I do not know the details, but there is some sort of limitation which prevents
the synthesizer from reliably acquiring lock with RX bandwidths greater than
2.8 kHz.
I ran into a firmware bug about a year and a half ago (since fixed) that was
allowing my 13 kHz FM filter to be selected in CW m
I'll vote with Bill here.
Since the CW envelope in the digital number stream is pristine, the
filters and any envelope delay can only distort it. In the case of the
2.7, the delay is far enough away frequency-wise from the signal to be
insignificant.
Given that the filters are subject to manufact
P.B. Christensen wrote:
>
> Since keying bandwidth is a function of the RF envelope shape, I'm not
> sure
> why anyone would want to narrow the K3 filter on CW transmit.
>
Because most rigs have spurs and I wanted to make my signal as clean as
possible. Typically these may be <80 dBc but sti
> Only Elecraft can answer this question. In early 2008, I tried using a 1
> kHz filter for CW TX (telling the configuration it was a 2.7) for CW TX
> and
> got some very bad signal quality reports.
If the CW Tx frequency is not reasonably centered in the filter passband,
poor keying quality re
Bob Naumann wrote:
>
> I've asked about the 2.1 filter before, but here it is again.
>
> Will the K3 configuration be changed to allow the selection of the 2.1
> filter for transmission purposes?
>
Only Elecraft can answer this question. In early 2008, I tried using a 1
kHz filter for CW TX
I've asked about the 2.1 filter before, but here it is again.
Will the K3 configuration be changed to allow the selection of the 2.1
filter for transmission purposes? If not, aside from it being some amount of
work to allow this, is there a technical reason why not? In other words,
would my signal
6 matches
Mail list logo
