noise blanker nb

Phil - N6ERP

SW 1.16: My experiences: WNB - Not Good (has not helped me yet - Adds artifacts when set over 70) NB - Not Good (has not helped me yet) NR - Pretty Good (Helps a lot. Still could be improved, but great start) ANF - Less than Marginal (It is affective at cutting tones, but ruins audio quality of recv'd station) "Software Defined Radio"

Rick Hadley - W0FG

Klaatu barada nikto ...

Walt - KZ1F

If somebody shot and killed me I'd be less than inclined to give him the cure for cancer also.

KY6LA_Howard

I don't know that algorithm of WNB but I suspect that it dynamically recognizes correlation. Looking at the hardware architecture all processing is after the pre selector

Phil - N6ERP

I agree with an earlier suggestion,

Would be nice to have an Audio DSP feature, such as ClearSpeech, BHI, NIR, etc. some day...we have the processing power for it..

Still loving the Flex 6500 though.. Great system. Audio quality is much better than the heavily filtered K3 was. (Although it had a much better NB and ANF).

Thank You FR.

Walt - KZ1F

But if it compares then against known signatures there would be a finite number of cases. Don't anyone (FRS) confuse what I am asking with wanting secret sauce). Gerald just mentioned, as others have, the arching power line transformer adjacent to the Austin office. I don't have one of those in my neighborhood. Is that why I see different results than, say, Lee did in his Youtube vids?


Jim Gilliam

Well put Howard. Correlation is a good way of mathematically determining noise is there just like we can tell when cancer is there. But the mathematical algorithms like cancer cures have a long way to go.

KY6LA_Howard

I believe that algorithm dynamically identifies correlated noise signatures. Your noise may not be as correlated Correlation is a mathematical function.

Tom

Speaking of DSP, did you aso notice that few versions ago CW APF was much better / efficient than today or this is just my impression?

Tom

G8ZPX

Gerald,

Understand your comments, and I understand it may be a certain type/mode of noise that might not match what they NB is trying to do, but you are missing the originally point I made.

The comparison radio was a 32 year old Yaesu FT-101zd (of the valve/transistor hybrid era)!

At best the NB function of the 101zd would use a handful of very old-school analogue components and it worked superbly on the noise I saw last weekend. The same cannot be said for the NB on the F6k which did something, but nothing like the same level as the 101zd. I love my SDR and was disappointed to see it being beaten hands-down by a boat anchor.

The 101zd made a QSO perfectly possible and a pleasure to use. I'd would not have been aware of the noise if NB was already turned on. With all noise reduction options tried on the f6k (and in combinations) it only got as far a "tolerable annoyance" for a QSO.

I know the WNB works well on some noise types, but surely it's not asking too much for the Flex NB to be at least as good as a 101ZD is it?

Next time the noise happens I will video and youtube the results with like-for-like comparison of functions/bandwidth/antenna etc.

73 de Steve G1XOW

Jim Gilliam

Yes, you point has been well taken. Lots of fancy words but no noise blanking.

Bill -VA3WTB

No, it is not a good point at all, Steven missed the point, As Gerald said: We will continue to do ongoing research into innovative noise mitigation techniques over time.  These are science projects:
Noise mitigation came out on V1.5 and is still in development. The WNB was a huge step, under the conditions it is made for it is simply astounding. more work will be done on the others as well. That's were things seem to sit for now, some don't like it.

Jim Gilliam

Maybe someone should rent a Model T Ford and idle it outside the Flex labs!

Jim, K6QE

Walt - KZ1F

Bill, if FRS isn't already they should be paying you for your efforts as PR spokesperson.

Bill -VA3WTB

Funny Walt, Just trying to remind us that the radio is still and will likely always be developing. that is what we signed up for.

KY6LA_Howard

@Steve G1XOW

You seem to have missed my point above about Legacy vs DSP Noise Blanking that explains why that FT-101 seems to do such a good job of Noise Blanking

So....
"Before the invention of DSP, Noise BLANKING - (which means removing impulse noise like ignition noise) was accomplished by having a hardware circuit stop the receiver when it detected noise above a set threshold

Hence Legacy NB receivers sound quieter because they are hearing nothing at all. This works pretty well for AM and SSB where your brain can integrate the cut off parts of the information but is much less effective for digital modes like CW and especially RTTY and all the modern digital modes where the loss of information can destroy the message.

Modern DSP based technology tries to correct this serious deficiency of Legacy NB by using mathematics to recover as much signal as possible while still trying to remove the impulse peaks... Hence DSP circuits do not drop signal levels as dramatically as Legacy NB

Jim Gilliam

Maybe the could use mathematics to emulate legacy NB's for us who just want to listen.

Ned K1NJ

      The one in the "legacy" Flex 5000 was really good.  I go back to it when
 I have to.  It's sometimes worth 12 dB. or so.  (Yes, I know it means re-coding
 the algorithm, not just copying a code segment.)

       Ned,  K1NJ

Burch - K4QXX

I agree.  That is one reason that I have not sold my 5000.  NB works great.

G8ZPX

As a digital comms engineer for over 32 years I am pretty sure I have not missed the point. I worked on below the noise ciphers on VLF for the military when most hams thought CW was advanced!

My metric is results based. I measure result and achievement by the output of any process/circuit/design etc, and also the acceptance testing of the user-base, not the technical and often incidental methods that may or may not have been used to get there.

In short, if users find it lacking compared to legacy methods then somewhere somehow we have missed the goal by a large margin.

In this example the 101zd allowed an unusable band to be used in the clear for perfect QSOs, the F6k failed the same like-for-like test. That is the outcome that matters to most users (aka buyers and recommenders). 

I like the F6k a lot, but technical and mathematical reasons why it can't be as good as a boat anchor because it really is "better" simply don't wash.

KY6LA_Howard

Since FRS seems to be missing the mark set by Boat Anchor NB, I am sure that FRS would be happy if you could share better NB algorithms with them so that everyone could benefit from your 32 years Digital Comms Experience.

Bill -VA3WTB

As was said before Steven,,give it time. As a flex owner you signed up for a radio in progress. They may change it up just for your type of noise problem. But it may not work so well on another kind of noise. As Gerald said all the noise mitigation is working as is by desine, not a mistake or missed testing. I suppose they could make it blanket everything for every noise and make the radio almost death as is in older radios, but that is not what DSP is to do.

Walt - KZ1F

Bill, you say that, work in progress, like one size fits all, for all time. Certainly, for those that ordered their radio in 2012, clearly that was a work in progress. Two and a half years later there is likely a different expectation. For those that purchased last month I don't think it's reasonable to assume they have the same expiry timer original buyers had when the software was at 0.92. From what Steve Hicks said, rel 1 is completed. What, I believe, you are hearing is some people had expectations release 1 would be further along than it got.

G8ZPX

Bill, more than happy to give it more time. All SDR software is a constantly moving feast and will be for some years to come. No issue with that.

I just feel that a new SDR design should be assumed to be at least as good as a boat anchor. Surely it should be a given and a minimum prerequisite before the first release of v1.0, not still being promised years down the line. Basics first, gadgets later.

I just hope that those rushing to defend a request for basic functionality improvements are not suggesting that SmartSDR cannot be as good as a boat anchor

Dan -- KC4GO

I worked Winter Field Day lat week end and had an opportunity to run my 6500 around 4 small generators including my on-board Onan. The NB works for me. Listen for yourself.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5gpcTVs7PtoZ2dDU29ldXdGSmc&usp=sharing

There are two files one on 80 and one on 40 the when the NB is on is quite clear.

Bill -VA3WTB

The noise you had must be what it was setup for...

Phil - N6ERP

Glad it worked for you, the dam thing is worthless on mine. Also ANF badly distorts received audio quality. This is re: SW 1.16. NR works reasonably well. The NB on K3 was much better, ANF on Icom 7600 is night and day better.

K0UNX

I agree on all counts.  I have never found noise that either NB or WNB will help.  And the ANF on my Icom 7600 works MUCH better.  When I've tried to use NB or WNB, all I get is a little bit of distortion of the audio.  But I still wouldn't go back to the Icom.