Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Walter Underwood wrote: > ...S2 noise was silent, even on a wilderness peak > === Nothing new. John Keats noted this in 1816, when he and his fellow SOTA ops: "...looked at each other in wild surmise, Silent upon a peak in

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

the ext preamp. It shows about one s-unit lower noise due to less gain than > the Gasfet. > > But with "two bars" if you actually measured noise power it would probably > still be about -120 dBm or higher. Still on HF that is *quiet*. > > 73, Ed - KL7UW > > From: Wa

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

two bars" if you actually measured noise power it would probably still be about -120 dBm or higher. Still on HF that is *quiet*. 73, Ed - KL7UW From: Walter Underwood <wun...@wunderwood.org> To: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (l

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

What he said Has got me rethinking my approach somewhat. I still believe I have the optimum transceiver (k3) available given I will never rely on software to control my dx chasing. Gary On Oct 28, 2016 05:55, "Lewis Phelps" wrote: Al, thanks for a very informative and helpful

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

Al, thanks for a very informative and helpful discussion. This sort of posting is what makes the Elecraft listserv so valuable. Lew N6LEW > On Oct 24, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Al Lorona wrote: > > Receivers are always ranked by the "2 kHz third order dynamic range", such as

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

The main commercial interests in subjective audio noise reduction, particularly for speech, are probably the hearing aid industry. It is subjective because noise reduction only really removes noise that isn't interfering. That is still useful, as whilst the human brain can also do that, it

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

OK, I can't resist. I turned on my KX3 at about 0018z on Oct 26. It was set up for 20M PSK tuned to 14.070 with a DSP bandwidth of 2.5KHz. I showed one bar (S1) of S meter with occasional flashing of the second bar (S3). The preamp was off and it was in DATA A mode. The antenna is a 2 element

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

Oops, that is Willson Peak (yes, double-L) and it is 2-3 miles to the nearest house. wunder K6WRU Walter Underwood CM87wj http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > On Oct 25, 2016, at 2:43 PM, Walter Underwood wrote: > > >> On Oct 25, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Edward R Cole

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

> On Oct 25, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Edward R Cole wrote: > > I wonder where in the world one sees a 20m noise floor that low when antenna > is connected? Only when I lived off the grid running on battery power did I > see S0 noise on my radio (3.9-KHz with TS180S from a

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

ecraft Reflector <elecraft@mailman.qth.net> Subject: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long) Receivers are always ranked by the "2 kHz third order dynamic range", such as at: http://www.remeeus.eu/hamradio/pa1hr/productreview.pdf but do we really grasp the

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

I assume that Don means a 30Hz wide peak below. While I have found APF to be good for digging out weak CW signals near the noise level, I have found a 50-100Hz bandwidth works better when there are nearby strong signals. (I have the 250Hz crystal filter.) The K3 won't let me narrow the DSP

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

All, While the suggestions of simulating contest conditions for testing may have merit, I believe the existing tests demonstrate that the low phase noise of the K3(S) allows you to 'saddle up' closer to an offending station in a contest or DX Pileup. The 2kHz test results does indicate that

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

There is another frontier. That is noise/RFI reduction. The Pandora's box of RFI has been opened and can't be shut at this point. We need to address the issue of noise reduction and noise blanketing in some quantitative way to compare various RX's. Right now the "comparisons" are all

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

Before I bought my K3, I discussed the radio with someone in the booth at Radiofest, a small hamfest held near Monterey, CA. After I had learned a very little bit about the radio, I had my wife (KI6SLX), a retired QA engineer for Apple, discuss UI issues. When she said it seemed OK, I wrote a

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

EXCELLENT excellent excellent post...Great summary. The listen ability and ease of ergonomic operability are the reason I love radios with knobs. This is what the maestro is trying to do for for the Flex 6XXX radios. There is just not a better box for both on the market other than the K3, K3s,

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

Al, As a CW op, I consider the 2 KHz away figures interesting not really relevant. I want to know how well a receiver is able to separate a weak signal from strong signals 50-100 Hz away. It would be interesting to speculate how such a measurement would be done. Let the RX use whatever

Re: [Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

Nice explanation Al. It's nice to know that the K3 ranks high on the charts, but I agree that 'usability' and 'listenability' are underrated. Before I purchased my K3, I went to AES in Wickliffe and listened to several receivers. I liked the sound of the Kenwoods, but I liked the 'modularity' of

[Elecraft] [K3] The Way We Rank Receivers (long)

Receivers are always ranked by the "2 kHz third order dynamic range", such as at: http://www.remeeus.eu/hamradio/pa1hr/productreview.pdf but do we really grasp the meaning of these specs? For instance, the Elecraft K3's (after synthesizer upgrade) number is 103 dB, good enough to be in the top