How to properly use WNB?

Walt - KZ1F

Guy,and others, have compared their previous, or still owned, 5000 to the 6000, which marked diffrrences with respect to noise. Here's what I don't understand and hope someone would explain to, frankly, all of us; why is it the code (SDR) from the 5000 can't be lifted and dropped into the 6000 chassis? I suspect we can all stipulate that if it had been that easy it would have been done in release 0.92.

Ned K1NJ

     Perhaps the "code" can't be lifted, but surely the underlying algorithm can.

Ned,  K1NJ

Jerry Wilk

Well stated.

Mike KD2CJJ

Walt being a software developer / architect myself for over 20 years I tend to agree on the surface.  Most often the code may not be portable but the design patterns and algorithms could be.   However,  programming FPGA paradigm maybe different enough to preclude the ability to reuse the same techniques applied to purely software base NB, WNB, NR.  Its like saying even though physics are constant the implementation difference between jet propulsion and piston propulsion should be the same.  We know they are are not because the coefficients differ by the different propulsion methods - even though the physics that they act upon are constants.

I do want to add to be fair to Flex and the audience.

I have been experimenting and spending a considerable amount of time with the AGC, the NB, NR and WNB.

I will agree with those that have said the AGC has a large effect.  Clearly without a properly adjust AGC both the WNB and NR are useless.  Furthermore, the NR is hyper snsitive to the AGC when dealing with audio quality.  If you set the AGC too aggressively low the NR audio quality drops significantly and the WNB will constantly lose its hold.

I have also noticed more often than not the NB does a better job but does not positively improve the noise on the band scope (which is a known deficiency).  If NB is brought all the way up to 100 it acts most similar to my WNB on my other rigs.  Dropping the noise floor by a considerable amount of dB.

I find using all 3 NB, WNB and NR with a properly adjusted AGC coupled with a properly tuned EQ I can get a sweet spot where the audio quality (ie noise, etc.) matches my FTDX3000.  Its a little frustrating but I am getting there.

My suggetions to flex:
Keep working on the NB - I think its real close to being competitive.  Incorporate it into the band scope and tweak it some will **** away the competition.  I think more should be looked into the "100" value.  It seems to almost do what is needed to blank out the constant electrical white noise I have from the high power lines north east of me.  Again I am comparing the NB on the flex with my FTDX3000.  

The WNB needs a ton of work for me doenst seem to work at all.  It either adds noise, causes pumping on the band or does little to nothing.  If you couple NB with WNB it seems to be better than just NB however its questionable actually since it introduces more issues than its worth.  For the most part WNB is turned off for me.  It also does not work on TVs or Wall Wart devices.  Its useless with my FIOS Power Supply and my Sub - both of which have very horrible hash.

The NR is OK.  Im not happy with the audio quality on weak SSB signals being run through the "REMOTE" - audio pc.  I noticed that the NR does not function as well when the audio is pumping through my PC speakers vs headhpnes or directly connected speakers.  Doesnt make sense-- I agree.  But I can clearly hear an audio difference (I am also an audiophile thus pay special attention to audio details).  Again with much playing it works but I think it needs to be more in line with Yaesu FTDX quality.

Walt - KZ1F

@mike @ned, don't take what I said too literally. I'm used to very well structured layered code, which is how I both design and write. Using a device driver metaphor, perhaps the ISR is different but at some layer above that I'd suspect things should start looking similar. I was trying to not be judgemental. I thought this might make for a good chapter in the Hicks' Chronicles.

DrTeeth

@Walt, just for clarification, I have never owned a Flex before my 6300, I was just commenting on what owners of previous models have stated.

@Ned, I know nothing about programming at all but would expect that Flex has some noise samples on which to test the results of their endeavours - that is just how I would expect the science to work. So they may not have been able to 'lift the code', but I would have expected them to copy the results, if you see what I mean.

Burch - K4QXX

I was the one that commented on how good the Flex 5000 NB is.  I still use my 5000 for the low bands.

Jon_KF2E

One point I'm confused about is how wide is the wide band noise blanker? Is it trying to blank what is shown in your pan adapter, your slice receiver, the whole HF band or some other chunk of bandwidth? I often have noise that is in one area of the band segment. If the WNB is trying to find correlation over a big span of spectrum it might not be able to.

From my perspective, the WNB has been a disappointment. I've been waiting a long time for the "world class noise reduction" and I still don't think we have it. I also thought putting the old NB back in the code was a futile gesture. It never worked before, why should it work now. 

My 5000 is only a memory now but it's noise blanker still stands out. 

Walt - KZ1F

Bill, just saw your question just now. No, it really didn't. In the video I just referred to it appears Lee, if that is who did it, had the WNB level at 100 which visually causes all soughts of overdriving.