[Elecraft] 4.48 vs 4.51 CW Decode

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

Perhaps if you are only talking about the CW decoder, but in general my
experience with 4.51 is utterly dead opposite of yours.  It *DOES* change a
lot of sweet spots, but once adjusted for those, the improvement in all
areas is rather extraordinary.  Again, the sweet spots for a lot of things
seemed to have moved, but given the changes in AGC, that's not really
surprising.  Using the second receiver in diversity, 4.51 improves signals
near or at the AGC intercept, allowing a truer separation of those.  We
tested this thoroughly at Field Day, and all who used the K3 with 4.51
remarked on how good the diversity was.

Weak signal performance with 4.51 was clearly much better by ear if one was
using an AGC with lower numbers in the settings.

73, Guy.

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM, W4ATK <w4atk at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I am saving a copy of 4.48 so I can go back to it.
>
> IMHO 4.51 is:
>        1) More difficult to use
>        2) Does not perform as well as 4.48
>        3) Lacks the weak signal performance of 4.48
>        4) Requires constant adjustment of the RF Gain control
>
> This was  the absolute best CW decoder I had ever used. I am still using
> 4.51 but have not yet hit the sweet spot with it. Perhaps others are having
> better results and will share AGC settings, threshold setting etc.
>
> I am can copy call signs, signal reports at elevated speeds, but alas I am
> CW challenged and am using CW decode to help me get over the 18 to 20 wpm
> block.
>
>
> Jim, W4ATK
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>