I agree that filtering at IF is more effective than at audio, but it
costs more. It is better to get rid of the crud as early as possible
before it hits the AVC system for six. I personally recommend using
the 500Hz filter in BOTH IFs. The 250Hz filter in the first IF is too
lossy/restricting. I do have a 250 in the second IF, but I rarely
use it. The combination of two 500s seems pretty near ideal for CW.
The local club bought an Omni-V and thanks to advice from a non-CW
man they got only a 250Hz filter in the first IF. Nobody likes or
uses it.
John G3JAG
On 24-Jan-99 Greg Deiss wrote:
>
> Dear group,
>
> I have a couple of questions I'd like to bounce off of you.
>
> What is the practical (audible) difference between using a CW audio
> filter (#224) and 8 pole "ladder" filters (#217 or #219). I have a
> reasonable understanding of the design differences; how do they
> differ
> in use? Has anybody done some "side-by-side" listening on these?
>
> Secondly, I just took possession of an Alinco DJ-500T dual-band HT.
> I
> am fairly certain that the antenna it came with is not original and
> not
> correct for the radio. Does anybody out there have one of these
> that
> can give me physical specs or a description of the proper antenna
> for
> this radio?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Greg, kl7qx
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
> Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
> Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
----------------------------------
E-Mail: patents@dx0man.prestel.co.uk
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: 24-Jan-99
Time: 23:29:14
John Crux
Consultant in product forgery - Asia and
Africa
----------------------------------
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|