K3S Noise reduction Test

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

K3S Noise reduction Test

wa9fvp
I did a comprehensive test of the K3S noise reduction system and uploaded the same document to the Elecraft_K3 Yahoo group.


Elecraft_K3_NoiseReduction.pdf

Here's what I concluded.

Settings Fn-1 provides the least noise reduction.  Fn-2 and Fn-3 noise levels are almost the same and one setting could be eliminated.  Fn-4 provides the most noise reduction and having 3 settings, it would simplifying NR adjustments.  The NR delays that is, F1-n through F4-n, could be added to the configuration menu.  There are delay differences in the noise ripple but aurally, with a complex voice waveform, there’s no distinction between the delay settings.


Don't get me wrong! I'm not that saying there's something wrong with the K3/K3S noise reduction. It works very well!  I think there are too many settings and some can be eliminated.  What are your thoughts?
Jack WA9FVP

Sent from my home-brew I5 Core PC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

Clay Autery
To what productive/beneficial end?

______________________
Clay Autery, KY5G

On 6/20/2017 10:48 AM, wa9fvp wrote:

> I did a comprehensive test of the K3S noise reduction system and uploaded the
> same document to the Elecraft_K3 Yahoo group.
>
>
> Elecraft_K3_NoiseReduction.pdf
> <http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/file/n7631913/Elecraft_K3_NoiseReduction.pdf>  
>
> Here's what I concluded.
>
> Settings Fn-1 provides the least noise reduction.  Fn-2 and Fn-3 noise
> levels are almost the same and one setting could be eliminated.  Fn-4
> provides the most noise reduction and having 3 settings, it would
> simplifying NR adjustments.  The NR delays that is, F1-n through F4-n, could
> be added to the configuration menu.  There are delay differences in the
> noise ripple but aurally, with a complex voice waveform, there’s no
> distinction between the delay settings.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong! I'm not that saying there's something wrong with the
> K3/K3S noise reduction. It works very well!  I think there are too many
> settings and some can be eliminated.  What are your thoughts?
>
>
>
> -----
> Jack WA9FVP
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

NK7Z
In reply to this post by wa9fvp
Thanks for sharing!

73s and thanks,
Dave
NK7Z
http://www.nk7z.net

On 06/20/2017 08:48 AM, wa9fvp wrote:

> I did a comprehensive test of the K3S noise reduction system and uploaded the
> same document to the Elecraft_K3 Yahoo group.
>
>
> Elecraft_K3_NoiseReduction.pdf
> <http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/file/n7631913/Elecraft_K3_NoiseReduction.pdf>
>
> Here's what I concluded.
>
> Settings Fn-1 provides the least noise reduction.  Fn-2 and Fn-3 noise
> levels are almost the same and one setting could be eliminated.  Fn-4
> provides the most noise reduction and having 3 settings, it would
> simplifying NR adjustments.  The NR delays that is, F1-n through F4-n, could
> be added to the configuration menu.  There are delay differences in the
> noise ripple but aurally, with a complex voice waveform, there’s no
> distinction between the delay settings.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong! I'm not that saying there's something wrong with the
> K3/K3S noise reduction. It works very well!  I think there are too many
> settings and some can be eliminated.  What are your thoughts?
>
>
>
> -----
> Jack WA9FVP
>
> Sent from my home-brew I5 Core PC
> --
> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3S-Noise-reduction-Test-tp7631913.html
> Sent from the Elecraft 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:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

Jim Brown-10
On Tue,6/20/2017 10:09 AM, Dave Cole wrote:
> It works very well!  I think there are too many
> settings and some can be eliminated.  What are your thoughts?

Elecraft's NB and NR systems are designed so that they can be optimized
for a wide variety of noise, and a wide variety of operating modes --
CW, SSB, AM, FM, and a dozen different digital modes. What's optimum for
you may not be optimum for others with DIFFERENT sorts of noise and
different modes. Like with shoes (and earphones), one size does not fit
all.

The logical response of a user is to do what you did -- try all the
settings and find those that work best for your noise and operating
conditions.

73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

Nicklas Johnson
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the case that the NR on the K3 isn't
just a case of "more" as you change settings, but also a case of changing
the _type_ (or strategy) of NR?  Or am I thinking of NB?

   Nick

On 20 June 2017 at 10:20, Jim Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue,6/20/2017 10:09 AM, Dave Cole wrote:
>
>> It works very well!  I think there are too many
>> settings and some can be eliminated.  What are your thoughts?
>>
>
> Elecraft's NB and NR systems are designed so that they can be optimized
> for a wide variety of noise, and a wide variety of operating modes -- CW,
> SSB, AM, FM, and a dozen different digital modes. What's optimum for you
> may not be optimum for others with DIFFERENT sorts of noise and different
> modes. Like with shoes (and earphones), one size does not fit all.
>
> The logical response of a user is to do what you did -- try all the
> settings and find those that work best for your noise and operating
> conditions.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>



--
*N6OL*
Saying something doesn't make it true.  Belief in something doesn't make it
real. And if you have to lie to support a position, that position is not
worth supporting.
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: K3S Noise reduction Test

wa9fvp
In reply to this post by Clay Autery

Back in the early 90’s I worked with another engineer on a QST inspired project called “The Hamblaster”.  It was a DSP based sound card that did, noise reduction.  I should probably say “done there, did that”.   To test the Hamblaster noise reduction, I did a similar test at the audio level except I used a pseudorandom noise generator and an audio oscillator.   On January and October of 1992, I wrote articles in QEX magazine “A Birth of a New DSP Board” and “Developing Software for DSP”.

 

--

Jack WA9FVP- http://www.willcoele.com/radio_repair

The Radio Reclamation Center (815) 463-9365

 

From: Clay Autery [via Elecraft] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 12:07 PM
To: wa9fvp <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

 

To what productive/beneficial end?

______________________
Clay Autery, KY5G

Jack WA9FVP

Sent from my home-brew I5 Core PC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

Drew AF2Z
In reply to this post by wa9fvp
The only thing I would change in NR is to make it easier to scroll
through the settings. Currently you can only go through the 32 settings
sequentially with the VFO-B knob, from 1-1 through 8-4. It would be nice
if the VFO-A knob could be employed to increment and decrement the first
parameter.

For example: if you were on NR 1-3 you could scroll directly through
2-3, 3-3, 4-3, etc using the VFO-A knob.

I don't know the details of NR but believe that all the n-1 settings are
related to each other as a group; same goes for the n-2 settings, n-3,
and n-4. So, it would make sense to be able to scroll through the "n"
values when looking for the best noise reduction.

73,
Drew
AF2Z


On 06/20/17 11:48, wa9fvp wrote:

> I did a comprehensive test of the K3S noise reduction system and uploaded the
> same document to the Elecraft_K3 Yahoo group.
>
>
> Elecraft_K3_NoiseReduction.pdf
> <http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/file/n7631913/Elecraft_K3_NoiseReduction.pdf>
>
> Here's what I concluded.
>
> Settings Fn-1 provides the least noise reduction.  Fn-2 and Fn-3 noise
> levels are almost the same and one setting could be eliminated.  Fn-4
> provides the most noise reduction and having 3 settings, it would
> simplifying NR adjustments.  The NR delays that is, F1-n through F4-n, could
> be added to the configuration menu.  There are delay differences in the
> noise ripple but aurally, with a complex voice waveform, there’s no
> distinction between the delay settings.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong! I'm not that saying there's something wrong with the
> K3/K3S noise reduction. It works very well!  I think there are too many
> settings and some can be eliminated.  What are your thoughts?
>
>
>
> -----
> Jack WA9FVP
>
> Sent from my home-brew I5 Core PC
> --
> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3S-Noise-reduction-Test-tp7631913.html
> Sent from the Elecraft 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:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: K3S Noise reduction Test

wa9fvp
In reply to this post by Nicklas Johnson

Believe it not, the idea of adding NR delay is not new.  Back in 91, when I did the testing for the Hamblaster, we were experimenting with NR delays.  Even with the Hamblaster the delay function made very little difference.   I only settled on two delay settings.  All of the others, there were about 50, yield no change in the aural bandwidth.  The NR reduction level had the greatest impact.

 

I used the DSP Noise Blanker setting on several occasions and found it more affective on low level electrical noise.  The NR setting or the conventional NB wasn’t as affective.

 

--

Jack WA9FVP- http://www.willcoele.com/radio_repair

The Radio Reclamation Center (815) 463-9365

 

From: Nicklas Johnson [via Elecraft] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 12:30 PM
To: wa9fvp <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the case that the NR on the K3 isn't
just a case of "more" as you change settings, but also a case of changing
the _type_ (or strategy) of NR?  Or am I thinking of NB?

   Nick

On 20 June 2017 at 10:20, Jim Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:


> On Tue,6/20/2017 10:09 AM, Dave Cole wrote:
>
>> It works very well!  I think there are too many
>> settings and some can be eliminated.  What are your thoughts?
>>
>
> Elecraft's NB and NR systems are designed so that they can be optimized
> for a wide variety of noise, and a wide variety of operating modes -- CW,
> SSB, AM, FM, and a dozen different digital modes. What's optimum for you
> may not be optimum for others with DIFFERENT sorts of noise and different
> modes. Like with shoes (and earphones), one size does not fit all.
>
> The logical response of a user is to do what you did -- try all the
> settings and find those that work best for your noise and operating
> conditions.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>



--
*N6OL*
Saying something doesn't make it true.  Belief in something doesn't make it
real. And if you have to lie to support a position, that position is not
worth supporting.
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]


If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3S-Noise-reduction-Test-tp7631913p7631919.html

To unsubscribe from K3S Noise reduction Test, click here.
NAML

Jack WA9FVP

Sent from my home-brew I5 Core PC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: K3S Noise reduction Test

wa9fvp
In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

The K3/K3S Noise Reduction is disabled for FM and Data modes.

 

--

Jack WA9FVP- http://www.willcoele.com/radio_repair

The Radio Reclamation Center (815) 463-9365

 

From: Jim Brown-10 [via Elecraft] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 12:22 PM
To: wa9fvp <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

 

On Tue,6/20/2017 10:09 AM, Dave Cole wrote:
> It works very well!  I think there are too many
> settings and some can be eliminated.  What are your thoughts?

Elecraft's NB and NR systems are designed so that they can be optimized
for a wide variety of noise, and a wide variety of operating modes --
CW, SSB, AM, FM, and a dozen different digital modes. What's optimum for
you may not be optimum for others with DIFFERENT sorts of noise and
different modes. Like with shoes (and earphones), one size does not fit
all.

The logical response of a user is to do what you did -- try all the
settings and find those that work best for your noise and operating
conditions.

73, Jim K9YC


Jack WA9FVP

Sent from my home-brew I5 Core PC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: K3S Noise reduction Test

wa9fvp
In reply to this post by Drew AF2Z

If you look at my data, there’s very little noise level difference in the delay settings. The level or aggressiveness is what reduces the noise. Having two knobs to change the parameters is also a good idea.  I would prefer a finer adjustment in the level settings like 0 to 10

For people, like me, that like to tinker, the delays can be on a separate knob or in the configure menus.  For normal operation or during a contest, I find it too cumbersome to dial through all of the settings to find the best one.

 

--

Jack WA9FVP- http://www.willcoele.com/radio_repair

The Radio Reclamation Center (815) 463-9365

 

From: Drew AF2Z [via Elecraft] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 1:54 PM
To: wa9fvp <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

 

The only thing I would change in NR is to make it easier to scroll
through the settings. Currently you can only go through the 32 settings
sequentially with the VFO-B knob, from 1-1 through 8-4. It would be nice
if the VFO-A knob could be employed to increment and decrement the first
parameter.

For example: if you were on NR 1-3 you could scroll directly through
2-3, 3-3, 4-3, etc using the VFO-A knob.

I don't know the details of NR but believe that all the n-1 settings are
related to each other as a group; same goes for the n-2 settings, n-3,
and n-4. So, it would make sense to be able to scroll through the "n"
values when looking for the best noise reduction.

73,
Drew
AF2Z

Jack WA9FVP

Sent from my home-brew I5 Core PC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

Grant Youngman-2
You might want to look at actual (S+N)/N data.  I’m not sure the visual “test”  tells the full story, since these are complex waveforms.

I did extensive measurement several years ago on the NR functions of the v1 and v2 firmware versions of the TenTec Orion (for some reason, noise reduction not being “magic” surfaces everywhere as a contentious issue), and the measured data did not always match what things ”looked like”.   Not saying they don’t here, but it’s improvement in (S+N)/N that’s the end objective of NR regardless of what the screen shot looks like.

SpectrumLab can measure this directly.  http://www.qsl.net/dl4yhf/spectra1.html

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:13 PM, wa9fvp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> If you look at my data, there’s very little noise level difference in the delay settings.

Grant NQ5T
K3 #2091, KX3 #8342



______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: K3S Noise reduction Test

wa9fvp

As I mentioned in my document

 

Human speech contains sinusoidal elements that the LMS algorithm adapts to and creates a filter around the speech waveform.  The waveform constantly changes and to conform to the human speech patterns, the LMS filter must continuously change the filter’s shape.  Under these conditions, it is too difficult to characterize the K3/K3S NR adjustments. 

 

That’s why I used a single tone test.

 

Human speech contains sinusoidal along with non-sinusoidal elements.  TH, S and W are a few non-sinusoidal elements and are more analogous to white and pink noise.  By attacking these elements, an aggressive NR reduction scheme can rendered speech unintelligible.  Other languages have an abundance non-sinusoidal speech and the question is, how will a NR scheme treat it?  In the telecom engineering lab where I worked, to test eco-cancelers, we actually used recordings of other languages.  Using tools that I have at my disposal, my test was to simply characterize the K3/K3S NR system.  

 

Noise reduction is magic but the bottom line is, how much does it reduce noise and is it so aggressive that is makes human speech un-intelligible?  The most difficult part is to find the correct parameters that can satisfy both conditions. 

 

--

Jack WA9FVP- http://www.willcoele.com/radio_repair

The Radio Reclamation Center (815) 463-9365

 

From: Grant Youngman-2 [via Elecraft] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 2:46 PM
To: wa9fvp <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

 

You might want to look at actual (S+N)/N data.  I’m not sure the visual “test”  tells the full story, since these are complex waveforms.

I did extensive measurement several years ago on the NR functions of the v1 and v2 firmware versions of the TenTec Orion (for some reason, noise reduction not being “magic” surfaces everywhere as a contentious issue), and the measured data did not always match what things ”looked like”.   Not saying they don’t here, but it’s improvement in (S+N)/N that’s the end objective of NR regardless of what the screen shot looks like.

SpectrumLab can measure this directly.  http://www.qsl.net/dl4yhf/spectra1.html

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:13 PM, wa9fvp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> If you look at my data, there’s very little noise level difference in the delay settings.

Grant NQ5T
K3 #2091, KX3 #8342


Jack WA9FVP

Sent from my home-brew I5 Core PC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

Drew AF2Z
In reply to this post by wa9fvp
Even if we have to slog through all the NR settings sequentially I'd
still prefer to keep them all, no matter how similar they appear on the
scope. Having used the K3 for a number of years I have at times noticed
an audible difference between them when copying weak CW signals. Can't
really characterize it further than that, but they do make a difference.

73,
Drew
AF2Z


On 06/20/17 15:13, wa9fvp wrote:
> If you look at my data, there’s very little noise level difference in the delay settings. The level or aggressiveness is what reduces the noise. Having two knobs to change the parameters is also a good idea.  I would prefer a finer adjustment in the level settings like 0 to 10
> For people, like me, that like to tinker, the delays can be on a separate knob or in the configure menus.  For normal operation or during a contest, I find it too cumbersome to dial through all of the settings to find the best one.
>  
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

NK7Z
In reply to this post by wa9fvp
What would be really nice would be to have a separate antenna designed
for noise reception, and the ability to phase shift it from the normal
antenna, allowing for noise cancellation...

73s and thanks,
Dave
NK7Z
http://www.nk7z.net

On 06/20/2017 11:53 AM, wa9fvp wrote:

> Believe it not, the idea of adding NR delay is not new.  Back in 91, when I
> did the testing for the Hamblaster, we were experimenting with NR delays.
> Even with the Hamblaster the delay function made very little difference.   I
> only settled on two delay settings.  All of the others, there were about 50,
> yield no change in the aural bandwidth.  The NR reduction level had the
> greatest impact.
>
> I used the DSP Noise Blanker setting on several occasions and found it more
> affective on low level electrical noise.  The NR setting or the conventional
> NB wasn't as affective.
>
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

Grant Youngman-2
In reply to this post by wa9fvp
My reference to “complex waveforms” was the underlying noise waveform, not the signal of interest, which for this type of test would normally be a single tone.

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 4:34 PM, wa9fvp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> As I mentioned in my document
>
> “Human speech contains sinusoidal elements that the LMS algorithm adapts to and creates a filter around the speech waveform.  The waveform constantly changes and to conform to the human speech patterns, the LMS filter must continuously change the filter’s shape.  Under these conditions, it is too difficult to characterize the K3/K3S NR adjustments.  
>
> That’s why I used a single tone test.
>
>

Grant NQ5T
K3 #2091, KX3 #8342



______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

Don Wilhelm
In reply to this post by NK7Z
Dave,

The K3S has a receive antenna connection so you can do exactly that.
The low noise antenna is up to the operator to provide.
If you have the KRX3 option installed, diversity reception may also help.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 6/20/2017 6:21 PM, Dave Cole wrote:
> What would be really nice would be to have a separate antenna designed
> for noise reception, and the ability to phase shift it from the normal
> antenna, allowing for noise cancellation...
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

Nr4c
In reply to this post by Drew AF2Z
But that knob varies a whole other range of NR. How hard is it to turn one knob 32 clicks?

Sent from my iPhone
...nr4c. bill


> On Jun 20, 2017, at 2:51 PM, Drew AF2Z <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The only thing I would change in NR is to make it easier to scroll through the settings. Currently you can only go through the 32 settings sequentially with the VFO-B knob, from 1-1 through 8-4. It would be nice if the VFO-A knob could be employed to increment and decrement the first parameter.
>
> For example: if you were on NR 1-3 you could scroll directly through 2-3, 3-3, 4-3, etc using the VFO-A knob.
>
> I don't know the details of NR but believe that all the n-1 settings are related to each other as a group; same goes for the n-2 settings, n-3, and n-4. So, it would make sense to be able to scroll through the "n" values when looking for the best noise reduction.
>
> 73,
> Drew
> AF2Z
>
>
>> On 06/20/17 11:48, wa9fvp wrote:
>> I did a comprehensive test of the K3S noise reduction system and uploaded the
>> same document to the Elecraft_K3 Yahoo group.
>> Elecraft_K3_NoiseReduction.pdf
>> <http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/file/n7631913/Elecraft_K3_NoiseReduction.pdf>
>> Here's what I concluded.
>> Settings Fn-1 provides the least noise reduction.  Fn-2 and Fn-3 noise
>> levels are almost the same and one setting could be eliminated.  Fn-4
>> provides the most noise reduction and having 3 settings, it would
>> simplifying NR adjustments.  The NR delays that is, F1-n through F4-n, could
>> be added to the configuration menu.  There are delay differences in the
>> noise ripple but aurally, with a complex voice waveform, there’s no
>> distinction between the delay settings.
>> Don't get me wrong! I'm not that saying there's something wrong with the
>> K3/K3S noise reduction. It works very well!  I think there are too many
>> settings and some can be eliminated.  What are your thoughts?
>> -----
>> Jack WA9FVP
>> Sent from my home-brew I5 Core PC
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3S-Noise-reduction-Test-tp7631913.html
>> Sent from the Elecraft 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:[hidden email]
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://ww

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

Bob Cunnings
In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm

Well, not exactly... the K3S doesn't have the ability to perform the
phase shifting for noise cancellation.

However, the K3 has antenna OUT and IN jacks which allow the use of the
NCC-1 (now NCC-2) from DX Engineering to perform the noise cancellation.
I've been doing this for years and it works well. I posted the details on
this list earlier:

http://www.mail-archive.com/elecraft@.../msg177064.html

I need noise cancellation more and more as the RF environment in my
neighborhood grows more hostile each year.

73, Bob NW8L

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Don Wilhelm wrote:

> Dave,
>
> The K3S has a receive antenna connection so you can do exactly that. The low
> noise antenna is up to the operator to provide.
> If you have the KRX3 option installed, diversity reception may also help.
>
> 73,
> Don W3FPR
>
> On 6/20/2017 6:21 PM, Dave Cole wrote:
>> What would be really nice would be to have a separate antenna designed for
>> noise reception, and the ability to phase shift it from the normal antenna,
>> allowing for noise cancellation...
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

David Woolley (E.L)
In reply to this post by Grant Youngman-2
Noise reduction is about reducing subjective noise for the listener, not
about reducing some engineering measurement.  An instrument is likely to
generate some very simple, or even pure tone, signal.  With the sorts of
strategy used for noise reduction, and very aggressive settings, you
could obtain almost perfect results on such a signal, but those same
settings would make human speech completely unintelligible.

The big challenge for noise reducers is deciding what is human speech
and what is noise. That's much more difficult than identifying a pure tone.

The other sort of test signal that might be used, and the one that is
implied by the definition of noise factor, would be white noise, and
noise reducers will have no effect on the signal to noise ratio there.
They will reduce both equally.

The human brain is actually rather good at noise reduction of human
speech, but it gets tired.  The aim of noise reducers is to not do quite
as well, but remove the fatigue element from the human.

As I've noted before, where the real money is in noise reduction
research is in the hearing aid industry, where the noise can be
particularly challenging, as it is generally mixed up human speech form
the other people in the restaurant.

--
David Woolley K2 06123

On 20/06/17 20:44, GRANT YOUNGMAN wrote:
> You might want to look at actual (S+N)/N data.  I’m not sure the visual “test”  tells the full story, since these are complex waveforms.
>
> I did extensive measurement several years ago on the NR functions of the v1 and v2 firmware versions of the TenTec Orion (for some reason, noise reduction not being “magic” surfaces everywhere as a contentious issue), and the measured data did not always match what things ”looked like”.   Not saying they don’t here, but it’s improvement in (S+N)/N that’s the end objective of NR regardless of what the screen shot looks like.
>
> SpectrumLab can measure this directly.  http://www.qsl.net/dl4yhf/spectra1.html
>
>> On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:13 PM, wa9fvp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> If you look at my data, there’s very little noise level difference in the delay settings.


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: K3S Noise reduction Test

Drew AF2Z
In reply to this post by Nr4c
The VFO-A knob currently has no function while NR "long push" is engaged.

73,
Drew
AF2Z


On 06/20/17 22:20, Nr4c wrote:

> But that knob varies a whole other range of NR. How hard is it to turn one knob 32 clicks?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> ...nr4c. bill
>
>
>> On Jun 20, 2017, at 2:51 PM, Drew AF2Z <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> The only thing I would change in NR is to make it easier to scroll through the settings. Currently you can only go through the 32 settings sequentially with the VFO-B knob, from 1-1 through 8-4. It would be nice if the VFO-A knob could be employed to increment and decrement the first parameter.
>>
>> For example: if you were on NR 1-3 you could scroll directly through 2-3, 3-3, 4-3, etc using the VFO-A knob.
>>
>> I don't know the details of NR but believe that all the n-1 settings are related to each other as a group; same goes for the n-2 settings, n-3, and n-4. So, it would make sense to be able to scroll through the "n" values when looking for the best noise reduction.
>>
>> 73,
>> Drew
>> AF2Z
>>
>>
>>> On 06/20/17 11:48, wa9fvp wrote:
>>> I did a comprehensive test of the K3S noise reduction system and uploaded the
>>> same document to the Elecraft_K3 Yahoo group.
>>> Elecraft_K3_NoiseReduction.pdf
>>> <http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/file/n7631913/Elecraft_K3_NoiseReduction.pdf>
>>> Here's what I concluded.
>>> Settings Fn-1 provides the least noise reduction.  Fn-2 and Fn-3 noise
>>> levels are almost the same and one setting could be eliminated.  Fn-4
>>> provides the most noise reduction and having 3 settings, it would
>>> simplifying NR adjustments.  The NR delays that is, F1-n through F4-n, could
>>> be added to the configuration menu.  There are delay differences in the
>>> noise ripple but aurally, with a complex voice waveform, there’s no
>>> distinction between the delay settings.
>>> Don't get me wrong! I'm not that saying there's something wrong with the
>>> K3/K3S noise reduction. It works very well!  I think there are too many
>>> settings and some can be eliminated.  What are your thoughts?
>>> -----
>>> Jack WA9FVP
>>> Sent from my home-brew I5 Core PC
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3S-Noise-reduction-Test-tp7631913.html
>>> Sent from the Elecraft 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:[hidden email]
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://ww
>
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]
12