"Pete KE9OA" wrote in message
...
Hi Lucky,

It was ok.................. not a lot of gain in the I.F. system, but it
did have enough RF gain. It is probably a matter of preference, but I like
my radios to have their gain distribution set up so that the I.F. strip
provides most of the system gain. This way, you get a higher amount of
headroom in the front end if the gain in that section of the receiver
isn't too high.
It did work better than any of the portables I have used. I bumped up the
gain in the I.F. strip a little bit, and I was relatively happy with it.
I ended up trading it off in a combination deal for a Yaesu FRG-100, which
I ended up selling along with the optional CW filter and the FM board for
300 dollars. Some older fellow in one of the Carolinas bought it.

Pete

Hi Pete

would you say it's more a portable wise type perfromance? What did you do
with yours? Anything decent about it??

Lucky




Well Pete,

if you didn't end up keeping it that does say something about it. I just get
a kick out of new radios especially foreign ones.
Could they have improved them somewhat since you bought one? Was it the Lowe
SRX-100 or the Nasa Target HF3?

Lucky

"Brian Denley" wrote in message
...
Lucky wrote:
Hi guys!

I saw this term mentioned in the specs of a radio. What does it mean
exactly? That if you hope and listen long enough you can convince
yourself it's synchronous? :)

Lucky

I'm quasi-synchronous....sometimes!

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html


I knew a guy who was Quasi-Moto :)

Lucky

jimg wrote:
in basic comm text books this is called is called 'coherent'
detection. under certain conditions it can be demonstrated that the
coherent demodulated snr is a 3-4 dB better than the "diode"
(non-linear self-mixing) demod and a 3-5 dB worse than synchronous
demodulation. under severe fading the coherent demod can actually
underperform the diode demod depending upon the mixer/post-filter/etc.
whereas the synchronous pll output can maintain the mixer input even
if the signal disappears briefly (wrt the loop time constant and phase
detector type)

because of the fading performance, the ease creating high quality
quadrature pll outputs, and the inherent input phase noise attenuation
in the pll, it's (coherent demodulation) almost never used anymore in
mixed signal designs...

Hi guys!

I saw this term mentioned in the specs of a radio. What does it mean
exactly? That if you hope and listen long enough you can convince yourself
it's synchronous? :)

Lucky


jimg
Oregon
USA

A sync detector does not have to be a sideband-selectable type to be
a what
would be referred to as a true type of sync detector. It does need to
be a
PLL type, though.

Pete

This is true, of course, but a sync. detector in modern equipment that
is not sideband-selectable
for the SW environment, where there's often so much adjacent channel
interference, is a perversity.

RK

rkhalona wrote:

A sync detector does not have to be a sideband-selectable type to be
a what
would be referred to as a true type of sync detector. It does need to
be a
PLL type, though.

Pete

This is true, of course, but a sync. detector in modern equipment that
is not sideband-selectable
for the SW environment, where there's often so much adjacent channel
interference, is a perversity.

You're a 'newbie'... right?

My oh my, what did one ever do without 'synch'.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

True........most people are looking for that characteristic.

Pete

"rkhalona" wrote in message
oups.com...
A sync detector does not have to be a sideband-selectable type to be
a what
would be referred to as a true type of sync detector. It does need to
be a
PLL type, though.

Pete

This is true, of course, but a sync. detector in modern equipment that
is not sideband-selectable
for the SW environment, where there's often so much adjacent channel
interference, is a perversity.

RK

In article .com,
rkhalona wrote:
A sync detector does not have to be a sideband-selectable type to be
a what
would be referred to as a true type of sync detector. It does need to
be a
PLL type, though.

Pete

This is true, of course, but a sync. detector in modern equipment that
is not sideband-selectable
for the SW environment, where there's often so much adjacent channel
interference, is a perversity.

Why is using an I/Q "Image reject" mixer better than just having a
narrower filter? As I understand it, you're not going to get more
than 50 dB rejection with an image reject mixer.

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

In article ,
Pete KE9OA wrote:

"John S." wrote in message
oups.com...

Which radio...haven't heard that term.

I believe that Kiwa detector that went on eBay recently was of this design.

A guy I know who knows Craig a lot better than I do said that it used some
chip designed for VCRs. (My wild ass guess would be a Philips video IF
and detector chip with the synchro-phase circuit in it. TDA2540, TDA2541).

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

dxAce wrote:

You're a 'newbie'... right?

LOL! If you only knew...

RK

rkhalona wrote:

dxAce wrote:

You're a 'newbie'... right?

LOL! If you only knew...

So tell me, tell us... No need to be a poseur.

dxAce
Michigan
USA