http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/need-some-roofing-filter-advice-tp6581353p6583697.html
1.8 KHz and 200 Hz may be fine if you don't do any RTTY. However, for
... Joe, W4TV
>
> Bill W4ZV wrote:
>>
>>
>> Barry N1EU wrote:
>>>
>>> I disagree. I have switched to full-time use of 200hz 5-pole filters in
>>> both receivers for cw, configured as 300hz bandwidth in CONFIG menu. My
>>> width is typically set at 300hz. For contesting (running and S&P) and
>>> 160M dx'ing, this works exceptionally well for me and I feel no need for
>>> a wider cw roofing filter.
>>>
>> Yes and no. Perhaps in extremely crowded contests but maybe not for more
>> casual operating or on sparsely populated bands.
>>
>
> For more casual operating or on sparsely populated bands, the 1.8Khz filters
> do just fine for me. After all, it's 95% dsp.
>
> I find the advantages of the narrow roofing filter greatly outweigh any
> minor advantage of having a wider cw passband in contests. When running,
> they protect me from offending neighbors who would have otherwise ran me off
> my run freq, which occurs a few times in EVERY contest - far outweighs the
> one or two off frequency callers I might have missed. And in S&P, the
> narrow filters allow me to hear that weak signal right next to that s9+
> running station and give me those dx mults in 160M contests.
>
> I removed the 500hz filter pair that I used to also have installed.
>
> Different strokes . . . .
>
> 73, Barry N1EU
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/need-some-roofing-filter-advice-tp6581353p6583241.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>