Bob,
Your data are in pretty fair agreement with my rough measurements on
2.056: http://blog.aa6e.net/2006/07/orion-keyclick-checks.html .
Risetime isn't the only thing to consider for keyclick potential. The
actual rise/fall waveshape (nominally raised-cosine) matters too. My
measurements showed that v1 produced fewer sidebands (clicks) than
v2.056, especially when running at < 100 W.
All this work on the latest firmware revision is very fine (doing what
TT should have done in beta test? ;-), but I've decided (along with
others) that v 1.372 still works better for me. The final straw was the
audio level changes that would not let me run soundcard digital modes
without extra amplification.
73 Martin AA6E
Bob Cunnings wrote:
> I wanted to see if v2.059d improved the accuracy of the cw rise/fall
> time setting, so I took a scope home this weekend and looked:
>
> Rise time results in ms, average of 5 measurements:
>
> Indicated Measured
>
> 3 2.1
> 4 2.7
> 5 3.4
> 6 4.0
> 7 4.7
> 8 5.3
> 9 6.0
> 10 6.6
>
> Generated dits with internal keyer into a Bird Termaline load at 7.035
> MHz. Sampled with 7:1 resistive divider (3500 ohm total) across load,
> measured with Tek TDS210 with sweep of 500us/div or 1ms/div, depending
> on setting. Vertical scale at 1V/div and output power adjusted to fill
> screen, power setting was "42". Tried to be careful with placement of
> cursor for measurement, but numbers probably no better than +/- 0.2
> ms.
>
> Bob NW8L
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|