Good feedback Grant. I guess the issue I am observing is that there is a
magic spot on signal strength where the signal is above the noise floor but
below a certain s-meter reading where distortion begins to occur.
I never got this distortion on my mp or mp mark V. I don't get it on my
ts-2000(although you can tell on both that it is running through the dsp).
The best label I can apply to this distortion is scratchiness or phase
distortion? I think scratchiness better defines it though in CW.
I found that is most but not all cases, if you were dealing with a strong
signal to begin with then outside of normal DSP distortion, this
scratchiness is not present.
What's YMMV mean?
On 3/6/06, Grant Youngman <nq5t@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Been playing with it all day, on SSB, not CW. So if CW is your only
> interest, YMMV.
>
> 1. 40 Meters today is reasonably quiet, at least for this location --
> band
> noise about s-3/4 with peaks to s-5/6.
>
> Signals in the s-9/+ range sound very good at all NR settings. It does
> sound like increasing NR value is increasing the degree of NR applied,
> rather than changing adaption rates. That's the way it sounds, not
> necessarily what's happening. The notion that once adapted nothing
> changes,
> doesn't seem to hold up in the current implementation. NR is very
> effective
> with a decent signal to work with -- a nice, clear, mostly noise free
> channel. On the 7290 traffic net today, for example, with mostly s-8/9
> signals, it would be hard to ask for better NR. The background noise
> wasn't
> 9+20, either, and it's a good bet the results might have been different if
> it had been.
>
> Around the noise level peaks, meaning signals around s-6/7 and below the
> signals begin to distort, but not enough to reduce intelligibility
> markedly
> unless they were very weak, although they got scratchier sounding the
> close
> they were to the noise level.
>
> 2. 20 Meters is really quiet for a change, with band noise hardly moving
> the meter.
>
> Any signal over S-2/3 or so sounded very good with NR applied. Weaker
> signals that didn't wiggle the meter at all would distort significantly
> when
> NR was turned on. A/B comparisons with a very good external NR box let me
> to
> believe that the II was every bit as good (or bad, depending on how you
> look
> at it) as the external contraption. With the external box you put up with
> the "underwater" distortion, and the II gave you "scratchy" distortion
> close
> to the band noise limit. I was never able to find any circumstance where
> the external processor actually made the signal any more intelligible than
> the II.
>
> None of this proves anything of course, and I no longer have a 1.371 Orion
> to compare it with. I do think I recall plenty of circumstances where
> 1.371
> was unable to make miracles happen, either. And before you jump on me,
> I'm
> not claiming "Mission Accomplished" :-) Just "yes, it does work", and if
> it
> can be even better down the road, then that's terrific.
>
> Grant/NQ5T
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|