Why would you not want to look at the noise footprints with a spectrum analyzer? Your ear may tell you that there is something there that you don't like, but the spectrum analyzer will tell you what it is. If you are making audio files, send me a copy and I'll take a look at them for you and send you picture of each of the displays. It would be nice to get to the bottom of this topic.
73, Dave AB7E Al Lorona wrote: > Hi, Everybody, > > What great comments I got from you in private e-mail messages. It's highly > interesting getting your perspectives on receivers and listening. > > Due to day job and family I can't respond to every observation and objection > but in particular Doug KR2Q-- who has some of the best ears in ham radio-- > did tell me something I had already thought about which was that it might be > better to record a signal instead of just noise. Let me tell you why I chose > not to do that, at least for this first run of the test. > > Sticking with a signal-free CW passband allowed me to keep the test as equal > as possible between the receivers. I was able to set the record levels within > about 1 dB, and since noise isn't affected by QSB making all of the > recordings on the same frequency in a period of a few minutes helped to > equalize the test as well. In other words I came as close as I could to > simultaneously recording the same thing on all three receivers. Most > importantly, I was hoping to hear from those folks who can hear tones, > digital artifacts, and other noise up around 10 kHz which is what started > this whole "noisy K3" thread in the first place, and we certainly don't need > a signal present to do that. In short, this was not a real-world test, it was > a contrived laboratory test to listen for one specific thing (noises) > independent of any signals. On purpose. > > Remember, the whole point of this is, given that the K3 has measurable noises > that irritate many operators, we would like to find out if in a double-blind > type of test whether these noises are significant enough to enable a positive > identification, without looking at a spectrum analyzer, without > post-processing the audio, without making any other measurements, just by > trusting what your ears are telling you. So if you want to play, no > performance-enhancing substances are allowed. :^) Many folks can identify a > Chevy 350 engine or a Stradivarius violin while blindfolded because they hear > a unique signature in those sounds. Could the same be true of a K3? > > These tests will tell us if the high frequency digital artifacts that many > claim to hear are the fingerprint that betray a K3. We'll run another test > very shortly. Please stay tuned. I hope you think this is fun. > > Regards, > > Al W6LX > ______________________________________________________________ > 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
