All,
While the suggestions of simulating contest conditions for testing may
have merit, I believe the existing tests demonstrate that the low phase
noise of the K3(S) allows you to 'saddle up' closer to an offending
station in a contest or DX Pileup. The 2kHz test results does indicate
that to me.
Just how much improvement is gained for each receiver is open to some
question, and depends on what tools are available and used. Certainly
the K3(S) APF function would be of help with its 30Hz peak, but if
testing is to be conducted using very closely spaced multiple signals,
then it would be necessary to specify which of the interference
abatement tools were used on each receiver. I doubt if Rob Sherwood
would want to buy into that form of testing, there are simply too many
variables in that all receivers do not have the same interference
fighting tools.
A long time ago, I built a receiver based generally on the HBR-16
design, except that it used a double-coupled 85kHz IF instead of the
100kHz IF. I added a Q-multiplier stage at 85kHz, and it was fantastic
at pulling a signal out from the 'mud'. I have no idea about the
dynamic range or the 2kHz test for it, but it was quite capable. The
K3(S) APF provides similar capability to the Q-multiplier of old.
73,
Don W3FPR
On 10/25/2016 10:32 AM, Bill Frantz wrote:
I like Brian's idea of simulating contest conditions to test receivers.
Such a simulation would need to be reproducible and good enough that it
can't be gamed. For testing CW reception, perhaps a fixed set of signals
modulated through a very linear SSB modulator would work. That could
give at least 2KHz of signals for the receiver to handle.
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
