No, I'm not a human 'Skimmer' -- but I can pick out an individual cw
signal within about an 8 KHz span if it's pitch falls somewhere between
about 200 Hz and 8 KHz, and can probably 'guestimate' by the pitch, to
which signal it corresponds on the P3, and then quickly place my TX
signal nearby
Bruce Beford-2 wrote
I would not assume most users prefer this. I have 2.8/1.8 and it suits
me
just fine, thank you. The 1.8 works well under contest conditions, when
needed.
I found the 1.8k is too narrow for running stations at high rates (150 per
hour) in contests. It's OK when you have
Thanks, Don.
I should explain a bit more. In fact I confused running bw down to
2.1 or 1.8 KHz with running the NR function. It is the NR which adds
what I termed audio distortion to the signal and not narrowing
bw. At least not at 1.8-2.1 KHz. Ringing below 50-Hz makes it
Stan,
Since you have decided to go with the 2.7 filter, you have a couple
decisions to make. Do you pay for matched filters between the main and
the sub so you can have good diversity reception, or do you cheat and
set the filter offsets to the mean of the two filters.
At a 2.7 width, the
Thanks for more great info Don. I figure $20 is well spent in just having
them match my other 2.7Khz, 5 pole.
After reading this through a couple of times and talking with a couple of K3
users I'm going with
2.7 KHz, 5 pole - matched
2.1 KHz, 8 pole
400 Hz, 8 pole
200 Hz, 5 pole - matched
I originally chose the 8-pole filters thinking the steeper skirts
would be useful should I ever take the radio into a dense RF
environment like it is in the lower-48 states. MY experience with CW
indicated 400-Hz was adequate as I could narrow this down with the
DSP filter. I chose the 2.8
don't need an AM filter. I have it, don't use it. Waste for me.
My 2 cents.
Bill N2WL
On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:00 PM, elecraft-requ...@mailman.qth.net wrote:
[Elecraft] K3 - Filter suggestions for new builder
__
Elecraft mailing list
Ed,
I would think you are hearing the results of a narrow passband rather
than DSP audio distortion.
I say that because in all cases with the K3, it is the DSP that
determines the filter width rather than the roofing filter. What I am
saying is that even if you put in a 1.8k filter, SSB at a
On 9/26/2012 1:35 PM, Edward R Cole wrote:
... But I learned that audio is limited to 4-KHz
regardless of IF filter so I ended up selling the extra 13-KHz filter.
...
73, Ed - KL7UW
I really hope that this does not apply to received audio to the
headphones or loudspeaker! I just
Sorry, but yes, the K3 audio is limited at 4 kHz, no matter whether it
is to the headphones or to the speaker. Please do not shoot the
messenger. but that information is in the archives of this reflector in
several places - it has been discussed periodically.
If you want to lobby for extended
Hello Don,
Thanks for the quick response. I was just going through the K3 manual
and KE7X's excellent book, but haven't seen any reference to that. For
general ham radio operation I don't see it as a limitation, but it's a
bit disappointing that the FM filters that will arrive tomorrow along
The limit occurs several places ... adjust the HI setting and one
will find 4.20 is the maximum available. There is also an analog
lowpass filter in the audio (headphone and speaker) between the DAC
and the headphone/speaker amplifiers.
I'm sure this limitation derives from the roughly 10 KHz
Joe,
Good observations, all. I agree that 4.2 KHz is certainly good enough
for communications audio.
The only reason I had for putting the FM filter in the 2nd receiver was
to be able to hear more of the split in a broad pileup situation (like
the extremely large split widths that we saw a
Right, Don!
I still believe that many K3 users are under the erroneous impression that the
roofing filter determines the receiver bandwidth. It does not. The HI and LO
knobs do.
The only thing the roofing filter does is determine the MAXIMUM possible
bandwidth of the receiver.
In 99% of
The only reason I had for putting the FM filter in the 2nd receiver
was to be able to hear more of the split in a broad pileup situation
(like the extremely large split widths that we saw a few months ago
with 7O6T),
The width of the roofing filter has nothing at all to do with hearing
more
Another way of looking at it is this:
Just because a signal gets inside of your roofing filter doesn't mean squat. If
the mixers can handle the signal's level, and the HI LO cut controls can slice
off the signal, you won't even know it's there. You simply don't care!
The only time this could
Joe,
Understood. I wanted to be able to simultaneously hear and see 12 Khz or
so of cw signals, thinking that I could more quickly identify the
station being worked. For example, if I know the dx station is listening
from 14.010 to 14.020 (admittedly pretty wide), I figured I could
include
*Al,
whilst your statements hold true for you, I DO use the 1.8Khz almost as my
default. Attention paid to Hi/Lo gives me nice intelligibility and if you
were listening to 3D2C last night on 20M and witnessed the deplorable
behavior of stations deliberately providing QRM on their call frequency
Hello Stan.
I am an avid CW enthusiast and spend 100% of my time, usually around 4-6
hours a night on 20/40m CW. I have 2 identical loaded to the the max
K3/100's and P3's purchased late this year. I have been very happy with my
filter choices:
1. 13KHz FM
2. 6KHz AM INRAD
3. 2.8KHz INRAD
4.
I figured I could include that entire range within the FM filter
bandwidth (which I still can do), AND also hear all 10 KHz of those
signals (which I've learned I cannot do).
Your ears are much better than mine if you can actually copy a full
10 KHz wide audio pile-up. I have enough trouble
I'm asking for a little help with filter choices. I've read all I can on the
subject
and have come up with what I think is a good choice for me.
I'm going to be getting the sub-receiver so I'm going to be getting 2 of
each filter.
At almost $300 a filter set I would hate to make a choice that I
Stan,
Your first 3 selections mirror mine. I think you'll find them all useful.
I have only the 2.8 and 400 in my second receiver, however, and find that to
be good for me. You do not have to install filter pairs for every IF width.
Filters are pretty easy to install, so there's no penalty
You have chosen the bread-and-butter choices. You may find they are all
you need. You can add others later, if needed.
Could you go with less? Personally, I only use the sub-receiver for
chasing split DX. I don't need razor sharp filtering - in fact, I need
to hear a broad spectrum so I can
I'm pretty sure about getting the:
2.8 Khz, 8 pole
1.8 Khz, 8 pole
400 Hz, 8 pole
I doubt that the difference in performance justifies the upgrade
charge for 2.8 vs. the standard 2.7 KHz filters - particularly if one
is also getting 2.1 or 1.8 KHz narrow SSB filters. The savings
nearly
I sceond Joe's comments.
here: 2.7 , 2.1 , 400 and 200 in Main rx;
2.7 , 2.1 and 400 in Sub.
73
Arie PA3A
Op 25-9-2012 20:08, Joe Subich, W4TV schreef:
I'm pretty sure about getting the:
2.8 Khz, 8 pole
1.8 Khz, 8 pole
400 Hz, 8 pole
I doubt that the difference in performance
ae7...@gmail.com
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:20:37 PM
Subject: [Elecraft] K3 - Filter suggestions for new builder
I'm asking for a little help with filter choices. I've read all I can on the
subject
and have come up with what I think is a good choice for me.
I'm
Thanks for all the feed-back. It looks like I'm at least in the right ball
park.
I definitely want the diversity reception so I'll be doubling most if not
all filters.
I've decided to stick with the 2.7 for now. I doubt my ears could hear the
difference.
Interesting that most here have gone
I would not assume most users prefer this. I have 2.8/1.8 and it suits me
just fine, thank you. The 1.8 works well under contest conditions, when
needed. Remember there is almost always a silent majority.
73,
Bruce, N1RX
Interesting that most here have gone with the 2.1 vs. the 1.8 KHz
Beford
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012 6:13 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 - Filter suggestions for new builder
I would not assume most users prefer this. I have 2.8/1.8 and it suits me
just fine, thank you. The 1.8 works well under contest conditions, when
needed
The subject of extra-narrow SSB bandwidths comes up fairly regularly. These 1.8
kHz (and even 1.5 kHz in use out there) bandwidths are not effective for
everybody. The older I get, the less I can tolerate these narrow bandwidths
for
SSB, even in a contest. They give me listener's fatigue. I
G'day,
2700Hz and 500Hz in both main and sub RX here. Nothing else, not felt
the need, however, an FM filter could be added in one RX one day.
There have been measurements which show that the 5-pole filters have
superior group delay characteristics when compared to the 8-pole.
Regards,
Mike
On 9/25/2012 4:22 PM, Mike Harris wrote:
2700Hz and 500Hz in both main and sub RX here. Nothing else, not felt
the need, however, an FM filter could be added in one RX one day.
The only reason to agonize over roofing filters is, How many strong
stations do you have near you? I have the two
32 matches
Mail list logo
