Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Receiver\s+performance\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Receiver\s+performance\s*$/: 42 ]

Total 42 documents matching your query.

21. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: G3SEK@ifwtech.demon.co.uk (Ian White, G3SEK); Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:11:38 +0000; When doing a comparative review of several DSP audio filters, I found that most - but significantly not all - units gave good CW filtering performance right down to the lowest signal/noise ratios. I; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00673.html (10,660 bytes)
22. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:12:39 -0500; Hi ian, That's because the filters you tested are after the receivers analog selectivity. Look at the 756PRO reviews coming out, where it is compared to things like the 1000MP. 73, Tom W8JI w8ji@cont; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00679.html (9,657 bytes)
23. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:12:40 -0500; I've been listening to narrow filters all my life, and I never notice any problems. Maybe someone can explain to me how phase distortion affects a CW signal? Even on SSB, phase distortion is minor.; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00681.html (9,971 bytes)
24. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: G3SEK@ifwtech.demon.co.uk (Ian White, G3SEK); Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:59:48 +0000; Which "that" are you referring to, Tom - the good low-noise performance of the selective DSP filters, or the ineffectiveness of the DSP noise reduction? 73 from Ian G3SEK Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00696.html (10,281 bytes)
25. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:54:10 -0500; All of the above. The noise reduction is ineffective, because the waveshape of noise and signals are virtually the same once the noise passes through a filter anywhere close to the same BW as the si; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00710.html (9,783 bytes)
26. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:07:20 -0000; I think the noise performance is different because the AF DSP filters will have their noise floor determined by the receiver, and thus the noise input likely to be a long way above the floor of the D; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00726.html (9,412 bytes)
27. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: W4EF@pacbell.net (Michael Tope); Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 04:21:54 -0800; I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with DSP technology. A DSP signal processing block will have an intercept point and a noise floor associated with it. As long as the designer place; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00737.html (10,395 bytes)
28. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:38:03 -0000; sound >design principles - e.g. proper gain distribution, then it will work. As Shakespeare said 'Aye, there's the rub!' I quite agree, Mike. Unfortunately, I guess the hype is overdone. For relative; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00738.html (9,640 bytes)
29. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:19:50 -0500; 38 kHz is a lot closer to audio than 9 MHz would be. The flaw is in our "labels". The shortfall of DSPs aren't "frequency" problems or "AGC" problems. Moving the DSP from 300-3000 Hz to 38.000- 41.30; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00745.html (10,156 bytes)
30. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:25:56 -0000; Maybe we have to define exactly what is meant by dynamic range here. It would appear from the DSP gurus that by oversampling, we should be able to get the 'dynamic range'. My boss just brought me som; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00748.html (10,069 bytes)
31. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: lomax1@prodigy.net (lomax1@prodigy.net); Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:43:23 -0800; Hi all I've been reading this thread for a while and want to ask a question. When one sees tests done on receivers they typically will give figures for such things as blocking dynamic range or 3rd or; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00749.html (9,609 bytes)
32. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: W4EF@pacbell.net (Michael Tope); Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:45:50 -0800; I don't think we disagree, Tom. Are you saying that the DSP in the FT1000MP and or TS950SDX is at 38KHz? I thought they were at audio, but admittedly, I never looked at the block diagrams. I just ass; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00750.html (11,229 bytes)
33. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:18:58 -0000; Firstly, I'm not entirely sure what is meant by 'blocking dynamic range'. I've always measured blocking as a composite measurement - feed in a signal at nominal sensitivity, say -107dBm - and then in; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00755.html (12,106 bytes)
34. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: rfamps@ic24.net (Steve Thompson); Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:03:12 -0800; I like my R4C too. I've snipped the bit about phase noise and IP3 for brevity, but it goes to show the danger of partial knowledge and/or information. Steve -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00759.html (8,755 bytes)
35. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: sheepdip@continet.com (Larry L. Ravlin); Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:54:30 -0800; Amen on the R4C. I had one with the Sherwood mods and you would be hard pressed to find a current rcvr that would come even CLOSE to the performance of that radio. Larry L. Ravlin AKA (Laurence the M; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00762.html (10,468 bytes)
36. SV: [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: sm5ki@algonet.se (sm5ki); Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:00:57 +0000; I may be wrong: but any receiver, even the poorest, can have a fantastic intercept point if you put enough attenuation at the input? So, I guess, and I only guess now, that the intercept point is onl; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00764.html (10,952 bytes)
37. SV: [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: sm5ki@algonet.se (sm5ki); Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:43:34 +0000; Hello Peter: Why do you not tell us a little about the test of the new IC 756PRO in the recent issue of your RADIO COMMUNICATIONS? And someone in Germany: what did CQ-DL say about dynamic range? 73s; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00765.html (11,142 bytes)
38. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:06:50 -0000; I don't know what I can say, Hans. One thing I do know is that lab tests are fien, but whatever receiver it is, you need to put it on the air to find out if it's any good. Then when you find a proble; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00767.html (9,288 bytes)
39. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:12:55 -0000; Hans, the There is the question of how much sensitivity you need. On 80m at night for example, you don't need a 10dB noise figure. 73 Peter G3RZP -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00768.html (8,542 bytes)
40. SV: [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: i4jmy@iol.it (i4jmy@iol.it); Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:20:15 +0100; The intercept point itself is not very significative in receivers and other sensitive low level RF instrumentation like spectrum analyzers. What count's is the resultant between dynamic range and noi; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00770.html (9,552 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3]