N6AHA: Given the way the radio is designed I would expect that the Main RX would always be used to control the transmissions and the Sub would be used for listening only. K4IA: No, no, no I use the S
** When I look at the keying waveform in the review article the first dit shows up on the antenna AFTER the second dit is produced at the key. No VOX, No QSK, gonna be fixed real soon tho, yep real s
W4ABW: NQ5T: Definitely better keyclicks. Also able to hear 2 kHz IMD birdies ~20 dB better...even after the Inrad roofing filter mod. http://www.sherweng.com/table.html Not to mention Yaesu's incred
I had an MP for 6+ years before getting my Orion. Microbus with paint missing. Look under the hood...exactly the reverse is true. Do you prefer cosmetics or performance? Same issue for the Icom Pro f
Buck I cannot argue with you. Unfortunately it may be the case that it is never completely "right". That said, the other benefits of Orion far outweigh most of the firmware issues for my operating. I
W2RBA: the latest version of the software and my Orion I -- the headphone jack quit! I loaded it last night and everything seemed quite good; today I was testing it some more and at one point reached
NI0C: Me too Chuck! Age 61, licensed in 1957. But Keith is 6 years older than us so we may be about to lose our hearing. I really pity these kids who shake my car's rear view mirror with their ultra-
N8ME: minimum length? If so, my observations have a strange quirk. I don't remember the exact numbers, but as I was reducing the bandwith from say, 1000 Hz, at 280 Hz, the filtering went wide open. H
N6KB: microwave waveguide. Energy transfer from outside to the ear drum is no doubt much more efficient at higher audio frequencies. Indeed this is correct. The ear's actual peak response is around 3
Here's another interesting link on the ear and CW (Chapter 14 of The Art and Skill of Radio-Telegraphy): http://www.zerobeat.net/tasrt/c14.htm 73, Bill W4ZV
NQ5T: filter selection to 20 Khz, and also improved although less so at 6 KHz. With a 2.4 Khz roofing filter in line, the DSP NR had virtually no effect on the specific form/content of 75M garbage th
NQ5T: "With a 2.4 Khz roofing filter in line, the DSP NR had virtually no effect on the specific form/content of 75M garbage this morning." Did you mean to write NB instead of "NR" above? correct, NR
OE3ZK replied: Article in QEX, Jul/Aug 1998 "Signals, Samples and Stuff, A DSP Tutorial Part 3 - DSP Noise Reduction Methods" totally.... What did you see that is anything but an automatic method for
filters to get. I went fo the 1.8 and 300 but I might change this. I figured that the 1.8 would work well for naroow SSB, and that for CW, the 300 would be better. My thinking is that the 1k will wor
NQ5T: correct statement. In any case, there is additional improvement. It is clearly audible, and there is a clear difference between the signal+noise output to noise-only output with NR on versus NR
YT1NT replied: Correct....measured using Spectrogram but I have never received an explanation from Ten-Tec, although I have asked several times. There is obviously some other effect going on because
NQ5T: Grant, I don't believe the 331A is True RMS. It uses a tunable notch filter to eliminate the fundamental and measures the harmonic content of what remains with an average-responding meter. The
My memory is correct! "The Agilent 331A uses the average-responding detector. This type of detector is calibrated to indicate the rms value of a signal (1.11 times the average value of the rectified
NQ5T: respective boats (or not) is based on something besides actual performance. Which is why I set out to make some measurements. And even though there were some issues with the first attempts at i