Date   

Re: K3S Display KPA 1500

Ed Pflueger
 

Don’t think so…

 

Ed.. AB4IQ

 

From: Elecraft-K3@groups.io [mailto:Elecraft-K3@groups.io] On Behalf Of wb6bee
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 8:44 AM
To: Elecraft-K3@groups.io
Subject: [Elecraft-K3] K3S Display KPA 1500

 

This is not a fall on the sword issue.

I upgraded from a KPA 500 to a KPA 1500.

The display on the K3s still says "KPA 500" off, standby etc.

Can that be changed to KPA 1500?

If so, how,  I cannot find it

Don


K3S Display KPA 1500

wb6bee
 

This is not a fall on the sword issue.

I upgraded from a KPA 500 to a KPA 1500.

The display on the K3s still says "KPA 500" off, standby etc.

Can that be changed to KPA 1500?

If so, how,  I cannot find it

Don


Re: Distorted audio from Speaker then Headphones

Jim M0CKE
 

Hi Mark

OK I will carry out those test at the weekend, Elecraft think it's an issue with the DSP board, they want me to send the whole radio in but the shipping costs from here in the UK are outrageous.

The radios performance is outstanding but the build quality and amount of problems we have suffered is very high for the high cost of the radio, feel like they are built on a budget using cheap Chinese components to maximise profit, I now this is how businesses work but shouldn't be this way in our niche hobby.

Jim M0CKE - G2F


F/S: K2/10

Bill-K3FMQ
 

K2/10 (s/n 00697) with KAT2 antenna tuner and K160RX (2nd RX antenna for 160M). $500 including USPS shipping.
Acquired from estate. No need here for a K2;  I have a K3 and KX3
Please contact off list.
Bill, K3FMQ@...


Re: For Sale P3 with SVGA, TX Monitor #368k

w2eck <eckerpw@...>
 

This P3 has been Sold

Tnx
Paul
w2eck


For Sale P3 with SVGA, TX Monitor #368k

w2eck <eckerpw@...>
 

P3 Panadapter #3393 for K3S, K3 and other rigs with P3SGVA - P3Video/FFT Adapter installed, in excellent condition with latest firmware.Includes:

P3SVGA for large screen monitor.

P3TXMON- TX Monitor Power and Waveform Display Adapter for the P3;

DCHF-2000 1.8-54Mhz 2000w; Directional Coupler;

RS232  P3 to K3 cable;

K3 IF Out to P3 cable;

K3 to P3 power cable;

Owner’s Manual;

From non-smoking, no pets home, never used outside shack.

Additional photos upon request. 

$850 shipped from Savannah GA;  PayPal OK 

Paul

 w2eck


Re: CW narrow filter

Bob McGraw - K4TAX
 

David et al;

I use the K3 Utility to change the filter configuration.  Easy as I have the utility on the desktop.  The 200 Hz filter resides as FL5 and the 500 Hz as FL4.  Normally both are enables for CW mode.  However, when QRN is an issue, just uncheck the 200 Hz filter in the CW mode only.  That way the DSP can go down to 50 Hz if/as needed with a 500 Hz roofing filter.

73

Bob, K4ATX


On 11/27/2018 8:04 AM, David Box wrote:

Bob

How have you setup the filter selection on your K3?  When I use the XFIL button to change roofing filter the DSP bandwidth also increases.  Looking through the manual I don't see how you can set a roofing filter to stay fixed while changing to narrow DSP so know I am missing something, would like to minimize ringing by using as wide a roofing filter as I can.

de Dave K5MWR

On 11/26/2018 6:53 PM, Bob McGraw - K4TAX wrote:

And........very narrow filters, due to group delay, will take a noise pulse or spike and it will go SPLAT across the passband.   Hence the filter makes the spike much wider than the original width of the spike.    For the most part, random or broadband noise is unaffected.    Just opening up the passband to the point where the narrow filter switches out can make noticeable improvement in receiving conditions.   I prefer to use a narrow DSP passband and manually select a wider roofing filter.   My K3S makes for a super sweet receiver in this regard.

73

Bob, K4TAX



On 11/26/2018 6:23 PM, Jim English wrote:
The problem with very narrow CW filters is that they generally have very steep skirts which means the generally they have to be designed without regard to the group delay variation throughout the passband.  Most are based on Chebychev coefficients or some modification thereof.  As such, there is a significant amount of energy stored at the passband edges which cause ringing to be heard in the demodulated signal.  Receivers based on DSP in the signal processing stages generally don't suffer from this as the filters are a linear phase type that are constant group delay which do not have the ringing issue.  Where the AGC pickoff point is located may affect the performance but I must say that I love my (by now) old iron flex 5k transceiver.  Last month when everybody was trying to work the Ducie island station I had an issue where there was some lid operator QRMing.  However, he was close in frequency but not close enough.  I just cranked the bandwidth of the flex DSP filter down to about 50 Hz and that turkey was GONE.  Then I worked him of course.  I love my 5k so much that I bought a spare since they are nor being built anymore and are cheap now.  They do require a windows computer that can get out of its own way however and they are definitely not for the computer squeamish but getting past that I think they are the bomb!  The newer ones are probably better but being a HAM which stands for "haven't any money" I am too cheap to buy one.  At least now.

73,

Jim WO7V

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:46 AM john ni0k <jasimmons@...> wrote:
Operating the CW WW CQ contest makes me wish for something narrower than
the 400 Hz filter in my rig currently. I know Elecraft has a 200 Hz
filter but is there something else that people are using?

73,
-John NI0K






Re: CW narrow filter

David Box
 

Rich

Appreciate this info, seems I need to be reminded about some of the features every now and then

de Dave K5MWR

On 11/27/2018 9:08 AM, ve3ki wrote:
You select the DSP bandwidth with the WIDTH control. This also automatically selects the roofing filter, based on the filter bandwidths you have entered into the filter configuration using either the K3 Utility or the CONFIG:FLx BW settings. If you have a roofing filter set to switch in at a particular width, it will be selected automatically at that DSP width and below. The FLx BW settings do not have to match the designation on the filter; you can set each roofing filter to be switched in at the bandwidth of your choice.

If you want to use narrow DSP settings using a wider roofing filter than the one that would normally switch in based on its designation, you need to go into the filter configuration and change the bandwidth at which the narrower roofing filter is selected. For example, if you have a 400 Hz roofing filter but you don't want it ti be selected at DSP bandwidths above 300 Hz, then in the CONFIG:FLx BW menu for the 400 Hz roofing filter, select 0.30 instead of 0.40. You can go the other way as well: if you have a 250 Hz roofing filter but you want it to be selected at 350 Hz and below, set CONFIG:FLx BW to 0.35 instead of 0.25.

73,
Rich VE3KI


On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:04 AM, David Box wrote:

Bob

How have you setup the filter selection on your K3?  When I use the XFIL button to change roofing filter the DSP bandwidth also increases.  Looking through the manual I don't see how you can set a roofing filter to stay fixed while changing to narrow DSP so know I am missing something, would like to minimize ringing by using as wide a roofing filter as I can.

de Dave K5MWR

On 11/26/2018 6:53 PM, Bob McGraw - K4TAX wrote:

And........very narrow filters, due to group delay, will take a noise pulse or spike and it will go SPLAT across the passband.   Hence the filter makes the spike much wider than the original width of the spike.    For the most part, random or broadband noise is unaffected.    Just opening up the passband to the point where the narrow filter switches out can make noticeable improvement in receiving conditions.   I prefer to use a narrow DSP passband and manually select a wider roofing filter.   My K3S makes for a super sweet receiver in this regard.

73

Bob, K4TAX

 


On 11/26/2018 6:23 PM, Jim English wrote:
The problem with very narrow CW filters is that they generally have very steep skirts which means the generally they have to be designed without regard to the group delay variation throughout the passband.  Most are based on Chebychev coefficients or some modification thereof.  As such, there is a significant amount of energy stored at the passband edges which cause ringing to be heard in the demodulated signal.  Receivers based on DSP in the signal processing stages generally don't suffer from this as the filters are a linear phase type that are constant group delay which do not have the ringing issue.  Where the AGC pickoff point is located may affect the performance but I must say that I love my (by now) old iron flex 5k transceiver.  Last month when everybody was trying to work the Ducie island station I had an issue where there was some lid operator QRMing.  However, he was close in frequency but not close enough.  I just cranked the bandwidth of the flex DSP filter down to about 50 Hz and that turkey was GONE.  Then I worked him of course.  I love my 5k so much that I bought a spare since they are nor being built anymore and are cheap now.  They do require a windows computer that can get out of its own way however and they are definitely not for the computer squeamish but getting past that I think they are the bomb!  The newer ones are probably better but being a HAM which stands for "haven't any money" I am too cheap to buy one.  At least now.
 
73,
 
Jim WO7V

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:46 AM john ni0k <jasimmons@...> wrote:
Operating the CW WW CQ contest makes me wish for something narrower than
the 400 Hz filter in my rig currently. I know Elecraft has a 200 Hz
filter but is there something else that people are using?

73,
-John NI0K




Re: CW narrow filter

ve3ki
 

You select the DSP bandwidth with the WIDTH control. This also automatically selects the roofing filter, based on the filter bandwidths you have entered into the filter configuration using either the K3 Utility or the CONFIG:FLx BW settings. If you have a roofing filter set to switch in at a particular width, it will be selected automatically at that DSP width and below. The FLx BW settings do not have to match the designation on the filter; you can set each roofing filter to be switched in at the bandwidth of your choice.

If you want to use narrow DSP settings using a wider roofing filter than the one that would normally switch in based on its designation, you need to go into the filter configuration and change the bandwidth at which the narrower roofing filter is selected. For example, if you have a 400 Hz roofing filter but you don't want it ti be selected at DSP bandwidths above 300 Hz, then in the CONFIG:FLx BW menu for the 400 Hz roofing filter, select 0.30 instead of 0.40. You can go the other way as well: if you have a 250 Hz roofing filter but you want it to be selected at 350 Hz and below, set CONFIG:FLx BW to 0.35 instead of 0.25.

73,
Rich VE3KI


On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:04 AM, David Box wrote:

Bob

How have you setup the filter selection on your K3?  When I use the XFIL button to change roofing filter the DSP bandwidth also increases.  Looking through the manual I don't see how you can set a roofing filter to stay fixed while changing to narrow DSP so know I am missing something, would like to minimize ringing by using as wide a roofing filter as I can.

de Dave K5MWR

On 11/26/2018 6:53 PM, Bob McGraw - K4TAX wrote:

And........very narrow filters, due to group delay, will take a noise pulse or spike and it will go SPLAT across the passband.   Hence the filter makes the spike much wider than the original width of the spike.    For the most part, random or broadband noise is unaffected.    Just opening up the passband to the point where the narrow filter switches out can make noticeable improvement in receiving conditions.   I prefer to use a narrow DSP passband and manually select a wider roofing filter.   My K3S makes for a super sweet receiver in this regard.

73

Bob, K4TAX

 


On 11/26/2018 6:23 PM, Jim English wrote:
The problem with very narrow CW filters is that they generally have very steep skirts which means the generally they have to be designed without regard to the group delay variation throughout the passband.  Most are based on Chebychev coefficients or some modification thereof.  As such, there is a significant amount of energy stored at the passband edges which cause ringing to be heard in the demodulated signal.  Receivers based on DSP in the signal processing stages generally don't suffer from this as the filters are a linear phase type that are constant group delay which do not have the ringing issue.  Where the AGC pickoff point is located may affect the performance but I must say that I love my (by now) old iron flex 5k transceiver.  Last month when everybody was trying to work the Ducie island station I had an issue where there was some lid operator QRMing.  However, he was close in frequency but not close enough.  I just cranked the bandwidth of the flex DSP filter down to about 50 Hz and that turkey was GONE.  Then I worked him of course.  I love my 5k so much that I bought a spare since they are nor being built anymore and are cheap now.  They do require a windows computer that can get out of its own way however and they are definitely not for the computer squeamish but getting past that I think they are the bomb!  The newer ones are probably better but being a HAM which stands for "haven't any money" I am too cheap to buy one.  At least now.
 
73,
 
Jim WO7V

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:46 AM john ni0k <jasimmons@...> wrote:
Operating the CW WW CQ contest makes me wish for something narrower than
the 400 Hz filter in my rig currently. I know Elecraft has a 200 Hz
filter but is there something else that people are using?

73,
-John NI0K




Re: CW narrow filter

David Box
 

Bob

How have you setup the filter selection on your K3?  When I use the XFIL button to change roofing filter the DSP bandwidth also increases.  Looking through the manual I don't see how you can set a roofing filter to stay fixed while changing to narrow DSP so know I am missing something, would like to minimize ringing by using as wide a roofing filter as I can.

de Dave K5MWR

On 11/26/2018 6:53 PM, Bob McGraw - K4TAX wrote:

And........very narrow filters, due to group delay, will take a noise pulse or spike and it will go SPLAT across the passband.   Hence the filter makes the spike much wider than the original width of the spike.    For the most part, random or broadband noise is unaffected.    Just opening up the passband to the point where the narrow filter switches out can make noticeable improvement in receiving conditions.   I prefer to use a narrow DSP passband and manually select a wider roofing filter.   My K3S makes for a super sweet receiver in this regard.

73

Bob, K4TAX



On 11/26/2018 6:23 PM, Jim English wrote:
The problem with very narrow CW filters is that they generally have very steep skirts which means the generally they have to be designed without regard to the group delay variation throughout the passband.  Most are based on Chebychev coefficients or some modification thereof.  As such, there is a significant amount of energy stored at the passband edges which cause ringing to be heard in the demodulated signal.  Receivers based on DSP in the signal processing stages generally don't suffer from this as the filters are a linear phase type that are constant group delay which do not have the ringing issue.  Where the AGC pickoff point is located may affect the performance but I must say that I love my (by now) old iron flex 5k transceiver.  Last month when everybody was trying to work the Ducie island station I had an issue where there was some lid operator QRMing.  However, he was close in frequency but not close enough.  I just cranked the bandwidth of the flex DSP filter down to about 50 Hz and that turkey was GONE.  Then I worked him of course.  I love my 5k so much that I bought a spare since they are nor being built anymore and are cheap now.  They do require a windows computer that can get out of its own way however and they are definitely not for the computer squeamish but getting past that I think they are the bomb!  The newer ones are probably better but being a HAM which stands for "haven't any money" I am too cheap to buy one.  At least now.

73,

Jim WO7V

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:46 AM john ni0k <jasimmons@...> wrote:
Operating the CW WW CQ contest makes me wish for something narrower than
the 400 Hz filter in my rig currently. I know Elecraft has a 200 Hz
filter but is there something else that people are using?

73,
-John NI0K





Re: CW narrow filter

john ni0k
 

Rob and all:

Thanks for the replies from everyone. There is a link below to the Elecraft filter data, but the graphs on the Elecraft site are very blurry and hard to read. Before I sent the link I sent a request to Elecraft for filter specs. Yes, they have a new website and it is completely different to navigate than the old one.

I'm leaning towards the 200 Hz filter based on the info so far.

-John NI0K

Rob Sherwood wrote:

I had trouble navigating their website just now, as it appears to be in transition.

The 6-pole 200-Hz roofing filter was designed to have lower passive intermodulation.

I have not tested one since one of their crystal suppliers, ICM, went out of business.

There is more to selecting a roofing filter than just the bandwidth.

Rob

NC0B

 

From: Elecraft-K3@groups.io [mailto:Elecraft-K3@groups.io] On Behalf Of ve3ki
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 3:55 PM
To: Elecraft-K3@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Elecraft-K3] CW narrow filter

 

Thank you, Joe. I wanted to be able to point to the Elecraft plots, but I was unsuccessful when trying to find them on the new web site - thanks for the link.

73,
Rich VE3KI


On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 02:49 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

If you find you really need one, I'd suggest the 200 Hz filter,
because the 250 Hz filter is actually not all that much narrower
than the 400 Hz filter (333 Hz vs. 464 Hz at -6 dB, according to

> <http://audiosystemsgroup.com/K3FilterStudy-250HzRoof.pdf>).


I would choose to believe the measurements made by Elecraft at:
<https://elecraft.com/pages/k3s-8-215-mhz-first-if-crystal-filter-response-curves>


The Elecraft curves show the -6 dB response points at roughly 480 Hz
for the "400 Hz" filter (KFL3C-400) and 370 Hz for the "250 Hz" filter
(KFL3A-250) both of which are actually made for/imported by INRAD.

The Elecraft application note also includes a comparison of the
KLF3A-250 vs. KFL3C-200 which shows the 200 Hz filter is tighter
than the 250 Hz filter to at least -50 dB (where the bandwidth
of both is approximately 700 Hz).

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-11-26 11:53 AM, ve3ki wrote:

To start with, try just using the Width and Shift controls. You can narrow the DSP bandpass down to 50 Hz, independently of what roofing filters you may or may not have installed. See <http://www.nccc.cc/archived_meetings/pdf/K3%20Filters,%20Jan%202009.pdf>.

If you find that strong signals inside the 400 Hz filter bandpass but outside the narrower DSP bandpass are often causing AGC pumping or IMD problems that you can't eliminate with the Shift, Width and AGC controls, a narrower roofing filter might help. If you find you really need one, I'd suggest the 200 Hz filter, because the 250 Hz filter is actually not all that much narrower than the 400 Hz filter (333 Hz vs. 464 Hz at -6 dB, according to <http://audiosystemsgroup.com/K3FilterStudy-250HzRoof.pdf>). I believe that a lot of the difference seen by users who have both is primarily due to the narrower DSP width setting.

73,
Rich VE3KI

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM, john ni0k wrote:


Operating the CW WW CQ contest makes me wish for something narrower than
the 400 Hz filter in my rig currently. I know Elecraft has a 200 Hz
filter but is there something else that people are using?

73,
-John NI0K

 


If this email is spam, report it to www.OnlyMyEmail.com



Re: CW narrow filter

Rob Sherwood
 

I had trouble navigating their website just now, as it appears to be in transition.

The 6-pole 200-Hz roofing filter was designed to have lower passive intermodulation.

I have not tested one since one of their crystal suppliers, ICM, went out of business.

There is more to selecting a roofing filter than just the bandwidth.

Rob

NC0B

 

From: Elecraft-K3@groups.io [mailto:Elecraft-K3@groups.io] On Behalf Of ve3ki
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 3:55 PM
To: Elecraft-K3@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Elecraft-K3] CW narrow filter

 

Thank you, Joe. I wanted to be able to point to the Elecraft plots, but I was unsuccessful when trying to find them on the new web site - thanks for the link.

73,
Rich VE3KI


On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 02:49 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

If you find you really need one, I'd suggest the 200 Hz filter,
because the 250 Hz filter is actually not all that much narrower
than the 400 Hz filter (333 Hz vs. 464 Hz at -6 dB, according to

> <http://audiosystemsgroup.com/K3FilterStudy-250HzRoof.pdf>).


I would choose to believe the measurements made by Elecraft at:
<https://elecraft.com/pages/k3s-8-215-mhz-first-if-crystal-filter-response-curves>


The Elecraft curves show the -6 dB response points at roughly 480 Hz
for the "400 Hz" filter (KFL3C-400) and 370 Hz for the "250 Hz" filter
(KFL3A-250) both of which are actually made for/imported by INRAD.

The Elecraft application note also includes a comparison of the
KLF3A-250 vs. KFL3C-200 which shows the 200 Hz filter is tighter
than the 250 Hz filter to at least -50 dB (where the bandwidth
of both is approximately 700 Hz).

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-11-26 11:53 AM, ve3ki wrote:

To start with, try just using the Width and Shift controls. You can narrow the DSP bandpass down to 50 Hz, independently of what roofing filters you may or may not have installed. See <http://www.nccc.cc/archived_meetings/pdf/K3%20Filters,%20Jan%202009.pdf>.

If you find that strong signals inside the 400 Hz filter bandpass but outside the narrower DSP bandpass are often causing AGC pumping or IMD problems that you can't eliminate with the Shift, Width and AGC controls, a narrower roofing filter might help. If you find you really need one, I'd suggest the 200 Hz filter, because the 250 Hz filter is actually not all that much narrower than the 400 Hz filter (333 Hz vs. 464 Hz at -6 dB, according to <http://audiosystemsgroup.com/K3FilterStudy-250HzRoof.pdf>). I believe that a lot of the difference seen by users who have both is primarily due to the narrower DSP width setting.

73,
Rich VE3KI

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM, john ni0k wrote:


Operating the CW WW CQ contest makes me wish for something narrower than
the 400 Hz filter in my rig currently. I know Elecraft has a 200 Hz
filter but is there something else that people are using?

73,
-John NI0K

 


If this email is spam, report it to www.OnlyMyEmail.com


Re: CW narrow filter

Bob McGraw - K4TAX
 

And........very narrow filters, due to group delay, will take a noise pulse or spike and it will go SPLAT across the passband.   Hence the filter makes the spike much wider than the original width of the spike.    For the most part, random or broadband noise is unaffected.    Just opening up the passband to the point where the narrow filter switches out can make noticeable improvement in receiving conditions.   I prefer to use a narrow DSP passband and manually select a wider roofing filter.   My K3S makes for a super sweet receiver in this regard.

73

Bob, K4TAX



On 11/26/2018 6:23 PM, Jim English wrote:
The problem with very narrow CW filters is that they generally have very steep skirts which means the generally they have to be designed without regard to the group delay variation throughout the passband.  Most are based on Chebychev coefficients or some modification thereof.  As such, there is a significant amount of energy stored at the passband edges which cause ringing to be heard in the demodulated signal.  Receivers based on DSP in the signal processing stages generally don't suffer from this as the filters are a linear phase type that are constant group delay which do not have the ringing issue.  Where the AGC pickoff point is located may affect the performance but I must say that I love my (by now) old iron flex 5k transceiver.  Last month when everybody was trying to work the Ducie island station I had an issue where there was some lid operator QRMing.  However, he was close in frequency but not close enough.  I just cranked the bandwidth of the flex DSP filter down to about 50 Hz and that turkey was GONE.  Then I worked him of course.  I love my 5k so much that I bought a spare since they are nor being built anymore and are cheap now.  They do require a windows computer that can get out of its own way however and they are definitely not for the computer squeamish but getting past that I think they are the bomb!  The newer ones are probably better but being a HAM which stands for "haven't any money" I am too cheap to buy one.  At least now.

73,

Jim WO7V

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:46 AM john ni0k <jasimmons@...> wrote:
Operating the CW WW CQ contest makes me wish for something narrower than
the 400 Hz filter in my rig currently. I know Elecraft has a 200 Hz
filter but is there something else that people are using?

73,
-John NI0K





Re: CW narrow filter

Jim English
 

The problem with very narrow CW filters is that they generally have very steep skirts which means the generally they have to be designed without regard to the group delay variation throughout the passband.  Most are based on Chebychev coefficients or some modification thereof.  As such, there is a significant amount of energy stored at the passband edges which cause ringing to be heard in the demodulated signal.  Receivers based on DSP in the signal processing stages generally don't suffer from this as the filters are a linear phase type that are constant group delay which do not have the ringing issue.  Where the AGC pickoff point is located may affect the performance but I must say that I love my (by now) old iron flex 5k transceiver.  Last month when everybody was trying to work the Ducie island station I had an issue where there was some lid operator QRMing.  However, he was close in frequency but not close enough.  I just cranked the bandwidth of the flex DSP filter down to about 50 Hz and that turkey was GONE.  Then I worked him of course.  I love my 5k so much that I bought a spare since they are nor being built anymore and are cheap now.  They do require a windows computer that can get out of its own way however and they are definitely not for the computer squeamish but getting past that I think they are the bomb!  The newer ones are probably better but being a HAM which stands for "haven't any money" I am too cheap to buy one.  At least now.

73,

Jim WO7V

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:46 AM john ni0k <jasimmons@...> wrote:
Operating the CW WW CQ contest makes me wish for something narrower than
the 400 Hz filter in my rig currently. I know Elecraft has a 200 Hz
filter but is there something else that people are using?

73,
-John NI0K




Re: CW narrow filter

Michael Murphy
 

I have the 250hz filter in mine but have only used it maybe 2 times in the years that I've had my K3.  The 400 served me well last weekend in CQWW.

It really is too narrow for me.

Mike - KI8R

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM john ni0k <jasimmons@...> wrote:
Operating the CW WW CQ contest makes me wish for something narrower than
the 400 Hz filter in my rig currently. I know Elecraft has a 200 Hz
filter but is there something else that people are using?

73,
-John NI0K





--
-----------------------------------------------
Michael Murphy - KI8R

mike@...

www.ki8r.com

614-371-8265 (cell)

-----------------------------------------------


Re: CW narrow filter

Michael Kopec
 

Hello Rich VE3KI.  To get the filter specs now, according to elecraft webmaster, you must email tech support and they will send them to u de Mike K8NS

On Monday, November 26, 2018, 5:54:46 PM EST, ve3ki <ve3iay@...> wrote:


Thank you, Joe. I wanted to be able to point to the Elecraft plots, but I was unsuccessful when trying to find them on the new web site - thanks for the link.

73,
Rich VE3KI


On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 02:49 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
If you find you really need one, I'd suggest the 200 Hz filter,
because the 250 Hz filter is actually not all that much narrower
than the 400 Hz filter (333 Hz vs. 464 Hz at -6 dB, according to
> <http://audiosystemsgroup.com/K3FilterStudy-250HzRoof.pdf>).


I would choose to believe the measurements made by Elecraft at:
<https://elecraft.com/pages/k3s-8-215-mhz-first-if-crystal-filter-response-curves>


The Elecraft curves show the -6 dB response points at roughly 480 Hz
for the "400 Hz" filter (KFL3C-400) and 370 Hz for the "250 Hz" filter
(KFL3A-250) both of which are actually made for/imported by INRAD.

The Elecraft application note also includes a comparison of the
KLF3A-250 vs. KFL3C-200 which shows the 200 Hz filter is tighter
than the 250 Hz filter to at least -50 dB (where the bandwidth
of both is approximately 700 Hz).

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-11-26 11:53 AM, ve3ki wrote:
To start with, try just using the Width and Shift controls. You can narrow the DSP bandpass down to 50 Hz, independently of what roofing filters you may or may not have installed. See <http://www.nccc.cc/archived_meetings/pdf/K3%20Filters,%20Jan%202009.pdf>.

If you find that strong signals inside the 400 Hz filter bandpass but outside the narrower DSP bandpass are often causing AGC pumping or IMD problems that you can't eliminate with the Shift, Width and AGC controls, a narrower roofing filter might help. If you find you really need one, I'd suggest the 200 Hz filter, because the 250 Hz filter is actually not all that much narrower than the 400 Hz filter (333 Hz vs. 464 Hz at -6 dB, according to <http://audiosystemsgroup.com/K3FilterStudy-250HzRoof.pdf>). I believe that a lot of the difference seen by users who have both is primarily due to the narrower DSP width setting.

73,
Rich VE3KI

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM, john ni0k wrote:


Operating the CW WW CQ contest makes me wish for something narrower than
the 400 Hz filter in my rig currently. I know Elecraft has a 200 Hz
filter but is there something else that people are using?

73,
-John NI0K


Re: CW narrow filter

ve3ki
 

Thank you, Joe. I wanted to be able to point to the Elecraft plots, but I was unsuccessful when trying to find them on the new web site - thanks for the link.

73,
Rich VE3KI


On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 02:49 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
If you find you really need one, I'd suggest the 200 Hz filter,
because the 250 Hz filter is actually not all that much narrower
than the 400 Hz filter (333 Hz vs. 464 Hz at -6 dB, according to
> <http://audiosystemsgroup.com/K3FilterStudy-250HzRoof.pdf>).


I would choose to believe the measurements made by Elecraft at:
<https://elecraft.com/pages/k3s-8-215-mhz-first-if-crystal-filter-response-curves>


The Elecraft curves show the -6 dB response points at roughly 480 Hz
for the "400 Hz" filter (KFL3C-400) and 370 Hz for the "250 Hz" filter
(KFL3A-250) both of which are actually made for/imported by INRAD.

The Elecraft application note also includes a comparison of the
KLF3A-250 vs. KFL3C-200 which shows the 200 Hz filter is tighter
than the 250 Hz filter to at least -50 dB (where the bandwidth
of both is approximately 700 Hz).

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-11-26 11:53 AM, ve3ki wrote:
To start with, try just using the Width and Shift controls. You can narrow the DSP bandpass down to 50 Hz, independently of what roofing filters you may or may not have installed. See <http://www.nccc.cc/archived_meetings/pdf/K3%20Filters,%20Jan%202009.pdf>.

If you find that strong signals inside the 400 Hz filter bandpass but outside the narrower DSP bandpass are often causing AGC pumping or IMD problems that you can't eliminate with the Shift, Width and AGC controls, a narrower roofing filter might help. If you find you really need one, I'd suggest the 200 Hz filter, because the 250 Hz filter is actually not all that much narrower than the 400 Hz filter (333 Hz vs. 464 Hz at -6 dB, according to <http://audiosystemsgroup.com/K3FilterStudy-250HzRoof.pdf>). I believe that a lot of the difference seen by users who have both is primarily due to the narrower DSP width setting.

73,
Rich VE3KI

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM, john ni0k wrote:


Operating the CW WW CQ contest makes me wish for something narrower than
the 400 Hz filter in my rig currently. I know Elecraft has a 200 Hz
filter but is there something else that people are using?

73,
-John NI0K


Re: CW narrow filter

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

If you find you really need one, I'd suggest the 200 Hz filter, because the 250 Hz filter is actually not all that much narrower
than the 400 Hz filter (333 Hz vs. 464 Hz at -6 dB, according to <http://audiosystemsgroup.com/K3FilterStudy-250HzRoof.pdf>).

I would choose to believe the measurements made by Elecraft at:
<https://elecraft.com/pages/k3s-8-215-mhz-first-if-crystal-filter-response-curves>


The Elecraft curves show the -6 dB response points at roughly 480 Hz
for the "400 Hz" filter (KFL3C-400) and 370 Hz for the "250 Hz" filter
(KFL3A-250) both of which are actually made for/imported by INRAD.

The Elecraft application note also includes a comparison of the
KLF3A-250 vs. KFL3C-200 which shows the 200 Hz filter is tighter
than the 250 Hz filter to at least -50 dB (where the bandwidth
of both is approximately 700 Hz).

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2018-11-26 11:53 AM, ve3ki wrote:
To start with, try just using the Width and Shift controls. You can narrow the DSP bandpass down to 50 Hz, independently of what roofing filters you may or may not have installed. See <http://www.nccc.cc/archived_meetings/pdf/K3%20Filters,%20Jan%202009.pdf>.
If you find that strong signals inside the 400 Hz filter bandpass but outside the narrower DSP bandpass are often causing AGC pumping or IMD problems that you can't eliminate with the Shift, Width and AGC controls, a narrower roofing filter might help. If you find you really need one, I'd suggest the 200 Hz filter, because the 250 Hz filter is actually not all that much narrower than the 400 Hz filter (333 Hz vs. 464 Hz at -6 dB, according to <http://audiosystemsgroup.com/K3FilterStudy-250HzRoof.pdf>). I believe that a lot of the difference seen by users who have both is primarily due to the narrower DSP width setting.
73,
Rich VE3KI
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM, john ni0k wrote:


Operating the CW WW CQ contest makes me wish for something narrower than
the 400 Hz filter in my rig currently. I know Elecraft has a 200 Hz
filter but is there something else that people are using?

73,
-John NI0K


Re: CW narrow filter

Bill Maddock
 

John,

I have the 6 pole 200 hz filter in my K3 , which i used for search and pounce in the contest. I upgraded from the 5 pole 200 hz filter. Didnt really notice much difference. I have the old 200 hz filter for sale if your interested. The 200 hz filter really helped during the contest.
73 de Bill W4RTN


On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:46 AM, john ni0k
<jasimmons@...> wrote:
Operating the CW WW CQ contest makes me wish for something narrower than
the 400 Hz filter in my rig currently. I know Elecraft has a 200 Hz
filter but is there something else that people are using?

73,
-John NI0K




Re: Slight Frequency Shift When Keying

Bob McGraw - K4TAX
 

I always shut everything down in sequence.  On power up the next time, be a few hours or several days, no issues experienced. 

I find the system is quite robust and highly repeatable. 

Bob, K4TAX



On Nov 26, 2018, at 10:08 AM, Richard Williams via Groups.Io <k8ztt@...> wrote:

Don,

Am surprised you turn off your radio every night.  Other than when on vacation or TRWs are in the area, I leave my computers (I let the monitors go to sleep), K3S, and just about all the associated equipment on 24/7 (except for the amp).

The only time I have had an issue with a computer or the K3, was after I had turned them off, and then back on.

Dick, K8ZTT 


On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 6:17 AM, wb6bee
<wb6bee@...> wrote:
That' interesting.   I am using the Powerwerx SS 30 DV power supply for the K3s.   I AM leaving it on all night (and have forever).   

I will rig up some measuring for it and see what happens.

Don
WB6BEE