If you can call a 20 feet long antenna a 'long wire', it is a 'long wire'. :-)

Sun Tzu wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 09:35:42 -0400, Dave wrote:


Sun Tzu wrote:

REDACTED


you use an antenna thats 20 ft long would that be a dipole? 3 inches off
the ground?? no kidding, any idea why so low? what kind of wire do you
use to connect the noise unit to the antenna?

would you say the units eliminate the noise equally as well? or does one
seem to be better than the other?




The 20 feet long antenna is exclusively a NOISE SENSING antenna. It is
used for the NOISE channel on the ANC-4/MFJ-1025. It is simply a wire
plugged into the back of the units.

Mounting it close to ground minimizes the HF/RF signals while picking up
the manmade noise [mmnoise from my previous post] signals.

The ANC-4 works very well with the short NOISE Sensing antenna. The
MFJ-1025 works better IF the NOISE SENSING antenna is longer and higher
[like a second HF antenna]. The MFJ states that it can be used to
eliminate adjacent channel interference. I have never used it in this
mode. [My ICOMS have an excellent ANF feature and DSP]

The ANC is very easy to use [two independent adjustments]. The MFJ takes a
little learning to use [three interdependent adjustments]. Both do work!

If I had to choose one ... the ANC-4 ... ease of use and less noise
antenna requirements.


thanks for all the info Dave.
looks like the ANC-4 is the way to go. I have downloaded the manual for
both. the noise sensing antenna that you use is it in a dipole
configuration or like a long wire?
what kind of wire do you use to go between the ANC-4 and the noise antenna?

Sun Tzu wrote in
:

There are 2 noise reducing units on the market I am considering for
purchase either one, MFJ-1025 1.5 - 30 MHz Noise Canceling Antenna and
the Timewave ANC-4.

A number of yrs ago I made my one and only purchase of "Mighty Fine
Junk" and have'nt been back since.

So I need some input here. Which unit is better and why.

I have an MFJ-1026. The little noise whip that came with it had the
wrong thread in its base, but no huhu, I just wedged a pen top in beside
it to hold it against the pin. Sometimes it's no help, but other times
it's spectacular, especially with some big splashy TV birdie that I get
here a lot (I think it's in the building here but there are 45 suites, 15
of them on the back of the building where I am and a lot of commercial
garbage within a block. That TV birdie can be 20 over 9 on my old Ten
Tec 546B (which has a very parsimonious S-meter) on 75 and I can drop it
to inaudible in the S4 hash.

Haven't tried the Timewave job, but they both work on the same principle,
which is to pick up the noise with a separate antenna and amplifier and
vary the gain and the phase until you cancel it out against the version
from the main antenna.

It has certainly helped me work a number of stations that could not be
heard without it.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Cecil Moore wrote in news:_d0Ig.11107$%j7.5218
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

Sun Tzu wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:44:21 +0000, Cecil Moore wrote:

Sun Tzu wrote:
So I need some input here. Which unit is better and why.
Don't forget the ClearSpeech system. I have two of them and they
really
work.

tell mew about this system and where do I find more info on it

A Google search turned up almost 10K pages for "ClearSpeech"
including this one:
http://www.universal-radio.com/CATAL...kers/2980.html

This is a different approach to noise reduction. It will not help with
swamping or third order products in the receiver, whereas the 1026 may
well do that. I also use an MFJ 784B. It's very useful, both on CW and
on SSB, reducing noise and shaping the bandpass.

In a noisy urban area like mine you need all the help you can get. :-)



--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667