Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1713 invoked from network); 29 Sep 1999 21:00:42 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO magnet.force9.net) (195.166.128.26) by guiness.force9.net with SMTP; 29 Sep 1999 21:00:42 +0100 Received: (qmail 25240 invoked from network); 29 Sep 1999 20:06:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by magnet.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 29 Sep 1999 20:06:11 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11WPj4-0000Vz-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:49:18 +0100 Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.80]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11WPj1-0000Vs-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:49:16 +0100 Received: from [195.171.240.37] (helo=default) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11WPir-0005AX-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:49:05 +0100 Message-ID: <008401bf0ab3$17e3ebe0$16fbabc3@default> From: "Alan Melia" To: "rsgb_lf_group" Subject: LF: re Toni's comments on the 7030 and filters Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:10:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Hi Toni, thanks for the comments....yes I know what you mean, it is a very fiddly rig to operate. I am finding ways of dealing with that and am not having too much trouble. I think I agree with your comments on filters in part. I have found that, after installing the 500Hz filter, I did not get the advantage I expected. It does make copying weak stations a little easier, I can maybe copy about 3dB weaker signal than in the SSB 2.5kHz filter. I would have expected nearer 7dB for a reduction in bandwidth of 5 times. Maybe I am too optimistic! The problem seems to me to be that as the signals approach the noise level the bandpass peaked noise does tend to mask the signal. Not being an experienced CW operator, and as a result probably not having quite so good a filter between the ears, I have learned a few tricks like placing the wanted signal on the shoulder of the filter resonse to make the tone stand out a little more from the filtered noise. Also the use of an acoustic multipath 'filter' on the speaker. I have conventional audio filters at between 150 and 70Hz but find they do not improve the readability of weak signals at all. The DO help if there are other signals in the passband, but only if the QRM-free signal would be readable without the audio filter. Even then I find a notch is often better than a peak. I certainly would like to try a narrower filter for the AOR...so far I cannot find one. Are you aware of a 455kHz filter with a bandwidth of 300Hz or less I could use?? I am quite willing to kludge anything in. I buy kit for keeps and don't care about resale value if it works well. I suspect at this IF I may have to have a little more amplification to counter the insertion loss of a really narrow filter. That probably means I may have to build a small daughter board to drop into the spare filter slot. Filter alignment is by software and automatic, so even if the frequency wasn't quite right, it may not matter too much. 73 de Alan G3NYK Alan.Melia@btinternet.com