eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net


QSL Managers
     

Ham Links
     



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

Key Clicks

from Tom Rauch, W8JI on April 8, 2007
View comments about this article!

"Editor's Note: Due to the popularity of some of eHam's older articles, many of which you may not have read, the eHam.net team has decided to rerun some of the best articles that we have received since eHam's inception. These articles will be reprinted to add to the quality of eHam's content and in a show of appreciation to the authors of these articles."

Clicks are often a problem on congested bands, yet with modern radios they don't need to be a problem. In the past, engineers and designers didn't have the easy ability to generate filtered waveforms. Radios lacked wide 2-3 kHz wide SSB filters, let alone narrow 250-500Hz filters. Op-amps were unheard of, and L-C filters were large, bulky and expensive. Today, every radio manufactured has the ability to be very clean.

Modern Radios

Most modern radios include 500Hz and narrower receiver filters that operate at the same IF frequency as their transmitter section. Transmitted signals are often routed through the SSB filters with intentional TX switching, when they could just as easily be routed through CW filters! We will see later in this page that TX signals could be routed through CW filters to eliminate sidebands, yet manufacturers foolishly use the SSB filters. If you examine the bandwidth of a FT1000-series radio, you will find the clicks disappear at the BW limits of the SSB filter. This is because they run an essentially unshaped CW signal through the SSB filter, and that filter sets the bandwidth of clicks.

The sad thing is once you listen to that signal through a 500Hz filter, it sounds absolutely no different ON FREQUENCY than it would if it were nearly click free. The only people who can notice the difference between a clicking rig and a clean rig are the people operating on adjacent frequencies! Claims that certain shapes produce certain "bell sounds" or high readability are not correct, they are certainly not based on engineering or actual blind A-B tests.

If you examine the audio output of your radio with a 500Hz filter in use, you will see ANY waveshape transmitter has the same nearly raised-sine shape output to your ear! That includes wide signals and narrow ones. The speed limit you can copy with a 500Hz filter is the same limit you can transmit with. It makes no difference what end of the path the filter is on, or if there is one at both ends, so far as speed is concerned! (This assumes the filters have reasonably good and easy to achieve group-delay characteristics.) We hear a few mS rise, no matter if it is a sine shape or a square, as a "tick". For demonstration, listen to the pure sine wave on WWV that "tics" every second!

What Could Be Done

At no cost to manufacturers, they could build a click free radio. Every component is in the radio, the problem all centers around poor or careless engineering.

Amplifier stages are reasonably linear (so they can amplify SSB), and virtually every radio contains power control circuitry that could be easily modified to provide wave-shaping. Even without wave-shaping, the transmitter could process transmitted CW though a 250Hz or 500Hz filter.

Sadly, most of the commonly used radios have as bad or worse keying characteristics than old rigs. It's as if the manufactures either don't understand CW, or don't care. The result is we are left with a mess, because many top-of-the-line and very popular rigs have horrible keying sidebands.

On frequency with normal CW filters, we would not be able to tell any difference between the sound of a clicking radio and one that is clean! There is no justification or reason for radios to be 3kHz wide on CW.

How to Identify Click Problems

We hardly notice clicks, and we certainly can not tell a clean rig from a dirty rig, when we are listening right on the CW station's frequency! Even an scope won't tell us much about signal bandwidth, or if the rig has excessive clicks.

In order to check clicks, we must:

  1. Be sure the receiver is not overloading

  2. Listen with the CW signal outside the receiver filter's bandwidth

  3. Listen when the noise is low, and the signal reasonably strong

If we do not follow those three guidelines, we can't tell if a rig is clean or not. If you are testing your own rig, your second receiver must have a narrow filter and be coupled to the rig-under-test through a proper attenuator.

Why Worry About Clicks?

Clicks are most problematic when we try to copy weak signals next to moderately strong signals. If you only operate on empty bands, run low power, and never operate within four or five kHz of weak stations, bandwidth is probably not a concern.

If we contest, work DX, or Ragchew near other QSO's, and especially when we run more than a few hundred watts and have large antennas, we should be mindful of our bandwidth. If you listen to a recording of a clicking radio, you can hear how devastating clicks are to nearby weaker signals. This signal is from Europe on 40 meters, and it is daylight over half of the path!!

For a mathematical tutorial on clicks, visit W9CF's site. Kevin's analysis deals with bandwidth requirements related ONLY to modulation of the envelope. I'll explain the same thing in verbal form, as I discuss sidebands created by rise and fall times. CW keying is really just 100% AM modulation, as you will see!

There are several INCORRECT but popular misconceptions. They are:

  • A signal has to be clicking and/or wide to send fast CW

  • Clicks or sharp rises and falls aid in weak signal work

  • Your CW signal bandwidth changes with the speed you are sending

  • A certain shape gives a certain on-frequency sound

What Causes Clicks?

While a fast rise and fall time guarantee excessive bandwidth, a long rise and fall is no guarantee a radio will be "click-free". Some radios switch into transmit while the synthesizer (VCO) circuits are still settling to a new frequency. An IC-775DSP I owned was particularly bad about this, and also had VCO leakage problems. The amount of garbage varied with how I used the radio, including "VFO" frequency settings of unused VFO's!

Radios with VCO or synthesizer settling time problems generally produce a loud "thump" on key closure on the second VCO frequency. That thump will be right on the DX station when the operator is working split. If you listen in pileups, you will hear a small percentage of rigs with this problem. If the operator uses QSK, VCO-switching-thumps can be particularly annoying. Thumps will occur every time the VCO moves from the receive frequency to the transmit frequency, sounding like a leading-edge click!

Rise and fall times are also important. A long rise and fall time does not always result in narrow CW transmitter bandwidth, even though a faster-than-needed rise and fall time almost certainly results in excessive bandwidth. Many radios have rise and fall times that are much too fast.

How fast is much too fast? For now let's ignore VCO switching problems, and consider envelope shape.

Rise and Fall

The ARRL recommends a 5 mS rise and 5 mS fall time for CW, based on data in section 2.202 of FCC rules and CCIR Radio regulations. According to professional sources, a 5 ms rise and fall time is not harmful to readability at 35 wpm under marginal (fading) conditions, and 60 wpm when signals are reasonably above noise floor. This rise and fall results in a occupied bandwidth of 150 Hz, although unwanted transient energy caused by the shape of the waveform slope may appear at wider bandwidths.

What Limits Bandwidth?

When determining bandwidth of a stable signal (no oscillator problems), two things come into play in.

  • The slope of the envelope rise and fall at any point controls the bandwidth of the keying sidebands

  • The amount of voltage change during the slope controls the power level of the sidebands (clicks).

The slope (bandwidth) and the amount of change in a sloped area (level) combine to determine how offensive the transmitted signal is. Very subtle changes in envelope shape have a profound effect on key click amplitude and frequency dispersion. This makes it nearly impossible to tell if our radios are as clean as they could be by looking at envelope shape.

We can be certain sharp transitions will cause problems, especially if we can actually see them on a oscilloscope. We can also be sure that a rise and fall faster than 2 or 3 milliseconds will cause a bandwidth problem.

Reference Data for Radio Engineers, in the section of Radio Noise and Interference, addresses key clicks in a manner the ARRL Handbook does not. They give an example of multi-pole shaping of waveform. The ARRL Handbook seems stuck with the incorrect notion that a single-pole R/C filter provides proper shaping, something doubtless left over from 1940's technology when better filters were expensive, large, and complicated.

Here are the bandwidth curves of three basic envelope shapes, one rectangular (some radios are this bad!), one for a proper single pole R/C filter with slightly rounded shape (The ARRL suggests this shape. Probably because it was practical in the early years and "stuck" even though it is not ideal), and one for a filtered rise and fall (this would be a sine-shaped rise and fall from a multi-pole filter).

Most radios, through poor design, fit in the rectangular to slightly-rounded category!

What Can Manufacturers Do?

Radio manufacturers can certainly do a great deal more than they are. First, they created the problems through poor engineering and design. Why are we stuck fixing them? Did they take our money and run?

All of the parts are there to make radios virtually click-free, yet the only manufacturer who has taken an active interest in this (and who seems to care at all about our signal quality and frequency usage) is Ten-Tec! To date I haven't found any other manufacturer admitting a problem, or even offering technical support for bandwidth problems.

Let me give an example of what could be done with current radios:

Virtually every radio contains a CW filter that operates at the IF frequency of the transmitter, yet nearly every radio transmits CW through the SSB filter! Engineers actually added circuitry and parts, in many cases, to steer the CW through the wider filter on transmit! If you listen to radios, in particular the FT1000-series, you will notice they have an ultimate click-bandwidth of about the same width as the SSB filter. That's because the poorly-shaped CW waveform with excessively fast rise-and-fall is filtered through the SSB filter.

If these same radios immediately turned on the output stages, and held them on for several mS after the key line was opened, they could send perfect filtered CW through the CW filter. A 500Hz filter would cause a steep roll-off in clicks, even if driven by a relatively "square" and very broad CW signal. The resulting waveform would be a slightly modified raised-sine envelope.

The listener would not be able to tell any difference between the ON FREQUENCY sound of a 500Hz CW-filtered transmitter and an unfiltered signal with excessive bandwidth, if he used a 500Hz or narrower filter in his receiver! As a matter of fact, I normally transmit through a 250Hz filter in my FT1000D, rather than the 2.4kHz SSB filter Yaesu selected. No one listening on frequency, even DX stations copying my signal near noise level, can tell the difference when I select 2.4KHz or 250Hz bandwidth! The only place transmitter filtering makes a difference is up or down the band from my operating frequency.

This is why we can not tell whether a signal has a proper rise and fall time, sharp level transitions, or any other envelope shape problem when we listen to the actual CW tones through a 500Hz filter. Even a very fast rise-time, with a spiked rise and fall, sounds good (and even looks perfect on a scope connected after the receiver's narrow filter)!

Claim's that a certain shape rise and fall produce a "pleasing-sound" are not true at all. First, our ears can't identify a sound only 5mS long, and second...the receiver's CW filter (assuming it is under several hundred Hz BW) reshapes the waveform to a proper rise and fall!

Why is any of this our concern? Why do we have to work on radios, and suffer with clicks? Certainly not because of a cost issue! All the parts are in the radios. It is a simple lack of good design-engineering, most likely driven by a lack of concern by manufacturers for providing rigs with good signal quality.

What Can We Do?

First, we can let manufacturers know it is their problem. Let's ask the ARRL to publish useful reviews with bandwidth pictures showing a spectral display of CW (and SSB) bandwidth. Let's ask them to check for VCO problems, and publish any abnormalities. Let's rate radios as poor, fair, good, or excellent so readers don't have to be EE's to understand what they are buying (and using).

Radios are too expensive, too difficult to work on, and last too long for us to ignore this problem. We need to stop these problems at the design phase, instead of out in the field.

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
Key Clicks  
by OLDFART13 on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W8JI gets my vote!
 
Key Clicks  
by VE3MFN on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Let's rate radios as poor, fair, good, or excellent so readers don't have to be EE's to understand what they are buying (and using)."


Excellent article and the rating system would surely be a revelation and useful for everyone, not just CW afficionados....I'm extremely curious about some of the "high end" rigs e.g. IC-756pro, IC-7800, TS-2000 etc......I cant wait!!


Richard VE3MFN
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by KC8VWM on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I am relatively new in the ranks and I will take all the information I can get particularly about CW operation. I was especially intrigued by the discussion pertaining to rise and fall times and how internal filters can affect CW operation. You haqve me thinkong why the ARRL still suggests a slightly rounded shape?

Excellent information, Thank you.

--... ...-- -.. . -.- -.-. ---.. ...- .-- --
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by AD5X on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Great article Tom, Two years ago I finally decided to listen to the key clicks on my MKV, and I was embarassed as to how bad they were. I spent about four hours one Saturday and installed your key-click mod (and NB mod). The improvement was really spectacular.

Phil - AD5X
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by LU1DZ on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
GREAT article...!!!
 
Key Clicks  
by WS4Y on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks for this article Tom. I know what it is like
trying to run a freq during a 160M contest with a
megaclicker running close by. Causes a case of tight jaw. Hope the right folks get your message.
73, Bill WS4Y
 
W8JI's Classic  
by KA4KOE on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Actually, its not an Eham classic, it's a W8JI classic.
 
Key Clicks  
by WA1RNE on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

Manufacturers probably won't make this a design priority until the issue overcomes all the other bells and whistles that affect sales.

How many potential buyers are going to decide against the purchase of a radio because of excessive key clicks versus losing out on other features like built-in band scopes, included VHF and UHF bands, or even aesthetic features?

Then there's the big influencer - special price breaks or rebates - especially if the buyer's primary mode of operation is Phone or Digital. Let's face it, money talks.

I'm not sure how long ago this article was originally published, but hopefully some progress has been made since it was.


......WA1RNE
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by W6TH on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
.

Key clicks are off-frequency sidebands heard when there is no trace of a tone.

If you own a stock FT1000, FT1000D, FT1000MP or FT1000MP MKV (or any rig with a rise and fall faster than 4 or 5mS OR with any sharply rounded corners) you have work to do!



From what I understand these problems have been taken care of and changes were notified by the mfg's several years ago.

.:
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by W5ESE on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks, Tom, for a great article.

73
Scott
W5ESE
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by VA3EP on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

Very interesting. Here is somethine related that I found a while back.

"For a given rise time, the error function shape for the rise and fall will attenuate unnecessary interference away from the carrier frequency much better than exponential keying."

For details, see:

http://fermi.la.asu.edu/w9cf/articles/click/index.html



 
RE: Key Clicks  
by W6TH on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
.

Many years ago when we used cathode keying, we used exponential keying by using a time constant of a capacitor and resistor across the handkey or cathode.

This time constant would be a .001 mfd (1000 mmfd) capacitor and a 100 ohm resistor in series across the handkey. I have used as much as a 1 mfd and a 100 ohm resistor and sounded like the amplifier was being keyed.

This was a fun thing back then and my first formula to use math which was the reciprocal of frequency divided by time; f-1/T.

Ah, the good old days, custom rigs by hams.

.:
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by W6TH on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
.

f=1/T, sorry time for a cuppa coffee.
.:
 
Key Clicks  
by VE5JCF on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Great article. It's so nice to see one about improving your cw operation rather than another about why cw is still useful. I already know that.
 
Key Clicks  
by N0AH on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
subjective self promotion-
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by K0BG on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Paul, while you may view Tom's article as subjective and self promotional, the fact remains; his assessment of the basic key click problem is not. Nor are his comments about current transceiver design faults. I only wish the ARRL would take as strong a stand towards technical excellence as Tom has. After all, if we sit back and remain silent, what we get, we deserve!

Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by K4JSR on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Vito,
If I reciprocate on that and type 1/f=t, would it then be a good time for a cup of coffee?

Tom, JI, you do pretty good for a boy stuck out in
middle Georgia! Pretty good indeed!
Now could you get KOE to write another Dead Electrical Dudes article? Especially since KOE frequently appears in "KEY CLICKS"!

Let's hear you deny that, Feeee-lip!!!

And a Happy Easter to all!!

Alan, I'll brag on you later. You do good work, too.
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by KC8VWM on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Yeah let's hear about that one Feeee-lip!! (pressure is all on you now huh?)

I'm stuffed. Hope everyone else had a good easter holiday.

clackety clack click click click
click click click clackety clack
clackety click click ..click

KC8VWM.
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by KA4KOE on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Cal

Hell will freeze over first.

P
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by W6TH on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
.

by K4JSR
Vito,
If I reciprocate on that and type 1/f=t, would it then be a good time for a cup of coffee.


Yes, too many around the computer to bug me and goofed up.

Here it come the correct formula.

This was a fun thing back then and my first formula to use math which was the reciprocal of frequency equals time; 1/f=t or reciprocal of time equals frequency;1/t=f.

I see you or on the ball and thank you. Had several cups of coffee and now back in the ball game.

.:
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by W8JII on April 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N0AH;"subjective self promotion-"

How and Why???????????????????? It's a great article. What's your problem? I really don't understand how you come up with "subjective self promotion"...........
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by WV4I on April 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Great article! Let's add the out of the box FT-102 to the key click list. But, oh what a receiver.

Also, Tom's amplifier and related site, www.w8ji.com , has been a great help to those of us that like to better understand tube amps.

Thanks!!
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by ICR71A on April 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Why? Because every thread must have a troll... Don't feed the troll...
 
Self Promotion????  
by WR8Y on April 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Ah..... Tom....

Some people can't stand it when they encounter someone who knows more than they do!

As for me, I'll hang around and try to learn somethin'.

73,
Mark
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by VA3EP on April 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

Don't let all the math in this article put you off:

http://fermi.la.asu.edu/w9cf/articles/click/index.html

Take a look at figure 5 where they show the traditional exponential function used as a keying waveform compared to the "error" function waveform.

Note that the exp function is sharp at the bottom and smooth at the top, where the "error" function is smooth at both ends. It is almost intuitive that the smoother one would generate less "clicks".

Figure 6 shows the "error" function keying a dit and a dah, and Fig 7 the resulting sidebands.

The exp function is easy to do with a simple RC network, but with DSPs in modern rigs, I don't see why you could not produce the error function easily and key with that.

Here is another related article:

http://www.nitehawk.com/sm5bsz/dynrange/dubus204/dubus204.htm


Eric
www.va3ep.net
 
RE: Self Promotion????  
by G4AON on April 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Excellent stuff again Tom. Don't forget those rigs that have poor ALC giving high power spikes on both SSB and CW when running less than full power.

I've asked both the RSGB and ARRL reviewers to include keying waveforms at less than full power, so far without seeing any sign of them doing so... Rigs that have/had this problem include the FT-857D and IC-706, no doubt there will be a few more!

Dave
 
Key Clicks  
by KU4VQ on April 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Tom,

great article. I have saved it for future review.

Richard VE3MFN, When did the Kenwood TS-2000 become a Top Line radio? LOL

George W1LVL
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by K4JF on April 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"When did the Kenwood TS-2000 become a Top Line radio?"

When it was introduced. It is Kenwood's "top of the line" transciever, replacing the '950 series.
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by K4JSR on April 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Vito, I was just stirring the pudding a little. I'll
drink to more coffee, also. Have a great day!

Now it is time to stir Feeeee-lip. (Lord knows he needs stirring up! He has been soooo quiet and docile lately.)
Feeeee-lip sed, "Cal
Hell will freeze over first."

To which I respond, if you had read Dante's "Inferno"
you would know that portions of Hell are already frozen. NYAH! NYAH! No, I am not implying that you should take your Fud(CENSORED) err, Green Radio there on a field trip and report back,! ;)

Okay Charles and John; Your turns... ;)
We've got him going now!

Ps. Notice that Feeeeee-lip *DID NOT* deny being seen in "KEY CLICKS"!!! (Had to segway that in!)

 
RE: Key Clicks  
by K4JSR on April 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Tom, I have to agree with what you have written.
I do think that proper keying wave shaping and then passing through a 300-500 Hz filter would be a better and more economical solution than brute force voltage regulation. However, I still remember the days when poor voltage regulation induced "chirp" on a cw signal. Evidently voltage regulation in cw transmitters has gotten a bit better over time. Key clicks are a bit more complex than one would think at first glance.

Keep up the great work. I, for one, appreciate your articles and your replies in "Elmers". You have taught this old dog a few new tricks. You have kept my one remaining brain cell occupied and not giving in
completely to senile dementia.

73, Cal K4JSR
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by W4VR on April 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Good April Fool's article.
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by KA4KOE on April 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
BTW, I HAVE read Dante's Inferno. Have you read Paradisio and Purgatorio as well?
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by K4JSR on April 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
No, I had a hell of a time with Dante's :)
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by W9PMZ on April 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
So if I understand what you are saying Tom is that, you are using a narrow filter on transmit, to remove the effects of the aforementioned modulation process, (which introduces ringing); thus resulting in a purer tone?

73,

Carl - W9PMZ

 
Key Clicks  
by NQ4I on April 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I Have 6 FT-1000D's and 5 FT-1000MP"s...alll 11 radios have been personally done by W8JI himself...I am happy to try to contribute to a clickless band in the contest...money well spent!! Thanks W8JI....de Rick NQ4I
 
Key Clicks  
by NQ4I on April 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I Have 6 FT-1000D's and 5 FT-1000MP"s...alll 11 radios have been personally done by W8JI himself...I am happy to try to contribute to a clickless band in the contest...money well spent!! Thanks W8JI....de Rick NQ4I
 
RE: Key Clicks  
by K4JSR on April 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Carl---
Watch that ringing stuff. A lot of guys wake up
married after "ringing".

Usually a double ring ceremony--
One for her finger and one for his nose!! (Complete with trace chain!)

Yes, Nurse, I do believe I am ready for my meds!!!

 
RE: Key Clicks  
by W9PMZ on April 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Think about it. As the web site referenced goes through, you have an exponential signal, pretty much a square wave modulating a carrier.

Remmeber what the Fourier Series of a square wave looks like (this is the Gibbs thing). When you look at the graphs of the signals in the referenced web site you see the effect of those odd harmonics as side lobes.

So what Tom has done is he has put in the transmit chain a filter to attenuate the harmonics as much as possible. This is evident in the referenced web sites graph after filtering and shaping the waveform with the reduced side lobes.

Intutively, I believe what Tom has done is added a matched filter on the transmit end. This results in elimination of the dreaded key click.

A good discussion would now be on the virtues of matched filters in a transmit / receive path and its effect on Eb/No.

Thia was really a good technical discussion.

73,

Carl - W9PMZ
 
RE: Self Promotion????  
by W9AC on April 15, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W8JI and W9CF have excelled in this area and I compliment each of them for their individual work.

I agree with 99% of the statements in this article, but I disagree with the assertion that changes within 5 ms cannot be heard by the human ear. In the mid 19th century, Herman Von Helmholtz and others who have studied psychoacoutsics have demonstrated that perceptual differences in time relies in part on the shape of a waveform. In 1987, I wrote a four-part series in BM/E magazine that discusses these auditory attributes in detail - much of it based on my work as a graduate assistant in the acoustics laboratory at Northern Illinois University.

Part of what is changing within that 5 ms is not limited to time, but spectrum. And, different envelope shapes within 5 ms can indeed affect bandwidth as W9CF has demonstrated through his Fourier analysis.

If you compare the transmitted CW of a Drake T-4XC and that of an Orion II, you will hear significant changes in the way the transmitted keyed waveform sounds when utilizing a wide receive IF filter. If the Orion II, with it's Gaussian-shaped envelope is adjusted for a 5 ms rise/decay time, it sounds different than a Drake T4 to even an untrained ear -- even if the T4 is set to 5 ms. The reason for this is that the bandwidth produced within the 5 ms period is much different between these radios and the shape of the waveform yields differences in bandwidth.

The T4 produces an extremely fast leading edge, but its trailing edge resembles the exponential slope of a discharged R/C network. The result is a rapidly decaying but sustained tone resulting from the trailing edge of the waveform. If this waveform is held to a maximum of 5 ms, the difference in the keying characteristic is quite remarkable over that of the Orion II under the same 5 ms limitation.


 
Key Clicks  
by KC1SX on April 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Tom's writings on this topic are a large part of the reason why the ARRL Lab now publishes keying sideband plots alongside the keying waveform. Although it is not widely publicized, we _do_ check all radios at reduced power levels to check for initial spikes, and mention that in the reviews of rigs that have them (see the 706 MkII review in Jan 1998). Although I've heard reports of FT-857s with this problem, units I have tested absolutely do not have it, so it is not a design issue (the waveshape of the 857 is another matter though!)

Now if we could only get mfgs to work on improving transmitted noise...

73, Michael
 
Key Clicks  
by AD6AA on April 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I have a IC-7000 and in the menu I can change the Rise Time for CW. The default is 4 msec. 2, 4, 6, or 8 msec, can be selected. Why such a wide range? There is no 5 msec.

I may just have to listen to the radio with the different settings to see if I can hear clicks.


Mike
AD6AA
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Related News & Articles
When is Recording Radio Signals Legal or Illegal?
The 'Mouse-Keyer':
My Bug
Bandwidth versus Keying Speed Revisited
Anything Left of Your First Station?


Other Operating Articles
Safety First
My First Date with Olivia
D-STAR/Analog Interference Experience
Using Twitter During Mobile Operation
First HF Contact and Other Stuff