"AI4QJ" wrote in
:

....
Roy gave one possible explanation of why reducing receiver input may
improve S/N ratio, but you later dismiss that (RX IMD noise) as a
likely explanation.

No I did not!

First I said "There were no front end overload effects; the
signals were located skip distances for 75-80m with nothing local
nearby

But then I said:

"(except maybe "noise", and it just occurs to me that local "noise"
from powerlines or whatever could be overloading my front
end...hmmm...not sure)."

Which is another way of saying "Hey, maybe you're right. Maybe strong
signals from locally generated noise IS overloading my front end."

The full paragraph was:
For me, Yeasu 747 and icom IC718 (as you can see on my QRZ photo). These
are fairly decent receivers. There were no front end overload effects;
the signals were located skip distances for 75-80m with nothing local
nearby (except maybe "noise", and it just occurs to me that local
"noise" from powerlines or whatever could be overloading my front
end...hmmm...not sure)"

I have interpreted "For me, Yeasu 747 and icom IC718 (as you can see on
my QRZ photo). These are fairly decent receivers. There were no front end
overload effects;" to be fairly definite.

"There were no front end overload effects;", it is about as clear as "I
did not have sex with that women"... but we all know what theat mean't.

I am not trying to misrepresent you, it is about the value you put in
your own written words.

Owen