Iain MacDonnell - N6ML-2 wrote:
>
> Sorry, but it's NOT *required*. It may be strongly recommended, but
> it's not required. I've been using LP-Pan successfully for months
> without the mod. I'm sure it's not optimal. and once in a while there
> are signals that I can copy by ear through the K3 that CW Skimmer
> can't decode, but to say that the mod is *required* is a bit of an
> overstatement.
>
Perhaps not if you're happy to give away 17 dB of sensitivity. My primary
use of LP-PAN is for a waterfall to detect weak signals on 160. It was
obvious when I first got LP-PAN working in April 2008 that there was a major
sensitivity problem.
http://n2.nabble.com/K3-Buffer-Mod-tt741709.html#a741709
http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00357.html
73, Bill
--
View this message in context:
http://n2.nabble.com/K3-output-buffer-modification-tp4262685p4268150.html
Sent from the [K3] mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
______________________________________________________________
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
