Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-12 Thread N2TK, Tony
Down at WP2Z for CQWW SSB Test we sometimes on 20M opened up the bandwidth
to 2.4KHZ. Even with strong adjacent signals (as always the case on 20M) we
could keep our run rate higher than with narrower bandwidth. It was just
easier to copy calls even with all that adjacent QRM.

73,
N2TK, Tony

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Bill W4ZV
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:21 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB


Barry N1EU wrote:
 
 
 Bill W4ZV wrote:
 
 1. It *WILL* keep your AGC from pumping if there's another strong 
 station within the 1.8 kHz passband. However, do you really think you 
 could copy a weak signal while a S9+30 interfering signal is inside 
 your 1.8k bandwidth? I don't think so. With any typical SSB filter 
 bandwidth, AGC pumping is not a practical issue (it IS a big deal for 
 CW however).
 
 
 Bill, I'm confused by that first sentence.  How can a signal within 
 the passband NOT pump the AGC?
 
 Normally when AGC pumping is discussed, it's a negative reference to 
 an adjacent signal that's outside of the passband.
 
 Barry N1EU
 

You're correct Barry.  I meant to say just outside your passband.  However,
given that most SSB signals generate 3rd garbage (spurs, phase noise, etc)
in the area of -35 dBc, an S9+30 signal just outside your 1.8k passband will
easily obliterate a weak signal inside the passband.

I found my ears to be the best tool for copying weak signals in the presence
of strong adjacent splatter.  For whatever reason they heard better using
the stock 5-pole 2.7k set to a DSP BW of 2.0-2.1k than the 8-pole 1.8k set
to actuate at DSP = 1.9k.  I tried many times to use the 1.8k but simply
just found the 2.7k worked better for me.  Of course that's just my
experience which wouldn't necessarily apply to everyone.

73,  Bill


--
View this message in context:
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-Filter-question-SSB-tp6981339p698291
2.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

__
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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-11 Thread Barry N1EU

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
 
 Unlike a 1.8kHz DSP filter with a 2.5kHz roofing filter, the 1.8kHz 
 crystal filter also avoids artefacts caused by pumping of the hardware 
 AGC loop by strong signals in the gaps between the wider and the 
 narrower passband.
 

The suggestion is that a 1.8Khz roofing filter will avoid HAGC pumping if
the shoulder of an s9+25dB signal is present in the 350hz gap (2500-1800/2)
that would have been spanned by the 2.5Khz filter.  This is true but I'd
suggest that if the s9+25dB shoulder is within 350hz, there's going to be
plenty of that adjacent signal spilling over into your dsp passband that's
going to pump your dsp AGC.  So at best you will get slight improvement with
the narrower filter but I wonder if it would ever make a difference in copy
ability.  A narrow filter just isn't buying you that much in ssb.

Barry N1EU


--
View this message in context: 
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-Filter-question-SSB-tp6981339p6984984.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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread Jeff Cochrane - VK4BOF
Go the 1.8KHz filter bruce,
Forget the 2.1.

73 de
Jeff Cochrane - VK4BOF
East Innisfail
QLD, Australia
K3 #4257, P3#1629, KPA-500 #161
  - Original Message - 
  From: Bruce Meier 
  To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net 
  Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 9:29 PM
  Subject: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB



  As I operate much more CW than SSB I need some advice and opinions from the
  SSB contesters before adding additional filters for my K3s.  Currently I
  only have the stock 2.7Khz filters in both K3s (main and sub rx) for SSB.  I
  have 400hz and 250hz for CW.  If I wanted to add an additional roofing
  filter for SSB contesting, would I add a 1.8Khz or would I add the 2.1Khz.  

  73,
  Bruce - N1LN

  __
  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
__
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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread Bill W4ZV
Bruce this is from a similar question on the Yahoo Groups K3 list:

-- In elecraft...@yahoogroups.com, Hector Padron ad4c2006@... wrote:

 The 1.8 roofer today with so much band noise and fool ops close to your
 freq disrespecting the spectrum, its a must.This 8 poles filter together
 with the DSP makes brick rx easy to work dx or contesting.The trick to
 recover the lost audio quality when using it is to move counterclockwise
 the shift control down to 1.2 and inteligibility is back.

This is very misleading and I must strongly disagree. I preface this by
saying
I made ~2500 QSOs on 10m single band in the CQ WW (high-claimed USA SOSB/10
score) and was never able to effectively use the 1.8k filter even though I
tried
in vain several times.

Here's what a 1.8k will and will not do:

1. It *WILL* keep your AGC from pumping if there's another strong station
within the 1.8 kHz passband. However, do you really think you could copy a
weak
signal while a S9+30 interfering signal is inside your 1.8k bandwidth? I
don't
think so. With any typical SSB filter bandwidth, AGC pumping is not a
practical
issue (it IS a big deal for CW however).

2. It *WILL *NOT* keep splatter from adjacent signals out of your passband.
If
an interfering signal is 5 kHz wide and partially falls within your
passband, NO
filter can remove it. Splatter is a real signal which NO filter (XTAL or
DSP)
can remove.

3. It *WILL* require very careful tuning for intelligibility. With callers
that are off frequency by only 100 Hz, you'll miss off-frequency callers the
first time which will slow your run rate. I had one caller even 500 Hz below
my
run frequency and I'm certain I would never have heard him if I was using
the
1.8k.

The most effective use of a 1.8k is probably for copying an extremely weak
DX
signal in white noise (not strong splatter or QRM). By tuning VERY
carefully,
you may slightly reduce the noise floor by reducing the noise bandwidth
(potential reduction of 1.8k BW versus 2.1k BW is 10*[log (1.8/2.1)] = -0.67
dB). I really doubt many of us can detect a 0.67 dB improvement in
signal/noise.

The 1.8k is mainly a DXing tool...not a contesting tool. It cannot magically
overcome the basic laws of physics.

73, Bill W4ZV

--
View this message in context: 
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-Filter-question-SSB-tp6981339p6981505.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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread Bill W4ZV

Bill W4ZV wrote:
 
 3. It *WILL* require very careful tuning for intelligibility. With callers
 that are off frequency by only 100 Hz, you'll miss off-frequency callers
 the
 first time which will slow your run rate. I had one caller even 500 Hz
 below my
 run frequency and I'm certain I would never have heard him if I was using
 the
 1.8k.
 

Just to qualify what I mean by high run rates:

-- Q S O   R a t e   S u m m a r y -
Hour 160 80 40 20 15 10Rate TotalPct

1200   0  0  0  0  01731732269.1
1300   0  0  0  0  0186186412   16.6
1400   0  0  0  0  0200200612   24.6
1500   0  0  0  0  0163163775   31.2
1600   0  0  0  0  0112112887   35.7

1200   0  0  0  0  0128128   1481   59.6
1300   0  0  0  0  0155155   1636   65.8
1400   0  0  0  0  0144144   1780   71.6
1500   0  0  0  0  0163163   1943   78.2
1600   0  0  0  0  0128128   2071   83.3
1700   0  0  0  0  0138138   2209   88.9

The best 60 minute rate was 217/hour from 1349 to 1448
The best 30 minute rate was 228/hour from 1358 to 1427
The best 10 minute rate was 246/hour from 1418 to 1427

The best 1 minute rates were:
 6 QSOs/minute7 times.
 5 QSOs/minute   32 times.
 4 QSOs/minute  122 times.
 3 QSOs/minute  238 times.
 2 QSOs/minute  328 times.
 1 QSOs/minute  425 times.

The 1.8k is a nice tool when working a weak DX station who is running the
pileup.  It is very poor if you're the one who is running and attempting to
work callers at high rates (i.e. getting the call correctly the first time
without repeats).  I'll be selling my 1.8k in favor of a 2.1k after my
recent experience.

73,  Bill




--
View this message in context: 
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-Filter-question-SSB-tp6981339p6981677.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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread W0MU Mike Fatchett
The 1.8 is where I would go.  Inrad also sells a 1.5 which a number of 
people swear by for really nasty SSB contests.

Mike W0MU

J6M CQ WW DX CW Contest 2011
J6/W0MU November 21 - December 1 2011
W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net


On 11/10/2011 4:29 AM, Bruce Meier wrote:
 As I operate much more CW than SSB I need some advice and opinions from the
 SSB contesters before adding additional filters for my K3s.  Currently I
 only have the stock 2.7Khz filters in both K3s (main and sub rx) for SSB.  I
 have 400hz and 250hz for CW.  If I wanted to add an additional roofing
 filter for SSB contesting, would I add a 1.8Khz or would I add the 2.1Khz.

 73,
 Bruce - N1LN

 __
 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
__
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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread Joe Subich, W4TV

I would not go any tighter than 1.8 KHz.  I have a pair of the 1.5 KHz
filters that I would swap for 1.8s.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 11/10/2011 10:11 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
 The 1.8 is where I would go.  Inrad also sells a 1.5 which a number of
 people swear by for really nasty SSB contests.

 Mike W0MU

 J6M CQ WW DX CW Contest 2011
 J6/W0MU November 21 - December 1 2011
 W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net


 On 11/10/2011 4:29 AM, Bruce Meier wrote:
 As I operate much more CW than SSB I need some advice and opinions from the
 SSB contesters before adding additional filters for my K3s.  Currently I
 only have the stock 2.7Khz filters in both K3s (main and sub rx) for SSB.  I
 have 400hz and 250hz for CW.  If I wanted to add an additional roofing
 filter for SSB contesting, would I add a 1.8Khz or would I add the 2.1Khz.

 73,
 Bruce - N1LN

__
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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread Barry N1EU

Bill W4ZV wrote:
 
 1. It *WILL* keep your AGC from pumping if there's another strong station
 within the 1.8 kHz passband. However, do you really think you could copy a
 weak
 signal while a S9+30 interfering signal is inside your 1.8k bandwidth? I
 don't
 think so. With any typical SSB filter bandwidth, AGC pumping is not a
 practical
 issue (it IS a big deal for CW however).
 

Bill, I'm confused by that first sentence.  How can a signal within the
passband NOT pump the AGC?

Normally when AGC pumping is discussed, it's a negative reference to an
adjacent signal that's outside of the passband.

Barry N1EU

--
View this message in context: 
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-Filter-question-SSB-tp6981339p6982046.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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread David Gilbert

I also have a pair of the 1.5 KHz filters, and while I find them to be 
desirable under certain DXing situations, I rarely use them in a 
contest.  In a contest you need quick intelligibility and filters as 
narrow as 1.5 KHz don't necessarily give you that.  I have a pretty good 
ear, but lots of human voices have enough energy in different parts of 
the audio spectrum that I find it sometimes necessary to either shift to 
a wider filter or change the shift on the 1.5 KHz filter (I typically 
use 1.1 KHz for the center with that filter) in order to copy the other 
guy's callsign or exchange.  Plus, as W4ZV pointed out, there is so much 
atrocious splatter from crummy rigs or ignorantly adjusted rigs during a 
major contest that it is truly rare to find such a narrow filter 
actually being helpful.   I also would trade my 1.5 KHz filters for a 
pair of 1.8 KHz filters in a heartbeat.

73,
Dave   AB7E



On 11/10/2011 8:27 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
 I would not go any tighter than 1.8 KHz.  I have a pair of the 1.5 KHz
 filters that I would swap for 1.8s.

 73,

  ... Joe, W4TV


 On 11/10/2011 10:11 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
 The 1.8 is where I would go.  Inrad also sells a 1.5 which a number of
 people swear by for really nasty SSB contests.

 Mike W0MU

 J6M CQ WW DX CW Contest 2011
 J6/W0MU November 21 - December 1 2011
 W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net


 On 11/10/2011 4:29 AM, Bruce Meier wrote:
 As I operate much more CW than SSB I need some advice and opinions from the
 SSB contesters before adding additional filters for my K3s.  Currently I
 only have the stock 2.7Khz filters in both K3s (main and sub rx) for SSB.  I
 have 400hz and 250hz for CW.  If I wanted to add an additional roofing
 filter for SSB contesting, would I add a 1.8Khz or would I add the 2.1Khz.

 73,
 Bruce - N1LN

 __
 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

__
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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread Jim Brown
On 11/10/2011 8:34 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
   there is so much
 atrocious splatter from crummy rigs or ignorantly adjusted rigs during a
 major contest

YES, YES, YES.

 that it is truly rare to find such a narrow filter
 actually being helpful.   I also would trade my 1.5 KHz filters for a
 pair of 1.8 KHz filters in a heartbeat.

I strongly agree. I have 1.8 kHz filters in my K3s, and find that I 
rarely use them during a contest for the reasons that W4ZV has 
articulated.  Paraphrasing from another world, it's the TRASH, stupid!

73, Jim K9YC
__
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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread Bill W4ZV

Barry N1EU wrote:
 
 
 Bill W4ZV wrote:
 
 1. It *WILL* keep your AGC from pumping if there's another strong station
 within the 1.8 kHz passband. However, do you really think you could copy
 a weak
 signal while a S9+30 interfering signal is inside your 1.8k bandwidth? I
 don't
 think so. With any typical SSB filter bandwidth, AGC pumping is not a
 practical
 issue (it IS a big deal for CW however).
 
 
 Bill, I'm confused by that first sentence.  How can a signal within the
 passband NOT pump the AGC?
 
 Normally when AGC pumping is discussed, it's a negative reference to an
 adjacent signal that's outside of the passband.
 
 Barry N1EU
 

You're correct Barry.  I meant to say just outside your passband.  However,
given that most SSB signals generate 3rd garbage (spurs, phase noise, etc)
in the area of -35 dBc, an S9+30 signal just outside your 1.8k passband will
easily obliterate a weak signal inside the passband.

I found my ears to be the best tool for copying weak signals in the presence
of strong adjacent splatter.  For whatever reason they heard better using
the stock 5-pole 2.7k set to a DSP BW of 2.0-2.1k than the 8-pole 1.8k set
to actuate at DSP = 1.9k.  I tried many times to use the 1.8k but simply
just found the 2.7k worked better for me.  Of course that's just my
experience which wouldn't necessarily apply to everyone.

73,  Bill


--
View this message in context: 
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-Filter-question-SSB-tp6981339p6982912.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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread David Gilbert


I've had exactly the same experience.  If the offending QRM is outside 
the passband of the filter, the narrower filter setting helps.  However, 
If the offending QRM is heavily inside the passband (i.e., splatter), it 
seems that the additional intelligibility gain by capturing more of the 
desired station's audio bandwidth can often more than offset the 
additional interference you get from using a wider bandwidth.  A lot 
depends upon the desired station's voice characteristics, but I've 
played with this quite a bit and the results can be surprising.

Splatter is the enemy of us all, except of course for the idiots who do 
it intentionally to give themselves elbow room.  One of these days I'm 
going to start posting spectral screenshots of significant offenders on 
my web site.

73,
Dave   AB7E




On 11/10/2011 12:21 PM, Bill W4ZV wrote:


 I found my ears to be the best tool for copying weak signals in the presence
 of strong adjacent splatter.  For whatever reason they heard better using
 the stock 5-pole 2.7k set to a DSP BW of 2.0-2.1k than the 8-pole 1.8k set
 to actuate at DSP = 1.9k.  I tried many times to use the 1.8k but simply
 just found the 2.7k worked better for me.  Of course that's just my
 experience which wouldn't necessarily apply to everyone.

 73,  Bill


__
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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread Barry N1EU

Bill W4ZV wrote:
 
 However, given that most SSB signals generate 3rd garbage (spurs, phase
 noise, etc) in the area of -35 dBc, an S9+30 signal just outside your 1.8k
 passband will easily obliterate a weak signal inside the passband.
 
I agree.  Although I routinely use 1.8Khz roofing filters in ssb contests, I
doubt they help at all and are probably a waste of money.  

What does help to copy a weaker signal in the presence of splatter is to
turn AGC off.

Barry N1EU


--
View this message in context: 
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-Filter-question-SSB-tp6981339p6983028.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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread riese-k3djc
happens outside of contests as well
I can get alongside of a SSB signal
and if it is clean have no problem
but the guys that feel increasing there bandwidth for a better/pleasant
sounding
signal creep me out,,, the K3 is the first rcv I can say this about
if the signal next door is clean regardless of strength it causes no
problems
looking forward to the KX3

Bob K3DJC

 
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:58:46 -0800 Jim Brown j...@audiosystemsgroup.com
writes:
 On 11/10/2011 8:34 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
there is so much
  atrocious splatter from crummy rigs or ignorantly adjusted rigs 
 during a
  major contest
 
 YES, YES, YES.
 
  that it is truly rare to find such a narrow filter
  actually being helpful.   I also would trade my 1.5 KHz filters 
 for a
  pair of 1.8 KHz filters in a heartbeat.
 
 I strongly agree. I have 1.8 kHz filters in my K3s, and find that I 
 
 rarely use them during a contest for the reasons that W4ZV has 
 articulated.  Paraphrasing from another world, it's the TRASH, 
 stupid!
 
 73, Jim K9YC
 __
 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
 
 

America#39;s #1 Skin Cream
Cure Wrinkles Immediately for Just $5
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4ebc2c4258d6875f0bm03vuc
__
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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread Al Lorona
I'm glad this came up because it is an aspect of filtering that seldom is 
addressed.

Many folks seem to think that you can arbitrarily close down the bandwidth of a 
receiver to eliminate QRM and improve intelligibility. 


1.8 kHz is deemed better than 2.1 kHz, and 1.5 kHz is deemed better than both.

But at some point intelligibility itself suffers because you start to eliminate 
the signal you're trying to copy in the first place.

I for one suffer from a type of listener's fatigue when forced to copy SSB 
signals in anything less than about 2.2 kHz or so. 


Others folks suffer from hearing loss and need to hear as much of the voice 
frequencies as possible. 1.8 kHz just doesn't work for many of these folks.

If you're okay with such narrow bandwidths, more power to you, but you can't 
make blanket statements about them being equally effective for everybody.

As Bill, Dave, and Barry alluded to, the ear-brain filter is the most effective 
of all, and it would do us all good to exercise it more often. The more you use 
it, the better you get at it.



  Bill W4ZV wrote:
    3. It *WILL* require very careful tuning for intelligibility. 
__
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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread John Oppenheimer
Interesting to me is position today that 2.1 kHz is narrow. For many
decades, a 2.1 kHz filter was normal, and sometimes only SSB filter.

Heathkit SB-101 etc 350 - 2450 (center 1400)
Collins KWM-2A etc  400 - 2500 (center 1450)

Sometime during the 90s, or so, the standard seemed to move to 2.4 kHz
and up. What happened?

Because of my early experiences with a SB-101, I decided that the Heath
SSB BW settings were for me. Therefore I have a 2.1 kHz roofing filter
installed and set the BW to 350 - 2450 and stored into NORM1.

Which leads into a K3 issue. I believe that it would be a service to all
of us users if the K3 manual had a set of optimal center frequencies for
some of the pseudo standard settings optimized by those before us at
Heathkit, Collins, and others.

And it would be nice if the NORM button was programmable. I understand
that there are the NORM1 and NORM2 settings, but for me, simple NORM is
a wasted SSB button as I never use a 100 - 2900 Hz BW.

And it would be nice if there was a default SSB center for each of the
filters in Filter configuration. Tapping XFIL would not only move to the
next filter, but also set to it's optimal SSB filter center frequency.

John, KN5L
__
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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread Duncan Carter
On 11/10/2011 3:33 PM, John Oppenheimer wrote:
 I use a 1200 Hz center frequency with my 1800 Hz roofing filter.  It gives 
 roughly the same passband as my ancient FT-101E with a cascaded pair of 
 Yaesu filters, one in the normal receive line and the second in the speech 
 clipper.

 Dunc, W5DC
 Which leads into a K3 issue. I believe that it would be a service to all
 of us users if the K3 manual had a set of optimal center frequencies for
 some of the pseudo standard settings optimized by those before us at
 Heathkit, Collins, and others.

 And it would be nice if the NORM button was programmable. I understand
 that there are the NORM1 and NORM2 settings, but for me, simple NORM is
 a wasted SSB button as I never use a 100 - 2900 Hz BW.

 And it would be nice if there was a default SSB center for each of the
 filters in Filter configuration. Tapping XFIL would not only move to the
 next filter, but also set to it's optimal SSB filter center frequency.

 John, KN5L
 __
 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


__
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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread Ian White GM3SEK
Al Lorona wrote:

1.8 kHz is deemed better than 2.1 kHz, and 1.5 kHz is deemed better 
than both.

But at some point intelligibility itself suffers because you start to 
eliminate the signal you're trying to copy in the first place.

I for one suffer from a type of listener's fatigue when forced to copy 
SSB signals in anything less than about 2.2 kHz or so.

Others folks suffer from hearing loss and need to hear as much of 
the voice frequencies as possible. 1.8 kHz just doesn't work for many 
of these folks.


Here's some more individual data.

Although my hearing cuts off sharply at about 2.5kHz, I love the 1.8kHz 
crystal filter for heavy QRM. That Inrad filter was originally purchased 
for the 'narrow SSB' slot of my old FT-1000MP, and  I'm so glad that I 
kept it for the K3.

The 1.8kHz filter also works very well for my wife and other guest 
operators who don't have hearing loss.  In our typical contest QRM 
conditions (running W/VE with the whole of Continental Europe right 
behind us) the narrower filter helps to eliminate the high-pitched 
splatter which we find the most tiring.

Unlike a 1.8kHz DSP filter with a 2.5kHz roofing filter, the 1.8kHz 
crystal filter also avoids artefacts caused by pumping of the hardware 
AGC loop by strong signals in the gaps between the wider and the 
narrower passband.

The 1.8kHz filter does require careful initial setting of the center 
frequency to obtain the best possible intelligibility; but those 
settings will then require very little further adjustment. In other 
words, they make a very effective working compromise to maximize the QSO 
rate.

The 1.8kHz crystal filter is switched in at a DSP setting of 1.9kHz to 
avoid excessive narrowing of the passband. I would certainly agree that 
1.5kHz is too narrow, because almost every voice would then require its 
own critical tuning.

If you're okay with such narrow bandwidths, more power to you, but you 
can't make blanket statements about them being equally effective for 
everybody.

But neither can anyone else make blanket statements about them being 
INeffective.

The fairest that anyone can say is, If you don't like the 1.8kHz DSP 
setting, then don't even think about buying the crystal filter. But if 
you do like 1.8kHz DSP, you might like the crystal filter a lot.


-- 

73 from Ian GM3SEK
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
__
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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread Ian White GM3SEK
Jim Brown wrote:
On 11/10/2011 8:34 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
   there is so much
 atrocious splatter from crummy rigs or ignorantly adjusted rigs during a
 major contest

YES, YES, YES.

 that it is truly rare to find such a narrow filter
 actually being helpful.   I also would trade my 1.5 KHz filters for a
 pair of 1.8 KHz filters in a heartbeat.

I strongly agree. I have 1.8 kHz filters in my K3s, and find that I
rarely use them during a contest for the reasons that W4ZV has
articulated.  Paraphrasing from another world, it's the TRASH, stupid!

Forgive me, Jim, but claiming that it's only about one single thing will 
always lead to bad advice. One-line slogans don't even work in politics, 
and even less so in engineering.

Whatever the problem, it's ALWAYS about finding the optimum working 
balance between several different aspects.

In this particular case we are trying maximize the QSO rate by finding 
the best possible balance between intelligibility, minimum use of front 
panel controls, longer-term operator fatigue and probably several other 
factors that will be of genuine importance to some people, at least some 
of the time.


-- 

73 from Ian GM3SEK
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
__
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


Re: [Elecraft] K3 Filter question - SSB

2011-11-10 Thread Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft
Folks - We are now hitting the single subject posting limit. Please wrap 
this thread up ASAP.

73, Eric
list moderator

---
www.elecraft.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