Topband: ANC-4 and MFJ-1026 Comparison

[Markus Hansen]

Hi Peter:

Thank your for response regarding the ANC-4 and MFJ-1026.  You made a very
good point and something we should never over look, (I will make it clearler
on my web site) about TONS of variables.  Every ham radio installation is
different from another's!.  So what works for you and me may produce
different results if someone else incorporates the same set up at their
location.

And it is also important to realize that Lab testing of equipment as
important as it is, and I am an ardent believer in Lab testing, is different
than real world situations with equipment connected to real antenna's.

SP7HT,  Tadek,  just sent me an email regarding his experience using the
ANC-4 and I have asked him to forward it to TOBAND as it is worthwhile
information for those who use noise cancellers.

What I appreciate about the TOPBAND community is the willingness to share
their real world experiences and *experiments* regarding 160 meters, *instead
of casual observations.*  Let's keep it that way!

Markus  VE7CA

Markus Hansen
VE7CA,   North Vancouver, BC  CANADA
Web site:  http://www.shelbrook.com/~ve7ca/



On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:05 PM, <w2pm at aol.com> wrote:

>
> Nice work and good comparisons.  However I think it's important to note
> that noise nulling effectiveness is subject to local conditions which
> encorporate TONS of variables, and variables of variables.  I have also
> observed the ANC-4 to be easier to null, WHEN you can get a null and the MFJ
> difficult, and frustrating, but you can often find a null after all the work
> and it's deep and effective.  But not always.  There are times the MFJ
> can't.   The fixed gain of the noise input on the ANC4 I found to be the
> largest problem with that unit which prevented find a null (where the MFJ
> can) and the "fix" to that was an attenuator on the noise input. WHen I did
> that, I often achieved a null after-all. Sometimes as good as the MFJ,
> sometimes not quite as good.  But then the complexity of the tuning
> increased on the ANC4.  Conversely, I have found the noise level on the MFJ
> to be too low at times, and run a switched noise pre-amp on it which I
> sometimes need to use. Consider that I have 4 to 6 noise antennas out there
> in any given season switching through each to get the best effect,
> regardless of the unit.
>
> After I put in most of the 8JI mods in the MFJ, it became consistently
> better than the ANC4 on 160.  Not so much so on the higher bands where the
> ANC4 was as-effective most of the time.
>
> For a relatively small station here, my noise abatement systems and
> "infrastructure" is quite complex. Multiple receive antennas, multiple noise
> antennas, multiple noise nullers, several complex switches and LOTS AND LOTS
> of cables, wires, adapters and connectors.  I love it..  Keeps me off the
> streets.
>
>
>
> Pete W2PM
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Hansen <mkve7ca at gmail.com>
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Sent: Fri, Dec 11, 2009 6:23 pm
> Subject: Topband: ANC-4 and MFJ-1026 Comparison
>
>
> During the last six months I have been comparing the relative effectiveness
> of the ANC-4 and MFJ-1026 Noise Cancellers.  I built a simple relay
> operated
> switching circuit so I could instantly change from one unit to the other in
> order to measure the difference between the two units when listening to
> real
> live interference, ie. noise, TV birdies etc.
>
> The results of my tests and oberservations are on my web site at:
>
> http://www.shelbrook.com/~ve7ca/Ant160.htm<http://www.shelbrook.com/%7Eve7ca/Ant160.htm>
>
> --
> Markus Hansen
> VE7CA,   North Vancouver, BC  CANADA
> Web site:  http://www.shelbrook.com/~ve7ca/<http://www.shelbrook.com/%7Eve7ca/>
> _______________________________________________
> 160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M
>



-- 
Markus Hansen
VE7CA,   North Vancouver, BC  CANADA
Web site:  http://www.shelbrook.com/~ve7ca/