LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #5   Report Post  
Old November 27th 03, 02:59 AM
Tom Holden
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RS DX-394B: why 2nd LO buffer added? Tom Holden Equipment 8 November 27th 03 02:59 AM
RS DX-394B: why 2nd LO buffer added? Tom Holden Homebrew 8 November 27th 03 02:59 AM
RS DX-394B: why 2nd LO buffer added? Tom Holden Equipment 0 November 26th 03 02:14 AM
RS DX-394B: why 2nd LO buffer added? Tom Holden Homebrew 0 November 26th 03 02:14 AM
Added more military radio manuals to my FS list Thomas P. Gootee Scanner 1 November 2nd 03 10:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017