I wondered when somebody would comment on that. It seems like it's at
least a tie.
Larry N8LP
On 12/5/2010 5:15 PM, elecraft-requ...@mailman.qth.net wrote:
> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:23:28 -0500
> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV"
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherw
> Given the recent discussion on the FT-5000's transmitted phase noise,
> it would be nice to see if Bob could provide some independent testing
> of transmitters as well.
Sherwood's testing already contains the necessary information on phase
noise ... see the LO noise column. From the list,
gt; clicks at
>>>>> some distance from the Fc. That pattern is characteristic of a
>>>>> deficient
>>>>> ALC system.
>>>>>
>>>>> A deficiency in the ALC system then takes us into SSB Tx IMD. The
>>>>> publi
MD numbers look great with the ARRL's steady tone method but
>>> arguably, that's probably more relevant to data modes. The question is
>>> "what is the FTdx5K's ALC doing to undermine the rig's otherwise excellent
>>> SSB Tx IMD numbers, especia
> Another way of investigating is with a spectrum analyzer - and for
> investigation of a transmitted signal on one band, it does not have to
> be expensive (but must be homebrewed to be inexpensive).
Another solution for simple spectrum analysis is SDR-IQ and the CP-1
directional coupler are
gt;
> The Yaesu Ft5000 has the edge in this department.
>
> 73
> John
> --- On Wed, 12/1/10, K9ZTV wrote:
>
>> From: K9ZTV
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
>> To: "elecraft@mailman.qth.net"
>> Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 2:2
Interesting ... why does Rob put the FT-5000 above the K3?
2 KHz IMDDR are the same (101 dB) ... FT-5000 filter ultimate
rejection is *poorer* than the K3, LO noise is *poorer* than
the K3, 100 KHz blocking is *poorer* than the K3. Sensitivity
and noise floor are comparable depending on which pr
> By the way, if you have a P3 you can see the spikes on make, break, or
> both on the
> waterfall. You can spot the rigs that are using semi-QSK that have a big
> spike on the
> first dit and then quiet down, too.
Same with relative SSB IMD monitoring. I've been looking at the area near
the S
By the way, if you have a P3 you can see the spikes on make, break, or both on
the
waterfall. You can spot the rigs that are using semi-QSK that have a big spike
on the
first dit and then quiet down, too.
On 12/3/2010 1:35 PM, Paul Christensen wrote:
> I would tend to throw out problems that
> Yes 99% of all CW stations clicks at the "break" side.
That's an unusually high percentage from what I recall seeing in the QST
Product Reviews during the past twenty years. So, I looked at the CW
waveforms of the more notorious transceivers. It seems to be an even mix
between leading edge
Yes logical at least to me. Well English is my second language
but still makes it difficult.
Yes but if the fall time is longer the discontinuity will be
less abrupt and by so make it easier for a bad regulating device,
if you understand what I mean.
We want to shape the first part of the envelope
t;>>>
>>>>>> Referring to the December, 2010 QST Product Review on p.45, take a
>>>>>> look at
>>>>>> the leading edge of the second pulse (lower trace) in Figure 1. The
>>>>>> sharp
>>>>>> rise a
On Dec 3, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Jan Erik Holm wrote:
> Yes 99% of all CW stations clicks at the "break" side.
That makes perfect sense, Jan.
If they are using simple IIR filters, the slope discontinuity is worse at the
onset of switching than when it is at the end of the leading edge or trailing
a
>>>> deficient
>>>> ALC system.
>>>>
>>>> A deficiency in the ALC system then takes us into SSB Tx IMD. The
>>>> published
>>>> FTdx5K Tx IMD numbers look great with the ARRL's steady tone method but
>>>> arguably, th
lman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Jan Erik Holm
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 9:47 AM
> To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
>
> Waveform? When you have a 1 ms raise/fall time no way yo
No I do not experience key clicks with my own K3. I don´t know
what it sounds like and it´s no idea to ask anyone either.
It is all the other K3´s that are on the air that has "mild keyclicks"
Yes there are hot switching amps and QSK amps that aren´t
correct, I usually can detect those.
No it´s
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Paul Christensen
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 10:56 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
> Why, yes IMO the K3 clicks too much.
Jim,
If you're experiencing clicks with your K3, you really need to inv
Barry N1EU wrote:
>
>It's only an advantage when you're trying to ward off a key clicking
>neighbor. If your potential neighbors would have non-clicking rigs, there
>is no advantage. In any case, you are just being a jerk (or worse) if
>you're knowingly producing key clicks.
>
>Barry N1EU
>
>
Paul and all,
Another way of investigating is with a spectrum analyzer - and for
investigation of a transmitted signal on one band, it does not have to
be expensive (but must be homebrewed to be inexpensive). See the
implementation by G4AON at http://www.astromag.co.uk/ssa/
It is quite a ni
ted on what we need for monitoring rather than general bench work.
Design and cosmetics appear to be commensurate with the Elecraft K3.
Paul, W9AC
- Original Message -
From: "Jan Erik Holm"
To:
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood rep
On Dec 3, 2010, at 12/36:44 AM, Jan Erik Holm wrote:
> So now we have a 2 ms claim for the K3. I know I measured it to 5 ms
> but this was something like 2 years ago.
>
> What is it? Can Elecraft please tell.
Quite possibly the waveshaping is done by an FIR window. So the
design paramete
Yes I do know that it´s not the rise/fall time
alone, that has never been my point. However
one factor is the rise/fall and if it´s too fast
it will not be possible to fix it with shaping.
Why, yes IMO the K3 clicks too much. I know it
can be done since there are radios around that
doesn´t click a
> OK. AFAIK at 4 ms a CW TX will have to much
bandwith. Even the K3 at 5 ms (if it hasen´t changed
since I measured it) do have "mild clicks".
It' not strictly the rise/fall time, it's the shape of the RF envelope
within the rise/fall time.
http://www.w8ji.com/cw_bandwidth_described.htm
Using t
estion is
>> "what is the FTdx5K's ALC doing to undermine the rig's otherwise excellent
>> SSB Tx IMD numbers, especially in Class A?" Really, the published Tx IMD
>> figures are meaningless unless dynamic testing is conducted to simulate
>> rapid c
rwise excellent
> SSB Tx IMD numbers, especially in Class A?" Really, the published Tx IMD
> figures are meaningless unless dynamic testing is conducted to simulate
> rapid changes in power associated with voice modes.
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> - Original Message -----
>
OK. AFAIK at 4 ms a CW TX will have to much
bandwith. Even the K3 at 5 ms (if it hasen´t changed
since I measured it) do have "mild clicks". I wish
the K3 could be set to something like 7 or 8 ms.
/ Jim SM2EKM
On 2010-12-03 14:43, Barry N1EU wrote:
>
>
> Jan Erik Holm wrote:
>>
>>
in power associated with voice modes.
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "Jan Erik Holm"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
>
>
>> Yes but to what rise/fall time was
Of course I agree. However there are far far too many
that doesn´t care, they will do anything they can to
find ways. There are people modifying their radios to
get more key clicks, there are people with a "class C"
switch on their amplifiers, etc ect it goes on and
on.
It´s a rotten world and some
ures are meaningless unless dynamic testing is conducted to simulate
rapid changes in power associated with voice modes.
Paul, W9AC
- Original Message -
From: "Jan Erik Holm"
To:
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
>
It's only an advantage when you're trying to ward off a key clicking
neighbor. If your potential neighbors would have non-clicking rigs, there
is no advantage. In any case, you are just being a jerk (or worse) if
you're knowingly producing key clicks.
Barry N1EU
Jan Erik Holm wrote:
>
> Yes
Only if it is not important to make contacts with folks that don't tolerate
poor operating techniques.
--... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy
>
> > Wouldn't having bad key clicks be an advantage in a contest?
___
Jan Erik Holm wrote:
>
> Yes but to what rise/fall time was the radio set? AFAIK in
> the FT5000 it can be changed.
>
It was most likely set to the default 4 msec. It can be set to 1, 2, 4, 6
msec.
Barry N1EU
--
View this message in context:
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Fwd-New-She
d Gilbert"
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 8:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
>
>
>> They already have - See the keying bandwidth spectral plots in the ARRL
>>
Yes but to what rise/fall time was the radio set? AFAIK in
the FT5000 it can be changed.
/Jim SM2EKM
---
On 2010-12-02 02:43, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft wrote:
> They already have - See the keying bandwidth spectral plots in the ARRL
> reviews. The FT-5000 is considerably wider tha
* On 2010 01 Dec 16:57 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2010 01 Dec 16:19 -0600, Ed Schuller wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
>
> I understand that Sherwood places a lot of emphasis on 2 kHz BDR. While
> that is a worthwhile measurement, I am concerned more about th
On Dec 2, 2010, at 12/24:32 AM, Barry N1EU wrote:
> Are you saying that wide sidebands measured with the rig at 4msec
> rise-time are probably not going to be even wider with the rig at 1
> msec rise-time?
Not that much, since the really far off keyclicks are mostly from
higher order di
Compare to results shown here;
http://www.remeeus.eu/hamradio/pa1hr/productreview.htm
Adrian ... vk4tux
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:
Barry,
What is being said is that the *shape* of the rise and fall times is
important, not the absolute timing of the rise of fall time.
In other words, the transitions of the waveshape are the important
parameters - if the transitions are smooth rather than angular, they are
less likely to ge
Are you saying that wide sidebands measured with the rig at 4msec rise-time
are probably not going to be even wider with the rig at 1 msec rise-time?
Barry N1EU
Kok Chen wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Barry N1EU wrote:
>
>> It's absolutely amazing, after years of Yaesu being called
On Dec 1, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Leigh L. Klotz Jr WA5ZNU wrote:
> Kok Chen provides some good references for CW transmit shaping, but
> cocoaModem source isn't available for hams to look at.
Sure it is. cocoaModem sources has been public from the time cocoaModem was
written in the days Mac OS X 10
Kok Chen provides some good references for CW transmit shaping, but
cocoaModem source isn't available for hams to look at.
fldigi also offers a choice between raised cosine and Blackman window for CW
TX, and the source is in the fldigi distribution at src/cw_rtty/cw.cxx
available from http://w1hk
I agree with Al -- the Sherwood Engineering tables are mostly lost to me. I
understand that the K3 is a very good radio compared to others as pointed out
by this information but I couldn't tell you if that information was useful to
me. For example, way down on the list is the Icom 756 Pro III
Tables like this one mean almost nothing to me. Dynamic range is so good across
the board that it's now overrated. When you're talking about differences of a
few dB other details start to matter much more. For instance, the chief factor
that pushed me off the fence toward a K3 was it's diversity
> The rise time by itself is not the important factor -- what is much more
> important are first and second order discontinuities, and even higher
> order discontinuities.
Evidence of this comes from our K3s. Some time back around F/W version 3.0,
the CW rise/fall time was accelerated. My K3
On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Barry N1EU wrote:
> It's absolutely amazing, after years of Yaesu being called out and doing
> nothing about key clicks in their rigs, that they would bring out a radio
> (FT-5000) and provide the user the ability to reduce the cw rise-time to 1
> msec (menu mode, cw
Not sure how I missed that. I just did a side by side comparison of the
ARRL CW spectral plots for both the K3 and the FTdx-5000, and there is
certainly a difference. 30db down from the peak appears to be +/- 350
Hz for the FTdx-5000, and about +/- 125 Hz for the K3 as best I could
determine
Hmm. I'm not seeing that in the data. Could you please point me to
where you are looking?
73, Byron N6NUL
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:27 PM, juergen wrote:
>
> The Ft5000 has better PA than the K3. Its IMD performance is way superior to
> the K3 especially on the higher bands and 6 meters. It s
e K3's transmitter.
>
> I find it interesting that so many observers harp endlessly about the Yaesu
> Keyclick problems and totally ignore the issue of the K3's poor SSB IMD.
>
> The Yaesu Ft5000 has the edge in this department.
>
> 73
> John
> --- On Wed, 12/1/10, K9ZT
ZTV wrote:
> From: K9ZTV
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
> To: "elecraft@mailman.qth.net"
> Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 2:26 PM
> I agree.
>
> Where is the edging out?
>
> Sherwood sorts on Dynamic Range-Narrow Spaced, and both
>
Only if someone thinks that annoying everyone around them is the route to
success...
73,
Ken Alexander
VE3HLS
> Wouldn't having bad key clicks be an advantage in a contest?
>
> Steve N4LQ
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailma
Vic K2VCO wrote:
>
> ARRL does include an oscillograph of a 60 wpm dit as well as a graph of
> the composite
> noise spectrum of the transmitted CW signal.
>
Yeah, but at what rig settings?
It's absolutely amazing, after years of Yaesu being called out and doing
nothing about key clicks in th
Wouldn't having bad key clicks be an advantage in a contest?
Steve N4LQ
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft"
To: "David Gilbert"
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
>
They already have - See the keying bandwidth spectral plots in the ARRL
reviews. The FT-5000 is considerably wider than the K3.
73, Eric WA6HHQ
---
On 12/1/2010 3:37 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>
> A good start would be for someone ... hello ARRL? ... to document key
> clicks. A lot of good it d
ARRL does include an oscillograph of a 60 wpm dit as well as a graph of the
composite
noise spectrum of the transmitted CW signal. But the average ham doesn't look
carefully at
this, or understand it.
In my opinion, they should develop a standard way of specifying the bandwidth
consumed by
a
What Wayne should have said, "Not bad for a 9-pound rig, designed and made in
America, by an American company, that starts at $1400.
W0EB
> Pretty close to a dead heat between the K3 and the FT5000, except
> for blocking dynamic range (K3 is better by 13 dB) and filter
> ultimate attenuation (
A good start would be for someone ... hello ARRL? ... to document key
clicks. A lot of good it does for me to have a rig with excellent 2 KHz
BDR only to have everything ruined by key clicks from some Yaesu rig
that neither the manufacturer nor the operator will fix.
Dave AB7E
On 12/1/
On Dec 1, 2010, at 2:26 PM, K9ZTV wrote:
> Sherwood sorts on Dynamic Range-Narrow Spaced, and both rigs are 101db at 2
> Kcs.
If I correctly grok Rob's numbers, the K3 requires the use of a very narrow
roofing filter (200 Hz) to attain the 101 dB of dynamic range (i.e., the two
"beating" car
k9ztv wrote:
>
> I agree.
>
> Where is the edging out?
>
> Sherwood sorts on Dynamic Range-Narrow Spaced, and both rigs are 101db
> at 2 Kcs.
>
> I'm confused by Bob's statement that it "edges out" the K3.
>
The nominal filter bandwidth for all (un-footnoted) 2 kHz measurements is
500 Hz,
* On 2010 01 Dec 16:19 -0600, Ed Schuller wrote:
>
>
>
> http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
I understand that Sherwood places a lot of emphasis on 2 kHz BDR. While
that is a worthwhile measurement, I am concerned more about the Filter
Ultimate (dB) column. Not only being 15 dB poorer than th
thing,it is the right to tell others what they don't want
to hear" –George Orwell
--- On Wed, 12/1/10, Wayne Burdick wrote:
From: Wayne Burdick
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Fwd: New Sherwood report
To: "Ed Schuller"
Cc: "elecraft@mailman.qth.net"
Date: Wednesday,
I agree.
Where is the edging out?
Sherwood sorts on Dynamic Range-Narrow Spaced, and both rigs are 101db
at 2 Kcs.
I'm confused by Bob's statement that it "edges out" the K3.
If you take the other parameters into consideration, the K3 should be
listed first and the 5000 listed second.
73,
K
Pretty close to a dead heat between the K3 and the FT5000, except for blocking
dynamic range (K3 is better by 13 dB) and filter ultimate attenuation (K3 is
better by 15 dB).
Not bad for a 9-pound rig that starts at $1400.
That said, I will now disqualify myself from the rest of this thread :)
http://www.sherweng.com/table.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.ne
63 matches
Mail list logo
