Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Minimum\s+discernible\s+signal\s+\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Minimum\s+discernible\s+signal\s+\?\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: Minimum discernible signal ? (score: 1): Author: ab2cj@nais.com (Tony AB2CJ); Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:20:27 -0500; Greetings all There is much talk about the ICOM 756 Pro's low noise floor and weak signal capabilities when compared to analog or AF DSP receivers. The shape factor of the DSP filters are on the orde; /archives//html/Topband/2001-01/msg00105.html (8,778 bytes)
2. Topband: Minimum discernible signal ? (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:36:15 -0500; Hi Tony, That's fine Tony, but you have to consider the spacing of the test signals used in the ARRL tests. Virtually all receivers today have a roofing filter that follows the first mixer. This filt; /archives//html/Topband/2001-01/msg00110.html (15,638 bytes)
3. Topband: Minimum discernible signal ? (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:54:47 -0500; Very interesting message, Tom. Makes me wonder why someone with the necessary technical smarts doesn't offer a modification for better CW to a popular transceiver (the FT-1000MP comes to mind). If In; /archives//html/Topband/2001-01/msg00114.html (7,983 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]