Yes, there have been improvements in the DSP of K3. One of the reasons of selling my K3#46 was the artifacts of the DSP. I have recently acquired another K3 in the second hand market with later production. I do notice there have been improvements.
I am mainly a phone operator with ocassional digital mode at PACTOR 3. Among the 4 x 8 =32 selections in the NR, I find it difficult to get one effective among the 32 choices. From my past and present experience of my Icom families, I know what are the limitations of NR. I am looking for a simple but effective NR which can cut 'some of the noise' with least artifacts, and also easy to work with. At this moment, I still prefer the NR in my Icoms. Having said that, I know the smart guys in Elecraft will keep on improving the K3 so that hopefully we will have better performance in later version of firmware. cheers, Johnny VR2XMC ----- 郵件原件 ---- 寄件人﹕ Ron D'Eau Claire <r...@cobi.biz> 收件人﹕ Elecraft <Elecraft@mailman.qth.net> 傳送日期﹕ 2010/11/28 (日) 12:14:47 AM 主題： Re: [Elecraft] K3: noise reduction performance This is a good example of just how subjective "improvement" can be. Sure, the "hash" is gone, but it's replaced by the "underwater" warbling sound so common with highly processed audio. Personally, I find that warbling variation in the audio far less pleasant than the noise. Ron AC7AC -----Original Message----- > > Below are several links to audio recordings of a product I used to own. It > is called the BHI ANEM (Mk. II). Sadly, I sold it after getting the K3. I > should have hung on to it as it has become my benchmark for NR performance. > > These are some sample recordings of the ANEM being turned on and off. These > recordings are found on W4RT's website > > 20 m SSB <http://www.w4rt.com/BHI/20Mband-ssb.wav> > 80 m SSB <http://www.w4rt.com/BHI/80conv-ssb.wav> > 80 m SSB <http://www.w4rt.com/BHI/80Mconv2-ssb.wav> > > I've also compared the K3's NR performance to that of the Icom 756 Pro 3 > which has similar NR reduction properties - albeit not as effective - as the > ANEM. > > Perhaps I am being subjective or overly critical, but one thing you can > easily notice with the ANEM recordings is that speech volume doesn't get as > affected as the K3s. This is really surprising to me as the NR for the ANEM > is AF rather than IF like what's used in our radios. This leads me to > believe that the ANEM's NR algorithms are more effective in reducing > background noise while leaving speech unaffected. > > What do you guys think? > > Sorry for the long email. Many thanks in advance for your ideas/suggestions. > -- > 73 de James K2QI > President UNARC/4U1UN ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
