Re: [Elecraft] Swapping Standard 2.7 kHz 5-pole Filter
I thought you could transmit via the currently chosen filter - have I missed something? On 29/6/07 09:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent: Is 2.1kHz really overly narrow for SSB transmit? I know people are talking about 1.8kHz filters for RX, and it seems useless to transmit energy that's not going to be used. It's certainly wide enough for data modes. In fact, it might be useful to be able to TX through the 400Hz filter in some of those modes. -- A person usually has two reasons for doing something: a good reason and the real reason. -Thomas Carlyle, historian and essayist (1795-1881) ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] Swapping Standard 2.7 kHz 5-pole Filter
Thank you, seeing as one of those is mine, I'll encourage you to get on with the production :-) On 29/6/07 16:48, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent: Hi David, I'll clarify. We specify globally in the K3 set up menu which filter is transmitted through for -each- mode. (Usually set at the factory.) That setting determines the TX filter regardless of which RX filter you are using. Right now the K3 transmits through the wider SSB filter for SSB/CW/Data (or the 6 kHz for ESSB with the DSP setting the actual TX b/w), through the 6 kHz filter for AM, and the wider FM filter for FM. The ultimate (narrower) TX bandwidths are actually set by the DSP. You can use any filter on RX. I can't talk much more about this now as were busy with ramping up K3 production, but we'll update our FAQ to explain this better. 73, Eric WA6HHQ -- David Ferrington, M0XDF wrote: I thought you could transmit via the currently chosen filter - have I missed something? On 29/6/07 09:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent: Is 2.1kHz really overly narrow for SSB transmit? I know people are talking about 1.8kHz filters for RX, and it seems useless to transmit energy that's not going to be used. It's certainly wide enough for data modes. In fact, it might be useful to be able to TX through the 400Hz filter in some of those modes. -- If all our misfortunes were laid in one common heap whence everyone must take an equal portion, most people would be contented to take their own and depart. -Socrates (469?-399 B.C.) ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
[Elecraft] Swapping Standard 2.7 kHz 5-pole Filter
WA6HHQ: This is incorrect. The 2.7 kHz 5-pole can only be swapped for a 2.8 kHz or possibly the 2.1 kHz 8 pole filters. We require at least one SSB b/w filter in each K3 as it ships since we must also transmit through the filter for SSB and data modes. Transmitting through the 2.1 kHz filter will limit your tx bandwidth to that value. ( I'm not aware of many choosing the 2.1 as their only SSB filter - I may drop that as a swap option to make sure no overly narrow TX K3s get out there and confuse the market.) Thanks Eric! Makes sense to me. I wondered when Annika said the 400 Hz was available but did not question it. For the record, here's the current wording from your online order form: * On SSB the K3 should transmit through the widest SSB filter available, typically 2.7 or 2.8 kHz. (You can receive on any filter.) All K3's must have at least a 2.1, 2.7 or 2.8 kHz SSB filter installed. (2.7 kHz is included with the base K3.) Please note that transmitting through the 2.1 kHz filter will restrict TX bandwidth to that value. For ESSB TX can be set to use the 6 kHz filter (if installed) and b/w can then be set by the DSP. I'll post some more detailed DR numbers on the 5 pole vs 8 pole filters in the next couple of days. This will be very helpful in deciding between various options. Rather than swapping the stock 2.7k for the 8-pole 2.8k for $90, I may be more likely to order a 1.8k for $120. I'm still undecided between the 500 Hz 5-pole versus 400 Hz 8-pole and will be looking closely at the 2 kHz (or even 1 kHz if available) IMD/BDR results for those two filters. Filter plots for the 5-pole filters (like you have for 8-poles) would also be much appreciated. 73, Bill W4ZV ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] Swapping Standard 2.7 kHz 5-pole Filter
Is 2.1kHz really overly narrow for SSB transmit? I know people are talking about 1.8kHz filters for RX, and it seems useless to transmit energy that's not going to be used. It's certainly wide enough for data modes. In fact, it might be useful to be able to TX through the 400Hz filter in some of those modes. I seem to have lost track of (or even lost) some of the discussion here. Ed, W0YK commented on why a somewhat wider signal is good tactics for SSB contesting (that's much more relevant to his station then mine), but an interesting POV. Eric, WA6HHQ said that 2.1kHz bandwidth audio would sound thin, and that was apprently undesireable. Is this just a marketing issue, or is it truly the case for communication? I know almost nothing about pyschoacoustics, but I do know that once upon a time, the Collins 2.1kHz mechanical filters were the standard in military comm gear. And I thought that the frequencies between 500Hz and 2500Hz were the significant ones for understanding speech. I note that the transmit audio can be tailored within that bandwidth by the 8-band TX EQ. The TX filter width is irrelevant if the signal going into the filter is very clean and bandwidth limited by the DSP, but I'm a belt and suspenders kind of person in some cases. I also note that these are 6db bandwidths, so that frequencies on the edge are going to be attenuated somewhat, which is why I wouldn't choose to use a 250Hz filter for a 170Hz FSK signal (I think some of those sidebands are significant, but haven't done any real research on this). But if I wanted to transmit a particularly clean signal, I might choose the 400Hz filter for that. 73, doug ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] Swapping Standard 2.7 kHz 5-pole Filter
In my opinion 2,1 khz isn't to narrow , but it would be desireable to be able to go 2,4 or 2,7 for ragchewing. Have you ever tried to narrow down a ESSB signal on the reciever side? You lose talkpower and the signal sounds lousy. Do the same with a signal transmitting standard BW will still get the talkpower through. So under noisy conditions if you transmitt 2,1 and the other station recieve 2,1 or 1,9 the signal will get through very good. Another hint with ESSB if you think the humming is annoying you could use the dsp. Set for full BW but cutoff att 300 or 400hz and the signal sounds very nice. The humming occure when they try to transmitt under about 100hz. So fellows , if you want to try ESSB please don't go under 150 hz. It sounds like crap At least to me. A really good ESSB signal is lovly to copy , but not the 30 hz stations. 73 de Tom LA1PHA K2/100 3829 - Original Message - From: Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Swapping Standard 2.7 kHz 5-pole Filter Is 2.1kHz really overly narrow for SSB transmit? I know people are talking about 1.8kHz filters for RX, and it seems useless to transmit energy that's not going to be used. It's certainly wide enough for data modes. In fact, it might be useful to be able to TX through the 400Hz filter in some of those modes. I seem to have lost track of (or even lost) some of the discussion here. Ed, W0YK commented on why a somewhat wider signal is good tactics for SSB contesting (that's much more relevant to his station then mine), but an interesting POV. Eric, WA6HHQ said that 2.1kHz bandwidth audio would sound thin, and that was apprently undesireable. Is this just a marketing issue, or is it truly the case for communication? I know almost nothing about pyschoacoustics, but I do know that once upon a time, the Collins 2.1kHz mechanical filters were the standard in military comm gear. And I thought that the frequencies between 500Hz and 2500Hz were the significant ones for understanding speech. I note that the transmit audio can be tailored within that bandwidth by the 8-band TX EQ. The TX filter width is irrelevant if the signal going into the filter is very clean and bandwidth limited by the DSP, but I'm a belt and suspenders kind of person in some cases. I also note that these are 6db bandwidths, so that frequencies on the edge are going to be attenuated somewhat, which is why I wouldn't choose to use a 250Hz filter for a 170Hz FSK signal (I think some of those sidebands are significant, but haven't done any real research on this). But if I wanted to transmit a particularly clean signal, I might choose the 400Hz filter for that. 73, doug ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/880 - Release Date: 29.06.2007 14:15 -- Jeg bruker gratisversjonen av SPAMfighter for privatbrukere. Den har fjernet 114 søppelpostmeldinger til nå. Betalende brukere har ikke denne meldingen i e-postene sine. Få tak i SPAMfighter gratis her: http://www.spamfighter.com/lno ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
[Elecraft] Swapping Standard 2.7 kHz 5-pole Filter
According to Monica at Elecraft, it's possible to swap the standard 2.7 kHz 5-pole filter for either the 2.8 kHz 8-pole or the 400 Hz 8-pole for an incremental $90 ($30 credit plus the standard $120 charge for 8-pole filters), but only the 2.8 kHz and 400 Hz may be substituted for the standard filter. Now if we only knew if there were any difference in IMD/BDR performance we could make a rational decision... 73, Bill W4ZV ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] Swapping Standard 2.7 kHz 5-pole Filter
Hi Bill, This is incorrect. The 2.7 kHz 5-pole can only be swapped for a 2.8 kHz or possibly the 2.1 kHz 8 pole filters. We require at least one SSB b/w filter in each K3 as it ships since we must also transmit through the filter for SSB and data modes. Transmitting through the 2.1 kHz filter will limit your tx bandwidth to that value. ( I'm not aware of many choosing the 2.1 as their only SSB filter - I may drop that as a swap option to make sure no overly narrow TX K3s get out there and confuse the market.) I'll post some more detailed DR numbers on the 5 pole vs 8 pole filters in the next couple of days. The short answer is that the 5 pole filters have slightly less IMD3 dynamic range and a wider shape factor than the 8 pole filters, but both are very good. The 250 Hz 8-pole and the 200 Hz 5 pole are both at least 95+ dB DR3 at 5 kHz, with the 8 pole beating out the 5 pole by several dB. We've been testing a number of each filter on a range of K3s to make sure we can conservatively spec them across filter variations and rig variations. :-) One other note - The sales person you talked to is Annika. There is no Monica at Elecraft, unless they are hiding her somewhere! ;-) She was clear on which filters could be swapped for the 2.7, but I'll check with her for sure tomorrow. 73, Eric WA6HHQ (Now back to work!) Bill Tippett wrote: According to Monica at Elecraft, it's possible to swap the standard 2.7 kHz 5-pole filter for either the 2.8 kHz 8-pole or the 400 Hz 8-pole for an incremental $90 ($30 credit plus the standard $120 charge for 8-pole filters), but only the 2.8 kHz and 400 Hz may be substituted for the standard filter. Now if we only knew if there were any difference in IMD/BDR performance we could make a rational decision... 73, Bill W4ZV _ ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] Swapping Standard 2.7 kHz 5-pole Filter
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:20:26 -0700 From: Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Bill, This is incorrect. The 2.7 kHz 5-pole can only be swapped for a 2.8 kHz or possibly the 2.1 kHz 8 pole filters. We require at least one SSB b/w filter in each K3 as it ships since we must also transmit through the filter for SSB and data modes. Transmitting through the 2.1 kHz filter will limit your tx bandwidth to that value. ( I'm not aware of many choosing the 2.1 as their only SSB filter - I may drop that as a swap option to make sure no overly narrow TX K3s get out there and confuse the market.) Is 2.1kHz really overly narrow for SSB transmit? I know people are talking about 1.8kHz filters for RX, and it seems useless to transmit energy that's not going to be used. It's certainly wide enough for data modes. In fact, it might be useful to be able to TX through the 400Hz filter in some of those modes. 73, doug ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] Swapping Standard 2.7 kHz 5-pole Filter
I was referring to voice and I'm concerned that many will think a radio that is -always- limited to 2.1 kHz TX is overly narrow and 'thin' sounding. 73, Eric _..._ Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote: Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:20:26 -0700 Is 2.1kHz really overly narrow for SSB transmit? I know people are talking about 1.8kHz filters for RX, and it seems useless to transmit energy that's not going to be used. It's certainly wide enough for data modes. In fact, it might be useful to be able to TX through the 400Hz filter in some of those modes. 73, doug ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
