Hi Vic,
You wrote:
Your solution of adding a second BFO just for receiving would
theoretically work, except that you would need to use the 'real' sidetone
pitch for zero-beating.
Quite right, and I am sorry if I was not clear about the zero-beating issue.
Had better tie the ribbons on this
On November 13, 2005 at 02:54 am, Darrell VA7TO - VE7CLA wrote:
I too prefer a higher pitched tone. I guess that is because I learned the
code
with a 1000 Hz tone or perhaps too many years of 1004 Hz test tones at the
telco. Too bad the K2 will only go up to 800 Hz. Perhaps Eric and Wayne,
This subject has been discussed on the TenTec reflector, too. I tend to agree
with K2VCO's ideas concerning the ear's ability to discern slight differences
in pitch better at low frequencies. Bill Tippett, W4ZV, really got my
attention when he divulged that he uses very low pitches (below 300
AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] CW-Pitch 600 Hz or 700 Hz or what?
This subject has been discussed on the TenTec reflector, too. I tend to
agree with K2VCO's ideas concerning the ear's ability to discern slight
differences in pitch better at low frequencies. Bill Tippett, W4ZV, really
got my
On Nov 12, 2005, at 10:50 AM, Karsten Eppert(DK4AS) wrote:
I am in doubt about the optimum CW-pitch. I think I remember from
the old days, that the human ear has the best built in filter
around 1000 Hz, so I thought, CW-crystal filters should have a
pitch around 1000 Hz. Many commercial
Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedsy wrote:
Perhaps the enhancement could be a BFO that is adjusted by a front panel
control?
Hi Geoff!
This would be nice, and I presume that you mean that the knob would
maintain the location of the BFO in relation to the passband along with
the sidetone pitch.
Perhaps the enhancement could be a BFO that is adjusted by a front
panel control?
This would be nice, and I presume that you mean that the knob would
maintain the location of the BFO in relation to the passband along
with the sidetone pitch. Currently it's possible to adjust the pitch
Perhaps the enhancement could be a BFO that is adjusted by a front panel
control?
This would be nice, and I presume that you mean that the knob would
maintain the location of the BFO in relation to the passband along with
the sidetone pitch. Currently it's possible to adjust the pitch from
Hi Vic, Paul,
Not quite Vic. The BFO knob would control the frequency of a BFO thus
establishing the frequency difference between the BFO and a desired signal
in the receiver passband, as done in receivers for decades.Its output is fed
only to the product detector when in use. So the knob
Paul and all,
Not that I am advocating it --- but the center of the CW filters is not
directly coupled to the sidetone pitch by the K2 firmware, so the CW filters
can be centered most anywhere.
It is quite possible to peak the CW filters at 1000 Hz (as long as you do
not run out of BFO range.
Good Evening Don,
The thoughts that I have had about a variable frequency BFO controlled from
the front panel come from the requirement to be able to change the beat note
of an incoming signal very quickly, such as one might want to do more than
once during a pile up. Under such circumstances
Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedsy wrote:
Not quite Vic. The BFO knob would control the frequency of a BFO thus
establishing the frequency difference between the BFO and a desired
signal in the receiver passband, as done in receivers for decades.Its
output is fed only to the product detector when
Hi everybody,
my K2 is #4764.
I am in doubt about the optimum CW-pitch. I think I remember from the
old days, that the human ear has the best built in filter around 1000
Hz, so I thought, CW-crystal filters should have a pitch around 1000 Hz.
Many commercial units seem to have 800 Hz, the
Karsten Eppert(DK4AS) wrote:
I am in doubt about the optimum CW-pitch. I think I remember from the
old days, that the human ear has the best built in filter around 1000
Hz, so I thought, CW-crystal filters should have a pitch around 1000 Hz.
Many commercial units seem to have 800 Hz, the
Vic,
Although that isn't strictly the BFO setting, if you center the wider
filters around the CW pitch and it is too low, won't their skirts extend
below 0Hz and pass the opposite sideband?
Leigh / WA5ZNU
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 8:11 am, Vic K2VCO wrote:
The IF selectivity is the same
Leigh, WA5ZNU asked:
Although that isn't strictly the BFO setting, if you center the wider
filters around the CW pitch and it is too low, won't their skirts extend
below 0Hz and pass the opposite sideband?
--
True, but that's not a selectivity issue. A 2 KHz
On November 12, 2005 07:50 am, Karsten Eppert(DK4AS) wrote:
I am in doubt about the optimum CW-pitch. I think I remember from the
old days, that the human ear has the best built in filter around 1000
Hz,
I too prefer a higher pitched tone. I guess that is because I learned the code
with a
17 matches
Mail list logo
