Re: [TenTec] Some Anecdotal NR observations -- Orion II

["Ron Castro" <ronc@sonic.net>]

YMMV: "Your Mileage May Vary"

Ron N6AHA


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Douglas Shock" <douglas.shock@gmail.com>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Some Anecdotal NR observations -- Orion II


> Good feedback Grant. I guess the issue I am observing is that there is a
> magic spot on signal strength where the signal is above the noise floor 
> but
> below a certain s-meter reading where distortion begins to occur.
>
>
>
> I never got this distortion on my mp or mp mark V. I don't get it on my
> ts-2000(although you can tell on both that it is running through the dsp).
> The best label I can apply to this distortion is scratchiness or phase
> distortion? I think scratchiness better defines it though in CW.
>
>
>
> I found that is most but not all cases, if you were dealing with a strong
> signal to begin with then outside of normal DSP distortion, this
> scratchiness is not present.
>
>
>
> What's YMMV mean?
>
>
> On 3/6/06, Grant Youngman <nq5t@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Been playing with it all day, on SSB, not CW.  So if CW is your only
> > interest, YMMV.
> >
> > 1.  40 Meters today is reasonably quiet, at least for this location --
> > band
> > noise about s-3/4 with peaks to s-5/6.
> >
> > Signals in the s-9/+ range sound very good at all NR settings.  It does
> > sound like increasing NR value is increasing the degree of NR applied,
> > rather than changing adaption rates.  That's the way it sounds, not
> > necessarily what's happening.  The notion that once adapted nothing
> > changes,
> > doesn't seem to hold up in the current implementation.  NR is very
> > effective
> > with a decent signal to work with -- a nice, clear, mostly noise free
> > channel.  On the 7290 traffic net today, for example, with mostly s-8/9
> > signals, it would be hard to ask for better NR.  The background noise
> > wasn't
> > 9+20, either, and it's a good bet the results might have been different 
> > if
> > it had been.
> >
> > Around the noise level peaks, meaning signals around s-6/7 and below the
> > signals begin to distort, but not enough to reduce intelligibility
> > markedly
> > unless they were very weak, although they got scratchier sounding the
> > close
> > they were to the noise level.
> >
> > 2.  20 Meters is really quiet for a change, with band noise hardly moving
> > the meter.
> >
> > Any signal over S-2/3 or so sounded very good with NR applied.  Weaker
> > signals that didn't wiggle the meter at all would distort significantly
> > when
> > NR was turned on. A/B comparisons with a very good external NR box let me
> > to
> > believe that the II was every bit as good (or bad, depending on how you
> > look
> > at it) as the external contraption.  With the external box you put up 
> > with
> > the "underwater" distortion, and the II gave you "scratchy" distortion
> > close
> > to the band noise limit.  I was never able to find any circumstance where
> > the external processor actually made the signal any more intelligible 
> > than
> > the II.
> >
> > None of this proves anything of course, and I no longer have a 1.371 
> > Orion
> > to compare it with.  I do think I recall plenty of circumstances where
> > 1.371
> > was unable to make miracles happen, either.  And before you jump on me,
> > I'm
> > not claiming "Mission Accomplished" :-)  Just "yes, it does work", and if
> > it
> > can be even better down the road, then that's terrific.
> >
> > Grant/NQ5T
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec