I do agree that the K3 is very versatile with high and low cuts. I guess
it’s just ones preference. I can stand 2.2KHz BW or even 2KHz but anything
less then that to me is too narrow. It’s probably because of my interest
in HF music and the fact that my brothers and me owned and operated a
Ed Muns, W0YK wrote:
The K3 is entirely different. I've been operating SSB with a 1.5 kHz
bandwidth for three years now and it is perfectly intelligible. On prior
radios, though, I couldn't even get a 2.1 kHz filter to sound intelligible
enough to be useful. I think the difference is
What's different about the K3 is its outstanding usability. With a single
front panel control, HI CUT, any SSB bandwidth can be quickly dialed in,
maintaining optimum intelligibility. With the few prior generation radios I
tried narrow SSB filtering on, there were obscure menu settings and/or IF
Personally, I leave mine set at 1800 width, 1050 shift (the net effect
of dialing the HI-cut down until the the width is 1800) all the time,
and SSB sounds fine to me. I haven't touched those controls in SSB
mode in a long time. I may be missing out on some benefit of fiddling
with it. I generally
I fiddled with HI CUT a lot at first, to determine how narrow I could go
and still maintain excellent intelligibility. Once I settled on 1500 Hz, I
asked INRAD to make some 1500 Hz roofing filters (actually about 1600 Hz)
for contest work. Like you, my SSB bandwidth (DSP: 1500 Hz, crystal
Ed Muns, W0YK wrote:
What's different about the K3 is its outstanding usability. With a
single
front panel control, HI CUT, any SSB bandwidth can be quickly dialed in,
maintaining optimum intelligibility. With the few prior generation radios
I
tried narrow SSB filtering on, there were
I owned 5 transceivers in my lifetime and I purchased a narrow (1.8) SSB
filter for only one. It was a total wast of money. For me the filter was
too narrow for voice communications and if a nearby station was too close
the splatter and the narrow passband made the situation worse. When I
Jack wrote: I owned 5 transceivers in my lifetime and I purchased a narrow
(1.8) SSB
filter for only one. It was a total wast of money. For me the filter was
too narrow for voice communications and if a nearby station was too close
the splatter and the narrow passband made the situation
The K3 is entirely different. I've been operating SSB with a 1.5 kHz
bandwidth for three years now and it is perfectly intelligible. On prior
radios, though, I couldn't even get a 2.1 kHz filter to sound intelligible
enough to be useful. I think the difference is where the filter is located
Ed is entirely correct.
Those who attempt to manipulate the shift and width to obtain an
intelligible response on SSB are creating more trouble than it is worth.
For maximum voice intelligibility, the low frequency corner of the
filter must remain at 300 Hz (or slightly lower). The high
Hi Chuck,
I was faced with the same questions last winter when I added the second RX.
There was some concern that diversity reception would suffer if the two
recievers were not filtered exactly the same. Since I considered diversity
reception to be a bit of a gimmick I went with just two
Hi Chuck,
I was faced with the same questions last winter when I added the second RX.
There was some concern that diversity reception would suffer if the two
recievers were not filtered exactly the same. Since I considered diversity
reception to be a bit of a gimmick I went with just two
Re-post: sorry, problem with original::
Thanks for all the comments gentlemen.
Regarding the RX antenna, I've been reading lots lately on the subject
trying to figure what will work given my pathetic QTH space limitations and
HOA restrictions.
Quite a challenge indeed. In fact, more of a
Thanks for all the comments gentlemen.
Regarding the RX antenna, I've been reading lots lately on the subject
trying to figure what will work given my pathetic QTH space limitions and
HOA restrictions.
Quite a challenge indeed. In fact, more of a challenge than I'd like. I may
have to be content
callen1155 wrote:
It seems the 250 or 200 may be too limited in application so given the
above would you suggest the 400 Hz 8 pole or the matching 500 Hz 5 pole
filters?
I disagree. I have switched to full-time use of 200hz 5-pole filters in
both receivers for cw, configured as 300hz
Chuck,
I'm certainly no expert. But, I was facing the same delema, which
filters to buy. I have my main rec filled with 6, 2.8, 1.8,400 and 200
filters. When I recently added the sub-rec, I only bought the 2.8 and
200. So far, I've been pleased.
Good luck, you'll get a lot of comments on
callen1155 wrote:
It seems the 250 or 200 may be too limited in application so given the
above would you suggest the 400 Hz 8 pole or the matching 500 Hz 5 pole
filters?
Barry N1EU wrote:
I disagree. I have switched to full-time use of 200hz 5-pole filters in
both receivers for cw,
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 SP) and
160M dx'ing, this works
I removed the 500hz filter pair that I used to also have installed.
1.8 KHz and 200 Hz may be fine if you don't do any RTTY. However, for
either RTTY DX or contesting, you will want 500 Hz, 400 Hz or 250
Hz (370 Hz) filters.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 7/14/2011 9:29 AM, Barry N1EU wrote:
Sorry to do this to you guys but .
I need some roofing filter advice:)
Currently I only have the stock 2.7K filter and it has worked fine for
casual rag chewing and some dx'ing.
I've been operating my K3 for over a year and it seems I don't have any
strong signals near me creating problems.
Chuck,
I'd go with the 250 Hz 8-pole. It's fine for PSK31 as well as CW and
keeps the in-band blocking to almost nothing.
I have one in both receivers, and it's really surprising what one can
do with it.
73,
matt W6NIA
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:01:44 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
Sorry to do this to
On 7/13/2011 5:01 PM, callen1155 wrote:
I need some roofing filter advice:)
Since your interest is weak signal CW but not contesting and you don't
have neighbors blowing away your radio, a roofing filter is not a
particularly high priority for you. Instead, I would concentrate on the
best RX
22 matches
Mail list logo
