K3 for CW
Locked
12
12
 
|
I'm about to place order for k3 kit. I'm currently only interested in CW, have a K2 I built, and want to spring for a K3. Currently my order includes the KAT3, KDVR3, 400 & 250 8-pole filters. I've been following P3, 2nd Rcvr here but am not ready for those yet. My question is 1) best filters for CW and 2) any other must-have options. I've read Wayne's article about filter selection but still unsure. It seems the 400 and 250 may be close to same and 1000 and 400 a better choice. Or 500 5-pole? I'll be adding Sec Rx so what about filter matching? 73, Don, KB1YBG
73,
Don KA1KU |
|
|
I had the same dilemma. I went for the 250 and 500 for the reason you mentioned. I normally listen at 350 hz but 250 in contests. If you are mostly interested in CW why bother with the DVR? The 2nd RX is very nice but I find that I seldom use it after the first few months. I don’t think you need to match them. I have a 400 hz filter in my sub RX and have had good success with diversity etc. Just my 2 cents worth. 73, -Robby VY2SS From: Don KB1YBG [via Elecraft] [mailto:[hidden email]]
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-for-CW-tp7558622.html To start a new topic under [K3], email [hidden email] No virus found in this message. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Don KA1KU
Don,
If you are only interested in CW, why are you including the KDVR3? All the rest sounds OK. One suggestion that I would offer (because you are not ordering the KRX3 immediately) is to wait on your filters and go with only the stock 2.7 kHz filter for now. Once you have determined what filtering widths work best for your operating style, then you can order the needed filter widths for both your main receiver and the future SubRX. The DSP filters set the ultimate "brick wall" filter width. The roofing filters protect from Hardware AGC pumping from signals in the roofing filter (2.7 kHz) passband which may not be heard unless you widen the DSP filter. So if your initial operation is not heavily oriented to contesting or DX pileups, you will be able to make better filter choices after you become accustomed to the K3. The only other thing you may want to consider is the 2.7 or 2.8 kHz SSB roofing filter. If you think you will in the future want to use diversity reception for SSB, go with the 2.8 MHz filter because it reportedly has zero offset - meaning a future filter purchased should match it. 73, Don W3FPR On 7/4/2012 7:36 PM, Don KB1YBG wrote: > I'm about to place order for k3 kit. I'm currently only interested in CW, > have a K2 I built, and want to spring for a K3. > Currently my order includes the KAT3, KDVR3, 400 & 250 8-pole filters. > > I've been following P3, 2nd Rcvr here but am not ready for those yet. My > question is 1) best filters for CW and 2) any other must-have options. > > I've read Wayne's article about filter selection but still unsure. It seems > the 400 and 250 may be close to same and 1000 and 400 a better choice. Or > 500 5-pole? I'll be adding Sec Rx so what about filter matching? > > 73, > Don, KB1YBG > > > -- > View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-for-CW-tp7558622.html > Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Don KA1KU
Hi Don,
You don't need the KDVR3 for CW. The memory buttons work for CW without this option. You might want to consider the KXV3A if you plan to use a separate receive antenna or if you plan to add a P3 someday. I have 400Hz and 200Hz filters. For CW I usually have my bandwidth set at 200Hz or lower. I use my 400Hz filter for RTTY where my bandwidth is usually 350Hz or 400Hz. You may want to consider just the 200Hz or 250Hz filter and buy another filter later if your operating style warrants it. The same argument can be used for buying only the 400Hz or 500Hz filter for CW and getting a narrower filter later. If money is not an issue buy both. I also have the 1000Hz filter and never find myself operating with a bandwidth in the 400Hz to 1000Hz range. One day I'll pull it out and sell it. Had I used my own advice I could have saved some money. 73, Mike K2MK
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Don KA1KU
Don...
Seems like all of us who contemplate buying a K3 go through the filter agonies. I ended up with the 2.8/8-pole, 1.9/8-pole, 500/8-pole from Inrad, and 200/5-pole. I am almost totally a cw type, using ssb only for dx that isn't on cw. While not operating ssb much, I wanted a filter arrangement for that mode that would be "ever lasting." For cw, the 250 and 400 from Elecraft seemed too close together to really be different. I remember the 500cps mechanical filters from Collins, so that's always been my standard for cw. Then, for tight work, the 200 seemed nice. As Don says elsewhere, the dsp sets the ultimate bandwidth, while the filters "protect the door." That said, I wanted filters that would provide the same long-term satisfaction as with the ssb filters. I've operated more ssb than ever in the past because the K3 does such a good job on receiving ssb. As it stands, the K3 here is set for the future with no looking back. ...robert On 7/5/2012 00:36, Don KB1YBG wrote: > > I'm about to place order for k3 kit. I'm currently only interested in CW, > have a K2 I built, and want to spring for a K3. > Currently my order includes the KAT3, KDVR3, 400 & 250 8-pole filters. > > I've been following P3, 2nd Rcvr here but am not ready for those yet. My > question is 1) best filters for CW and 2) any other must-have options. > > I've read Wayne's article about filter selection but still unsure. It seems > the 400 and 250 may be close to same and 1000 and 400 a better choice. Or > 500 5-pole? I'll be adding Sec Rx so what about filter matching? > > 73, > Don, KB1YBG > > > -- > View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-for-CW-tp7558622.html > Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Robert G. Strickland, PhD, ABPH - KE2WY [hidden email] Syracuse, New York, USA ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Don KA1KU
I too am CW only, have had a K2 for years, and when I went for the K3, went
through the usual "which filter" questions. I come from a 250/500 Hz background (mostly Ten-Tecs). I opted for 200 and 400 Hz along with the stock 2.7 kHz. My thinking was that I wanted each filter to have, more or less, a dedicated purpose, in the interest of simplicity. 2.7k: tuning around, casual listening, not engaged in QSO, not listening to a specific QSO 400: listening to a specific QSO or engaged in one 200: engaged in a QSO and interference occurs or I need to pull weak signal out I was pretty certain that 400 was something I wanted, so the real problem was whether to get 200 or 250. I opted for 200 because 250 seemed "too close" and I figured that if you need to kick in the 200, you really NEED narrow. I have zero regrets about the setup and will likely never consider another for my style of CW ops. Nice knowing it's done and I can focus on the QSOs instead of the filter choices. My only concern about the 200 was that it's so narrow that I might hear ringing or some other undesirable characteristics. I find this to be 100%, without a doubt, false. The 200 on the K3 performs better than any 250 I've tried on other rigs (admittedly, all Ten-Tecs plus an IC-706MkIIG) My 2 cents. --Andrew, NV1B .. On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Don KB1YBG <[hidden email]> wrote: > > I'm about to place order for k3 kit. I'm currently only interested in CW, > have a K2 I built, and want to spring for a K3. > Currently my order includes the KAT3, KDVR3, 400 & 250 8-pole filters. > > I've been following P3, 2nd Rcvr here but am not ready for those yet. My > question is 1) best filters for CW and 2) any other must-have options. > > I've read Wayne's article about filter selection but still unsure. It > seems > the 400 and 250 may be close to same and 1000 and 400 a better choice. Or > 500 5-pole? I'll be adding Sec Rx so what about filter matching? > > 73, > Don, KB1YBG > > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Don KA1KU
Hi All,
Thanks for all the great info. Just what I was looking for. As suggested I'll scrap the dvr and add the KXV3A. Who knows, I may add a P3 someday but would like to put up a receive antenna soon. I have it on the K2 but have not used it. As for filters, I think I'll go with the 8-pole 400 and upgrade the 2.7 to the 2.8. It is my understanding that the 8-poles have zero offset and thus I can add these to the sub in the future without matching issues. I still have to study all the info you've provided but sounds great. Thanks and 73, Don
73,
Don KA1KU |
|
|
In reply to this post by RobertG
My filter recommendation is 8-pole (zero offset issues) 250hz and 2.8
8-pole for the same reason. I set my filter BW in the config to the actual BW of around 350hz. I operate 99% CW. With the subRX and the P3 I find I use the P3 for the "big picture" on pileups and to estimate the working pattern of the DX. I crank the main down to focus on the DX to around 200hz and use 350hz on the sub to ID and verify the station being worked. I'm pretty successful in putting my signal right in the DX ops path within one or two tries. That assumes the OP is working a pattern. Sometimes they appear to be just spinning the dial... I worked 1A0C on 40 thru 17 CW with 100w and modest antennas using this approach in the last few days. I have a 1Khz filter in the main that I'll remove the next time I have the rig open. Haven't found a use for it. I'll probably sell it and use the proceeds for a FM filter to play on 6m. I have a subRX in with the same two filters in case I get around to do diversity which is likely this fall. I really like my K3! 73 jim ab3cv ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Don KA1KU
> As for filters, I think I'll go with the 8-pole 400 and upgrade the > 2.7 to the 2.8. It is my understanding that the 8-poles have zero > offset and thus I can add these to the sub in the future without > matching issues. I went the 2.8, 400, 200 route in the main RX and 2.8, 400 only in the sub RX. If I had it to do over I would probably not bother to "upgrade" the standard 2.7 KHz filters to 2.8. The 2.7 is wide enough than one can "split the difference" in order to maintain phase lock in diversity. If one absolutely needs better skirt performance in a wider filter, adding the 1.8 KHz provides added flexibility at very little added cost (replacing 2.7 with 2.8 is $129.95, purchasing the 1.8 or 2.8 outright is only 139.95!). 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 7/4/2012 9:15 PM, Don KB1YBG wrote: > Hi All, > Thanks for all the great info. Just what I was looking for. As suggested > I'll scrap the dvr and add the KXV3A. Who knows, I may add a P3 someday but > would like to put up a receive antenna soon. I have it on the K2 but have > not used it. As for filters, I think I'll go with the 8-pole 400 and > upgrade the 2.7 to the 2.8. It is my understanding that the 8-poles have > zero offset and thus I can add these to the sub in the future without > matching issues. > > I still have to study all the info you've provided but sounds great. > > Thanks and 73, > Don > > -- > View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-for-CW-tp7558622p7558628.html > Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 > ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Don KA1KU
I like the 500 HZ roofing filter and use the dsp to do most of the work. Remember...these are roofing filters and the software does the work. Lee Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Don KA1KU
Don,
It seems that you are an experienced CW op. See the selection of filters no different from other transceivers where xtal filters determine the BW.. Just pick your favourite BWs. For CW I have 400Hz en 200Hz in main RX and 400Hz in SubRx to enable diversity mode. I use the 400Hz filter 99% of the time. The 200Hz only comes into play when I need to dig a signal out, often in combo with the APF. 73 Arie PA3A Op 5-7-2012 1:36, Don KB1YBG schreef: I've been following P3, 2nd Rcvr here but am not ready for those yet. My question is 1) best filters for CW and 2) any other must-have options. I've read Wayne's article about filter selection but still unsure. It seems the 400 and 250 may be close to same and 1000 and 400 a better choice. Or 500 5-pole? I'll be adding Sec Rx so what about filter matching? 73, Don, KB1YBG ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4
I ordered my sub-receiver with the 2.7 filter even though my main had the
2.8 (my error when ordering the sub-receiver well after the original K3). I experimented a bit and found by setting the offsets for both filters half way between the 2 filters solved the wa-wa issue without any noticeable loss in fidelity. I do realize that the skirts are not ideal but the compromise does not seem to be audible. If the user is mostly CW then I would use this method if you don't want the additional cost of matched 2.7s or 2.8s. I regularly use diversity on a net and do not have an issue when the 2.7/2.8 filters are selected. Obviously they are not exact but neither are the H & V signals. George AI4VZ -----Original Message----- From: Joe Subich, W4TV Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 9:54 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 for CW > As for filters, I think I'll go with the 8-pole 400 and upgrade the > 2.7 to the 2.8. It is my understanding that the 8-poles have zero > offset and thus I can add these to the sub in the future without > matching issues. I went the 2.8, 400, 200 route in the main RX and 2.8, 400 only in the sub RX. If I had it to do over I would probably not bother to "upgrade" the standard 2.7 KHz filters to 2.8. The 2.7 is wide enough than one can "split the difference" in order to maintain phase lock in diversity. If one absolutely needs better skirt performance in a wider filter, adding the 1.8 KHz provides added flexibility at very little added cost (replacing 2.7 with 2.8 is $129.95, purchasing the 1.8 or 2.8 outright is only 139.95!). 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 7/4/2012 9:15 PM, Don KB1YBG wrote: > Hi All, > Thanks for all the great info. Just what I was looking for. As suggested > I'll scrap the dvr and add the KXV3A. Who knows, I may add a P3 someday > but > would like to put up a receive antenna soon. I have it on the K2 but have > not used it. As for filters, I think I'll go with the 8-pole 400 and > upgrade the 2.7 to the 2.8. It is my understanding that the 8-poles have > zero offset and thus I can add these to the sub in the future without > matching issues. > > I still have to study all the info you've provided but sounds great. > > Thanks and 73, > Don > > -- > View this message in context: > http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-for-CW-tp7558622p7558628.html > Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 > ______________________________________________________________ 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 ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Arie Kleingeld PA3A-2
I get the feeling from reading all of these messages that most of the writers do not
understand the function of the filters in the K3. I know that AC7AC, W3FPR and others have explained it, but it doesn't seem to sink in. The ONLY time you need a narrower filter is when there is a signal that is about S9+20 or greater that is outside the DSP bandwidth that you have selected but still within the bandwidth of the selected filter. So if you have a 2.8 kHz filter and you have your DSP bandwidth set to 200 Hz then unless there is a *very* loud signal that is within 2.8 kHz, it will not be much different from what you would hear with a 200 Hz filter. I say 'much' because the effect of concatenating the DSP and the sharp filter will change the shape of the bandpass a little. I always advise CW operators to get the 400 Hz filter. Situations in which they will need a sharper one will be rare. On 7/5/2012 12:03 AM, Arie Kleingeld PA3A wrote: > Don, > > It seems that you are an experienced CW op. > See the selection of filters no different from other transceivers where > xtal filters determine the BW.. Just pick your favourite BWs. > > For CW I have 400Hz en 200Hz in main RX and 400Hz in SubRx to enable > diversity mode. > I use the 400Hz filter 99% of the time. The 200Hz only comes into play > when I need to dig a signal out, often in combo with the APF. > > 73 > Arie PA3A > > Op 5-7-2012 1:36, Don KB1YBG schreef: > I've been following P3, 2nd Rcvr here but am not ready for those yet. > My question is 1) best filters for CW and 2) any other must-have > options. I've read Wayne's article about filter selection but still > unsure. It seems the 400 and 250 may be close to same and 1000 and 400 a > better choice. Or 500 5-pole? I'll be adding Sec Rx so what about filter > matching? 73, Don, KB1YBG > > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/ ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
Vic,
You may say this and it may be true in theory, but if you have a 400Hz filter and are listening on an otherwise clear segment of the band with a single relatively weak signal in the centre of the passband, try widening from 400Hz to 450Hz, in my case switching to the 2.1kHz filter. If you still believe there is no reason for the narrower filter, IMHO you need your hearing checked [no offense intended]. Or try telling the K3 that it's really a 500Hz filter and do the same from 500 to 550Hz, same effect. Personally I have not had any need for anything narrower than 400Hz, although I would love a 200Hz filter if there was room for 6, but my lineup is FM, AM 6kHz, 2.7, 2.1, 400, so I don't have room for any more. 73, Thomas M0TRN On 5 July 2012 16:51, Vic K2VCO <[hidden email]> wrote: > The ONLY time you need a narrower filter is when there is a signal that is > about S9+20 or > greater that is outside the DSP bandwidth that you have selected but still > within the > bandwidth of the selected filter. > ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
Thomas, On 7/5/2012 11:55 AM, Thomas Horsten wrote: > > You may say this and it may be true in theory, but if you have a > 400Hz filter and are listening on an otherwise clear segment of the > band with a single relatively weak signal in the centre of the > passband, try widening from 400Hz to 450Hz, This is the wrong test as you significantly change bandwidth when going from 400 Hz with the 400 Hz roofer to 450 Hz with the 2.7 or 2.8 KHz roofer. The correct test is to set your DSP bandwidth to 300 Hz and switch roofers while making no other changes. Under those conditions - unless you are listening to a very busy band with may strong local signals - if you can hear a difference you are probably a science fiction or fantasy writer. > Personally I have not had any need for anything narrower than 400Hz, > although I would love a 200Hz filter if there was room for 6, but my > lineup is FM, AM 6kHz, 2.7, 2.1, 400, so I don't have room for any > more. It is an absolute shame that we are still stuck with the FM/AM filter limitation after all this time. The FM filter (+/-6.5 KHz @-6dB and about +/- 10 KHz at -60dB) is more than satisfactory to remove any transmit image at 30 KHz offset (after all, it works in FM). I have never been able to detect any image response (transmit or receive) with the FM filter in AM or ESSB when I tell the K3 it's and AM filter. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 7/5/2012 11:55 AM, Thomas Horsten wrote: > Vic, > > You may say this and it may be true in theory, but if you have a 400Hz > filter and are listening on an otherwise clear segment of the band with a > single relatively weak signal in the centre of the passband, try widening > from 400Hz to 450Hz, in my case switching to the 2.1kHz filter. If you > still believe there is no reason for the narrower filter, IMHO you need > your hearing checked [no offense intended]. Or try telling the K3 that it's > really a 500Hz filter and do the same from 500 to 550Hz, same effect. > > Personally I have not had any need for anything narrower than 400Hz, > although I would love a 200Hz filter if there was room for 6, but my lineup > is FM, AM 6kHz, 2.7, 2.1, 400, so I don't have room for any more. > > 73, Thomas M0TRN > > On 5 July 2012 16:51, Vic K2VCO <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> The ONLY time you need a narrower filter is when there is a signal that is >> about S9+20 or >> greater that is outside the DSP bandwidth that you have selected but still >> within the >> bandwidth of the selected filter. >> > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 > ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Don KA1KU
At the risk of being repetitive, I chose the 2.8 KHz and 400-Hz
8-pole filters for my main Rx and 2.8 for my sub-Rx. I run CW on VHF and up so "crowded band phenomena" is rarely encountered. On eme it is never seen. But I reasoned having the steeper skirts would be handy for HF-SSB and cascading the 400-Hz with the DSP at 100-Hz might net a slight improvement with super-weak CW on eme. I find the 400-Hz filter is narrow enough to make tuning for CW difficult enough (usually tune in 2.1-DSP and narrow down once on freq.). I added a 13-KHz filter for running VHF-FM on the main-Rx (works nice on BC am). I bought the dual-bw filter for the KX3 figuring it might make difference in reception with the direct-conversion SDR. It appears to switch in at about 2.35 KHz. I can hear the change in band noise with it in. I have not spent enough "play" time to come up with optimum menu settings (most still the original). Today is semi-annual shack cleaning day (also wading into the "rats nest" of wires behind the console in preparation for hosting a "shack tour" at the end of our local hamfest in a couple weeks. Now that I have the KX3 and all my new transverters installed, I can accomplish a more "permanent" wiring hookup! (nothing in my shack is permanent!) From overcast, 50F, with gusty winds (in Alaska), 73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45 ====================================== BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com EME: 50-1.1kw?, 144-1.4kw, 432-QRT, 1296-?, 3400-? DUBUS Magazine USA Rep [hidden email] "Kits made by KL7UW" http://www.kl7uw.com/kits.htm ====================================== ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Vic Rosenthal
This applies to CW and particularly to contesting.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Vic K2VCO <[hidden email]> wrote: > I say 'much' because the effect of concatenating the DSP and the sharp > filter will change > the shape of the bandpass a little. > If the DSP width is set to the actual bandwidth of an 8 pole roofer and the offset of the roofer is carefully adjusted to bring its *** 30 dB down *** (not -6 dB) skirts to coincide with the 30 dB down skirts of the DSP, the effect is quite more than a "little". For the 400 hz 8 pole, this width is 450 Hz, and for the 250 Hz 8 pole this width is 350, and to get the benefit you must install the "400" Hz as 450, and the "250" as 350 width with the K3 utility. It takes some time to get the combination exactly "skirt-aligned", with the filter offset setting, but it is worth it. Until I discovered this procedure, my K3 had the best front end and some really neat features over my Yaesu FT1000MP. But the K3 did ***NOT*** have the best selectivity. Nor was it particularly close. My MP had cascaded 8 pole INRAD filters in the 8 MHz and 455 kHz IF's. I had that arrangement for 1.8, 400 Hz and 250 Hz. When someone was high or low but enough into my bandpass to be a problem, a very small tune-tweak with RIT, with the offending signal on really, really sharp skirts would put another 10 dB rejection on him without my moving my run frequency. NOW, with the 8 pole offsets set for skirt alignment with DSP at -30 dB, when I use 450 or 350 width I get the MP dual INRAD style skirt rejection. Note it's not so sharp away from the 450 or 350 settings. That is because while the DSP uses digital magic to retain it's shape factor with , the 8 pole at 400 or 300 is starting the level off process in the curve, and it is not adding as much rejection to the DSP's rejection. For my purposes, the rejection at 400 is acceptable, but having the "250" roofer kick in at 350 really makes 450 to 300 width quite good, even if it still remains a teensy bit broader than the cascaded INRADs in the MP. Now here's the other benefit: The very sharp drop of the skirt aligned 8 pole/DSP at 450 and 350 converts an up or down frequency signal with key clicks to LOWER amplitude, but VERY SHARP spikes, viewed on a scope. Some people have mistakenly thought this was making clicks worse, and perhaps from an irritation point of view that was true. That was because the really spikey part of the sound which irritates most was being held down by the extra energy let in by broader selectivity. Why is sharp spikes a benefit? The K3 is WONDERFUL at handling spikes. More so after the spectacular improvements from firmware 4.51, even the lowest NB setting of IF OFF and DSP t1-7 will simply eliminate all but louder key clicks, and since 4.51, t2-7 has handled anything. The AGC already ignores short spikes, and so unless the key clicks in adjacent channel are loud enough to get into the hardware AGC (15 or 20 over key clicks?) , clicks become a non-issue. In some cases, the clicks go from S7 or S8 to S nothing. Suppression of five or six S units is more common. I sometimes get the clicks supressed only to hear the station's phase noise or poorly suppressed carrier. If you have ever held down a run frequency for 4 plus hours, it almost inevitable to get a clicky signal up or down. This click-elimination feature of a K3 can be the difference between staying where all your spots are, or having to move in self defense and really messing up your rate until you can find another frequency. There may not be any open frequencies, particularly if the band you are on is the only one really open (or a 160 contest). Losing a run frequency can cost you 50 or 100 contacts. Later in a contest, S&P is not an option. I now just leave NB on all the time at t1-7, IF OFF. My ear has gotten used to the very slight truncation of CW bauds at t1-7. The pair set at 450 and 350 has another use. While I always settle into a run frequency where I hear nothing in the 450 bandwidth, It frequently these days gets squeezed as the K3 phenomenon is transforming traditional 1/2 kHz spacing to 1/3 kHz spacing. More and more frequently, after starting at 450, I find myself running at 350 bandwidth in self-defense. Still with the great key click suppression, and with a 300 setting that works nearly as good. I have operated for hours with the (mandatory?) 30 over 9 Italian up 400 Hz running a pair of 3CX5000's and bad key clicks, and kept it at high rates. Something my MP could never do, notwithstanding cascaded INRADs and super-sharp selectivity. The Italian still gets a dun after the contest, but has never responded. I think he looks for me because I DON'T have any key clicks and don't respond with squeezing, etc. With my K3, I just don't care. Some low level of clicks is irrelevant, and I can monitor his rate. He does turn in good scores. So I have 5 pole 2.7 for conversational SSB, and for contests, 1.8 8 pole for SSB (mandatory, but that's a whole other story), and "400" and "250" 8 poles, aligned as above. This is not everyone's ticket, but operating in a contest with the roofer significantly larger than the operating bandwidth is going to cost you, and there are benefits to matching DSP and roofer precisely. 73, Guy ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Edward R Cole
On 7/5/2012 11:08 AM, Edward R. Cole wrote:
> > Today is semi-annual shack cleaning day (also wading into the "rats > nest" of wires behind the console in preparation for hosting a "shack > tour" at the end of our local hamfest in a couple weeks. Always wondered why they call this "wireless." 73, Fred K6DGW - Northern California Contest Club - CU in the 2012 Cal QSO Party 6-7 Oct 2012 - www.cqp.org ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
1st K3 (#2812)
2800 1000 400 250 No Sub 2nd (#6119) 2700 1000 400 250 Sub: 2700 400 99% contest or DXpedition use, rarely any ragchewing. I normally hear as wide as possible, just in case the going gets tough I crank the bandwith to the lower limit. 73, Jo dj3cq |
|
|
Hmmm. To me a 1000 filter is a waste of a slot. Make it 1.8 and it is a big help in the occasional SSB contest. I wonder if I need the 400 hz in my sub. I only use the sub in a split operation and like to set my DSP up to 600-800 so I can hear more of the pile in my right ear. -Robby #3804 From: dj3cq [via Elecraft] [mailto:[hidden email]] 1st K3 (#2812) If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-for-CW-tp7558622p7558706.html To start a new topic under [K3], email [hidden email] No virus found in this message. |
«
Return to [K3]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |