Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Should I get the CW filter?  (Read 20871 times)
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3879




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: September 14, 2011, 01:54:09 PM »

Get the filter.  Try it for your self.  Then you'll know for sure.

Best advice in the whole thread.

Here's why:

If you have the filter in the rig, you can do A/B tests and determine whether it gives a worthwhile improvement for *you*. All the opinions, graphs, arguments, etc., aren't worth two cents compared to what *your* ears tell you.

If you try the sharp filter and don't like it, you can sell it for almost what you paid. Particularly if you get a deal on a good used one.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2403




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: September 14, 2011, 02:37:14 PM »

K3STX wrote:
Quote
FYI, guys. K3ZO (longtime winner of the Dayton Pile-Up Contest and member of the CQ Contest Hall of Fame) does NOT use a narrow CW filter, he uses the 2.4 kc filter on his Orion!! A narrow filter certainly is not necessary (as Eric stated). Do what you want, but I think in the long run you will be a better op if you work on using your brain filter and not an Inrad filter.


I have no direct experience with the Ten Tec Orion, but I do know that it has crystal roofing filters, followed by a variable DSP system capable of very narrow selectivity.  My K3 is similarly equipped.  I think you are telling us that Fred's Orion has only the 2.4 KHz roofing filter; however I'd find it difficult to believe that Fred never narrows down his selectivity with the DSP. 

There are vastly different selectivity requirements based upon a.) what the operator is trying to accomplish; and b.) what band conditions are encountered.

A two KHz bandwidth might work for someone running a small pileup, but a 200 Hz bandwidth is sometimes essential when pursuing a DX station running a transceive pileup on 160 meters.

The OP asked about equipping a Kenwood TS-440S with a narrow CW filter.  I used a TS-440S for a number of years.  It has a very wide (approx. 15 KHz) roofing filter, and no DSP.    If the OP is at all serious about CW, then by all means he needs more optional selectivity than afforded by the standard SSB filter. 

All this heroic talk concerning the filter between the ears is potentially confusing to newcomers.  Yeah, I used a National SW-54 as my first ham receiver and developed that filter between the ears, too.   There is no shame in using the best CW selectivity tools that are available.

73,
Chuck  NI0C
Logged
PA0BLAH
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: September 14, 2011, 03:42:23 PM »

It is really unbelievable. Nearly everybody knows it better than the champion.

Nobody can deny that the champion  is the best and uses the best procedures.

Go to a forum  like this one,  ask a question that the average amateur thinks he can answer, and you get a bunch of text you can't handle when you are on the level that urges you to ask the question.

So what is the purpose of a forum? What is the effect of a forum (waste of time for everybody)

What is the sense of trying everything for yourself by buying and selling equipment. What is the sense of science when everybody denies the results and want to find out for himself at his own expenses.

Perhaps it are the basics of being a ham. a HAM, (original meaning a sucker) self developing by experience and trying everything that is already well known.
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3879




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: September 14, 2011, 06:44:20 PM »

It is really unbelievable. Nearly everybody knows it better than the champion.

Nobody can deny that the champion  is the best and uses the best procedures.

I deny it.

The ham in question does what he thinks works best for him, doing the kind of hamming he does. That's fine - but it does not mean what he does works best for everyone, in the kind of hamming *they* do.

Go to a forum  like this one,  ask a question that the average amateur thinks he can answer, and you get a bunch of text you can't handle when you are on the level that urges you to ask the question.

Not in this case. VK3GDM gave the perfect answer. Here it is again:

"Get the filter.  Try it for your self.  Then you'll know for sure."

Why do anything else?


So what is the purpose of a forum? What is the effect of a forum (waste of time for everybody)

What is the sense of trying everything for yourself by buying and selling equipment.

To find out what works best for *you*.

What is the sense of science when everybody denies the results and want to find out for himself at his own expenses.

Simply looking at one or two hams' personal preferences as being "the best" and denying all the rest isn't "science". It's just blind belief.

Imagine if a famous "champion" chef stated that a particular brand and flavor of ice cream is "the best". Should all of us simply eat only that brand and flavor and never try anything else? After all, the "champion" does.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2403




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: September 14, 2011, 06:55:19 PM »

Quote
What is the sense of science when everybody denies the results and want to find out for himself at his own expenses.

What "science" are you talking about?  Anecdotal evidence concerning the preferences of your newly discovered "champion"?  

Here's some science for you-- signal to noise ratio can be improved by decreasing receiver bandwidth.  

73,
Chuck  NI0C  
Logged
PA0BLAH
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: September 15, 2011, 01:06:59 AM »

Jim:

Your Ice cream example doesn't hold. You know that very well. What is demonstrated  is that the advantage of selecting signals from the 2.8 kHz audiospectrum and concentrating on them has more advantage then omitting (and hence not knowing the existence) of the not selected signals.

"Get the filter.  Try it for your self.  Then you'll know for sure." is far from the perfect answer.

 Example: You have to go to the other side of a frozen lake. Your only luggage is a pair of ice skates.
You have never learned skating.
You can walk and keep falling, OR you can skate.

The guy tries the skates and finds out that it is even harder to proceed then walking. So rest of the story you can imagine yourself. The guy  will proceed walking and will never get the possible performance.

No champion in lake crossing will do it by walking. Look at the champion the way he performs the task and take your conclusions, not from your own starting experience.

Chuck:
You wrote:
Here's some science for you-- signal to noise ratio can be improved by decreasing receiver bandwidth.  

It turns out - DJ1YFK has demonstrations on his website - that is true when you measure the power of signal and noise, however physiological it turns out that you copy as easy the signal in 3 kHz wide  white noise, as with the noise power reduced to the bandwidth of 400 Hz with the same noisepower per Hz bandwidth.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 01:18:20 AM by PA0BLAH » Logged
K3STX
Member

Posts: 981




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: September 15, 2011, 06:38:59 AM »

I have no direct experience with the Ten Tec Orion, but I do know that it has crystal roofing filters, followed by a variable DSP system capable of very narrow selectivity.  My K3 is similarly equipped.  I think you are telling us that Fred's Orion has only the 2.4 KHz roofing filter; however I'd find it difficult to believe that Fred never narrows down his selectivity with the DSP.  

I have been told he does not narrow down below 2.4 kc, but perhaps this is urban legend. I have also been told that by using his brain filter he processes multiple calls simultaneously in pile-ups and comes back to them, 1, 2, 3 and THEN calls CQ again. Again, perhaps urban legend. But I have heard Fred operate, I think this is all true. He is an amazing operator.

Of course the guy can buy a filter and try it out. But that costs $100. I thought the question was how necessary is it? I think we would all agree it is not necessary but would be nice to have the option of using the filter. It would also be nice if I had a K3 next to my TS-850S to see if with my lousy antennas I would notice any difference. And it would be nice if I would win the lottery.

paul
Logged
PA0BLAH
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: September 15, 2011, 09:25:33 AM »

So KK4CPH

Please inform us what your conclusion and decision is after three pages of advice.

That will help me and hopefully others to conclude that forums are absolutely worthless, even worse, time consuming the time you had be better used to develop your knowledge and skill.

So, not any  answer of you is also very helpfull.

best 73
Bob PA0BLAH
Logged
K3STX
Member

Posts: 981




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: September 15, 2011, 09:46:32 AM »

They are not useless. They are entertaining. And I think if you get some valuable information AND are entertained, that is good.

Of course these are opinions of people, just take the opinions and think about what you would do. That is why people ask questions, go get opinions. No harm in asking.

paul
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2403




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: September 15, 2011, 11:10:14 AM »

PA0BLAH wrote:
Quote
It turns out - DJ1YFK has demonstrations on his website - that is true when you measure the power of signal and noise, however physiological it turns out that you copy as easy the signal in 3 kHz wide  white noise, as with the noise power reduced to the bandwidth of 400 Hz with the same noisepower per Hz bandwidth.

Yes, I've read Fabian's excellent website and have listened to his example sound files.  Note though, his qualification-- no interfering signals-- quite often not the case on the ham bands! 

73,
Chuck  NI0C
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2403




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: September 15, 2011, 11:28:33 AM »

K3STX wrote:
Quote
I have been told he does not narrow down below 2.4 kc, but perhaps this is urban legend. I have also been told that by using his brain filter he processes multiple calls simultaneously in pile-ups and comes back to them, 1, 2, 3 and THEN calls CQ again. Again, perhaps urban legend. But I have heard Fred operate, I think this is all true. He is an amazing operator.


I have the greatest respect for Fred.  I first worked him 1n 1967.  I do not doubt what you say concerning his operating style and performance. 

As I stated previously, wide filters may be desirable for running pileups (as you described Fred doing), but may not work well at all for "search and pounce" operating in a crowded band. 

Consider another "champion" operator, Bill Tippett, W4ZV.  Bill uses a K3 with two receivers with matched 200 Hz filters for diversity receive on 160 meters.  Bill is the world's top Dx'er on 160 meters, and has set a world record for copying weak CW signals: http://www.eham.net/articles/9982 

Narrow CW filters are not simply a waste of money.

73,
Chuck  NI0C
Logged
KK4CPH
Member

Posts: 154




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: September 17, 2011, 03:38:42 PM »

So KK4CPH

Please inform us what your conclusion and decision is after three pages of advice.

That will help me and hopefully others to conclude that forums are absolutely worthless, even worse, time consuming the time you had be better used to develop your knowledge and skill.

So, not any  answer of you is also very helpfull.

best 73
Bob PA0BLAH

I got the 400Hz filter.  I will solder it in tomorrow.  Maybe with time and experience I'll find out I don't need it.  But for now I'll try it out.  If I don't like it, I can just turn the switch from "Narrow" to "Auto" and should I ever sell the rig, it will have that option built in.  I don't mind reading thru pages of comments.  Some have been at this longer than I've been alive.  So I read it all, think about it and see what works best for me.   Thanks all for comments and input.   Smiley

73
Eric
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3879




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: September 17, 2011, 04:53:26 PM »

Your Ice cream example doesn't hold.

Yes, it does.

Put aside the ice cream and ice skates and let's get down to the actual advice and reasons behind it.

I say KK4CPH, and anybody else getting started in CW, should get a 400-500 Hz IF filter for their rig if it doesn't have one. They should try it out and see what works best for them. 

You say ONE amateur, whom you describe as "champion", allegedly doesn't use a narrow filter for CW. Based on that, you say nobody should use a narrow filter for CW.

73 de Jim, N2EY




Logged
KK4CPH
Member

Posts: 154




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: September 18, 2011, 08:47:37 AM »

Just got it soldered in. (Easy job and I'm definitely a newbie at soldering) And all I can say is, "wow!!"  Grin  What a difference!  Definitely worth the money and glad I bought it.

Eric
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2403




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: September 19, 2011, 02:54:00 PM »

Eric,

Congratulations on the installation (when I purchased my TS-440S, I had AES install the filter for me).  One other modification you may consider is choosing the pitch frequency.  As I recall, the 440S offered the choice between 400 Hz and 800 Hz, selected by a diode.  Some people (including me) prefer a low pitch frequency to help the internal "filter between the ears" to discriminate among closely spaced CW tones.

73,
Chuck  NI0C
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!