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
>
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|