Ok, I have three INRAD filters in the Omni VI+ now:
I hope in the correct spigots!
As follows:
First IF @ 9MHz;
#753, 400 Hz replacing TT #217, 500 Hz
Other first IF filter is the TT #221, 250 Hz, 6 pole.
Second IF @ 6.3MHz:
#751, 250 Hz replacing TT #282
#700, 400 Hz, replacing TT #285.
Remaining second IF filter is the TT #288 1.8 kHz filter.
Now, I read of a new second IF INRAD 2.4 kHz filter,
#756 with 10 poles, which is supposed to transform the
rigs SSB performance -- lots of rave comments.
Question: Does this new unit replace the standard TT
2.4 kHz filter in the second IF, or go in place of the
1.8kHz optional filter?
Further, I presume it is the INRAD 2.8kHz filter, #754
for the first IF which is to cure some Omni VI+ CW keying
problem. Has this proven to be the case? And, where
is it to be installed, in place of one of the narrow band
N1 or N2 filters or somewhere else?
And, if both of these filters are added, one in each IF
strip, is the alleged great improvement in SSB performance
still achieved, or has putting the wider 2.8kHz filter in the first
IF somehow negated the added skirt selectivity of the
new second IF 10 pole 2.4 kHz filter, presuming CW fixing
2.8kHz filter is permanently in the first IF path?
Or, maybe we are to also add the new second IF 2.8kHz
INRAD filter #755 when adding the 754 in the first IF?
Obviously I am a little confused at what/which is to cure
the CW keying problem, and what is to dramatically
improve SSB performance within a crowded band.
Just wondering if the total cost would produce a remarkable
benefit to both CW and SSB Omni VI+ performance.
Thanks and 73, Jim, KH7M
On the Garden Island of Kauai
--
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
|