part that is the limiting factor of what you can do with waveshaping CW pulses today, but the transmit IMD. 73 Chen, W7AY __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Not sure how I missed that. I just did a side by side comparison of the ARRL CW spectral plots for both the K3 and the FTdx-5000, and there is certainly a difference. 30db down from the peak appears to be +/- 350 Hz for the FTdx-5000, and about +/- 125 Hz for the K3 as best I could determine from expanded views of the plots. 60 db down (still probably about S2 for a S9+20 signal) appears to be about +/- 1.35 Khz for the FTdx-5000 and about +/- 350 Hz for the K3. Here's a thought ... if everyone owned a Yaesu the company wouldn't have to worry about designing receivers with close-in BDR because nobody could operate that close to each other anyway. Dave AB7E On 12/1/2010 6:43 PM, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft wrote: > They already have - See the keying bandwidth spectral plots in the > ARRL reviews. The FT-5000 is considerably wider than the K3. > > 73, Eric WA6HHQ > --- > > On 12/1/2010 3:37 PM, David Gilbert wrote: >> >> A good start would be for someone ... hello ARRL? ... to document key >> clicks. A lot of good it does for me to have a rig with excellent 2 KHz >> BDR only to have everything ruined by key clicks from some Yaesu rig >> that neither the manufacturer nor the operator will fix. >> >> Dave AB7E > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Hmm. I'm not seeing that in the data. Could you please point me to where you are looking? 73, Byron N6NUL On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:27 PM, juergen wrote: > > The Ft5000 has better PA than the K3. Its IMD performance is way superior to > the K3 especially on the higher bands and 6 meters. It smacks of double > standards harping on about Yaesu Keyclicks and ignoring SSB transmitter IMD > especially on the K3 when it is so marginal. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
The reason that key clicks bother me so much more than poor TX IMD on SSB is that in a SSB contest so many people have such abysmally crummy audio due to excessive mic gain and compression anyway. TX IMD 25 or 30 db down from the main signal doesn't hold a candle to splatter only 5 or 10 db down. On CW, it takes a pretty damn poor TX to create off-frequency trash in the absence of key clicks. That's why ... Dave AB7E On 12/1/2010 7:27 PM, juergen wrote: > Hi Ken > > The Ft5000 has better PA than the K3. Its IMD performance is way superior to > the K3 especially on the higher bands and 6 meters. It smacks of double > standards harping on about Yaesu Keyclicks and ignoring SSB transmitter IMD > especially on the K3 when it is so marginal. > > Unnecessary wide transmission on any mode is bad for all of us. > The key click issue and SSB IMD issue has same bad effect. > Its wise not to throw stones in glass houses. > > I wish Elecraft would release a better PA using fets for the K3. > > The Yaesu FT5000 certainly has a better PA than the K3. > > The Ft5000 has superb transmitter IMD, far superior to the K3's transmitter. > > I find it interesting that so many observers harp endlessly about the Yaesu > Keyclick problems and totally ignore the issue of the K3's poor SSB IMD. > > The Yaesu Ft5000 has the edge in this department. > > 73 > John > --- On Wed, 12/1/10, K9ZTV wrote: > >> From: K9ZTV >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report >> To: "elecraft@mailman.qth.net" >> Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 2:26 PM >> I agree. >> >> Where is the edging out? >> >> Sherwood sorts on Dynamic Range-Narrow Spaced, and both >> rigs are 101db >> at 2 Kcs. >> >> I'm confused by Bob's statement that it "edges out" the >> K3. >> >> If you take the other parameters into consideration, the K3 >> should be >> listed first and the 5000 listed second. >> >> 73, >> >> Kent K9ZTV >> >> >> On 12/1/2010 3:18 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote: >>> Pretty close to a dead heat between the K3 and the >> FT5000, except for blocking dynamic range (K3 is better by >> 13 dB) and filter ultimate attenuation (K3 is better by 15 >> dB). >>> Not bad for a 9-pound rig that starts at $1400. >>> >>> That said, I will now disqualify myself from the rest >> of this thread :) >>> 73, >>> Wayne >>> N6KR >>> >>> Ed wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.sherweng.com/table.html >> __ >>> Elecraft mailing list >>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >>> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net >>> >>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3291 - >> Release Date: 12/01/10 >>> >> __ >> Elecraft mailing list >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net >> >> 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Hi Ken The Ft5000 has better PA than the K3. Its IMD performance is way superior to the K3 especially on the higher bands and 6 meters. It smacks of double standards harping on about Yaesu Keyclicks and ignoring SSB transmitter IMD especially on the K3 when it is so marginal. Unnecessary wide transmission on any mode is bad for all of us. The key click issue and SSB IMD issue has same bad effect. Its wise not to throw stones in glass houses. I wish Elecraft would release a better PA using fets for the K3. The Yaesu FT5000 certainly has a better PA than the K3. The Ft5000 has superb transmitter IMD, far superior to the K3's transmitter. I find it interesting that so many observers harp endlessly about the Yaesu Keyclick problems and totally ignore the issue of the K3's poor SSB IMD. The Yaesu Ft5000 has the edge in this department. 73 John --- On Wed, 12/1/10, K9ZTV wrote: > From: K9ZTV > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report > To: "elecraft@mailman.qth.net" > Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 2:26 PM > I agree. > > Where is the edging out? > > Sherwood sorts on Dynamic Range-Narrow Spaced, and both > rigs are 101db > at 2 Kcs. > > I'm confused by Bob's statement that it "edges out" the > K3. > > If you take the other parameters into consideration, the K3 > should be > listed first and the 5000 listed second. > > 73, > > Kent K9ZTV > > > On 12/1/2010 3:18 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote: > > Pretty close to a dead heat between the K3 and the > FT5000, except for blocking dynamic range (K3 is better by > 13 dB) and filter ultimate attenuation (K3 is better by 15 > dB). > > > > Not bad for a 9-pound rig that starts at $1400. > > > > That said, I will now disqualify myself from the rest > of this thread :) > > > > 73, > > Wayne > > N6KR > > > > Ed wrote: > > > >> http://www.sherweng.com/table.html > > > __ > > Elecraft mailing list > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3291 - > Release Date: 12/01/10 > > > > > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Only if someone thinks that annoying everyone around them is the route to success... 73, Ken Alexander VE3HLS > Wouldn't having bad key clicks be an advantage in a contest? > > Steve N4LQ __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Vic K2VCO wrote: > > ARRL does include an oscillograph of a 60 wpm dit as well as a graph of > the composite > noise spectrum of the transmitted CW signal. > Yeah, but at what rig settings? It's absolutely amazing, after years of Yaesu being called out and doing nothing about key clicks in their rigs, that they would bring out a radio (FT-5000) and provide the user the ability to reduce the cw rise-time to 1 msec (menu mode, cw group, 063 A1A Shape). Just incredible. And they also recommend that users reduce the rise-time from the default 4 msec to improve qsk performance. Why is this even legal? 73, Barry N1EU -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Fwd-New-Sherwood-report-tp5793377p5794518.html Sent from the [K3] mailing list archive at Nabble.com. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Wouldn't having bad key clicks be an advantage in a contest? Steve N4LQ - Original Message - From: "Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft" To: "David Gilbert" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report > They already have - See the keying bandwidth spectral plots in the ARRL > reviews. The FT-5000 is considerably wider than the K3. > > 73, Eric WA6HHQ > --- > > On 12/1/2010 3:37 PM, David Gilbert wrote: >> >> A good start would be for someone ... hello ARRL? ... to document key >> clicks. A lot of good it does for me to have a rig with excellent 2 KHz >> BDR only to have everything ruined by key clicks from some Yaesu rig >> that neither the manufacturer nor the operator will fix. >> >> Dave AB7E > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
They already have - See the keying bandwidth spectral plots in the ARRL reviews. The FT-5000 is considerably wider than the K3. 73, Eric WA6HHQ --- On 12/1/2010 3:37 PM, David Gilbert wrote: > > A good start would be for someone ... hello ARRL? ... to document key > clicks. A lot of good it does for me to have a rig with excellent 2 KHz > BDR only to have everything ruined by key clicks from some Yaesu rig > that neither the manufacturer nor the operator will fix. > > Dave AB7E __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
ARRL does include an oscillograph of a 60 wpm dit as well as a graph of the composite noise spectrum of the transmitted CW signal. But the average ham doesn't look carefully at this, or understand it. In my opinion, they should develop a standard way of specifying the bandwidth consumed by a keyed CW signal, expressed as a single number. Then you could compare transmitters and something problematic like the FT-1000 would stand out. On 12/1/2010 3:37 PM, David Gilbert wrote: > > > A good start would be for someone ... hello ARRL? ... to document key > clicks. A lot of good it does for me to have a rig with excellent 2 KHz > BDR only to have everything ruined by key clicks from some Yaesu rig > that neither the manufacturer nor the operator will fix. > > Dave AB7E > > > > On 12/1/2010 3:48 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote: >> >> Given the recent discussion on the FT-5000's transmitted phase noise, it >> would be nice to see if Bob could provide some independent testing of >> transmitters as well. > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html -- Vic __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
What Wayne should have said, "Not bad for a 9-pound rig, designed and made in America, by an American company, that starts at $1400. W0EB > Pretty close to a dead heat between the K3 and the FT5000, except > for blocking dynamic range (K3 is better by 13 dB) and filter > ultimate attenuation (K3 is better by 15 dB). > > Not bad for a 9-pound rig that starts at $1400. > > That said, I will now disqualify myself from the rest of this > thread :) > > 73, > Wayne > N6KR > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
A good start would be for someone ... hello ARRL? ... to document key clicks. A lot of good it does for me to have a rig with excellent 2 KHz BDR only to have everything ruined by key clicks from some Yaesu rig that neither the manufacturer nor the operator will fix. Dave AB7E On 12/1/2010 3:48 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote: > > Given the recent discussion on the FT-5000's transmitted phase noise, it > would be nice to see if Bob could provide some independent testing of > transmitters as well. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
On Dec 1, 2010, at 2:26 PM, K9ZTV wrote: > Sherwood sorts on Dynamic Range-Narrow Spaced, and both rigs are 101db at 2 > Kcs. If I correctly grok Rob's numbers, the K3 requires the use of a very narrow roofing filter (200 Hz) to attain the 101 dB of dynamic range (i.e., the two "beating" carriers are far away from the passband that the I.F. amplifier, the 2nd Mixer and the DSP codec sees). >From Rob's table, the K3's 2 kHz dynamic range degrades by 6 dB when you go >from a 200 Hz roofing filter to a 500 Hz roofing filter. For a digital mode op, the difference can actually be quite large, and not simply a case of "edging out." 73 Chen, W7AY __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
k9ztv wrote: > > I agree. > > Where is the edging out? > > Sherwood sorts on Dynamic Range-Narrow Spaced, and both rigs are 101db > at 2 Kcs. > > I'm confused by Bob's statement that it "edges out" the K3. > The nominal filter bandwidth for all (un-footnoted) 2 kHz measurements is 500 Hz, or the closest filter to 500 Hz. This has been the standard used by ARRL, Radcom and Sherwood for many years. At this bandwidth the K3 has 95 dB IMDDR3 using its 5-pole 500 Hz filter. Inrad's 8-pole 500 might be a dB closer, like the 96 dB listed for the 8-pole 400 Hz. The 5000 measurement is apparently using their 600 Hz roofing filter and a DSP BW of 500 Hz, so indeed it does "edge out" the K3 when using comparable filters. In other words, it achieves 101 dB with a 600 Hz roofing filter and the K3 achieves 101 dB using the 200 Hz 5-pole. 73, Bill -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Fwd-New-Sherwood-report-tp5793377p5793950.html Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
* On 2010 01 Dec 16:19 -0600, Ed Schuller wrote: > > > > http://www.sherweng.com/table.html I understand that Sherwood places a lot of emphasis on 2 kHz BDR. While that is a worthwhile measurement, I am concerned more about the Filter Ultimate (dB) column. Not only being 15 dB poorer than than the K3, note also that the FT-5000 is phase limited in this regard. It will take someone more educated than I to tell us what that means in practical terms, but it is one glaring difference between two radios that appear to be almost identical. Also, the FT-5000 being 13 dB poorer in the 100 kHz BDR column is also glaring and perhaps telling. Given the recent discussion on the FT-5000's transmitted phase noise, it would be nice to see if Bob could provide some independent testing of transmitters as well. At the end of the day it would appear that the Yaesu engineers have done their homework in some areas but left room for improvement. 73, de Nate >> P.S. My K3 is staying put. :-) -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Yes Wayne,not bad for a medium size radio that weighting just 9 pounds can be carried anywhere in a small bag instead of that monster yaesu that weights a lot and its not good to be transported to a dxpedition. Hector AD4C K3 # 2194 that was already in a dxpedition "If freedom means something,it is the right to tell others what they don't want to hear" –George Orwell --- On Wed, 12/1/10, Wayne Burdick wrote: From: Wayne Burdick Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report To: "Ed Schuller" Cc: "elecraft@mailman.qth.net" Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 9:18 PM Pretty close to a dead heat between the K3 and the FT5000, except for blocking dynamic range (K3 is better by 13 dB) and filter ultimate attenuation (K3 is better by 15 dB). Not bad for a 9-pound rig that starts at $1400. That said, I will now disqualify myself from the rest of this thread :) 73, Wayne N6KR Ed wrote: > http://www.sherweng.com/table.html __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
I agree. Where is the edging out? Sherwood sorts on Dynamic Range-Narrow Spaced, and both rigs are 101db at 2 Kcs. I'm confused by Bob's statement that it "edges out" the K3. If you take the other parameters into consideration, the K3 should be listed first and the 5000 listed second. 73, Kent K9ZTV On 12/1/2010 3:18 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote: > Pretty close to a dead heat between the K3 and the FT5000, except for > blocking dynamic range (K3 is better by 13 dB) and filter ultimate > attenuation (K3 is better by 15 dB). > > Not bad for a 9-pound rig that starts at $1400. > > That said, I will now disqualify myself from the rest of this thread :) > > 73, > Wayne > N6KR > > Ed wrote: > >> http://www.sherweng.com/table.html > __ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > > > > > > > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3291 - Release Date: 12/01/10 > > __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
Pretty close to a dead heat between the K3 and the FT5000, except for blocking dynamic range (K3 is better by 13 dB) and filter ultimate attenuation (K3 is better by 15 dB). Not bad for a 9-pound rig that starts at $1400. That said, I will now disqualify myself from the rest of this thread :) 73, Wayne N6KR Ed wrote: > http://www.sherweng.com/table.html __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
[Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
http://www.sherweng.com/table.html __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
