[CQ-Contest] Kenwood YK-88C-1 vs Inrad 103

[Jim Neiger]

INRAD filters are great.  And per Geo W2VJN suggestion, I put 1000Hz filters 
in both of my MP's, used as my primary CW filters.

73

Jim  N6TJ


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Tope" <W4EF at dellroy.com>
To: <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 3:49 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Kenwood YK-88C-1 vs Inrad 103


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Michael Tope" <W4EF at dellroy.com>
>
>
>> The 500Hz wide 2nd IF CW filter (YK-88C-1) in W6UE's TS-950SDX is dying
>> (it's intermittent), and I am wondering whether I should replace it with
>> another
>> YK-88C-1 or change it over to the Inrad #103 (400Hz x  8.83 MHz IF
>> filter).
>> Has anyone done this? The main application will be for contesting, so I
>> don't want anything too narrow in there as this will be the only CW 
>> filter
>> available in the 8.83 MHz IF (e.g. 2nd IF). We have both 500Hz and a 
>> 270Hz
>> wide filters in the 3rd IF if we need to kick in a more narrow filter to
>> pull
>> out a weak one during a run.
>
>
> Thanks to KH6DV, G0XBV, K0XU, K5PI, and  K8GU for your replies
> to my inquiry on the Inrad #103 (400Hz wide x 8.83 IF filter) vs. the
> Kenwood
> YK-88C-1 (500Hz wide x 8.83 MHz IF filter). The overall consensus from
> everyone who responded was that the Inrad #103 has a much better shape
> factor
> than the YK-88C-1 and that it is an excellent choice for the 2nd IF slot 
> in
> the
> TS950SDX. In the meantime, I got a note back from George W2VJN stating
> that the 6:60 shape factor of the Inrad #103 is 2.0 vs 3.6 for the Kenwood
> YK-88C-1.
>
> 73 de Mike, W4EF...................................
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>