http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/filters-and-contests-and-interference-question-opinions-tp7403392p7406634.html
You are correct that I am new to contesting and do the S&P method. So
been sucessful. Michigan is just not that rare I guess :-). However,
want to keep that filter also incase this ever changes. Or maybe I
> goldtr8 wrote
>>
>> Currently I have a 2.7, and 2.1 filter plus the narrow ones for
>> digital.
>>
>> My brain is starting to tell me to stop using the 2.1 and get either
>> a 1.8 or even a 1.5 or possibly both. My thoughts are that the dsp
>> would work much better if some of the interference can be directly
>> blocked out by the filter. These thoughts are guided by past
>> readings on the list that this is the case.
>>
>> What is the collective wisdom of these filter changes I am thinking
>> about. I am curious about others who may have tried these and if
>> they kept them or if they thought it made no difference at all.
>>
>
> The answer is...it depends. :-)
>
> I believe you're fairly new to radio and contesting. Therefore I'm
> assuming
> you mostly tune for DX stations and call them rather than running a
> pileup
> yourself, which requires good antennas and high power on SSB. For
> DXing or
> Search and Pounce (S&P) contesting, you normally have plenty of time
> to tune
> in stations carefully before calling. In this case narrow filters
> (either
> XFIL or DSP) will work even with bandwidths down to 1.5 kHz.
> BUT...this
> assumes you have time to carefully tune in the station you want to
> call.
>
> In the case of someone running a pileup at fairly high rates (e.g.
> 150-200
> per hour), it's a different situation. You want to copy callers
> correctly
> the first time without any tuning, send your exchange and get his
> exchange
> in the space of 15 seconds and go on to the next one. The problem
> with
> extremely narrow SSB filters is that many callers will be slightly off
> frequency (e.g. 100 Hz) which renders them unintelligible when using
> narrow
> filters. With a little wider filter, your ears can still copy the
> off-frequency guys without needing to touch the VFO.
> I had a 1.8k filter in the CQ WW last October and gave up using it
> because
> of this problem...and a 1.5k would be even worse. Instead I found
> myself
> using a DSP setting of 2.0-2.1k with the stock 2.7k XFIL, so after the
> contest I traded my 1.8k XFIL for a 2.1k. Unfortunately conditions on
> my
> favorite SSB band (10m) have been so poor that I opted not to enter
> the ARRL
> DX SSB or CQ WPX SSB and really haven't had a chance to try it under
> fire,
> but I believe it will be better than the 1.8k for my purposes.
> As Don said earlier, the major advantage of a narrow XFIL is to
> prevent AGC
> pumping from strong stations nearby. In extremely crowded contests
> this can
> be a major problem. However a narrower filter WILL NOT remove the
> splatter
> from nearby stations...nothing can do that short of using phased
> antennas to
> null their signal.
>
> 73, Bill
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
>
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/filters-and-contests-and-interference-question-opinions-tp7403392p7404470.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