Is most of this discussion on NR in the K3 from users who would like to improve the SNR on louder signals for easier listening in noisy conditions?
I get the impression we have people expecting different things from these controls. The optimum AGC and NR design strategy to improve SNR for weak signals might be quite a different story than for stronger signals and noise, even if the SNR's are initially the same. That might show up fairly dramatically on a rig with as large a dynamic range as the K3. Since I mostly worry about readability on really weak signals I've had a bit of a hard time understanding what this was all about. I just use settings similar to those suggested by W3FPR and K6LL and I've been very happy with the results ... which are much better than any Icom or Kenwood I ever owned. 73, Dave AB7E Lee Trout wrote: > I agree with Roy Morris. No amount of tinkering with the parameters > significantly improves the NR on the K3. > > The Kenwood 480 has dual NR's, one for CW and one for SSB. Both are much > more effective than the K3's NR without causing any degradation to the signal > that I can detect. Thus I use the 480 rather than the K3 under noisy > conditions and/or QRN. > > I wonder at times if the concept is wrong; perhaps it would be better to > forget about "signal enhancement" and concentrate on the noise reduction. > > 73, Lee (K9CM) > > ______________________________________________________________ > 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
