Wow! Is this thread still going?
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Philip Townsend Lontz phi...@mac.comwrote:
But dude... Are your wires made of silver? And laid in organic cotton
sleeves by pure virgins on a full moon just after a mercury retrograde?
A wise man once said nothing
On
But dude... Are your wires made of silver? And laid in organic cotton sleeves
by pure virgins on a full moon just after a mercury retrograde?
A wise man once said nothing
On Nov 3, 2013, at 11:29 PM, Gary Hinson g...@isect.com wrote:
The next thing you know, someone somewhere is going
The next thing you know, someone somewhere is going to claim that Elecraft
radios soldered with 63/37 solder sound superior to those soldered with a
different blend.
I used silver solder in the audio section, of course, but now I'm concerned.
Should I have used it in the RF sections too?
My
Bill...
Every time I attempt to use APF I encounter so much ringing that it's
more or less unusable. I'd appreciate any hint that you might have about
taming this feature for use. Thanks.
...robert
On 10/23/2013 15:29, Bill W4ZV wrote:
drewko wrote
If you want to go lower than 300 Hz for
RobertG wrote
Bill...
Every time I attempt to use APF I encounter so much ringing that it's
more or less unusable. I'd appreciate any hint that you might have about
taming this feature for use. Thanks.
Hi Robert,
Reduce the gain and narrow the XFIL/DSP bandwidth such that the desired
Guess I don't follow... When APF is engaged, SHIFT will change the APF
center frequency. If you dial SHIFT for 270, RIT for -30 Hz, then
SHIFT APF to 270 (assuming your PITCH is 300 Hz), signal will be
centerd with a 270 Hz tone.
73,
Drew
AF2Z
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 08:29:44 -0700 (PDT), you
drewko wrote
If you want to go lower than 300 Hz for your preferred cw pitch you
could offset the RIT for the lower tone then compensate with SHIFT to
bring it back to the center of the filter. A keyswitch macro could do
this automatically if you hve a set pitch in mind, say 270.
That doesn't
Sverre Holm (LA3ZA) wrote
To sum up the interesting studies from the early 90's on Morse code
recognition and the effects of pitch frequency, signal to noise ratio and
code speed I posted the abstracts of some of the Montnemery papers on my
blog as well as some key illustrations.
See
If you want to go lower than 300 Hz for your preferred cw pitch you
could offset the RIT for the lower tone then compensate with SHIFT to
bring it back to the center of the filter. A keyswitch macro could do
this automatically if you hve a set pitch in mind, say 270.
It would be nice if there
The KWM-2 was IIRC 1500 Hz -- and my FPM-300 was 1750. *That* was too much, and
inspired a relay-switched front -panel RIT control. The design reason was
sound (no pun intended, for once) enough; the transmit IF filter had to
suppress harmonics of the keyed tone for a pure signal. This is
You are right about all of that, but the original post (and the original QST
letter to which it referred) appeared to be talking about copying a single
signal, rather than the complex process of discriminating between two signals
close to each other, and it implied some near-universal
I prefer the Golden Ratio for my solder, but 63/37 is often the best I can
find. Sadly.
wunder
K6WRU
On Oct 19, 2013, at 11:22 PM, Al Lorona wrote:
You are right about all of that, but the original post (and the original QST
letter to which it referred) appeared to be talking about copying
I don't have perfect pitch, but I have pretty good pitch. For example, I
can tune in a RTTY signal without any tuning aids.
As a high speed CW guy, I once experimented with various base frequencies to
see if it affected my upper speed limit. My hypothesis was since square
waves are odd harmonic
Unless you're using APF, in which case a few Hz might make a
difference.
Like others, I don't buy the musical CW pitch theory either. However,
the pitch of a CW note IS important, and there may be different
optimum pitches for various different reception conditions (assuming
your hearing response
There is a study from 1992 that tested recognition rate vs pitch frequency.
Unfortunately only a few tones were tested, but at least one can infer that
a low tone is preferrable. This is in Montnemery, Peter, Bengt Almqvist, and
Sten Harris. Recognition of telegraphy signs at different listening
Are you saying they don't?
On 10/19/2013 11:22 PM, Al Lorona wrote:
The next thing you know, someone somewhere is going to claim that Elecraft radios soldered with 63/37 solder sound superior to those soldered with a different blend.
Al W6LX [who listens at about a D-flat]
I think I'll replace all my K3 wiring with Monster Cable and replace the
speaker with a Bose Wave system
Shouldn't be needed, however..
*G..r..i..n.. *
Rich
NU6T
On 10/19/2013 11:22 PM, Al Lorona wrote:
You are right about all of that, but the original post (and the original QST
Hi Jim,
My only gripe is that the K3 choice range doesn't go down to 400 Hz. I'd like
to use 440, a pure standard A.
73,
Oliver
W6ODJ
On 19 Jan. 2013, at 22:30 PM, Jim Brown j...@audiosystemsgroup.com wrote:
On 10/19/2013 2:36 PM, Al Lorona wrote:
When I was a kid 750 Hz was the most
Oliver,
My K3 goes down to 300Hz!
73 Stephen G4SJP
On 20 October 2013 18:43, Oliver Johns ojo...@metacosmos.org wrote:
Hi Jim,
My only gripe is that the K3 choice range doesn't go down to 400 Hz. I'd
like to use 440, a pure standard A.
73,
Oliver
W6ODJ
On 19 Jan. 2013, at 22:30
My only gripe is that the K3 choice range doesn't go down to 400 Hz.
It certainly does - it goes down to 300 Hz. However, I find A4 a bit
low for my taste - I'm satisfied with a 3.88 Hz error on B4 or 3.25 Hz
error on C5.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 10/20/2013 1:43 PM, Oliver Johns wrote:
Hi
Oliver,
I've used my K3 on 440 for several years.
73 Don K5AQ
__
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
I'm using 1.69 beta firmware that stops at 400 Hz.
I'm just happy that the 1 kHz sidetone that was almost standard for many
years is no longer popular. All of my radio licensing CW tests at the FCC
offices used 1 kHz. That made my brain ache, not to mention the tendency for
it to echo when using
What 1.69 beta firmware?
Current/Latest Production release is 4.67
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 10/20/2013 3:22 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
I'm using 1.69 beta firmware that stops at 400 Hz.
I'm just happy that the 1 kHz sidetone that was almost standard for many
years is no longer popular.
I assume you are talking about the KX3 beta firmware. This discussion has
been about the K3 sidetone pitch. Production firmware level for the K3 is
4.67.
Bruce N1RX
I'm using 1.69 beta firmware that stops at 400 Hz.
__
Elecraft
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Oliver Johns ojo...@metacosmos.orgwrote:
...440, a pure standard A...
Gee, maybe it's a good thing radio wasn't invented back in the days when A
was 415.
Tony KT0NY
__
Elecraft mailing
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 06:36:00 -0700 (PDT), Sverre Holm (LA3ZA) wrote:
Based on this result, it would be interesting to zoom in on the frequencies
between 250 and 500 Hz for further testing, also higher speeds would be
interesting to test as 40 and 80 is the same as 8 and 16 wpm. Peter
On 10/20/2013 1:46 PM, mcduf...@ag0n.net wrote:
All this said, remember if you are detecting tones ELECTRONICALLY (not by
ear/brain cooperation), higher frequencies work better. The reason is the same
as what makes VHF PL tones work better when they are in the higher end of the
chart. There
, 2013 1:34 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] CW Pitch Resolution
What 1.69 beta firmware?
Current/Latest Production release is 4.67
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 10/20/2013 3:22 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
I'm using 1.69 beta firmware that stops at 400 Hz.
I'm just happy
To sum up the interesting studies from the early 90's on Morse code
recognition and the effects of pitch frequency, signal to noise ratio and
code speed I posted the abstracts of some of the Montnemery papers on my
blog as well as some key illustrations.
See
A few Hertz either way in the CW pitch not only doesn't make a lot of
psychoacoustical difference, but is hardly perceptible unless you have
near-perfect pitch, and even then isn't necessarily a problem.
Changing the pitch probably has more to do with the self-resonant frequencies
of your
It's pitch differentiation. 100 Hz away from 750Hz is a lot closer in
pitch than is 100 Hz away from 400 Hz.
73 - Jim K8MR
In a message dated 10/19/2013 5:36:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
alor...@sbcglobal.net writes:
When I was a kid 750 Hz was the most popular sidetone
I have to agree with the assessment that there being one ideal pitch for
CW is bunk. It's a load of nonsense.
I'm a person who CAN perceive even tiny deviations in pitch, but CW is
information encoded in the on/off timing, not in the pitch, so it seems
really weird to me to try to make it
On 10/19/2013 2:36 PM, Al Lorona wrote:
Changing the pitch probably has more to do with the self-resonant
frequencies of your speaker enclosures or headphones, and room.
or in my head. Getting somewhat empty up there as I accumulate
birthdays, lots of room to create echoes and other
On 10/19/2013 2:36 PM, Al Lorona wrote:
When I was a kid 750 Hz was the most popular sidetone frequency. I have noticed
a steady decrease in the consensus spot frequency over these 40 years. I don't
know why.
I'll inject some science into the discussion based on my profession of
Hi Folks:
The CW pitch resolution in my K3 seems to be 10 Hz per step. A recent article
in QST
spoke of 432 Hz as being a sweet spot frequency based on musical notes. A quick
search
on frequencies of real musical notes shows hardly any are at integer values.
Note -- Freq -- Wavelength
D4
Hi John,
I read that article too. Personally I think it is a lot of bunk. It
assumes perfect hearing.
Where ones sweet spot is depends upon his hearing and hearing
degradation. The closest pitch to 432 Hz is 429.97 Hz on my K3.
Some people's sweet spot may be 700 Hz-- since 432 Hz may be
Of Brian Alsop
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 9:46 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] CW Pitch Resolution
Hi John,
I read that article too. Personally I think it is a lot of bunk. It assumes
perfect hearing.
Where ones sweet spot is depends upon his hearing and hearing degradation
http://tonometric.com/adaptivepitch/
On 10/13/2013 9:46 AM, Brian Alsop wrote:
Hi John,
I read that article too. Personally I think it is a lot of bunk. It
assumes perfect hearing.
Where ones sweet spot is depends upon his hearing and hearing
degradation. The closest pitch to 432 Hz is
There is no reason to be scientific about your CW pitch setting.
Set the pitch to the tone you prefer and can hear the best. Use a CW
filter. If you don't have one get one.
Amateure Radio Operator N5GE
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:46:21 +, you wrote:
Hi John,
I read that article too.
Hz tuning from the presumed center.
73, Ron AC7AC
-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of John Seney
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 7:03 AM
To: Elecraft Elecraft
Subject: [Elecraft] CW Pitch Resolution
Hi Folks
40 matches
Mail list logo
