The ARRL is publishing designs for simple phasing SSB exciters with 3-pole 
filters and filter-type exciters with 4-pole crystal filters so we can't count 
on DSP. Phasing transmitter kits have filters with at least 5-poles so they are 
somewhat better. These should be able to acheive 23 dB suppression 4 kHz from 
the carrier under any circumstances. There could be an exception for older AM 
transmitters or transmitters under 10W PEP. What is really needed is a rule 
that says 3rd order IMD must be at least 30 dB down.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: W2XJ 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 23:16 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: [illinoisdigitalham] Re: Power Mask for 
Bandwidth Rules - USA


  Modern filters that have been used in real equipment since the 80s can 
  be -1 db at 3100 and down 25 db at 3.5 k with negligible overshoot and 
  ripple in the 10ths of a DB. Chebyshev filters are not really the filter 
  of choice for this, elliptic tilers with some custom tweaks are a better 
  choice. They are in very common use in broadcasting. Today digital 
  filter, common in current rigs, can do much better.

  A lesson to be learned from AM broadcast is that when emission 
  standards were tightened, allowance in the standard was made for older 
  rigs. That so called mask was then later used as a means to add digital 
  carriers. There is a lot of interference created. A better approach 
  would exempt transmitter built before a certain date but only for the AM 
  mode.

  ohn B. Stephensen wrote:
  > An emission mask must accomodate AM so I looked at the speech amplifier and 
modulator chapter in the 1955 Radio Amateur's Handbook. It advocates up to 25 
dB of clipping and no circuit has more than a 3-pole filter. The best that can 
be done today is a Chebyshev filter with 1 dB ripple and a 2.5 kHz cutoff 
frequency providing 23 dB of attenuation at 5 kHz and 27dB of attenuation at 
6.5 kHz. Filters would be worse in 1955 as modern filter design methologies 
hadn't been invented yet. 
  > 
  > Only the outer portions of the mask should be defined in the regulations so 
that old equipment can continue to be used but hams with more modern equipment 
can be more efficient and use a larger percentage of the channel. The ARRL 
proposal of 9 kHz at -23 dB might be the best than AM'ers can acheive now. 
  > 
  > 73,
  > 
  > John
  > KD6OZH
  > 
  > 
  > 



   

Reply via email to