Bill W4ZV wrote: > > > 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. >
For more casual operating or on sparsely populated bands, the 1.8Khz filters do just fine for me. After all, it's 95% dsp. I find the advantages of the narrow roofing filter greatly outweigh any minor advantage of having a wider cw passband in contests. When running, they protect me from offending neighbors who would have otherwise ran me off my run freq, which occurs a few times in EVERY contest - far outweighs the one or two off frequency callers I might have missed. And in S&P, the narrow filters allow me to hear that weak signal right next to that s9+ running station and give me those dx mults in 160M contests. I removed the 500hz filter pair that I used to also have installed. Different strokes . . . . 73, Barry N1EU -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/need-some-roofing-filter-advice-tp6581353p6583241.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
