Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Art Harris wrote:
"Tom Holden" wrote in message [snip] Why would the designers add the buffer? What performance comparison should I make between the A and the B model to assess whether it would be worthwhile to retrofit a similar buffer to the A model? I can say that I have not noticed any dramatic difference with my usual listening habits. They obviously wanted to provide some isolation and/or impedance matching between the oscillator and the mixer. It's a good engineering practice, but may not have much practical effect. If you don't notice a difference, then don't bother retrofitting. The oscillator is an emitter follower, too, so I doubt that impedance matching is the objective. What would the increased isolation achieve? Would it preclude mixing of 1st IF energy in the oscillator? Should this be of some benefit for intermodulation products? Tom |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Another new item added to the Clough-Brengle web page | Boatanchors | |||
new stuff has been added to the Clough-Brengle page | Boatanchors | |||
RS DX-394B: why 2nd LO buffer added? | Equipment | |||
RS DX-394B: why 2nd LO buffer added? | Equipment | |||
Added a few turns..... | Antenna |