Return-Path: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Received: (qmail 47480 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2005 20:46:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore01.plus.net) (192.168.71.1)
  by ptb-mailstore02.plus.net with SMTP; 12 Jan 2005 20:46:15 -0000
Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD)
	id 1CopNl-000Hjg-Qa
	for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:46:22 +0000
Received: from [192.168.67.1] (helo=ptb-mxcore01.plus.net)
	by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD)
	id 1CopNl-000HjN-4C
	for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:46:21 +0000
Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20])
	by ptb-mxcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD)
	id 1CopNe-0000vI-Jq
	for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:46:14 +0000
Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14)
	id 1CopNV-0000IE-Fo
	for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:46:05 +0000
Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net)
	by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14)
	id 1CopNV-0000I5-4b
	for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:46:05 +0000
Received: from mout2.freenet.de ([194.97.50.155])
	by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1CopNS-0007cv-O3
	for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:46:05 +0000
Received: from [194.97.55.147] (helo=mx4.freenet.de)
	by mout2.freenet.de with esmtpa (Exim 4.43)
	id 1CopNA-0002i2-6v
	for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:45:44 +0100
Received: from pd4b9e1ae.dip.t-dialin.net ([212.185.225.174] helo=[192.168.0.200])
	by mx4.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.43 #13)
	id 1CopNA-0001uH-1h
	for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:45:44 +0100
Message-ID: <41E58C9A.10907@freenet.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:46:18 +0100
From: Wolf DL4YHF <dl4yhf@freenet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)
X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <HKEKINMDBIDLPDGEIOBMMEAGCEAA.g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <HKEKINMDBIDLPDGEIOBMMEAGCEAA.g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk>
X-Warning: freenet.de is listed at abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: 194.97.50.155 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of freenet.de
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: autolearn=failed,none
Subject: Re: LF: Audio Filters
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00)

Hi Gary,

IMHO, there no great benefit from using an audio filter for QRSS. I 
tried the "DSP" in an FT897, and also a narrow analog filter (which I 
use for CW on LF), but couldn't see an improvement on the waterfall 
screen if the "contrast" and "brightness" controls are properly adjusted.
It is more important to have a good noiseblanker in the receiver's 
frontend .

73, Wolf DL4YHF .