Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Topband: Re: Sept/Oct NCJ article on DX Prowess (LONG)

To: topband@contesting.com, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Re: Sept/Oct NCJ article on DX Prowess (LONG)
From: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 13:30:47 -0400
List-post: <mailto:topband@contesting.com>
        Attached is a response from Tadek SP7HT to my
recent letter.  Tadek is not on this reflector so I'm forwarding
his response.  As you can see, Tadek targeted his article
primarily to the DX community and not contesting.

73, Bill

W4ZV wrote:
>Hi Tadeusz,

I just got my new NCJ and scanned your article. I was surprised by the following statement (next to last paragraph on page 4):

"These statements mean for me that somebody unfamiliar with all measurement set-up and procedures nuance cannot use data derived "directly" from Swept BDR or IMD DR3 oscilloscope graphs close to the listening frequency instead of point results measured manually. Therefore, I have consequently used in my Table only manually measured test point data at 5 kHz and 20 kHz spacing.?

I had believed that ALL discrete points plotted on the ARRL graphs came from manual measurements, so I asked Mike KC1SX who did ARRL's measurements.
I see Mike copied you on his reply which did confirm that ALL discrete measurement points in the ETR swept graphs are done manually. Thus the IMD and BDR data down to 1kHz spacing (always the innermost point in all ARRL plots since 1997) are perfectly valid for comparison (although sometimes difficult to interpolate...I notice Mike has included the 1 & 2 kHz measurements in the tables for the IC-7800 ETR).


SP7HT Response:
>May be, that was caused by language problem.

English is not even my second but a third language. During my professional career in satellite microwave telecommunication I?ve made hundreds of SWEEP Amplitude / Frequency Response, Group Delay Response (and so on) graphs. They ALL have been made automatically in decided frequency range. The result was always a SOLID line.

In case of point measurements the result was a Table or graph with results indicated. Sometimes, an approximation was made between points. But there have to have be used a DOTTED or DASHED line (never solid line) between measured points.

Therefore my interpretation of SOLID line used in ?Swept BDR? and ?Swept IMD DR3? graphs was as made during automatic CONTINUOS SWEEP in programmed frequency range.

I think that terminology of ?Swept BDR? and ?Swept IMD DR3? is misleading for me.

And the question: why, if they are made ?point manually?, are they named ?Swept??
I propose rather ?close and wide range BDR? and ?close and wide range IMD DR3? instead of.


Now I know that all are manually made point data.

W4ZV wrote:
In general, I agree with much of what you said, but have some significant differences in the following areas:


1. 5 kHz spacing (BDR and IMD) is far too wide for realistic situations in my opinion. I actually favour ARRL's 1 kHz measurements as being more realistic, especially for contesters. When do you last recall a contest with signals spaced only 5 kHz? In my opinion, 500 Hz or even closer is much more common, especially in the major contests.

SP7HT Response:
>As in stated above (in my article title and many times in the article text I?ve consequently pointed out that ?it is valid for DX oriented Hams?.) My article was directed towards DX Community and NOT towards Contester Community.


W4ZV wrote:
>2. By only looking at 5 kHz spacing, several of the receivers you reviewed appear to be much better than at much closer spacing. A good example is the Elecraft K2. I have a K2 and like it very much for its intended use, but the receiver basically falls apart at close signal spacing. BDR drops to ~116dB and IMD drops to ~67dB for 1 kHz spacing. Compare this to Orion with BDR of ~119dB and IMD DR3 of ~84dB at 1kHz spacing (ARRL data using the 1000 Hz roofing filter).


SP7HT Response:
>I fully agree with you. Have you experimented with 2 diodes across Xtal Filter in K2 receiver chain? Such modification has been announced by Elecraft some time ago.


W4ZV wrote:
>3. Given "proper design" (similar to your "not good" comment on page 11 about IMD DR2 and IP2), I would rank IMD DR3 as the most important parameter for the following reasons:


a. Unless you have an extremely close neighbour, or unless your BDR is terrible, BDR is not likely to be as significant a problem as IMD DR3. The reason is very simply that BDR performance is normally much higher than IMD DR3, so the latter becomes the most critical since you will reach the IMD DR3 limit sooner. W8JI cites an example on 160 below where he sees the maximum dynamic range needed being around 95dB. As long as BDR is above this number, or unless you have a very close neighbour operating at kW power levels, any BDR above 95 dB should be sufficient.
<http://www.w8ji.com/receiving.htm>http://www.w8ji.com/receiving.htm


SP7HT Response:
>I think, this is Contester point of view, when many strong signals are inside main selectivity Crystal Filter pass-band.


But, in typical DX-Pedition pileup, they are spread out from 5 kHz to 15 kHz from the listening channel. Such case ? in my opinion - the BDR is the main factor because:
a) even single, but strong enough signal, can cause blocking,
b) for IMD DR3 problems two strong signals, with strict frequency relation shall appear at the same time (less probability to occur). I repeat: this is DX?Pedition Hunters point of view.


W4ZV wrote:
>b. Phase noise also becomes critical at very close signal spacing. An example of poor phase noise performance is the IC-7800. At close spacing of 1 and 2kHz, you can see in ARRL and RSGB results that Phase Noise overrides the receiver's IMD and BDR performance (see asterisks by measurements on pages 17 & 18 of ARRL's ETR). As KC1SX describes on page 34 of his August 2004 QST article, Phase Noise becomes "effective BDR on a noise limited measurement". I fully agree with ARRL's definition since it makes no practical difference to the user whether the source of the noise is due to the internal BDR or Phase Noise performance. Thus, assuming the receiver's Phase Noise is always below IMD and BDR, it is not so important. But of course if Phase Noise is poor, then it becomes more important than either BDR or IMD DR3 since it will over-ride those effects at close spacing.


c. Assuming Phase Noise is below both BDR and IMD DR3 effects, and assuming BDR is "adequate" for your operating conditions, then I feel very close spaced IMD DR3 (1kHz or even less) becomes the critical parameter. This is primarily because it is not uncommon to have many strong signals spaced at 500Hz (or even less) in a contest capable of creating IMD DR3 products. This was my primary motivation in working with Inrad to develop the 600Hz #762 filter for Orion. At this BW, even 500Hz spaced signals will fall outside the +/- 320Hz 6dB BW of the #762, and will be attenuated by >20dB (and hence IMD DR3 products should be attenuated by >60dB).
<http://users.vnet.net/btippett/inrad_.htm>http://users.vnet.net/btippett/inrad_.htm


SP7HT Response:
>Yes, I am watching ?Orion Digest? mailing with most interesting comments / news and I?ve noticed your modification several weeks ago.


W4ZV wrote:
>I would rank very close-spaced IMD DR3 as my #1 criteria, as both W8JI and Sherwood Engineering do. Granted, this assumes that both BDR and Phase Noise are "adequate" as described above. W8JI has some very practical advice below which relates to what levels of MDS, BDR and IMD DR3 are "good enough".
<http://www.w8ji.com/receiver_tests.htm>http://www.w8ji.com/receiver_tests.htm


SP7HT Response:
>You are (as W8JI is) a 160 meters operator and you reflect in your opinion realities of that band.


I am not 160 meters operator: I live in block of flats in big town. The local industrial noise level is so high that, even using ANC-4, it is hard to receive DX even on 80 meters. DX operation on 160 is not possible yet. Therefore I am planning to build FLAG or Pennant antenna on the roof. I do not know if it will improve the situation.

I do not have any experience on 160. I can only receive your opinion as a new piece of knowledge about top band demands for effective DX-ing. Thanks for that.

I?ll look Websites you have advised me.

Many thanks for all.
Tadek, SP7HT




_______________________________________________ Topband mailing list Topband@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband

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