It's deja vu all over again (from May 1).
73, Bill W4ZV http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/elecraft/2007-May/067147.html K0WA: >How many roofing filters do you need in a K3? I would suggest one for SSB and one for CW. That's basically correct, although it depends on how you plan to operate (i.e. serious low band DXing or contests versus casual operating). Remember that a roofing filter's purpose is to prevent IMD and BDR products from passing through the IF chain to the final DSP stage where the final filtering is done. That stage will have variable filter bandwidths over a wide range (every 50 Hz if I recall correctly). The DSP stage really does the heavy lifting after the roofing filter ensures that unwanted products are eliminated at the first IF. If you do casual operating where adjacent signals are seldom above S9+30, it is very unlikely you need more than the stock 5-pole 2.7 kHz filter. Remember that (excluding Orion) few modern rigs use roofing filters narrower than 3 kHz (this includes the IC-7800, FTDX9000, FT-2000 and most of the Inrad roofing filter add-ons for older rigs (Ten-Tec's Omni VI excluded which can be fitted with a 600 Hz). Since the filters have not yet been fully defined or characterized, I would be tempted not to order ANY optional filters at this point. As ARRL discovered in their Orion tests, narrower is not always better. This resulted in Ten-Tec redesigning the Orion II with ONLY 4-pole roofing filters, instead of using the older 8-pole 500 Hz and 6-pole 250 Hz filters used in the original Orion. By "characterized" above, I mean published IMD and BDR specs for each filter. As Ten-Tec has discovered with Orion, roofing filters are somewhat "black magic" and there is no substitute for actual measurements before making a decision about which may be best. A good discussion of roofing filters by George W2VJN of Inrad is here: <http://www.qth.com/inrad/roofing-filters.pdf>http://www.qth.com/inrad/roofing-filters.pdf Filling K3 with filters as Toby suggested is both unnecessary and expensive IMHO. I think he is forgetting that there is very good DSP filtering in the final DSP IF that is already doing what he is attempting to do with a wide range of roofing filters. If you are a serious contester, likely to operate in an environment of S9+30 signals spaced every 500 Hz on 160 meters, then you probably do need a narrow filter like the 500 Hz or 400 Hz. Going narrower is questionable IMHO because: 1. You would not hear off-frequency callers with narrower bandwidths (I've found even 500 Hz is too narrow in some cases. 2. At 500 Hz signal spacing, which a 500 Hz roofing filter will handle very well (i.e. +/- 250 Hz excludes the +/- 500 Hz interfering products), you are probably already limited by issues like transmitted phase noise, key clicks, etc. which will override even a perfect receiver with infinitely good IMD and BDR performance. Even a perfect receiver cannot prevent an adjacent TX signal's defects! Regarding 5-pole versus 8-pole, note W2VJN's comment from page 6 of the article above: "5. If 6 poles work so well, why not 8 poles? The most important part of the filter characteristic is from the pass-band on down to about 30 dB on either side of center. Eight poles would provide much better stop-band isolation, but its not required in a roofing filter and would make no noticeable improvement in IMD performance." Bottom line: 1. Narrower is not always better (Ten-Tec experience) 2. 8-poles is not always better than 5-poles (per Inrad) 3. Let IMD and BDR measurements be your guide 73, Bill W4ZV ---------- * Previous message: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/elecraft/2007-May/067152.html>[Elecraft] CW/DATA mod r _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |