Newbee needs some education from U

[k1pas]

Kenwood Trio SSB filter YK-88SN 1.8khz filter or a YK-88S Filter with a 2.1khz what would the actual effects be (In Audio, or???) would it be minor or a major difference? any help is appreciated Phil ( spalletta@rcn.com ) KI6LEA 73s http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[wb6mmj]

Quote[/b] (ki6lea @ Oct. 03 2007,19:53)]Kenwood Trio SSB filter YK-88SN 1.8khz filter or a YK-88S Filter with a 2.1khz what would the actual effects be (In Audio, or???) would it be minor or a major difference? any help is appreciated Phil ( spalletta@rcn.com ) KI6LEA 73s http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I would go with the 2.1 filter for SSB. The 1.8, to me, would be too narrow and would restrict the received audio too much.

[AG3Y]

Going from a 1.8 to a 2.1 would make a minor difference in the higher frequencies, but depending on how good your ears are, and how much interference you can tolerate, I believe it would be less than you would think. Now going from a 2.7 down to a 1.8 would make a significant difference!

1.8 would be pretty dull, but a lot of the high frequency "monkey chatter" would be eliminated! Do you plan to ragchew or run contests and DX most of the time? That would be the determining factor in my opinion.

73, good luck, Jim

[k3wrv]

I've got a 2.1 filter in my S-line, and it sounds fine, but it's a Collins rig.

In my TenTec, I've got 2.4 and 1.8. As Jim notes - the 1.8 is OK but people sound like they're contesters. It does cut out a fair amount of adjacent channel interference, but 2.4 makes for much easier listening. But the skirts on the TenTec filters aren't nearly as steep as on the Collins. I'd try to listen to both before making my decision. A lot may depend on your interests - DX, ragchewing, etc. I run mostly SSTV and we operate right next to a bunch of digital guys who have really wide, raspy signals.
If you listen on the air, I'd compare the difference in the 2.4 and 1.8 between "normal" audio and "contest" audio microphones (HC-5 and HC-4 Heil mic elements).
Both of my filters operate on Rx and Tx, and nobody has criticized my audio because of filter issues.
Bob

[WA9SVD]

What radio?

I have the Kenwood TS-570, and the "default" B/W is 2.4 kHz, I believe. If your radio can use a 2.1 kHz filter, the improvement may not be all that great. If you want the filter to actually make a difference, and really cut adjacent interference, then I'd recommend the 1.8 kHz filter. It WILL provide the greatest improvement, but the others ARE correct, voices will sound a bit less than natural, but that's a fact of life for filters. But such a narrow filter will also eliminate a lot of noise and give the greatest improvement in actual performance. Most of the time, you WILL use the default settings, but when the narrow filter is REALLY needed, I think you'll appreciate the narrower filter.
Now, if the Kenwood Radios allowed multiple add-in filters, then the 2.1 and 1.8 kHz filters might both be desirable.(as well as a 500 or 250 Hz CW filter.)

[ab9lz]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Oct. 04 2007,07:49)]Now, if the Kenwood Radios allowed multiple add-in filters, then the 2.1 and 1.8 kHz filters might both be desirable.(as well as a 500 or 250 Hz CW filter.)
My 850 does, in fact I can select (almost) any combination of first and second IF filters.

73 m/4

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (ab9lz @ Oct. 04 2007,08:03)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Oct. 04 2007,07:49)]Now, if the Kenwood Radios allowed multiple add-in filters, then the 2.1 and 1.8 kHz filters might both be desirable.(as well as a 500 or 250 Hz CW filter.)
My 850 does, in fact I can select (almost) any combination of first and second IF filters.

73 m/4
You're right, the (older) Kenwood high-end radios did apparently allow multiple filters. Seems they could accomodate such in most of their radios if they wanted, although adding filters gets expensive.

BTW, the YK88 series of filters has been discontinued by Kenwood, so supplies are limited. The TS-570 series is the last line of radios to use that type of filter. Anyone contemplating such a filter should order soon.
Inrad also makes an excellent line of filters that will also work. I found a "previously owned" 1.8 kHz Kenwood filter, otherwise I would have ordered from Inrad. Inrad has an excellent reputation for high quality, and their price was about $30 less than a "new" Kenwood filter.

[N8UZE]

If you do mostly ragchewing when there are no heavy duty contests, get the 2.1 filter.

If you do most contesting or a lot of ragchewing during contest times, get the 1.8 filter.

I got the 1.8 filter for my TS-130SE and have never regretted it. I find that for ragchewing I almost never need a filter so that a 2.1 would not have been used much. On the other hand, the 1.8 made a big difference during contests.

[KC2QXE]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Oct. 04 2007,07:49)]What radio?

I have the Kenwood TS-570, and the "default" B/W is 2.4 kHz, I believe. If your radio can use a 2.1 kHz filter, the improvement may not be all that great. If you want the filter to actually make a difference, and really cut adjacent interference, then I'd recommend the 1.8 kHz filter. It WILL provide the greatest improvement, but the others ARE correct, voices will sound a bit less than natural, but that's a fact of life for filters. But such a narrow filter will also eliminate a lot of noise and give the greatest improvement in actual performance. Most of the time, you WILL use the default settings, but when the narrow filter is REALLY needed, I think you'll appreciate the narrower filter.
Now, if the Kenwood Radios allowed multiple add-in filters, then the 2.1 and 1.8 kHz filters might both be desirable.(as well as a 500 or 250 Hz CW filter.)
Quote[/b] ]Now, if the Kenwood Radios allowed multiple add-in filters, then the 2.1 and 1.8 kHz filters might both be desirable.(as well as a 500 or 250 Hz CW filter.)

My TS-530S provides room for a third filter labeled "Nar", you can choose any filter you wish for it and it will be used in any mode as long as you activate the button for it.

[WB2WIK]

LEA, if you're in Palo Alto, why not drop by the Stanford ARC W6YX and check out the various filters in their HF station rigs?

http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/

Personally I hate a 1.8 kHz filter in my Kenwood TS-850S (I have the real Kenwood filter, bought it when the rig was new in 1990 -- never use it at all) because it makes SSB signals sound muddy. Even under very severe QRM, I can copy any SSB signal better with a wider filter. I've used the 1.8 kHz filter for CW work now and then (although I also have 500 Hz and 250 Hz CW filters in the rig -- the TS850S will accommodate eight I.F. filters, four in the 2nd IF and four in the 3rd IF).

Using DSP filters in my newer Ten Tec, I find I don't like it set to anything narrower than about 2.4 kHz for SSB work, for the same reason.

WB2WIK/6

[K0RGR]

I find a 2.1 Khz. filter is fine for everything I do, but during a contest, I will crank the DSP filter down a bit tighter. Still, I sometimes need to switch the filter off so I can understand a station better. I suspect that I lost the upper end of my hearing range some years ago, and that may be why the narrower filter bothers me more now than it did then. I know I have a hole in my hearing at the low end of the range from years of working in a factory.

[WA9SVD]

Hmmm. Seems yopu asked the question elsewhere?

More appropriate would be the "Question and answer" Forum," and it may get switched there.

Opinions will vary. The radio apparently has a default 2.4 kHz (@8.8 MHz) IF bandwidth for SSB.
The step down to 2.1 kHz will have a mild to moderate effect on the fidelity of a signal, and that's a subjective judgement call.
the 1.8 kHz filter WILL have a much more marked effect, but THAT is the nature of filters. By narrowing the bandwidth, yes, you do cut some of the voice frequency extremes, but you also reduce noise and interference. (And THAT is the purpose of filters.)

I WOULD recommend the 1.8 kHz filter, because it will have the most effect, but provide the best "performance." Since only one filter can be added to the radio, it IS important to choose carefully. Yes, the 1.8 kHz filter WILL sound a bit "unfamiliar, " a bit "tinny," or however you describe the effect. But the purpose of a filter IS to reduce the adjacent noise and extraneous signals, by reducing the accepted bandwidth through the radio at the IF level...
And keep in mind, much of the time, you will probably be using the default "wide" filter setting that's built into the radio. I consider the 1.8 kHz filter useful for extreme cases and only occasional use, but when it's needed, it does the job more efficiently and thoroughly than a 2.1 kHz filter would do.
Again, IMHO, the 2.1 kHz filter just wouldn't have enough effect to be worthwhile. YMMV, and others may disagree. I don't use the 1.8 kHz and expect HiFi sound.

Again, as previously suggested, try to visit a local Club with a station, or another Amateur that can give you a demonstration of the effects the different filters can provide. You MAY decide you don't need (or don't want) the additional filter.

Good luck.


ADDED:

BTW, I don't even see a 2.1 kHz SSB filter for the TS-570 series listed by Kenwood; only the 1.8 kHz (SSB) filter. (As well as the 500 and 250 Hz CW filters.) Inrad has filters of various bandwidth that will fit the '570, and they have an excellent reputation, so that's an alternative. Kenwood has ended production of the YK-88xxx series filters, as well as the production of the '570 series itself, so Kenwood filters will be limited to current stock by most vendors.
You can also check around for a "previously owned" filter from some of the vendors, which would save a few dollars.

[K6UEY]

As WA9SVD pointed out the purpose of the filter is not to make the station sound like a Broadcast Station,or as Riley points out ,if you want to sound like broadcsat then apply for a broadcast license.

There are many who will move in close to your QSO with out even giving a concern you are there. That is where the narrow filter comes into play. I have over the years bought many Kenwood Radios and it is normal procedure for me to include the 1.8 filter.It comes in pretty handy when the time comes to use it to finish a QSO or even a DX contact.

As Inrad filters ,I would say YES,they are better than the stock Kenwood in as they have sharper skirts,and that roll off can be handy.

The early radio's with DSP had the DSP in the audio, although they helped with the noise they also had the problem of pumping the AGC if a strong station moved in close. As the state of the ART improved they moved the DSP into the second IF ahead of the second detector and helped the DSP/AGC problem.

So for earlier rigs an outboard DSP can do as well as looking for a rig with internal DSP.The big advantage of DSP is as Digital Processing the filter skirts appear almost vertical, or the frequency cutoff does not taper down it is just BANG ! There! That gives you better adjacent channel filtering when needed.

I hope this gives you some idea so as to make the proper selection for your station !!

The original purpose of SSB was to allow more stations to use the band at the same time and to have the 9dB advantage over an AM DSB signal. It was NOT intended to to compete with AM and wide band width audio quality.The operation of stations over the accepted 2.8 KHz bandwidth is just another way of saying they don't really give #a damn what you want ,their purpose is ME!, ME!, ME!, first.

The 2.8 Khz bandwidth allows for 3 KHz adjacent channel spacing,and gives full coverage to the 2.4KHz area of the audio spectrum where most of the signal intelligence is decoded by our brain,BTW for the femine voice it is 2.6 KHz. The bottom frequency roll off should be at 300 cycles. Most of your power will be used to crank out the low frequecies,so going too low simply robs the high end where the intelligence is located.

Lots of Luck and try to be considerate of your fellow Hams ,even if they refuse too be considerate of you !!