You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
The Feb 2025 Radioddity Giveaway Results are In! Click Here to see who won!

Reply to thread

Message

Thank you for the data!

100% agree. IMHO, it is an S meter calibration issue. Your data further proves the point.

Your 2 Q5N2's have 158 & 167 respectively for ULRS1; mine is 345. Your AFRS1 = 387 & 489; mine is 609. I consider mine to have a high noise floor.

The change came somewhere in the 176022258 production run.
Radios that are 176022258380 and above seem to have a higher setting for RS1 and RS3 than radios with an earlier SN.

By S5, things are back inline with the earlier runs. And all of the radios after that SN are having a "perceived" high Noise floor. In reality, it just a S meter calibration issue.

I haven't "calibrated" mine yet, but I will bet you that when it is done, my RS1's will be <100.

[QUOTE="Dr_DX, post: 826533, member: 1260"] Thank you for the data! 100% agree. IMHO, it is an S meter calibration issue. Your data further proves the point. Your 2 Q5N2's have 158 & 167 respectively for ULRS1; mine is 345. Your AFRS1 = 387 & 489; mine is 609. I consider mine to have a high noise floor. The change came somewhere in the 176022258 production run. Radios that are 176022258380 and above seem to have a higher setting for RS1 and RS3 than radios with an earlier SN. By S5, things are back inline with the earlier runs. And all of the radios after that SN are having a "perceived" high Noise floor. In reality, it just a S meter calibration issue. I haven't "calibrated" mine yet, but I will bet you that when it is done, my RS1's will be <100. [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom