Gary,
I'm interested in learning more about this technique. Can you recommend any
reference material on the subject?
Thanks,
Lin
WB1AIW
Gary Hoffman wrote:
> Incidentally, I also have professional experience with adaptive noise
> elimination.
>
> I agree completely with the comments below. Has nothing to do with
> bandwidth as measured on a scope.
>
> Obviously, we all know narrow filters help - a lot !
>
> But in software, with enough processor, one can simply delete bits which are
> noise bits, and leave in bits which are signal bits. Then go through D to A
> and one reconstructs the original signal, minus the noise. Bandwidth
> having nothing to do with it.
>
> This works exceptionally well.
>
> 73 de Gary, AA2IZ
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <k6kdk@k6kdk.net>
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Questions about NR i.e. Orion
>
>
>
>>Ahhhh Hummm... I agree w/ "Buck".. (speaking as a software-type here..)
>
> a
>
>>true NR system implemented in software is capable of "intelligently
>>manipulating" noise and signal in a way that can not be detected on a
>
> scope.
>
>>It is fully possible (in software) to make determinations about which bits
>>are noise which are information, pass and reject the bits on the fly,
>>interpolate the intelligence through (create it artificially and insert it
>>into the bit stream for later D/A) and a whole host of other "tricks" to
>>improve intelligence throughput for a human user. You will never see this
>>manipulatiuon on a scope no matter how hard you try.
>>
>>For some more informatiuon on these type of schemes see Flex Radio
>>documentation on their site about what they call "NB2". I mentioned
>
> before
>
>>on a previous post that I thought TT should outsource the NR to NCT
>>Technologies who developed many such audio/ human listener NR codes under
>>military contract. They now will license it out for a price.
>>
>>I don't want to bore you with recounts of my past victories in this realm.
>>Nothing is worse than listenting to some retired software guy tell you how
>>he could do it with one hand tied behind his back, but I once got paid a
>>bunch to write just such code for a customer of ours that had severe noise
>>(from RF interference) into a SMPTE time code track on his very expensive
>>little black boxes. His boxes could no longer "hear" the information
>
> stream.
>
>>We cleaned that right up for him, no problem !
>>
>>73s -Dan K6KDK
>>
>>==================snip=========================
>>I submit the only way to check the NR function is by listening. It
>
> either
>
>>works or it doesn't.
>>
>>It hasn't worked since version 1.371.
>>
>>K4ia "Buck"
>>Fredericksburg, Virginia USA
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Grant Youngman" <nq5t@comcast.net>
>>To: "'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'" <tentec@contesting.com>
>>Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:36 AM
>>Subject: Re: [TenTec] Questions about NR i.e. Orion
>>
>>
>>
>>>>MDS, S/N and similar measurements with NR on must be peformed
>>>>completely with the signal present, and not by switching the
>>>>signal on and off.
>>>
>>>>This means that the only way to do it is by spectral
>>>>analysis, with due care paid to subtle issuses like windowing
>>>>functions, bin size, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>I've been poking at NR on and off for a couple of days now on 2.032.
>>
>>Using
>>
>>>an Elecraft N-gen noise generator to a Daven RF attenuator (to control
>
> the
>
>>>fixed output of the N-gen), with an 8640B providing the signal, and both
>>
>>fed
>>
>>>to the radio through a TT 651 hybrid. And watching the whole thing on
>>>Spectrum Lab. AGC off (really very fast), and the RF gain reduced
>
> enough
>
>>to
>>
>>>keep the signal out of the AGC range.
>>>
>>>With no signal present, NR drops the noise output to about -30dB
>>
>>(relative).
>>
>>>But the baseline noise level increases with the application of a signal
>
> to
>
>>>about -18dB. NR drops both signal and noise level when turned on
>
> relative
>
>>>to the levels without. The noise component in the passband is rolled
>
> off
>
>>>fairly gently by what appears to be a a very broad filter effect, so
>
> it's
>
>>>most likely that SNNR is increased, but I'm not sure how to measure it
>>
>>from
>>
>>>what appears on the display. The signal peak actually seems to decrease
>>
>>by
>>
>>>2-3 dBu relative to the noise at the baseline right in the vacinity of
>
> the
>
>>>signal, but there is noise rolloff above and I think below the signal
>>>(although the lower side is harder to ascertain). It shows up best if
>>
>>SPOT
>>
>>>is set relatively high, such as around 1 Khz.
>>>
>>>There is no indication of any very narrow or steep-sided bandpass filter
>>>being applied, so the filter itself looks relatively simple and quite
>>
>>broad.
>>
>>>Actually, it looks much like what I see from a couple of external
>>>audio-based DSP gizmos.
>>>
>>>My recollection of pre-1.372 NR performance, on SSB signals, is that the
>>>high frequency rolloff in particular was possibly more pronounced.
>>>
>>>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
>
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|