I?ve recently acquired a Kachina 505 and ave done some
subjective comparisons of the filtering in it vs. the
Pegasus and IC-765. For the same SSB bandwidth the
Pegasus filter seems to be about the same as the 765
for shape factor, the 505 clearly has the better shape
factor than either the Peg or 765.
Another area that was interesting to compare was the
Noise Reduction of the Peg vs. 505, there are some
very notable differences with each radio having a
distinct adavntage depending on what you are trying to
do. For relatively loud signals (about S-7 and
greater) the Pegasus NR did a better job of ?erasing?
the noise without adding any ?watery? sounding effects
to it like the 505 tends to do. For reducing the noise
around a really weak signal however the 505 has a
distinct edge, it will make marginally readable
signals more copyable, the Peg?s NR does little or
nothing for those same conditions.
Other than these two areas there doesn?t seem to be
that dramatic of a difference between the Kachina 505
and Pegasus for performance. In the end the Pegasus
wins overall by virtue of its software support.
Duane
N9DG
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
> >
> > > Very interesting, Gary, and thanks!
> > >
> > > I have made detailed spectral comparisons
> between the IF DSP filters in
> > the
> > > ICom 756 PRO, the Kachina 505DSP of similar
> architecture and the Icom 765
> > > with conventional crystal filters. There is no
> comparison whatever between
> > > the shape factors and overall shapes of the PRO
> filters compared to any of
> > > the others. The PRO filters are mathemetically
> nigh perfect in shape and
> > > performance. I think that you have found that
> the Pegasus IF DSP filters
> > > are not the equal to the conventional INRAD
> filters - that is very
> > > surprising to me.
> >
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
|