callen1155 wrote: > > It seems the 250 or 200 may be too limited in application so given the > above would you suggest the 400 Hz 8 pole or the matching 500 Hz 5 pole > filters? >
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. However, when used in conjunction with an accurate waterfall (e.g. Skimmer's decoder dots), even <200 Hz BW would work. Skimmer can be calibrated to automatically jump the K3 within 10 Hz of any signal with no additional tuning needed. This is why I suggested yesterday for my pileup macro to add some XIT to the K3 so that you don't zero beat everyone else calling. :-) Notice how close the tones are as I automatically jump up the band with the mouse wheel in the video below. This allows using very narrow filters in the K3, even when tuning a sparsely populated band. The P3 should also work for this but it will depend on how accurately you can manually place the "QSY" cursor on the signal of interest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZDXuOgUQJ0 73, Bill -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/need-some-roofing-filter-advice-tp6581353p6583044.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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
