Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] Re: Re: Mission Impossible

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] Re: Re: Mission Impossible
From: sm2cew@telia.com (Peter Sundberg)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 15:51:40 +0100
Here we go again...  
As soon as we start talking about bad sounding transmitters the discussion
drifts away and people start questioning the receivers instead !

What we heard during the contest was genuinely poor signals from a number
of stations, not receiver overload !

I used up to 30 db of attenuation while listening and the distorsion and
splatter was still there. Some had distorsion to the extent where I could
hardly hear what the guy was saying and this had nothing to do with my
receiver being overloaded.

Face it, many stations sound bad, and given what they run we know it takes
som knowledge on their side to make the equipment sound that bad.... or are
they unaware ?? I doubt it !

Peter/SM2CEW

 


At 14:20 2000-03-07 +0200, you wrote:
>
>What has not been mentioned in this discussion, is the performance of
>noise blankers on amateur receivers, which when "in", contribute more
>than their fair share of clicking noises to a strong signal, ala ICOM
>IC746.
>
>Ian ZS6BTE
>
>
>Peter Chadwick wrote:
>> 
>> Craig says:
>> Military receivers of the late 1980s had intercept points of
>> around +30dbm
>> 
>> Receiver intercept point isn't everything.
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
>Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
>Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
>Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
> 

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>