K2 SSBCAPKT: 2.4kHz or 2.6kHz SSB bandwidth?

[John Shadle]

Hi all,
I'm trying to get my K2 finished soon and am hoping to work on the
KSB2 module this weekend and early next week before some work/leisure
travel to California. One mod I'm planning on incorporating in the
KSB2 module is the SSBCAPKT, which allows for either 2.4 or 2.6 kHz
SSB signals.

I've checked my BFO and I can do either mod, so that is not an issue.
I'm wondering what I will be gaining/losing in either case. If I can
do 2.6, should I do it?

Any experience/assistance is appreciated.

73
-john W4PAH
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[AC7AC]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Don Wilhelm-4]

John,

The 2.6 kHz bandwidth does indeed sound better, but if you are going to
keep that K2 as a QRP rig, then I suggest the 2.4 kHz width because
there will be more power in the passband.

73,
Don W3FPR

John Shadle wrote:

> Hi all,
> I'm trying to get my K2 finished soon and am hoping to work on the
> KSB2 module this weekend and early next week before some work/leisure
> travel to California. One mod I'm planning on incorporating in the
> KSB2 module is the SSBCAPKT, which allows for either 2.4 or 2.6 kHz
> SSB signals.
>
> I've checked my BFO and I can do either mod, so that is not an issue.
> I'm wondering what I will be gaining/losing in either case. If I can
> do 2.6, should I do it?
>
> Any experience/assistance is appreciated.
>
> 73
> -john W4PAH
>  
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[John Shadle]

If I want to use it as both QRP and QRO, then it seems like 2.6kHz is
the way to go. I have the 100w amp and tuner and plan on using them at
home. Probably will be operating QRP most of the time, but I want to put
out the "best sounding signal" possible, too.

What is the difference in "power" between the 2.4 and 2.6 kHz bandwidths?

-john W4PAH

Don Wilhelm wrote:

> John,
>
> The 2.6 kHz bandwidth does indeed sound better, but if you are going to
> keep that K2 as a QRP rig, then I suggest the 2.4 kHz width because
> there will be more power in the passband.
>
> 73,
> Don W3FPR
>
> John Shadle wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm trying to get my K2 finished soon and am hoping to work on the
>> KSB2 module this weekend and early next week before some work/leisure
>> travel to California. One mod I'm planning on incorporating in the
>> KSB2 module is the SSBCAPKT, which allows for either 2.4 or 2.6 kHz
>> SSB signals.
>>
>> I've checked my BFO and I can do either mod, so that is not an issue.
>> I'm wondering what I will be gaining/losing in either case. If I can
>> do 2.6, should I do it?
>>
>> Any experience/assistance is appreciated.
>>
>> 73
>> -john W4PAH
>>  
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[AC7AC]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Alan Bloom-2]

I think it depends on the voice spectrum.  With a typical male voice
there is a lot of power at low frequencies which is not needed for
comprehension.

If those low frequencies are filtered out, either by an audio high-pass
filter (series capacitor) or by the crystal filter (the edge nearest the
carrier) then the extra transmitted bandwidth should make very little
difference in "talk power".

Alan N1AL


On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 14:38 -0700, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> But Don, I is a < 10% increase in RF power produced by the narrower 2.4 kHz
> bandwidth even audible?
>
> I can see dropping to 2 or 2.2 kHz to see enough improvement that it might
> be audible under weak signal conditions, but the tiny difference between 2.4
> and 2.6 seems unlikely to be noticeable.
>
> Ron AC7AC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> John,
>
> The 2.6 kHz bandwidth does indeed sound better, but if you are going to
> keep that K2 as a QRP rig, then I suggest the 2.4 kHz width because
> there will be more power in the passband.
>
> 73,
> Don W3FPR

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[AC7AC]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy]

Ah but, under noisy band conditions the bandwidth of the listening receiver
is most probably set to some value much less than 2.4 kHz. So I would
question whether a wider filter in the transmitter does in fact result in
improved intelligibility under these conditions.

FWIW I find that a 2.1 kHz filter in the transmitter, with the carrier
placed so that the audio frequencies from 300 Hz downwards are attenuated,
works well under noisy conditions without sounding like a parrot.

73,
Geoff
GM4ESD


Ron D'Eau Claire wrote on Friday, October 16, 2009 at 11:26 PM:

> The improved intelligibility of the wider filter comes from the better
> high
> frequency response.



______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html