Engineering is *always* about compromises. -- Ron AC7AC
While I certainly agree in theory, I don't think I'm making many with the
K3. I picked my roofing filters on the basis of contesting and
non-contesting.
For non-contesting there's very little that strains the DSP. For general
puttering
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:13:31 -0400, DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL wrote:
Roofing filters work to help knock out IMD (intermod) which may be
encountered when multiple, very strong signals (stronger than Mike's
59+10) populate the band.
YES! It's important to remember that the add-in filters are ROOFING
HI all,
I've previously written to Mike directly, but I now see so many
comments here that seem wrong or potentially misleading to me (but
not all), that I am compelled to comment to the reflector.
Mike said,
I just dont want to hear a 59+10 signal that is 3 kc..from the
frequency I am listening
Doug, KR2Q, presented a superb explanation of why one needn't sweat too much
over the roofing (first I.F.) filter in the K3.
I'm enough of an O.T. to remember the famous 1950's articles in QST What's
Wrong With Our Present Receivers? by Byron Goodman, W1DX, who pointed out
the astonishing idea
One aspect that Doug leaves out, however is that of audio quality.
Signals will sound different with different filtering.
Using a 2.8 XFIL and DSP to make it 1.8 KHz, I found SSB signals to be
a bit tinny and hard sounding.
I installed a 1.8 KHz XFIL, and found the audio quality to be
improved.
Using a 2.8 XFIL and DSP to make it 1.8 KHz, I found SSB
signals to be a bit tinny and hard sounding.
What were the LO CUT and HI CUT values that produced this tinny and hard
sounding audio?
In both my K3s, the audio sounds great and it sounds identical, whether I
use the 2.8 or the 1.8 kHz
6 matches
Mail list logo
