Login  Register

RE: FILTER SETTINGS

Posted by Joe Subich, W4TV on Dec 11, 2007; 4:03pm
URL: http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/FILTER-SETTINGS-tp456756p456757.html




Bill,

>  >By this simple calculation (or by plotting on graph paper) one
> can see that the 200 Hz filter should do a BETTER job as the
> most "narrow" filter.  It remains "tighter" to about -35 dB
> and the five pole design should result in less pulse stretching
> (ringing in the presence of static) than the 250 (really 350 Hz)
> filter.
>
>          Excellent post Joe (as usual).  Another reason one
> might want the 200 versus the 250 is the relative difference
> between the 400 and 500 filters.  From the published data:
>
> Filter  BW(-6dB)     Shape Factor
>   200     224             4.0
>   250     370             2.1
>   400     435             2.1
>   500     565             3.1
>
> Practically there is little BW difference in the 250 and
> 400 8-pole filters.  If one wanted both a very narrow
> and moderately narrow filter, I would choose the 500
> and 200 5-pole filters.  They have at least an octave
> difference in total bandwidth...plus the group delay
> issues you cited in your last paragraph above.

Expanding the 200/250 analysis to 200/250/400/500 as I did
privately for someone else:

               200      250     400      500
   -------------------------------------------------
    - 6dB      224      370     435      565  Hz
    -60dB      896      777     913     1751  Hz
     slope     6.22     3.77    4.43    10.98 Hz/dB  

    -10dB      274      400     470      653  Hz
    -20dB      398      475     559      873  Hz
    -30dB      522      550     647     1092  Hz
    -40dB      647      626     736     1312  Hz
    -50dB      771      702     825     1531  Hz

I really think the 200/500 pair is the best value.  The
only possible benefit of the 400 over the 500 would be
an improvement of 500 Hz spaced IMD.  However, as you
have pointed out, with strong interfering signals at
500Hz and 1 KHz, the problem is far more likely to be
radiated phase noise and clicks from those signals than
receiver generated IMD.  

I'm looking forward to information on the variable CW
filter, something like a 400 Hz to 1 KHz range would
be ideal in place of either the 400 or 500 Hz filter.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV
 

_______________________________________________
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