Dick, I believe you are mis-interpreting the data. This is the response of the receiver to a broadband source. Is the fact that this is from a noise generator confusing you? We are displaying the capability and shape of the receiver response, and it has nothing to do with the fact that the source is broadband noise. Look at the broadband noise source as if it were a LOT of signals, all of the same amplitude but of slightly different frequencies, so close together that you cannot tell where one ends and the other starts. Within the receiver passband, the ideal is 0 (all other levels are referenced to that), and outside the passband there would ideally be no response at all (a very large negative number) - that would indicate a perfect filter with infinite skirt slope and a perfectly flat top.
The K3 has nearly the ideal response within the passband (all zeros) while the MP varies a little bit (this is normal for a filter). Outside the passband - take the 3100 Hz point for example - the lowest response is better. Here the MP had a response only 42 dB below the maximum in-passband response while the K3 had a response that is 67 dB lower than the peak within the passband. So, out of the passband (and at this point), the K3 is 27 dB more quiet than the MP. 73, Don W3FPR r...@aol.com wrote: > Interesting data but what am I missing here? "Note the K3 audio amplifier > is the cleanest hands down". Looking at the data below, doesn't it show > that in the 22 audio ranges from 50-3200hz that the MP has a lower noise > level in 12 out of 20 ranges and is about identical in most of the others? > Doesn't a lower negative number = a lower noise level? > > > ______________________________________________________________ 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
